Church Puts Faith in Court .

[rug]

SEPTEMBER 28, 2011.

By KRISTI OLOFFSON
A New York City church is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to assert its right to hold religious services in public schools.

Lawyers for the Bronx Household of Faith, an evangelical congregation, filed a petition Tuesday asking the Supreme Court to review a June appeals-court ruling that would bar churches from holding worship services on school property.

About 60 churches currently use New York City public-school auditoriums and classrooms for worship activities after school hours and on weekends. The arrangement has allowed small, cash-strapped churches to avoid the city's high rents, as the schools charge a nominal fee to cover the costs of custodians and security staff.

The debate over church use of city public-school space has been chugging through the courts since the mid-1990s. The Supreme Court has heard several high-profile cases on schools and religious life in recent years, but justices haven't yet ruled on whether worship services should be allowed on school property.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204831304576597153175165890.html

[dmallind]

1. Hmmm. a knotty one.

Schools using churches is more clear establishment unless thoroughly secularized, but churches using schools is at first blush safe, assuming the churches get no subsidy and no preference - so they pay at least the full cost, and schools must offer the same deal to minority faiths and secular groups (this I suspect would be the de facto if not de jure problem). I would be a bit concerned about the conflation in the childrens' minds between educational and sectarian associations with the facilities if they are also congregants. Schools after all should be where you learn facts, not celebrate leaps of faith. Admittedly the confusion is likely to be minimal compared to just being a congregant and having that larger indoctrination, but it's still a worry that room 3B, where you take biology on a Monday, is where an authority figure told you women were created from a male rib 6000 yrs ago on Sunday.

[Dogtown]

2. Zero tolerance.

Church and state should be separate, always. Any encroachment is an invitation to evangelicals who are systematically trying to insert themselves into our government.

:patriot:

[dmallind]

3. But that's unworkable

What we are tslking about here is making state facilities available, for a fee, to religious groups. If we can't do that we can't allow church groups in state parks. That's obviously neither true nor desirable. The only thing establishment forbids is preferential treatment, subsidies or official sanction. As long as the chutrch pays all costs, and all religious/secular groups get the same offer, I don't see any entanglement here.

The equal offer part will probably sink this, because if they allow a church to rent out the school assembly hall, they must also let say, amateur dramatics groups, political parties, social clubs and so on do the same.

[saras]

4. Not true - schools imply acceptance and support in a way that parks don't.

Personally I don't think schools should be renting out their facilities to anyone who comes along with a few bucks - it's a bad thing for the school as a whole, independently of any money they may raise.

When I go to a school, I have certain expectations about what will be presented, and why. I no more want church in the schools than I want ads in my church's sermon, doctors conducting surgery at the grocery store, or poetry in my building code.

[humblebum]

5. If the churches are holding Sunday services at a public school

when school is only held during the week there should be no problem. To disallow the practice would be a violation of the "free exercise clause."

[Humanist_Activist]

6. That's only true if the school allows other, secular organizations to use school facilities...

and it wouldn't be a violation of the free exercise clause but of possibly equal protection and the Civil Rights Act. If a public school doesn't allow any organization to use their faculties after hours, then that's fine, if they only allow, for example, the Boys and Girls club and refuse others due to a protected class(such as religion), then it would be a violation of equal protection. The reverse is also true, if a public school only allows religious organizations to use their faculties, its then runs afoul of the establishment clause.

[humblebum]

7. Actually it would be a violation of the free exercise clause. That is

the explicit intention of the meaning of "free."

[Humanist_Activist]

10. That would only be true if a school auditorium holds the same status as...

A public park or open space. But it doesn't for mostly practical reasons. Most public schools don't leave their buildings open after school or on weekends without some event being planned for security reasons. I a school or district decides not to allow anyone outside of official school activities to use their faculties, that is not a violation of the free exercise clause. There is no constitutional right to access to facilities that are closed to the public.

[darkstar3]

8. How the hell do you get there?

How does not renting out the school prevent these people from exercising their faith? It doesn't. It can't. The Free Exercise clause is concerned with preventing the government actively stopping people from observing their religion. Failure to rent space to a church can't possibly be a violation of that clause when they can go any number of other places and find what they need.

[humblebum]

11. Um? Failing to rent to them because they are a church, but allowing

other groups the same opportunities, that's how. It's a very common occurrance and renting for church services is nothing new.

[darkstar3]

12. Again, that doesn't touch Free Exercise AT ALL.

Equal Protection might be a better bet, but once you realize that they're paying one government entity less for "rent" (just because it happens to be a school) when all other publicly available facilities charge more, and they are a religious organization, it takes on the characteristics of a government subsidy for religion.

I also don't buy that renting out the school is a common occurrence outside of these religious groups. Coming as I do from a public school education, and being a descendant of public school employees, I can tell you that public schools don't generally rent out their facilities to groups unless they meet some guidelines about image, helpfulness to the students, and more. This next part needs to be emphasized:

Public schools are not publicly accessible for reasons of security, among others. Therefore, it is the choice of the school administrators, on a case by case basis, to open that campus to outsiders as they see fit, and for compensation that they deem appropriate. Should that choice result in a negative decision against a religious group, it in no way constitutes a prevention of their practice or speech, and it cannot therefore be a violation of the Free Exercise clause. Furthermore, due to the fact that obtaining rental access to school facilities is based on the discretion of the administrators, they can also avoid prosecution under Equal Protection by ensuring that the reasons they have for rejection are legitimate and documented, which they always are.

I think you're mistaking the idea of publicly funded schools, and public property.

[humblebum]

13. Actually, I belonged to a church that did exactly that for about a year

or so while a new church was being built several years ago. BTW, that defines "free exercise." If the free exercise was restricted to non-public facilities, it wouldn't be free exersise then, would it?

[darkstar3]

14. You still don't get it, do you?

It's not a public facility, because it's not open to the public.

Furthermore, being prevented from using one facility when it has already been established that several public facilities exist and are open to this group can't possibly tread on Free Exercise. In fact, only Congress can violate the Free Exercise clause, since it clearly only applies to Congress in the text of the amendment. To quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[humblebum]

15. Now i have heard it all.

"only Congress can violate the Free Exercise clause, since it clearly only applies to Congress in the text of the amendment." I think you're mistaking it for how they do it in Serbia - again. Don't look now, but that little item called the 14th Amendment extended it to the states. Free Exercise means "free" to practice where they please as long as it hurts no one else.

[darkstar3]

16. You're talking about the Equal Protection clause, as I already stated.

Free Exercise doesn't mean remotely what you think it means, as proven by many USC cases which interpret it far more narrowly than you do.

[humblebum]

17. The Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause

go hand in hand here. And yes the Courts have interpreted 'free exercise' as it states. There is no ambiguity there. It was used that way in Kaufman case to ensure the right of an atheist. The Equal Protection Clause forces the rights listed in the Constitution onto the states. Churches have no special rights if no comparable groups are allowed to meet in the schools, but they cannot be barred from them simply because they are a church.

[darkstar3]

18. You're getting your clauses mixed up.

First, the Free Exercise clause has been interpreted in a very narrow sense since the '80s. Have a look at the UMKC website for more info:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/freeexercise.htm

Second, the Equal Protection Clause is not what has been construed as enforcing the Bill of Rights on all of the states. That is the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Are you just intent on being wrong, or are you so convinced that Free Exercise gives you carte blanche that you're willing to ignore actual law and case precedent?

[humblebum]

19. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Blather as usual. Any Constitutional right has always been balanced against other rights. That's why we have the Courts. And it is the entire 14th Amendment that enabled the Constitution to be pertinent to the States, Not just one clause of it. And yes religious practices are free, unless they interfere with other enumerated, or implied, or expressed rights.

[darkstar3]

20. So link something to support your BS.

Come on, show me how "The Equal Protection Clause forces the rights listed in the Constitution onto the states." Show me, in contrast to the information presented at my UMKC link above, how Free Exercise gives you carte blanche.

[humblebum]

21. Why are you always making up crap like this?

"how Free Exercise gives you carte blanche." Absolute deceit.

So you don't think the 14th Amendment extended the rights of Constitution to the states?

[darkstar3]

22. That's not a link. Try again.

[deacon_sephiroth]

25. By your logic, "free" is an ustoppable juggernaut

I think you mistake it for how they do it in dream land. The term "free" does not automatically imply that you can go anywhere and use any facility ESPECIALLY those owned and operated by the state, the fact that they have FREE exercise does not make them a steamroller. I think the term being mistaken here isn't "free" the term being mistaken here is "SEPERATION".

[darkstar3]

9. This sounds like a government subsidy to me.

[Centrist2011]

23. Wow.

Why don't the theocrats just move to the Vatican or Saudi Arabia; 2 theocratic shitholes that would fit them perfectly, instead of trying to turn America into one? As far as I'm concerned, theocrats have nothing to do with other Republican issues. As theocrats, all they care about is religion. They have no preference on the economy Republican or Democrat, or any of that. No issue matters but brainwashing America's children to expand the power of the Rape Church and other atrocities that dare call themselves "Godly".

[Angry Dragon]

24. Some scary people here

I think I will just sit here with my popcorn and drink

:popcorn: :beer:

[deacon_sephiroth]

26. Faith in the courts?

but why do that? I'm sure if they just pray about it, it'll work out. Unless they've started to learn that faith doesn't cut it, apparently lawyers do. Though they lost this one already, and again in appeals... that's another second coming that hasn't worked out so well for them. Good luck on the third...

Not really, I hope nail gets put in this coffin rather firmly.