"Faith Center" op-ed

Here is a link to an op-ed piece of mine, which appears in the Los Angeles Daily Journal, about the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in the Faith Center case.  In that case (more info here), the panel, per Judge Paez, concluded that a public library may exclude "religious worship" from a policy that opens library rooms broadly to "meetings, programs, or activities of educational, cultural, or community interest."  My piece focused more on Judge Karlton's opinion, in which he wrote, among other things: 

Where government plays a role in the religious life of a pluralist society, there is the danger that government will favor the majority religion and seek to control or prohibit the rites of minority religions. Such favor can only lead to alienation and social unrest. . . .

The wall of separation between church and state that Thomas Jefferson thought the First Amendment raised, in no way prejudices the practice of anyone?s religion. Instead, it serves the salutary purpose of insulating civil society from the excesses of the zealous. . . .

In the piece, I write:

[Judge] Karlton asserted that the "wall of separation between church and state that Thomas Jefferson thought the First Amendment raised, in no way prejudices the practice of anyone's religion." True enough. The separation of church and state is crucial to any clear vision of religious freedom. He continued, however: "Instead, it serves the salutary purpose of insulating civil society from the excesses of the zealous."

This claim - that the First Amendment should be applied by judges to safeguard a tranquil, God-free public square - is badly misguided.

Religion matters, and people care about it. The excesses of religious believers does not mean that judges should be particularly suspicious of the zealous. Those who crafted our Constitution knew better. They believed that both authentic freedom and effective government should be secured through checks and balances rather than standardization.  It is both mistaken and quixotic to employ the First Amendment to smooth out the divisions that are an unavoidable part of the political life of a diverse people.

For a more developed argument that judicial observations or predictions of "religious divisiveness" should do little work in supplying the First Amendment's enforceable content, see this article of mine.