Thou Shalt SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP

Y'all shut up now, y' hear?

by Jonathon Blevins

In Florida, if the word of God does not hold your attention, then the state will step in and help you pay attention. The Florida legislature decided that church is not a place for raucous or rebel rousing, let alone dissent. In fact the State passed Chapter 871: Disturbing Religious and Other Assemblies in order to combat the evil of lively discussion and enlightening dissent. If the Chapter does not activate your Constitutional Spidey sense, then please review the pertinent sections:

871.01 Disturbing Schools and Religious and other Assemblies
(1) Whoever willfully interrupts or disturbs any school or any assembly of people met for the worship of God or for any lawful purpose commits a misdemeanor of the second degree.

Without the legalese…If you disrupt Church (measured by their standards), you could face 60 days in county jail and a $500 fine…More fundamentally…If you choose to exercise your First Amendment rights in a place where people chant to a ghost, the STATE will punish you!

First, the statute should fail under the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test set forth a 3 prong test for determining appropriate government action in relation to religious institutions:

1)The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;

2)The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

3)The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

The State bears the burden to illustrate conformity with ALL 3 prongs. Based on the plain language of the statute, the state would fail to meet its burden. The state may have a secular purpose in enacting the statute. The secular purpose is law and order. So, the State will claim “keeping the peace” as its secular purpose.

The state action has the primary effect of advancing religion. Religious organizations are private entities. Any given religious institution has enforcement mechanisms to maintain order among the sheep. First, the religions look to its mythical leader in the sky. Next, the religion looks to writings and interpretations of writings (mostly rules about how to live your life). Lastly, the religions have designated leaders. Many churches (used specifically and as a representative of other places of worship) have a board of directors, committees, and visible leaders. The organization can police itself. If someone has too much of the holy spirit or some of the wrong holy spirit, the church is equipped to handle the situation. Thus, the effect of adding a state provided police force is to allow the church to delegate enforcement of its dogma. The advancement comes in the form of providing state protection for a religious institution based on the institution’s standards.

The result of a state provided police force is “excessive government entanglement.” The entanglement exists because the language of statute puts discretion in the hands of the pulpit. The pertinent verbs are “interrupts” and “disturbs.” Who determines whether a sermon is “interrupted” or “disturbed?” The state is prohibited from making this determination. The state cannot determine whether someone is praying too hard, whether a doctrine is being taught appropriately, whether a holy rule was broken, etc. So, how could the statute be enforced without “excessive entanglement?” I submit, it cannot.

Finally, Sect. 871.01 unconstitutionally burdens free speech. The violation is content-based discrimination. The statute is content-based discrimination because the religious institutions are allowed to decide the violative speech. The churches decide what is “disturbing.” In order for the state to enforce a restriction based on the content of the speech, the state must meet a high burden. The state must:

1) Demonstate a compelling state interest in restricting the speech;

2) Narrowly tailor the restriction to the compelling interest by utilizing the least restrictive means

We need not analyze the second prong of the test. The state will be unable to produce any evidence that it has a compelling state interest. The only interest involved in the statute is a religious interest. If the state attempts to argue that its interest is providing law and order for religious institutions, then the state violated the prongs of Lemon. Thus, we begin again…

The possibility for abuse is too great in regards to this statute. Basically, the statute could fail for its “chilling effect” on speech. It appears that the statute is so broad that almost anything could violate the section. If you “willfully” power drill next to a church during service, you may be in violation…If you willfully organize a parade on Sunday to pass a church, you may be in violation…etc. No reasonable person can predict the enforcement of this statute. Therefore, this statute must fail.

In sum it is disturbing that any state would enact a statute with obvious constitutional violations. It is equally disturbing that people are not aware of the potential for government entanglement. I know that someone will respond with “why can’t the state enforce laws in churches?!” The answer: the state CAN enforce the laws in churches…however; churches cannot have special protection from the state. Church goers may answer to higher law in their minds but here on earth we all answer to the laws of man…equally.