Street Preachers could Face Harsher Penalties (HB 131)

If you would like for us to consider adding your comments here, please send an e-mail to Rob@MormonInfo.org.

Rob Sivulka being hasseled by a Utah cop to move off the public sidewalk

How Utah's House Bill 131 Segregates Christians and Defies the First Amendment

In Utah, where the marriage of church and state has not yet been divorced, the state legislature wields its entrusted power to write laws benefiting one church--the Mormon Church--to the exclusion of minority faiths. On February 8, 2005, the Utah House voted 11 to 1 (one negative, one absent) to drive House Bill 131 into law banning Christian street preachers (a minority) from spreading their message on public sidewalks near the Mormon Temple Square. This bill makes it a class B misdemeanor and provides for civil suit should anyone intentionally or knowingly pass "a leaflet or handbill" or display a sign within 100 feet of the door of a "place of worship" and within eight feet of a person without their consent. Among other things, oral communication without consent is also banned in this sidewalk zone.

The twist to this bill came later. Republican Representative Douglas C. Aagard, who submitted this bill, acknowledges the one-sided Mormon Church benefit. The Associated Press reported that Aagard told Utah lawmakers, "the law would help establish standards for street preachers outside [the Mormon] Temple Square." This leak endorsed a specific religion without equal footing for the other. HB 131, in effect, becomes a state-supported "endorsement" for a religion (the Mormon Church) while another religion is "prohibited" in their "free exercise" (the Christian street preachers). Both prongs of the establishment and restriction clauses found in the First Amendment stand against this bill: "Congress (or Utah in this case) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That alone should kill the bill.

In this sense the bill resembles Deep South Jim Crow laws that the civil rights movement fought in the 1960s. The street preachers besieged by this bill are American citizens and, as such, they were born with the inherent rights found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Utah's mistake is thinking that they somehow can revoke what they didn't grant--our rights. These rights are ours by birth or by the oath of citizenship.

In the other 49 states and Washington D.C., sidewalks are unquestionably protected as a public forum for First Amendment purposes, so why not throughout Utah? Utah's Legislature cannot rob free speech from its public forum without stifling the Constitution. Most amazing, if one searches Salt Lake City newspapers, it is the Mormons who have been arrested for assaulting the street preachers, and not the reverse. No record shows that the street preachers struck back. Why, then, is this bill written against the street preachers when they are the victims of assault?

The legislature intends to fix a Temple Square problem with a statewide law. The troubling consequences of HB 131 are multi-faceted. Every American citizen who visits Utah and hands out a leaflet at Temple Square or anywhere in the state is stonewalled through Utah HB 131. If this becomes law, what our nation has freely practiced since 1776 will no longer be the case in Utah. Who can tell how many millions of tracts non-Mormons visiting the area have distributed at Temple Square over the past 150 years? The bill has a long-arm reach over all Americans, which is outrageous and should incense every freedom lover.

Political campaigners should be equally upset since this bill does not exempt their street leaflets. Campaigners are subject to a misdemeanor charge and lawsuit should they, without prior consent, hand a flyer to the wrong person heading to worship. What does that do for Democrats in a Republican majority state like Utah? A radical John Bircher Mormon (from late President Benson downward), who hates Democrats, for example, can bully a leafleting campaigner by claiming he was Temple bound when leafleted. Doesn't that shoot democracy in the foot?

Another part of the bill simply begs for a federal lawsuit. The bill defines a "place of worship" as "a church, temple, synagogue, mosque, or other building set apart primarily for the purpose of worship in which religious services are held." Under this definition, the Methodist Wesley brothers or Baptist revivalists, who preached in open fields or who hold tent meetings have no protection. Their place of worship is a field or tent, as was Israel's for 400 years. Can a Mormon missionary be sued for passing a church-leaflet to a Buddhist who intrudes upon his "place of worship," i.e., earth's open space where he can sit under a Bodhi tree--a place with a 2,600-year history? The Utah courts can then have the joy of figuring out whether the outdoor "place of worship" for a Hindu, Buddhist, nature lover, Native American, or even an outdoor group of Christians (similar to Jesus and the twelve) is equal to the Mormon granite buildings in Salt Lake City.

Before Aagard championed his protection of the Mormon Church against Christian street preachers, he drew a false analogy with a Colorado law that passed Supreme Court scrutiny. It does not take a politician or attorney to see Aagard's flawed logic and the bi-polar distinction between Hill v. Colorado and Utah HB 131. Hill centered upon violent actions by demonstrators, who allegedly "physically blocked entrances, pushed, shoved, grabbed, kicked, punched and bit patients and escorts."[i] In Utah, rather than the street preachers acting in this manner, it has been the Mormons arrested for assault. Aagard's analogy with Hill simply fails. He has victimized the victims and rewarded the perpetrators.

The bill has drawn strange allies. Eric McHenry, an official representative of Rev. Greg Johnson's "Standing Together Ministries" was quoted in a Brigham Young University news article about this bill wherein he renounced the street preachers.[ii] With Standing Together entering the debate, we have Christians supporting a bill to arrest, jail, and sue other Christians who evangelize differently. How is this bill not a resurrection of segregation and Jim Crow laws from the South? Blacks had to use the alley instead of the public sidewalk while Whites have full entrance on Main Street. In Utah, the Christian street preachers are restricted on the public sidewalks in thier contact with the "white, and delightsome"[iii] Mormons heading to their "house of worship." How Standing Together can place a kiss of death on fellow Christians and the First Amendment by supporting such unbiblical and un-American sentiments is unimaginable.

I am not a street preacher, but I fully support their rights to preach freely on American streets. I have been active as a Christian minister in heralding civil rights in both Utah and California, speaking on the shared platform with Martin Luther King, III, and other civil rights leaders. To stay silent in the face of a bill like HB 131 is a slap in the face of all Christians whether Black, White, Catholic, Protestant, or Evangelical. It is offensive that the Mormon Church and Standing Together Ministries supporting the segregation of Christian street preachers from fellow Americans. HB 131 is entirely unnecessary, since sufficient Utah laws already prohibiting public nuisance, assault, and other scenarios without this bill. If this bill becomes law, then it isn't only street preachers who have lost their rights, but all Americans.

Serving Jesus,

Kurt Van Gorden, Director
Utah Gospel Mission

The Utah Gospel Mission began in 1898 as a resolution of the Salt Lake City Ministerial Association with the unashamed commission that Mormons in the West need to hear the true and genuine gospel of Jesus Christ. The Utah Gospel Mission has had mission workers active in Utah all but sixteen years since 1898 and its workers come from a wide variety of born again, mainline and evangelical Christian denominations.

www.utahgospelmission.org
missioneditor@hotmail.com

[i] http://www.ago.state.co.us/PRESREL/presrl00/prsrl46.stm

[ii] http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/54288

[iii] Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 30:6.

Mr. Van Gorden,

I enjoyed the article. One thing I thought to ask you: isn't it a bit of an overstatement to say that Standing Together supports the bill? I feel like that would be putting words into their mouth. The McHenry quotations seem like they were in a different context than that concerning the bill, and the editor of the article just put them in there.

Btw, it would be stellar if they made a public statement endorsing legitimate street preaching. That would clear up a lot.

Grace and peace in Christ!

Aaron Shafovaloff
http://www.aaronandstacia.com/aaron/mormonism/

As a correction to the article posted on your website about Utah House Bill 131, please let it be known that as it pertains to Standing Together, the article is in gross error. Neither I nor our ministry supports House Bill 131 and the quote to falsely accuse us of doing so from my associate, Erik McHenry, did not suggest that we do. I cannot prevent others from expressing misleading accusations about our ministry, and the favor God is giving us surely seems to be unnerving some, but when I can, I will at least attempt to set the record straight about what others falsely say we are saying. I am sad that once again Rob Silvoka puts material on his sight that is dishonest, divisive, and clearly malicious towards Standing Together.

Rev. Gregory C.V. Johnson
President/Director, Standing Together

The article posted above by Kurt Van Gorden is not only on this web site. It is going around on e-mail and the internet, and since it as well as the article Van Gorden is responding to are public documents, I found it worthy of public discussion. I welcome Johnson's and others' comments regarding anything on my site.

R. M. Sivulka

[The following is a amended version of Kurt Van Gorden's article above:]

Utah's House Bill 131 Segregates Christians and Defies the First Amendment

By Kurt Van Gorden

In Utah, where the marriage of church and state has not yet been divorced, the state legislature wields its entrusted power to write laws benefiting one church--the Mormon Church--to the exclusion of minority faiths. On February 8, 2005, the Utah House voted 11 to 1 (one negative, one absent) to drive House Bill 131 into law banning Christian street preachers (a minority) from spreading their message on public sidewalks near the Mormon Temple Square. This bill makes it a class B misdemeanor and provides for civil suit should anyone intentionally or knowingly pass "a leaflet or handbill" or display a sign within 100 feet of the door of a "place of worship" and within eight feet of a person without their consent. Among other things, oral communication without consent is also banned in this sidewalk zone.

The twist to this bill came later. Republican Representative Douglas C. Aagard, who submitted this bill, acknowledges the one-sided Mormon Church benefit. The Associated Press reported that Aagard told Utah lawmakers, "the law would help establish standards for street preachers outside [the Mormon] Temple Square." This leak endorsed a specific religion without equal footing for the other. HB 131, in effect, becomes a state-supported "endorsement" for a religion (the Mormon Church) while another religion is "prohibited" in their "free exercise" (the Christian street preachers). Both prongs of the establishment and restriction clauses found in the First Amendment stand against this bill: "Congress (or Utah in this case) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That alone should kill the bill.

In this sense the bill resembles Deep South Jim Crow laws that the civil rights movement fought in the 1960s. The street preachers besieged by this bill are American citizens and, as such, they were born with the inherent rights found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Utah's mistake is thinking that they somehow can revoke what they didn't grant--our rights. These rights are ours by birth or by the oath of citizenship.

In the other 49 states and Washington D.C., sidewalks are unquestionably protected as a public forum for First Amendment purposes, so why not throughout Utah? Utah's Legislature cannot rob free speech from its public forum without stifling the Constitution. Most amazing, if one searches Salt Lake City newspapers, it is the Mormons who have been arrested for assaulting the street preachers, and not the reverse. No record shows that the street preachers struck back. Why, then, is this bill written against the street preachers when they are the victims of assault?

The legislature intends to fix a Temple Square problem with a statewide law. The troubling consequences of HB 131 are multi-faceted. Every American citizen who visits Utah and hands out a leaflet at Temple Square or anywhere in the state is stonewalled through Utah HB 131. If this becomes law, what our nation has freely practiced since 1776 will no longer be the case in Utah. Who can tell how many millions of tracts non-Mormons visiting the area have distributed at Temple Squareover the past 150 years? The bill has a long-arm reach over all Americans, which is outrageous and should incense every freedom lover.

Political campaigners should be equally upset since this bill does not exempt their street leaflets. Campaigners are subject to a misdemeanor charge and lawsuit should they, without prior consent, hand a flyer to the wrong person heading to worship. What does that do for Democrats in a Republican majority state like Utah? A radical John Bircher Mormon (from late President Benson downward), who hates Democrats, for example, can bully a leafleting campaigner by claiming he was Temple bound when leafleted. Doesn't that shoot democracy in the foot?

Another part of the bill simply begs for a federal lawsuit. The bill defines a "place of worship" as "a church, temple, synagogue, mosque, or other building set apart primarily for the purpose of worship in which religious services are held." Under this definition, the Methodist Wesley brothers or Baptist revivalists, who preached in open fields or who hold tent meetings have no protection. Their place of worship is a field or tent, as was Israel's for 400 years. Can a Mormon missionary be sued for passing a church-leaflet to a Buddhist who intrudes upon his "place of worship," i.e., earth's open space where he can sit under a Bodhi tree--a place with a 2,600-year history? The Utah courts can then have the joy of figuring out whether the outdoor "place of worship" for a Hindu, Buddhist, nature lover, Native American, or even an outdoor group of Christians (similar to Jesus and the twelve) is equal to the Mormon granite buildings in Salt Lake City.

Before Aagard championed his protection of the Mormon Church against Christian street preachers, he drew a false analogy with a Colorado law that passed Supreme Court scrutiny. It does not take a politician or attorney to see Aagard's flawed logic and the bi-polar distinction between Hill v. Colorado and Utah HB 131. Hill, according to a Colorado State Website, centered upon violent actions by demonstrators, who allegedly "physically blocked entrances, pushed, shoved, grabbed, kicked, punched and bit patients and escorts." In Utah, rather than the street preachers acting in this manner, it has been the Mormons arrested for assault. Aagard's analogy with Hill simply fails. He has victimized the victims and rewarded the perpetrators.

The bill has drawn fire from political, civil rights, and religious organizations. The BYU NewsNet article interviewed Provo City Councilman Paul Warner, who criticized the bill by claiming that street preaching "minorities" have rights too. The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah spoke against the bill on the Utah House Floor and later posted a firm legal response against it on their Utah Website, insisting that it imposes "an unconstitutional, statewide ban on free speech."

The BYU NewsNet article also quoted Mr. Eric McHenry, an official representative of Standing Together Ministries, who divided Christians into four camps. His division and strong denunciation of Christian street preachers smacks of segregation. With Standing Together entering the debate, we have Christians in the BYU article criticizing other Christians, which further targeted the street preachers, who were already condemned by HB 131. McHenry appeared to give tacit approval to the bill so much so that the BYU reporter stated in a telephone call, "Based upon the information that McHenry provided, I would suppose he would support it." The BYU reporter admitted, "I didn't bring the bill up to Eric."

BYU NewsNet is a service available to all journalists. I regret that the story did not better clarify Standing Together's position. Mr. Greg Johnson, president of Standing Together, protested my earlier article that I based upon the NewsNet service. Johnson opposed the bill, clearly stating, "Neither I nor our ministry supports House Bill 131 and the quote to falsely accuse us of doing so from my associate, Erik McHenry, did not suggest that we do." Johnson offered no correction of McHenry's denigration of fellow Christians.

How is this bill not a resurrection of segregation and Jim Crow laws from the South? Blacks had to use the alley instead of the public sidewalk while Whites have full entrance on Main Street. In Utah, the Christian street preachers are restricted on the public sidewalks in their contact with the "white, and delightsome" Mormons heading to their "house of worship."

HB 131 and its supporters place a kiss of death on fellow Christians and the First Amendment by supporting such unbiblical and un-American sentiments is unimaginable. I am not a street preacher, but I fully support their rights to preach freely on American streets. I have been active as a Christian minister in heralding civil rights in both Utah and California, speaking on the shared platform with Martin Luther King, III, and other civil rights leaders. To stay silent in the face of a bill like HB 131 is a slap in the face of all Christians whether Black, White, Catholic, Protestant, or Evangelical. It is offensive that the Mormon Church and some Christian groups segregate Christian street preachers from fellow Americans through denigration. HB 131 is entirely unnecessary, since sufficient Utah laws already prohibiting public nuisance, assault, and other scenarios without this bill. If this bill becomes law, then it isn't only street preachers who have lost their rights, but all Americans.

Kurt Van Gorden is a 30-year journalistic veteran and publishes the Mission News. This article is an editorial opinion. He has contributed to books, journals, and periodicals. Currently he directs two Christian missions, Jude 3 Missions and the Utah Gospel Mission, which began in Salt Lake City in 1898. Contact: missioneditor@hotmail.com.

Van Gorden has just alerted me on 2-26-5 that HB131 was killed. For more detail, see Street protester bill yanked.

R. M. Sivulka