An interesting story, and my take on it:

[lunadelcorvo]

Fight Over Worship at Schools Puts Bronx Church in Spotlight

The Bronx Household of Faith has held services in PS/MS 15 for the past nine years.

When the leaders of Bronx Household of Faith, an evangelical Christian congregation based in University Heights, first approached the city, in 1994, about using its public schools to hold worship services, they didn’t think much of it. They certainly did not think they would find themselves, 17 years later, fighting for freedom of religion and speech as part of a back-and-forth legal case that could end up in front of the Supreme Court. (the entire story is here: http://www.bronxnewsnetwork.org/2011/06/fight-over-worship-at-schools-puts.html)

In short, the church group is claiming discrimination since they have been denied use of the school, while other groups can use it. There is much hand-wringing(as I read it) over the light of the members and how hard it is to find a space to worship. All in all, it all sounds a little fishy to me, like this is a manufactured case intended to test limits of legislation. How does a small church group, too broke to be able to rent, share, or buy space have the money to keep fighting a legal case like this? If the Alliance Defense Fund (a conservative Christian legal group dubbed the “the ACLU for Christians”), are footing the bill, it's even more fishy in that regard; this seems the perfect sort of banner case for a Neo-con group like the ADF.

In any case, I don't think that they can really cry discrimination based on the fact that non-religious groups (e.g. Boy Scouts) are allowed to use the space. Were it a question of a group of one religion being granted access while they were not, then there would arguably be discrimination at work. However, the decision to refrain from allowing ANY religious group does not discriminate based upon religion, it merely maintains separation between the school system and any religious group or denomination, as it should.

That this group chose to 'found' a church without having adequate space available is irrelevant to the question of their right to access. As I've seen on buttons and bumper stickers, 'Your lack of planning does not constitute my emergency.' In other words, their lack of space to worship does not seem to give them any kind of special entitlement to access. While it is indeed unfortunate that they have been unable to procure an appropriate space, perhaps the members of this group should take this into account in their consideration of whether the leader of the group is indeed qualified to lead such an organization.

I wonder how this will play out, and what sort of precedents will be set here....

Comments

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

This does seem a little contrived, I agree.

It reminds me of another uncomfortable arrangement in small towns in Ohio. In most places I've lived, election voting takes place in schools. But in small town Ohio, voting takes place in CHURCHES! I was aghast at the appalling breach of separation, but no one ever seemed to question it. The schools are there, but it never seemed to occur to anyone to try voting in them instead. The mind boggles.

[raven-moon.livejournal.com]

Many of our polling places are in churches here, too. As far as I am aware, there has been very careful oversight regarding where in the church building voting activities can take place (e.g. the gym is OK, the sanctuary is NOT OK...) and it hasn't seemed to cause any discomfort. I agree it's a bit dodgy, though, but after all, we seem to have far more churches than schools. That this fact is part of the problem to begin with almost doesn't need saying!

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

Yeah--- more churches than schools. That always wigs me out a little. Ohio towns had almost 1 church every 3 or 4 square blocks, sometimes more. But HERE--? Its more like 1 church every half square mile in town, quarter square mile in older sections? We're not churchy people here. Probably why I prefer living with my fellow heathens on the coast.