By now, you’ve probably heard that the Supreme Court has denied certiorari in the Bronx Household of Faith case, letting stand an appellate court’s ruling that the New York City Board of Education can refuse to make public school space available to churches, many of which will be hard-pressed to find affordable worship space in the five Boroughs.
The appellate opinion splits hairs, upholding the Board policy on the ground that it prohibits certain activities in which a viewpoint may be expressed, rather than viewpoints themselves:
The prohibition against using school facilities for the conduct of religious worship services bars a type of activity. It does not discriminate against any point of view. The conduct of religious worship services, which the rule excludes, is something quite different from free expression of a religious point of view, which the Board does not prohibit. The conduct of services is the performance of an event or activity. While the conduct of religious services undoubtedly includes expressions of a religious point of view, it is not the expression of that point of view that is prohibited by the rule. Prayer, religious instruction, expression of devotion to God, and the singing of hymns, whether done by a person or a group, do not constitute the conduct of worship services. Those activities are not excluded.
It would be easy to be angry with the appellate court that handed down this decision, the Supreme Court that refused to reconsider it, the Board of Education that wished to avoid any appearance of favoring religion, or the Supreme Court (with its adoption of the very strained endorsement test) that in effect enabled the Board to reach that decision.
Caleb Clardy, pastor of a church that will have to find new worship space in Brooklyn has come around to a much more generous response.
As this anger and frustration welled up, the group I was with turned to prayer, and my heart began to shift. Someone brought up the words of Jesus—things are going to be difficult when you follow him. It helped to think about Jesus. He was regularly asked to leave and chased out of town. He was also pretty stubborn in his love and forgiveness. The legal fight, which had started before our church and many others affected had even begun, was over. Now a new kind of struggle would begin—a struggle to love.
The Christian church in New York City has a great opportunity right now. For years, schools all over the city have graciously hosted us. This has given us a wonderful opportunity. We need to be grateful for that hospitality. In these final months as tenants, we need to show our gratitude, and the love of Jesus. The truth is that the schools in our neighborhoods did not make this choice. We have built strong friendships serving them, and them serving us, for years. We must find ways to keep showing them love in this new season as well. This is the way of Jesus.
But he also notes—quite rightly, I think—that if the judicial path has been closed, political paths remain open:
Our country was founded on the right of its citizenry to make free and informed decisions. Yet it seems that more and more decisions of conscience are being made for us by high-level policymakers and by judicial fiat. Is this what we actually want for our city, and our nation? If MS 51 can choose to host the basketball league and the farmers’ market and the theatre troupe and the voting stations, why can’t they choose to host the church as well? I haven’t yet heard a compelling answer to that question.
Nothing will stop the church from meeting, and growing, certainly not just ruling out one kind of venue for its public meetings. In fact, Jesus was pretty clear that nothing at all will stop the church. It has often thrived most in the most challenging conditions. Yet those of us who elect our representatives, pay our taxes, and support our local pickle stands need to decide how much longer we will allow decisions that used to be ours and our neighbors’ to be made for us.
Political engagement need not produce acrimony or conflict, certainly not from the side of those who undertake it in the spirit Clardy recommends. And I suspect that he’s right that the more local the engagement, the more community-spirited and loving it can be. If the New York Board of Education wants to avoid the appearance of endorsement and avoid supercharging the allegedly volatile mixture of religion and politics, it can devolve the decisionmaking down to the local school level. Some schools will welcome churches, others likely won’t, but the people making the decisions will be friends and neighbors. They’ll be discussing real relationships, not debating sweeping abstractions.
Joseph Knippenberg is Professor of Politics at Oglethorpe University.
December 13th, 2011 | 7:00 am
[...] Separation of Church and City? – Joseph Knippenberg, First Things/First Thoughts [...]
December 13th, 2011 | 9:19 am
The school system might be within its rights to bar all worship services from the grounds, even after school hours. But it doesn’t seem necessary or desirable.
December 13th, 2011 | 10:07 am
The school system might be within its rights to bar all worship services from the grounds, even after school hours. But it doesn’t seem necessary or desirable.
Didn’t we have a discussion not long ago about Canada having laws that all worship services must be held in houses of worship? As I recall, someone rented a hotel ballroom, had a worship service there, and the hotel employees reported them to the authorities. Maybe Michael PS can explain if this is in keeping with laïcité.
I am undecided on the policy of not permitting worship services, but it does seem strange for space paid for by taxpayers to be used in this way.
I do think the appeals court decision made sense. And a conservative Supreme Court with six Catholics decided to let it stand. It is not as if the Court were stacked with atheistic, religion-hating liberals.
December 13th, 2011 | 10:53 am
“I am undecided on the policy of not permitting worship services, but it does seem strange for space paid for by taxpayers to be used in this way.”
Why? Allowing a group to rent space that would otherwise go empty during a certain time period does not establish religion — in fact, it *benefits* the taxpayers by throwing “found money” into the school budget.
December 13th, 2011 | 11:41 am
“Maybe Michael PS can explain if this is in keeping with laïcité.”
Very far from it! In France, all places of worship, built before 1904 are public property and associations for worship (associations cultuelles) are allowed the use of them rent-free. The state guarantees the right to freedom of worship, but does not recognize, salary or subsidize any religion. It does maintain historic buildings, including many churches.
The Grande Mosquée de Paris (“Great Mosque of Paris”) was built with state funds, as a gesture of gratitude to France’s Moslem soldiers who fought in WWI.
I, myself, frequently attend the 8:30 weekday mass held in the Palais de Justice, organised by the Groupe Catholique du Palais (It is held in La Sainte-Chapelle, arguably one of the most beautiful churches in the world)
The state also pays the salaries of teachers and librarians (but not the principal or other staff) to teach the national curriculum in independent schools, including faith schools. This is seen as part of the state’s duty of public instruction.
December 13th, 2011 | 12:37 pm
pentamom –
That’s what I thought, too, but that’s not the case here. From the appellate opinion linked to above:
The Board neither charges rent for use of its space, nor exacts a fee to cover utilities such as electricity, gas, and air conditioning. 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.
One alternative might be to charge rent for regular, ongoing use of the facilities, as opposed to one-off functions.
December 13th, 2011 | 1:53 pm
Thanks for that, Ray. That does change things.
However, I found this line puzzling:
“It is reasonable for the Board to fear that allowing schools to be converted into churches,”
Allowing someone to use a space once a week for a special function, but using it for its primary function the rest of the week is not “converting” something from one thing to something else. That’s just odd coming from someone educated enough to be a judge.
Given all that, however, it seems like the remedy is to charge for the marginal cost of utilities, to avoid the “taxpayer expense” issue. Banning it still does not really make sense, certainly not as a constitutional issue.
December 13th, 2011 | 4:22 pm
The school system might be within its rights to bar all worship services from the grounds, even after school hours. But it doesn’t seem necessary or desirable.
The school is within its rights to bar all worship services from the grounds.
And parents and religious groups are within their rights to withhold support of the public schools.
This is the part the public schools don’t get: nobody owes them support; nobody owes them goodwill; nobody owes them half of what they think is owed to them.
Personally I like stuff like this: it is the sort of stuff that fuels homeschooling and makes parents aware of just how toxic and unhealthy the public schools really are.
It’s only a matter of time until enough people get fed up that a real solution is effected. I don’t think we’re far now.
December 15th, 2011 | 7:35 am
Increasingly in our nation, freedom of religion is turning into freedom from religion as Christians are denied the freedom to worship and express their views in any public setting. This was not the intent of the founding fathers and is a radical departure from the history of our nation.
December 15th, 2011 | 7:49 am
I appreciate this response, as far as it goes. I just wish it would go further. I wish that Christians would follow the injunction, “if it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live at peace with all.” Romans 12
I cringe when I think about Christians pursing this politically, at all. It will cause arguments, it will annoy many — and why? Can’t these churches find churches to host them– as already happens in some cases. Churches all over the city struggle with the costs of upkeep — why not share their spaces?
Why can’t we try to see this from other points of view. From the schools who might have to deal with complaints, or competition among religious groups, or confused children and families. New York is full of immigrants — think how confusing it is to find that your public school hosts a church, but your mosque meets elsewhere.
American Christians are, rightly or wrongly, also reaping the whirlwind. Our connections with political systems for centuries — are remembered, and resented. Our claiming center stage, — is no longer well-received. People are tired of us– and whether individual Christians are part of the “war on Chrismas” crusade or any one of a number of obnoxious assertions of Christian primacy — it is annoying to people. I wish we’d just back the heck away from these fights.
December 15th, 2011 | 4:58 pm
I cringe when I think about Christians pursing this politically, at all. It will cause arguments, it will annoy many — and why?
Because humanists are trying to establish their beliefs as the official state religion.
They argue that because they don’t use the word “religion” to describe their beliefs, it’s all good. But whether you use that word or not, their faith-based assumptions are incompatible with Christianity, and so if they succeed at gaining the right to enforce their ideology as the only acceptable set of beliefs, there will be problems.
Heck, there already ARE problems.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact