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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.