Legality of Park Meetings Contested

“TO CONDUCT a religious ceremony in the open is in keeping with Christian tradition. The Founder of Christianity and His disciples gave their lessons in the open. It has become traditional with many religious groups to assemble at some public place and conduct divine worship. No one will quarrel with the practice.” So editorialized the Pawtucket Times recently of the time-honored and universal practice of preaching publicly in the manner practiced by Christ Jesus. It did not occur to the newsman in Rhode Island, home of Roger Williams and cradle of freedom of worship in America, that anyone would question the right of a preacher to address an assembled audience in a public place.

What some had forgotten about the respected right to hold such meetings was sharply recalled. More than thirty-four years previously the City of Pawtucket had written into its ordinances a provision to ban preaching by Christ Jesus should he come to spread the gospel of the Kingdom as he did in ancient Palestine: “No person shall address any political, or religious meetings in any public park.” When the controversy arose about the validity of the law a candidate for the office of city councilman quickly pointed out, however, that the city administration had allowed the 1950 Easter sunrise service in a local park sponsored by the Salvation Army and six other Pawtucket, Providence and Lincoln churches.

But when Jehovah’s witnesses applied for a permit to hold meetings in the park during the summer of 1950 they were arbitrarily denied permission on authority of the 1916 ordinance. They insisted that they should be permitted to hold such meetings and cited decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States and other courts sustaining such right. Police officers reluctantly consented to the holding of one meeting on August 20 but warned that they would require a permit from the park commissioner for any further meetings. The commissioner again refused a permit.

A second outdoor public meeting was scheduled for August 27 at the same site. When the speaker had addressed his audience for only about one minute he was suddenly surrounded by a raiding party led by the chief inspector, about twenty uniformed police and several detectives in plain clothes. They took two of Jehovah’s witnesses to police headquarters, where, after being questioned for an hour and forty minutes, they were released.

MINISTER ARRESTED, GAMBLERS IGNORED

Again, the next Sunday, September 3, more than five hundred of Jehovah’s witnesses and their guests assembled in the park. The speaker was introduced and proceeded to speak for several minutes on “The Pathway to Peace”. As before, the chief inspector interrupted the discourse, took the minister into custody and drove him to the station, where he was charged with violating the law prohibiting religious meetings in any public park.

Commenting on the arrest of a minister for observing the ancient Christian practice of preaching to an open-air assembly the same editorial writer felt constrained to express himself upon the state of law enforcement in the city:

“Police insistence that the Witnesses obey the letter of the law, even to the point of arrest, points up a new approach to law enforcement in Pawtucket. There is evidence that the police do not insist upon obedience to all laws. . . . One has but to look around and see men without visible means of support transacting operations which the State Constitution bars.

“One has but to recall the visits of the state police to Pawtucket and the bookie arrests made here to realize that law enforcement was nonexistent.

“Had the useless vice squad, the useless police chief and the useless safety commission been as alert to their duty in the matter of gambling as were the police in the matter of religious assembly in Slater Park the state police would not have had to come to Pawtucket to prove that law enforcement at the local level was a mockery.”

Others spoke out in behalf of the position of Jehovah’s witnesses. The pastor of Edgewood Congregational Church, Cranston, told his congregation “we must defend the Witnesses today or the Salvation Army will be ruled off the streets and Protestant and Roman Catholic churches closed tomorrow”. A citizen of nearby Central Falls felt strongly that the energies of the police department were misplaced, and warned with sarcasm, “Beware, you scoundrels who preach the Word of God.”

A NOVEL LEGAL DOCTRINE

Upon the trial the city solicitor accused Jehovah’s witnesses of defying the law when they went ahead and held the meeting regardless of how the police felt about the matter. In rebuttal counsel for Jehovah’s witnesses demonstrated that they were not defying the city’s authority but that the police were defying the law of the land by violating constitutional rights. The city advanced the novel argument that meetings by religious organizations are forbidden under the doctrine of separation of church and state. Moreover, it was contended, such use constitutes appropriation of public funds for a religious use in violation of the First Amendment.

Then if this be true, answered counsel, was the Supreme Court of the United States unaware of such doctrine when it ruled in behalf of the rights of Jehovah’s witnesses in many cases upholding their right to preach on the streets and in the public parks? To forbid religious meetings while allowing all other kinds is discrimination and, besides, the incidental use of public property for preaching, along with other uses, is so slight and inconsequential as not to constitute appropriation of public funds. To so contend would be to stretch and distort the First Amendment out of the meaning given it by its framers and use it as a subtle weapon to abridge freedom.

Additionally, added counsel for Jehovah’s witnesses, if the First Amendment can be relied upon to prevent delivery of public talks on the Bible in a public park, then it can also be used to prevent use of streets for public preaching or for use by ministers who visit from door to door, which the Supreme Court of the United States has held protected by the Constitution in many cases. If this insidious doctrine were permitted to control, not only could it be used to stop the public preaching of Jehovah’s witnesses and others but, ultimately, it would forbid a preacher to use the streets to travel to his church on Sunday or his congregation from coming over the sidewalks to listen to him on the theory that it constituted use of public funds for a sectarian purpose.

Although the decision was against them in the district court Jehovah’s witnesses will appeal the conviction as unconstitutional and contrary to a long line of decisions sustaining the right to hold such meetings. They will insist on ‘defending and legally establishing the good news’ and contending for the right to preach the gospel in the manner which Christ Jesus set as their example.

Circuit Assembly Held Despite Legion Antagonism

PREPARING for their circuit assembly (semiannual convention for Bible study and instruction of ministers) Jehovah’s witnesses of Oklahoma City and vicinity contracted for use of the facilities of Municipal Auditorium. The written agreement, entered into with the city council, provided for the use of the Hall of Mirrors September 29 and 30 and the main auditorium October 1. A down payment was made with arrangements for the balance to be paid at the conclusion.

On Friday, September 22, while final plans for the meeting were being pushed, the local American Legion Post 35 filed a scandalous resolution with the city officials demanding that the city council illegally break its contract and not permit Jehovah’s witnesses to hold their assembly. It was claimed that they insist upon teaching and instilling doctrine “into the minds of the youths of this nation which violates and is in direct contradiction of the constitutional principles and traditions of our government”.

Not quick to deprive an unpopular minority of constitutional rights of freedom of assembly, speech and worship, the city officials took the matter under consideration and set it down for hearing at the next council meeting. In the meantime local newspaper reports aroused the interest of the public. Many citizens became concerned over the issue and protested the action of the American Legion.

When the city council was called to order on Tuesday, September 26, upward of 300 legionnaires helped to pack the council room. Represented by two lawyers, they resumed their vituperative denunciation of Jehovah’s witnesses, shouting that they do “not honor the flag” and “discourage enlistments in our armed forces” which would hinder the war efforts. Rebutting these and other inflammatory assertions, representatives of Jehovah’s witnesses showed that their ministers were exempt by law from performance of military service and training the same as clergymen of other organizations, that at no time do they advocate refusal to salute or fight and that they regard it as wrong for them to oppose the efforts of persons who do, but that they must live by God’s laws. “If everybody in this country were Jehovah’s witnesses there would be no country,” it was alleged. “If everybody in the world were Jehovah’s witnesses,” came the answer, “there would be no war.”

Jehovah’s witnesses reminded the city council that denial of freedoms to Jehovah’s witnesses would jeopardize these rights to all other Americans. Each member of the council was given a copy of the booklet Defending and Legally Establishing the Good News. Others manifested like concern for the preservation of the fundamental freedoms. During the discussion a letter from the Oklahoma City Council of Churches was read which stated that, although they did not concur with the beliefs of Jehovah’s witnesses, yet they believed constitutional rights should be upheld and the use of the Municipal Auditorium permitted.

At the conclusion of the arguments the acting mayor sought advice as to whether the contract was legally binding, from the city attorney, who assured the council that it was. When the chairman then placed the matter before the council for determination and asked if any of the councilmen desired to break the contract all remained silent. So, commending the city council for refusing to capitulate to pressure to deny constitutionally guaranteed assembly, we give all thanks and praise to Jehovah for the victory.