October 2, 2007

Supreme Court Passes Up Case of Preacher's Restricted Access to Campus

Brother Jim will not have his day in court. The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear the case of the evangelical preacher, James G. Gilles, who calls himself Brother Jim and whose speech Vincennes University restricted to a small part of its campus in 2002.

Officials at Vincennes, a public institution in Indiana, had found the preacher on the campus and told him he needed to file paperwork to engage in “solicitation” there. The permit the university granted limited Mr. Gilles to a walkway in front of the student union. He sued in 2004 and lost. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the university could legally limit Mr. Gilles’s speech to a certain location.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative, Christian legal-advocacy group, appealed to the Supreme Court on Mr. Gilles’s behalf, arguing that he should be able to preach where Vincennes told him he
couldn’t: the library lawn, an area the group called “an open and accessible part of the campus resembling a sidewalk and public park.” But no luck for Brother Jim: The appellate court’s decision will stand.

Mr. Gilles has had mixed luck in court. He sued Murray State University last year for keeping him off its campus, and he lost. But his Web site says he has won “dozens of court battles” and “legally opened” more than 50 campuses. —Sara Lipka

Comments

1. While personally reprehensible, he is a first amendment warrior. I wonder if he and Larry Flint could agree on that?

   — dave    Oct 2, 04:09 PM    #

2. I have seen him preach; he is an offensive, racist hatemonger. Hearing him rant against the “Ho-Mo-SEXUALS” is a bit like walking past a neo-Nazi rally. Yes, yes, like everyone, he has the right to “free speech.” But students also have the right to NOT suffer verbal intimidation or be otherwise threatened in what in a larger sense could be viewed as their own home.

   — d    Oct 2, 06:21 PM    #

3. I wonder if Brother Jim has read the passage in which St. Paul advises the brethren not to enter into litigation with one another?

   — AJF    Oct 3, 09:35 AM    #

4. I wonder if he was speaking for gay rights if he would have treated differently. No matter what position a person has, it will offend someone-that’s why freedom of speech is in the first admendment.

   — eh    Oct 3, 10:23 AM    #

5. The passage referred to is I Corinthians 6 and focuses on members of the local Corinthian congregation filing legal actions against one another, which were then heard and settled by non-Christians. “Brother Jim” would doubtless claim those being sued are not brethren – because they are not Christian.

   It is possible that he would have some justification for that claim, depending upon the practical, day-to-day lifestyles of his targets and how consistently those lifestyles adhere to biblical prinicples.

   Further, denouncing and characterizing his preaching as that of an “offensive, racist hatemonger” creates problems as well because we don’t know what he preaches or the biases and prejudices of D, who may feel singled out because he or she lives a lifestyle contrary to the message Brother Jim is declaring.

   Because we can safely assume that neither Brother Jim’s message nor his methods are being accurately portrayed, we know that at least one point of hypocrisy has already occurred here. Those condeming Brother Jim’s message and methods have passed judgment – something I suspect they would find objectionable if I for example, were to pass judgment on some aspect of their lives.

   — R2    Oct 3, 10:53 AM    #

6. “Brother Jim” would doubtless claim those being sued are not brethren – because they are not Christian.”
   Obviously: to Brother Jim, and any other conservative religionist , anyone who thinks of others’ rights first is automatically “not” of that religion.

   — richard    Oct 3, 03:09 PM    #

7. So let’s talk about this term “racist” that is so often used in such bold strokes. There are approx. 4 billion people on this planet that claim some connection to a God (gods) that promises to have a special relationship with them as his/their/her chosen people. Some of these are Christians, some Muslims, Hindu etc, but the important thing here is that every one of them thinks that their race of people is better than the others in God’s eyes. I do. Except for those filled with a sense of shame or inadequacy or, maybe I can grant on a more positive note, just a healthy sense of agnostic wonder, most all of us are racists, because, inter alia, we see God (gods) as racist. The sooner we admit this fact, the more honest, mature, and productive our discussions will be.

   — Paul A.    Oct 3, 05:30 PM    #

8. You belly aching liberal neo-evangelicals have more in common with the current Presidents recent remarks revealing the true nature of his Unitarian Universalist beliefs. You misquote scripture because you are Biblically illiterate! You are members of the Church of Sardis! Dead wood in a dead church! Do nothing belly achers! Suing an institution is NOT equal to suing your “brother” in Christ. Listen to Pastor Erwin Lutzer’s message on “The SIN we rationalize” at http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Moody_Church_Hour/
   And do yourself a favor, listen to JUDGING CHARACTER, JUDGING CONDUCT, JUDGING NEO-PAGANISM, JUDGING APPEARANCES, JUDGING FALSE PROPHETS....You people need to learn HOW to JUDGE righteous judgments!

   — Ruben Israel    Oct 7, 09:12 PM    #

Previous: Johns Hopkins U. Will Resume Publication of Long-Dead Literary Review
Next: California Governor Ponders Bills on Tighter Rules for Paying University Executives