Skip to main content

NEW YORK — The city can ban Sunday religious worship services at public schools that otherwise might become state-sponsored Christian churches on weekends, a federal appeals court ruled today in a decision likely to affect dozens of schools where services are conducted each week.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan overturned a lower court decision and rejected arguments that the Supreme Court had opened the way for worship services to be conducted at schools.

A three-judge panel said in a 2-1 decision that the city Board of Education “had a strong basis to be wary that permitting religious worship services in schools, and thus effectively allowing schools to be converted into churches on Sunday, would be found to violate the establishment clause” of the Constitution, which bars Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

The court concluded that the nature of a school changes when religious worship services are performed.

“The church has made the school the place for the performance of its rites, and might well appear to have established itself there. The place has, at least for a time, become the church,” Judge Pierre Leval wrote for the majority. He said it was reasonable that the city was concerned it was substantially subsidizing churches because it neither charges rent for use of its space or charges for utilities.

 

http://www.firstamendmentcente...ip-service-at-school

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

It's a public building, paid for by tax payers of the community.

 

It's not being used on weekends. No students in the building.

 

Churches pay rent to the school for the space. The rent helps the school buy supplies without using public funds, the members of the church have a place to meet.

 

I'm missing how this is a bad thing.

The church has made the school the place for the performance of its rites, and might well appear to have established itself there. The place has, at least for a time, become the church,” Judge Pierre Leval wrote for the majority. He said it was reasonable that the city was concerned it was substantially subsidizing churches because it neither charges rent for use of its space or charges for utilities.

 

 

So maybe the solution isn't to kick everyone out, but utilize the need for the space and charge rent.

 

I agree that the public school system shouldn't subsidize the church. However, since it's a public building it should be available for the public to use during off hours.

 

Historically, churches and schools have often shared the same buildings.

 

The church I attend meets in a middle school. The rent is not cheap, but it benefits both parties. Seems like the most logical solution. 

Hi Jennifer,

 

Many of the churches in California meet on Sundays in the empty school building.  So far, no great harm has come to the buildings -- nor to the school districts.   But, if they are going to prevent the churches from using the buildings on the weekend -- they must forbid everyone not directly affiliated with education from using the buildings on the weekend.  Otherwise, this is discrimination against the church -- which is against the First Amendment.

 

And, in forbidding everyone -- the school district would lose a source of badly needed income.   Is it worth this just to satisfy the atheist minority?

 

Isn't that rather like cutting of your nose to spite your face?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

,Bill did not mean you, BW. He meant the issue of denying  use of the school.  BTW, I read many years ago that a lot of rough domestic arguments could be avoided if we did not use "you" when we really meant the third person.  When I forget and do it, I qualify it as "generic you"!  LOL!   Bill, be careful and,.BW. drink a nice glass of something good!  I do believe the school must charge if it is a public school.  If would also be interesting to know if it is a charter school.

The city will lose on this one.  There are far too many judicial precedents that confirm the "equal access" argument.  This Supreme Court will respect precedent in this case. Take it to the bank.

 

Concluding paragraph of Judge Walker's dissent:

 

<<<I have no doubt that this case stirs deep feelings and carries implications far broader than the Board's exclusion of Bronx Household's "Christian worship services" under SOP § 5.11. This case also presents important doctrinal considerations worthy of the Supreme Court's attention. In the meantime, however, as a result of the majority's decision that "religious worship services" can be barred from the neutral limited public forum the Board created under SOP § 5.6.2, numerous religious groups that provide recognized benefits to the people and their communities, consistent with the forum's purposes, will be denied access to otherwise available school space simply because their private speech is intertwined with their standard devotional practices and deeply-held religious beliefs. Others will be chilled. Because SOP § 5.11's ban on religious worship services violates the Free Speech Clause, I respectfully dissent.>>>

Last edited by Contendah

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×