Religious Groups Evicted From NYC Schools

[PoliticalChic]

1. The United States Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a Bronx church’s appeal of a city ban on holding worship services in public schools.

2. The city immediately set a February eviction date for about 60 churches that had been holding services in city schools pending the appeal.

3. The church, the Bronx Household of Faith, had appealed a federal panel’s June ruling that the city’s ban on holding worship services in a school did not violate the church’s First Amendment right to free speech.

4. “When worship services are performed in a place,” a judge wrote in that decision, “the nature of the site changes. The site is no longer simply a room in a school being used temporarily for some activity.” The decision supported the city’s view that letting churches conduct religious services in schools could be seen as the kind of endorsement of religion...

5. The Bronx Household of Faith, which meets at Public School 15 in the Bronx, has been assembling in classrooms since a judge ruled in 2002 that churches — like other community groups — have the First Amendment right to use school spaces. The decision by the United States Court of Appeals in June allowed the city to restrict the churches.

6. The Alliance Defense Fund: ...“Churches and other religious groups should be able to meet in public buildings on the same terms as other community groups,” the group said in a news release. “They should not be excluded simply because of the religious nature of their speech.”
Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on Churches' Use of Schools - NYTimes.com


7." ...the Supreme Court held in Good News Club v. Milford Central School (PDF) that it was unconstitutional for a public school district to exclude from its buildings a religious organization that planned to use the space to teach religious morals to school-aged children through the use of song, verse memorization, and lessons. The Court held that such exclusion amounted to “viewpoint discrimination,” because the district otherwise permitted use of the space “for the teaching of morals and character,” and was excluding the plaintiffs solely on the basis of their religious affiliation.

8. According to the Second Circuit, in cases like Good News Club, “the policy being enforced categorically excluded expressions of religious content. Here, by contrast, there is no restraint on the free expression of any point of view. Expression of all points of view is permitted. The exclusion applies only to the conduct of a certain type of activity — the conduct of worship services — and not to the free expression of religious views associated with it....the distinction between the activity of worship and the expression of Christian viewpoints sounds incredibly thin (especially considering that the activities at issue in Good News Club included singing). ”
No More Religious Services in NYC Public Schools | Friendly Atheist



An addition to being unfair and discriminatory, do the series of decisions seem consistent?

Seems not so to me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

An addition to being unfair and discriminatory…

The decision was neither unfair nor discriminatory, as it comports with the Constitution and its case law on the issue, as determined by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), provides the framework for evaluating challenges under the Establishment Clause.9 The Court instructed in Lemon that government action which interacts with religion (1) "must have a secular . . . purpose," (2) must have a "principal or primary effect . . . that neither advances nor inhibits religion," and (3) "must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion." Id. at 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In discussing the second prong of the Lemon test, the Supreme Court has warned that violation of the Establishment Clause can result from perception of endorsement. "The Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from `making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community.'" Cnty. of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties U., 492 U.S. 573, 593-94, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989) (emphasis added) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (O'Connor, J., concurring)); see also Lynch, 465 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 1355 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (observing that the second prong of the Lemon test "asks whether, irrespective of government's actual purpose, the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval"); Skoros, 437 F.3d at 17-18. It was certainly not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that permitting the conduct of religious worship services in the schools might fail the second and third prongs of the Lemon test, and that the adoption of the "worship services" branch of SOP § 5.11 was a reasonable means of avoiding a violation of the Establishment Clause.

The performance of worship services is a core event in organized religion. See Bronx Household, 226 F.Supp.2d at 410 (quoting Pastor Hall describing Bronx Household's Sunday worship service as "the indispensable integration point for our church"); Mark Chaves, Congregations in America 227 (2004) (reporting results of survey finding that 99.3% of religious congregations hold services at least once per week). Religious worship services are conducted according to the rules dictated by the particular religious establishment and are generally performed by an officiant of the church or religion. When worship services are performed in a place, the nature of the site changes. The site is no longer simply a room in a school being used temporarily for some activity. 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.

Moreover, the Board's concern that it would be substantially subsidizing churches if it opened schools for religious worship services is reasonable. The Board neither charges rent for use of its space, nor exacts a fee to cover utilities such as electricity, gas, and air conditioning.10 The City thus foots a major portion of the costs of the operation of a church. It is reasonable for the Board to fear that allowing schools to be converted into churches, at public expense and in public buildings, might "foster an excessive government entanglement with religion" that advances religion. See DeStefano v. Emergency Hous. Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 397, 419 (2d Cir.2001) (concluding that a publicly funded private hospital whose employees coerced patients to participate in a religious support group would violate the Establishment Clause, noting that the Supreme Court's "`decisions provide no precedent for the use of public funds to finance religious activities,'" and that "neutral administration of the state aid program ... is an insufficient constitutional counterweight to the direct public funding of religious activities" (quoting Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 840, 120 S.Ct. 2530, 147 L.Ed.2d 660 (2000) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment))).

The Board could also reasonably worry that the regular, long-term conversion of schools into state-subsidized churches on Sundays would violate the Establishment Clause by reason of public perception of endorsement.

The Board’s concern with regard to an Establishment Clause violation is consequently justified, the Board is acting in an appropriate and legal manner – as all public sector entities should – in an effort to be in compliance with the Constitution and the law. Indeed, the Board would be negligent in its responsibility to adhere to the law if it allowed religious organizations to remain, in violation of the First Amendment.

In addition, it is incorrect to perceive the Board’s decision as a ‘violation’ of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as the state is in no way restricting religious practice, as such practice may be conducted in any private venue.

do the series of decisions seem consistent?

Yes, as they are, again, in compliance with the Constitution and its case law.

Seems not so to me.

Understandable given your motive is political, not legal; as a partisan rightist you’ve unsuccessfully attempted to portray the Board’s decision as some sort of capricious ‘attack’ on religion, when in fact it is acting in accordance with the law.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

An addition to being unfair and discriminatory…

The decision was neither unfair nor discriminatory, as it comports with the Constitution and its case law on the issue, as determined by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), provides the framework for evaluating challenges under the Establishment Clause.9 The Court instructed in Lemon that government action which interacts with religion (1) "must have a secular . . . purpose," (2) must have a "principal or primary effect . . . that neither advances nor inhibits religion," and (3) "must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion." Id. at 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In discussing the second prong of the Lemon test, the Supreme Court has warned that violation of the Establishment Clause can result from perception of endorsement. "The Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from `making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community.'" Cnty. of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties U., 492 U.S. 573, 593-94, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989) (emphasis added) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (O'Connor, J., concurring)); see also Lynch, 465 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 1355 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (observing that the second prong of the Lemon test "asks whether, irrespective of government's actual purpose, the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval"); Skoros, 437 F.3d at 17-18. It was certainly not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that permitting the conduct of religious worship services in the schools might fail the second and third prongs of the Lemon test, and that the adoption of the "worship services" branch of SOP § 5.11 was a reasonable means of avoiding a violation of the Establishment Clause.

The performance of worship services is a core event in organized religion. See Bronx Household, 226 F.Supp.2d at 410 (quoting Pastor Hall describing Bronx Household's Sunday worship service as "the indispensable integration point for our church"); Mark Chaves, Congregations in America 227 (2004) (reporting results of survey finding that 99.3% of religious congregations hold services at least once per week). Religious worship services are conducted according to the rules dictated by the particular religious establishment and are generally performed by an officiant of the church or religion. When worship services are performed in a place, the nature of the site changes. The site is no longer simply a room in a school being used temporarily for some activity. 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.

Moreover, the Board's concern that it would be substantially subsidizing churches if it opened schools for religious worship services is reasonable. The Board neither charges rent for use of its space, nor exacts a fee to cover utilities such as electricity, gas, and air conditioning.10 The City thus foots a major portion of the costs of the operation of a church. It is reasonable for the Board to fear that allowing schools to be converted into churches, at public expense and in public buildings, might "foster an excessive government entanglement with religion" that advances religion. See DeStefano v. Emergency Hous. Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 397, 419 (2d Cir.2001) (concluding that a publicly funded private hospital whose employees coerced patients to participate in a religious support group would violate the Establishment Clause, noting that the Supreme Court's "`decisions provide no precedent for the use of public funds to finance religious activities,'" and that "neutral administration of the state aid program ... is an insufficient constitutional counterweight to the direct public funding of religious activities" (quoting Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 840, 120 S.Ct. 2530, 147 L.Ed.2d 660 (2000) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment))).

The Board could also reasonably worry that the regular, long-term conversion of schools into state-subsidized churches on Sundays would violate the Establishment Clause by reason of public perception of endorsement.

The Board’s concern with regard to an Establishment Clause violation is consequently justified, the Board is acting in an appropriate and legal manner – as all public sector entities should – in an effort to be in compliance with the Constitution and the law. Indeed, the Board would be negligent in its responsibility to adhere to the law if it allowed religious organizations to remain, in violation of the First Amendment.

In addition, it is incorrect to perceive the Board’s decision as a ‘violation’ of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as the state is in no way restricting religious practice, as such practice may be conducted in any private venue.

do the series of decisions seem consistent?

Yes, as they are, again, in compliance with the Constitution and its case law.

Seems not so to me.

Understandable given your motive is political, not legal; as a partisan rightist you’ve unsuccessfully attempted to portray the Board’s decision as some sort of capricious ‘attack’ on religion, when in fact it is acting in accordance with the law.

And yet NYC schools are the very ones that created special classrooms for Muslims on Ramadan to pray. That allowed Muslims special rooms for prayer during school days.

 

[Photonic]

What exactly is wrong with this? Religion doesn't belong in school in any form, the rest of the civilized world recognizes that, why doesn't this country?

 

[Luissa]

I never saw a problem with this. All kinds of groups are allowed to use public schools. They are also allowed to use other public buildings etc.

 

[Photonic]

I never saw a problem with this. All kinds of groups are allowed to use public schools. They are also allowed to use other public buildings etc.

Last I checked this forum has been in an uproar over the apparent issues of schools teaching kids morals and values instead of hard education subjects.

Why is religion exempt from that?

 

[xotoxi]

Religious groups should be allowed to have services in schools. These services are not happening when the school is in session, and are not made a requirement for the students, and are not run by the school or based on the school curriculum, therefore there is no "endorsement of religion" by the school. I think that the religious group should rent the space they use to cover costs. And I don't think that the school should not show favoritism of one religious group over another to whom they rent the space. Or even non-religious groups.

But it begs the question...what if a satanic group wanted to have services in a school? Or the KKK wanted to have meetings?

 

[Photonic]

Religious groups should be allowed to have services in schools. These services are not happening when the school is in session, and are not made a requirement for the students, and are not run by the school or based on the school curriculum, therefore there is no "endorsement of religion" by the school. I think that the religious group should rent the space they use to cover costs. And I don't think that the school should not show favoritism of one religious group over another to whom they rent the space. Or even non-religious groups.

But it begs the question...what if a satanic group wanted to have services in a school? Or the KKK wanted to have meetings?

As I said, school is not the place for any of those things. It really, REALLY is inappropriate under any context.

 

[xotoxi]

Religious groups should be allowed to have services in schools. These services are not happening when the school is in session, and are not made a requirement for the students, and are not run by the school or based on the school curriculum, therefore there is no "endorsement of religion" by the school. I think that the religious group should rent the space they use to cover costs. And I don't think that the school should not show favoritism of one religious group over another to whom they rent the space. Or even non-religious groups.

But it begs the question...what if a satanic group wanted to have services in a school? Or the KKK wanted to have meetings?

As I said, school is not the place for any of those things. It really, REALLY is inappropriate under any context.

A school building, when school is not in session, is just a publicly owned building. So why shouldn't the public be able to use it within reason?

 

[Photonic]

Religious groups should be allowed to have services in schools. These services are not happening when the school is in session, and are not made a requirement for the students, and are not run by the school or based on the school curriculum, therefore there is no "endorsement of religion" by the school. I think that the religious group should rent the space they use to cover costs. And I don't think that the school should not show favoritism of one religious group over another to whom they rent the space. Or even non-religious groups.

But it begs the question...what if a satanic group wanted to have services in a school? Or the KKK wanted to have meetings?

As I said, school is not the place for any of those things. It really, REALLY is inappropriate under any context.

A school building, when school is not in session, is just a publicly owned building. So why shouldn't the public be able to use it within reason?

I never said I had a problem with it when it is not in session. As long as there is no interference between use of the school as an educational facility I see why not.

 

[Photonic]

Let me ask you one thing though.

 

[xotoxi]

As I said, school is not the place for any of those things. It really, REALLY is inappropriate under any context.

A school building, when school is not in session, is just a publicly owned building. So why shouldn't the public be able to use it within reason?

I never said I had a problem with it when it is not in session.

I may have missed it in the OP, but I assumed that only the school building was being used for a Sunday service.


Was the issue that the religious group was teaching religion to the kids whilst they were in school? If so, inappropriate.


I will have to reread PC's cut and paste job.

 

[Photonic]

A school building, when school is not in session, is just a publicly owned building. So why shouldn't the public be able to use it within reason?

I never said I had a problem with it when it is not in session.

I may have missed it in the OP, but I assumed that only the school building was being used for a Sunday service.


Was the issue that the religious group was teaching religion to the kids whilst they were in school? If so, inappropriate.


I will have to reread PC's cut and paste job.

Oh I see, I must have had a knee jerk reaction. I misunderstood the context of the OP.

No, the OP is correct, they should be allowed to use the school buildings to meet when school is not in session.

 

[xotoxi]

There is an evangelical church that meets every Sunday in our local Middle School gym. I never even gave it a thought that this would be a possible controversy somewhere.

I bet they pay for the time.

 

[Sallow]

Good.

NYC public schools are NOT places of worship. There are private schools that teach religious doctrine and churches, mosques, temples and synagogues..as well.

 

[Luissa]

They are also not Boy Scouts of America etc.
If it is not during school hours I just don't see a problem with it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

An addition to being unfair and discriminatory…

The decision was neither unfair nor discriminatory, as it comports with the Constitution and its case law on the issue, as determined by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), provides the framework for evaluating challenges under the Establishment Clause.9 The Court instructed in Lemon that government action which interacts with religion (1) "must have a secular . . . purpose," (2) must have a "principal or primary effect . . . that neither advances nor inhibits religion," and (3) "must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion." Id. at 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In discussing the second prong of the Lemon test, the Supreme Court has warned that violation of the Establishment Clause can result from perception of endorsement. "The Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from `making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community.'" Cnty. of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties U., 492 U.S. 573, 593-94, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989) (emphasis added) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (O'Connor, J., concurring)); see also Lynch, 465 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 1355 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (observing that the second prong of the Lemon test "asks whether, irrespective of government's actual purpose, the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval"); Skoros, 437 F.3d at 17-18. It was certainly not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that permitting the conduct of religious worship services in the schools might fail the second and third prongs of the Lemon test, and that the adoption of the "worship services" branch of SOP § 5.11 was a reasonable means of avoiding a violation of the Establishment Clause.

The performance of worship services is a core event in organized religion. See Bronx Household, 226 F.Supp.2d at 410 (quoting Pastor Hall describing Bronx Household's Sunday worship service as "the indispensable integration point for our church"); Mark Chaves, Congregations in America 227 (2004) (reporting results of survey finding that 99.3% of religious congregations hold services at least once per week). Religious worship services are conducted according to the rules dictated by the particular religious establishment and are generally performed by an officiant of the church or religion. When worship services are performed in a place, the nature of the site changes. The site is no longer simply a room in a school being used temporarily for some activity. 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.

Moreover, the Board's concern that it would be substantially subsidizing churches if it opened schools for religious worship services is reasonable. The Board neither charges rent for use of its space, nor exacts a fee to cover utilities such as electricity, gas, and air conditioning.10 The City thus foots a major portion of the costs of the operation of a church. It is reasonable for the Board to fear that allowing schools to be converted into churches, at public expense and in public buildings, might "foster an excessive government entanglement with religion" that advances religion. See DeStefano v. Emergency Hous. Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 397, 419 (2d Cir.2001) (concluding that a publicly funded private hospital whose employees coerced patients to participate in a religious support group would violate the Establishment Clause, noting that the Supreme Court's "`decisions provide no precedent for the use of public funds to finance religious activities,'" and that "neutral administration of the state aid program ... is an insufficient constitutional counterweight to the direct public funding of religious activities" (quoting Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 840, 120 S.Ct. 2530, 147 L.Ed.2d 660 (2000) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment))).

The Board could also reasonably worry that the regular, long-term conversion of schools into state-subsidized churches on Sundays would violate the Establishment Clause by reason of public perception of endorsement.

The Board’s concern with regard to an Establishment Clause violation is consequently justified, the Board is acting in an appropriate and legal manner – as all public sector entities should – in an effort to be in compliance with the Constitution and the law. Indeed, the Board would be negligent in its responsibility to adhere to the law if it allowed religious organizations to remain, in violation of the First Amendment.

In addition, it is incorrect to perceive the Board’s decision as a ‘violation’ of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as the state is in no way restricting religious practice, as such practice may be conducted in any private venue.

do the series of decisions seem consistent?

Yes, as they are, again, in compliance with the Constitution and its case law.

Seems not so to me.

Understandable given your motive is political, not legal; as a partisan rightist you’ve unsuccessfully attempted to portray the Board’s decision as some sort of capricious ‘attack’ on religion, when in fact it is acting in accordance with the law.

There are two basic reasons why I look forward to your posts, Jonesy...
1. They are detailed and well-written.

2. They illustrate the difference in thinking between a trained lawyer, and a lay person who understands the nature and reasoning of the Constitution.

I'm going to assume that you studied law subsequent to the influence of Christopher Langdell, and Roscoe Pound, the two who changed the study of law in the United States. These two progressives are responsible for American lawyers interpreting the Constitution via caselaw rather than through studying the Constitution itself.

So as to set you on the correct path, and help you to break free of the dogma of your Liberal education, try to remember the following:

a. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.

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


As this is still a democracy, if any groups are allowed to use schools during off-hours, so should those in the faith community.

Your post is understandable given your motive is to burnish your liberal counsellor credentials; as a partisan progressive you’ve unsuccessfully attempted to portray the Board’s decision as constitutional, when in fact it is acting in accordance with the views of a number of secular judges.

Let me offer a Justice whose views are more in line with rectitude, Justice Rehnquist, who said:
"Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
(emphasis mine)

 

[Caroljo]

Good.

NYC public schools are NOT places of worship. There are private schools that teach religious doctrine and churches, mosques, temples and synagogues..as well.

A public school is a public building....anyone should be able to use it.
So what's the difference between a Christian group that wants to use it on a Sunday, when kids are not in school, and the fact that in NY they have made "rooms" for Muslims to pray while school is in session???

Anyone also that uses a public building for whatever activity should also have to pay so much a month to rent their space. Are the muslims paying for that private room they use for praying daily???