When my children argued about shared toys, I sometimes settled the argument by taking away the toys. It wasn’t a principled, philosophical solution.
It was 1) to save my sanity, and 2) to give everyone a time-out, a chance to calm down and find a compromise.

These days, when EVERYTHING is controversial, an empty room may be the only way out.
In more rational times, I would favor allowing the room used for quilting bees fingerpainting classes
or other like activities.

There are rational compromises available to communities, parhaps by instituting some basic guidelines. The empty room solution is not necessarily the best solution. It becomes the only solution only when people take an all-or-nothing attitude.

Of course, when I say things like ‘rational’ and ‘compromise’, I’m probably thinking of another planet, or, at least, another time.

OK, just kidding.

I see what you’re saying. And I suspect they would have argued the same thing, I believe it’s called “Viewpoint Neutrality,” though I could be wrong.

Even a KKK meeting, as messed up as it is, is an attempt at civic participation. They are dealing with political issues, and serving a secular purpose. As I said, if the Church in question were having some activity, even a Bible study, that’d be different. But they were having a worship service. If you read the AP article, they are blatant about trying to proselytize library patrons. That crosses the line from having the library house a group’s activity, to having the library assist a religious group.

And I get the feeling they were being, if not loud, disruptive to patrons. If any group, even The Super-Gay Quilting Bee, started asking patrons if they wanted to take up gay quilting while the patrons were trying to read their Kirk/Spock Fanfiction on library computers, they’d get kicked out, too.

But that’s a practicality. In the ideal, religion in this country is required to find it’s own way without government handouts. In return, we get unprecedented religious freedom. Even thought the Fundies cry foul, it’s a system which has benefitted them, and all of us, immensely. We shouldn’t chip away at the separation between church and state, and I’m glad the SC didn’t feel the need to rehash a good ruling. I’m surprised, fankly. But pleased.

If religious groups are to have ‘equal’ considetation, then all religious groups should.

Consequences have to be considered. With some controversies, it works better to simply avoid them when possible.

Likewise, I don’t see why a faith group should have any less right to a public room than any other group. I dislike the special treatment that religious faith is given in this country, but that doesn’t mean I think they should get WORSE treatment. As long as they don’t disturb anyone or take up too much of the time/space available (something that should apply to any group) my gut feeling is that they should not be barred from the library.

As a member of the Hebrew tribe, I am well aware that most Christians, while not necessarily anti-Semitic, do hold strange and distorted views of Judaism.

I find it deeply troubling that these people would have a “right,” as the poster implies, to have my tax dollars subsidize their controversial and threatening worship.

If they were meeting there to knit or play bingo, that’s another story. But worship? People singing praises to their God(s) in a public library? That doesn’t fail a gut check for you?