That was the question that headlined a recent (July 3) Christianity Today weblog roundup. We’ve since seen the news story in question referred to on several other blogs, so it seemed like it would be good to post on T19. Here’s how Ted Olsen of Christianity Today summarizes the story in his weblog entry:
A messy decision, ripe for the Supreme Court
Bronx Household of Faith wanted to rent space for Sunday morning worship at Public School 15 in New York City. The city refused, saying allowing church services would suggest endorsement of that church. Like many cases of this kind, it’s had a long, messy history in the court system. Monday, it got messier. The three judges on the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals each reached very different conclusions.
“Our disparate views of this case leave us without a rationale to which a majority of the court agrees. While two judges who disagree on the merits believe the dispute is ripe for adjudication, the court cannot decide the merits of the case without the vote of the third judge, who disagrees as to ripeness,” the court ruled.
The fractured judgment “could provide the U.S. Supreme Court with its next big establishment clause case,” The New York Sun concluded. “The case likely prompted such division because of the question, more theological than legal, at its center: What is worship?”
In its 2001 case Good News Club v. Milford Central School, the court said a school district couldn’t discriminate against an extracurricular Christian club if it allowed other extracurricular clubs. But “the federal high court appeared to draw a distinction between religiously oriented lessons and outright worship,” the Sun notes, so Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York would allow the Supreme Court to go into more detail on what’s acceptable.
Here’s the opening of the New York Sun article:
Appeals Panel Splits Three Ways on Church-State Suit
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
July 3, 2007The city’s policy of barring churches from holding Sunday services in public schools could provide the U.S. Supreme Court with its next big “establishment clause” case, given the fractured judgment rendered by a federal appellate court in Manhattan yesterday.
The three judges on the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel who heard a Bronx congregation’s challenge to the policy each issued a separate opinion. One judge of Bronx House hold of Faith v. Board of Education ruled in favor of the church; another decided in favor of the Board of Education’s anti-church policy; a third found the case was not yet ready for review. As a result, the church may continue to use the school building pending further appeal.
The case likely prompted such division because of the question, more theological than legal, at its center: What is worship? The legal significance of the question hangs on a 2001 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the court held that schools allowing use of their campus after hours by secular groups could not then exclude religious groups from conducting religious instruction or discussion on school grounds.
Well, it does need to go to the US Supreme Court. That way the issue will be decided nationally and hopefully definitively.
Anybody recall the result of when some school district banned the Boy Scouts for similar reasons? I seem to recall Congress passing some specific legislation, but I could be wrong.
Since when does a school district endorse everything done or said when it lets outside groups rent space during off-hours?
I know of no instance when the school district here in Los Banos, CA has endorsed any particular church or religious group. There is at least one church which meets at our junior high school, and I haven’t heard of any problem. So, what’s the big deal in New York?
#3
The big deal, or secret handshake if you will, is the below market rents for using government school space off hours. Assuming that the space is in decent shape, the school system almost invariably rents out the rooms at far below what the market would bear, as it is rented for only the hours used. Face it, churches or independent boy scout buildings are empty 90% of the week, except for the sexton and secretary. So you pay for just having them around. In the case of renting school space, the system pays for that overhead.
So everyone knows this, but they then posture that only “good” groups can benefit from the public largesse in this manner. Good in most spots means that you don’t incite riots and you clean up after yourself and pay rent on time. “Good in NYPS #15” apparently means non religious. De gustibus non disputandem est. That is why the USSC needs to rule on this, to take it out of the hands of moral dilittantes.
If a school allows any group to use its facilities after hours, they cannot legally discriminate by not allowing church or religious groups to use it as well. It’s the same with Libraries. If we allow other groups to use our community room, we cannot say “But religious groups can’t use it!” This falls under the fair use legislaitions.