High court denies appeal of church ban at public schools
WASHINGTON—After more than 16 years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ended an appeal of a ban on churches renting out public schools with a simple word: “denied.”
The high court, in rejecting the church’s appeal in Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York, affirmed New York City’s ban on renting out public school facilities for religious worship services. The schools can rent out their facilities to any other organization as long as it is not conducting “religious worship services.” The board charges a nominal fee to groups using its facilities, not full rent.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban 2-1 in a June decision, writing that the New York rule “bars a type of activity. It does not discriminate against any point of view.” The opinion continued, “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 New York City Board of Education allows.
The high court, like usual, did not elaborate on why it denied the case. (Though it noted that Justice Sonia Sotomayor sat out the decision.) Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund who was working on the church’s case, was “very surprised” at the court’s denial. … MORE >>

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top58 Comments to “High court denies appeal of church ban at public schools”
Hmm, I guess President Newt will now have to de-fund the entire Supreme Court and the entire Circuit Court of Appeals. Can anybody say Emperor Newt?
Report comment to moderator
It sadden the U.S. Supreme Court did not take this case in order to protect the Christian Church from Anti-Christian Groups. Which will now use the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to force churches to lose their rights to use School Building durning after hours.
Report comment to moderator
New York City’s ban on renting out public school facilities for religious worship services. The schools can rent out their facilities to any other organization as long as it is not conducting “religious worship services.”
—–
Christian’s have become second class cizitns in New Your City. When it comes to using the School’s in New York City.
Report comment to moderator
As are Muslims, Mormons, devil-worshipers, and the adherents of Church of the Tiny Blue Teapot orbiting the Moon.
At least you are in good company, Pastor Roy.
Report comment to moderator
This ruling was not target them…. It was targeting the Christian Faith……So you should be happy with the ruling….Christian’s are losing more freedom.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy. Where do you get the idea that this ruling does not apply to other religious institutions which might want to worship there. It’s certainly not in the ruling. It applies to religious worship services. Not just Christian services.
Report comment to moderator
well since the case was targeting a Christian Group and the ruling was targeting a Christian Group.. The left loves to hides beind the term “religious worship services.” When eveyone knows that it is The Christian “religious worship services” that they object to.
but not all Christian “religious worship services” on those services that believe in God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
You never hear about Muslims, Mormons etc being told they can not use school’s only the Bible Believeing Christian “religious worship services” .
Report comment to moderator
Apparently the Supreme Court has never heard of the phrase “prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.
Public schools force children to worship Creation, but not the Creator. (Romans 1:25)
Report comment to moderator
Xion
Lets also not forget the GLBT Community have access to schools but a Christian’s Church is now not permitted to use the school building.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy has a point to a degree. Accommodations are made, separate rooms are set aside, for Muslim students to pray during the day.
That said, this ruling applies to all.
Report comment to moderator
That said, this ruling applies to all.
=—
You would think it would applie to all, but you know as well as I do. This ruling will only apply to Bible Believeing Christian not to Muslims, Mormons or other false religions.
Report comment to moderator
The next time a school suffers damage and needs a temporary place to meet, I hope the Churches will continue to open their doors for the schools as they have in the past.
Report comment to moderator
Meh. Plenty of commercial space to rent out there. Most of it in better shape than our schools are…
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: You be sure to let me know when the first Muslim worship service is held in a NYS school, okay? Or when the satanists arrive.
Otwherwise, your protestations of some kind of evil persecution of one particular religion by all of the civil authorities and the court system of the State of New York are pathetic.
It is incredible that a religion which dominates the country as thoroughly as yours does has to resort to such cheap tactics.
All religions need enemies to gin up the true believers, and I guess if Christmas, the most religious of all holidays is now some kind of anti-Christian conspiracy, even the idea of closing schools on Sunday will soon be regarded as some kind of perverse attack.
Report comment to moderator
Christmas is not the most religious of all holidays — Resurrection Sunday (Easter) is.
Report comment to moderator
Funny how an Amendment meant to prevent government from infringing on the right to express what you believe has been so twisted that it now specifically means that the government must rule on what you say and where you say it.
If the Constitution said that Congress shall make no law regarding dogs and cats, you can be sure that they would rule endlessly on everything to do with dogs and cats. And liberals would spend countless hours every day harassing and ridiculing animal lovers.
Report comment to moderator
Chant it with me:
HEY HEY HO HO.. ANY RELIGIOUS REFERENCE HAS GOT TO GO!
And when transcendant ideas get the boot guess what waltzes right in?
Report comment to moderator
#16 Mega dittos NJL
Report comment to moderator
That’s because our country is broken. People who can’t agree on the simplest of things cannot govern a country.
Congress is up for sale to the highest bidder. The office of the Presidency is aggrandized more and more with each succeeding occupant. And the SCOTUS is a bad joke composed of 9 people wagging the entire country first to the left and then to the right.
It has become clear to me that the USA I once knew no longer exists. But how I still love the thought of her.
Report comment to moderator
#13
My brothers graduated from the University of Texas Dental School in Houston. Their commencemt ceremony was held in the sanctuary of a big church.
I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve gone to a church bldg to vote in the primary.
Isnt using a church bldg for a precinct convention tantamount to granting some type of special recognition to the church?
I hope that when churches do lease out their auditoriums or gym/fellowship hall that they make a point of having Scripture quotations in large print behind the speaker’s dais and in other prominent places! ;p
Report comment to moderator
#20 As Gordon Liddy wrote in his biog “When I was a Kid this was a Free Country”
Report comment to moderator
When the tornadoes destroyed an elementary school this past April, a local Baptist church with large facilities opened its doors so the children could finish the school year. They may still be having classes there for all I know.
Some of the first public schools and town hall meetings were in churches. It is interesting that the faith that gave birth to our freedoms here in this country,and the faith that even now generously extends itself to all, is being excluded systematically.
Report comment to moderator
Otwherwise, your protestations of some kind of evil persecution of one particular religion by all of the civil authorities and the court system of the State of New York are pathetic.
—
What is pathetic is your endless attacks on the Christian Faith. Why again are you on a Christian other then to cause trouble?
Report comment to moderator
During the beginnings of this nation when mad King George was exercising his will of tyranny, opposition to his imperial aggrandizement was organized in the sanctuary’s of churches. This is why British soldiers pad locked and barred the doors of churches in Massachusetts. In fact on the Liberty Bell is cast the quote from Leviticus 25:10. It is a sad day in the life of America. A nation founded in the meeting halls of churches throughout the 13 colonies. The churches are now prohibited from utilizing the public facilities they helped to create.
Report comment to moderator
sorry should read
Why again are you on a Christian Site other then to cause trouble?
Report comment to moderator
Joe B
What has happen is the left has been successful in removing the Church from our Nation Histroy… If you look at the School’s today. they were started in the Churches.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, can someone explain to me why the NY Board of Ed wouldn’t want to profit from churches renting out their unused space? What is even the logic behind this ban? And how can this possibly NOT be discrimination, since there is absolutely no establishment clause issue going on here (the churches are paying all expenses plus rent that would otherwise probably not even be collected)?
It’s not merely that this all has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment, it’s also that I can’t see any sane motivation for this kind of discriminatory policy in the first place, let alone legal justification.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t either, Pentamom. I know of a church that holds meetings in a public school. Election booths are often in churches as are many other publicly funded events. It seems more malicious than anything, or maybe the city and school-board are just trying to avoid frivilous lawsuits from disgruntled parents.
Report comment to moderator
“If that’s the case, the Alliance Defense Fund would be there to litigate those cases,” he said. “I think other appeals courts would not agree with the 2nd Circuit’s decision.”
Well that’s generally the order of things. The Supreme Court would be more likely to step in if their was some disagreement between federal jurisdictions that needed to be resolved. Absent a conflicting opinion in another district, it’s the right use of the Court’s time to decline.
“Which will now use the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to force churches to lose their rights to use School Building durning after hours.”
This sentence is an absurdity. The “right” to use the school building after hours is one Roy is the sole inventor of.
“…well since the case was targeting a Christian Group…”
That’s also an absurdity since the title of the case makes it clear that the case was brought by the Christian group against the school district and couldn’t possibly be “targeting” Christians.
And frankly I’m a little offended, Roy, when you accuse people objecting to your bizarre, Twilight-zone logic of attacking the Christian Faith. The two are not the same thing. My faith is something very different and substantially better then your frequent butcherings of Aristotle’s syllogism, and I don’t think God appreciates the extremely high opinion you seem to have of yourself. This false preaching isn’t improving the conversation for anyone.
Report comment to moderator
Pentamon, I think you missed the part of the story that made clear groups “renting” the space aren’t paying market value for it. They are paying a small fee less than market value that would result in tax payers subsidizing a portion of the religious service. That’s objectionable to some. And the courts for now have upheld the right of local communities to decide that not allowing school space to be used for worship services is an acceptable remedy. Other communities retain the option to decide otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
Redwal agin you have sided with the anti-christian poster. Which speak very loudly of which side you fall under.
Note to self waste of time responding to Redwal and the Anti-Christians, let other address them.
Report comment to moderator
pentamom1 – Those on the left are afriad that somehow Churches may influence the kids. That is the only reason I could think of.
Report comment to moderator
Redwal — “Market value” for unused space that would go empty if group A wasn’t using it is a pretty nebulous concept. You can’t compare the market value of 1000 feet of commercial space, to the market value of 1000 feet of a school that nobody except a church wants to rent on a Sunday morning. Market value applies to the amount of rent that can be charged for *that space.* If other groups were offering more, why did they need a rule banning the churches — they should just have rented to the people who were willing to pay a realistic price for it. To do otherwise is fiscally irresponsible, but not objectionable on any spurious “civil rights” grounds.
The reality of the situation is that nobody was using, or wanting to use that space on those days, therefore every dollar they received was gravy, therefore they weren’t “supporting” or “subsidizing” ANYTHING.
Report comment to moderator
You’re making an awful lot of assumptions, Pentamom. Statements like “the reality of the situation is that nobody was using, or wanting to use that space on those days” aren’t rooted in real observations unless you are in reality a much more cosmopolitan woman (and steeped in bureaucracy) than the impression you give.
The better take away from this isn’t that the policy is a good idea, it’s that the court has affirmed the ability of that community to set the policy by testing it against a constitution that guarantees rights. At some point, you need to accept that you aren’t a major stakeholder in the decision of NY’s Board of Education and focus on being grateful for being able to influence policies in your own community because of the process the court just affirmed.
(And should you actually be a NY tax payer, Lord knows this forum is not your best outlet or recourse.)
Report comment to moderator
The reality of the situation is that nobody was using, or wanting to use that space on those days, therefore every dollar they received was gravy, therefore they weren’t “supporting” or “subsidizing” ANYTHING.
—
pentamom1
The left is not going to be happy until they have removed the Christian’s rights.
Report comment to moderator
It’s only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia: It is incredible that a religion which dominates the country as thoroughly as yours does has to resort to such cheap tactics.
It’s fascinating, isn’t it? Christianity is the majority religion of Americans by far. There are churches on every corner, and nobody’s saying there shouldn’t be. Nobody infringes on the right of Christians to worship, stores specializing in books and items specifically for Christians are common and the only religious holidays our government recognizes are Christian ones.
But to hear Roy and Xion talk, you’d think we were just one step away from rounding up Christians and putting them into camps. The persecution complex is baffling.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia & Conan, please don’t overgeneralize. No religion (as an entity) has resorted to anything of the kind.
Report comment to moderator
“At some point, you need to accept that you aren’t a major stakeholder in the decision of NY’s Board of Education and focus on being grateful for being able to influence policies in your own community because of the process the court just affirmed. ”
I’m just not going to be “grateful” that people can influence local groups to make pointlessly arbitrary and capricious policies that cause discrimination in direct violation of the substance of the First Amendment, on spurious grounds such as thinking that worship services are somehow more dangerous to freedom than other activities. I’m willing to believe the court had legitimate reasons not to take this case apart from the merits, but no, I can’t conjure up gratitude on this one.
Report comment to moderator
Dear Lord! Not to harp, but what on earth about being an arch-partisan is so detrimental to reading comprehension. You can’t conjure up gratitude for the freedom to affect your government? If someone at your Thanksgiving table said, “I’m grateful for our government that gives us all a voice in our representation” you’d roll your eyes would you?
Report comment to moderator
Redwal: I specified two people in my comment who have been consistent in their insistence that the majority religion in the country is a persecuted minority.
Report comment to moderator
#42 Conan “I specified two people in my comment who have been consistent in their insistence that the majority religion in the country is a persecuted minority.”
That is not the point. The point is that “freedom of speech” has been twisted to now mean that certain groups cannot express their beliefs openly. Progressive ideas have free reign. Traditional ideas need a court order. Liberalism is about silencing people you don’t want to hear.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: I saw in another thread that you work for a jerk who mocks your faith, so I can understand why you’re unusually sensitive on this issue.
But really, you’re describing a world that doesn’t exist. There is no impediment to the expression of Christianity in this country. These conversations only come up when somebody wants to government to help support Christianity (in this case, using a government facility at low cost.)
Nobody is being “silenced.” That’s just ridiculous.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, if Redwal was only making the point that we have freedom to affect our government, without any context related to this post, then he could have posted it here or anywhere. My assumption was that he thought I should be grateful that *this decision* somehow upheld that freedom.
Well, that freedom wasn’t really at issue or endangered in this case, so the only reasonable conclusion is that he thinks that it’s good that the people of New York, through their school board, can still affect local government *in this particular arbitrary and discriminatory manner.* If that wasn’t what he meant, what could “through the process which this court just affirmed” possibly mean?
Report comment to moderator
Okay, sorry, ignore that last, because Redwal is obviously explaining what Redwal meant. In that case, my only defense is that I can’t figure out how my “freedom to affect government” is at all specially relevant to this situation. That freedom stands, no matter how this decision would have come down.
And I’m not an “arch-partisan.” What about Internet discussions makes people think they’re entitled to pigeon-hole people they’re discussing with and then respond to their own image of the person, instead of what the person is saying?
Report comment to moderator
I said be grateful for the process that the courts just affirmed, emphasis on the the process. I never suggested you should be grateful for the actual ruling. I even conceded that the policy being a good idea was not the best take away from these events.
Report comment to moderator
Note that the first amendment specifically applies to Congress. It leaves “freedom of religion” up to the states. A state can have a state religion if it wants to (as many states did, in the early days of the country, well past the time of the Bill of Rights); and presumably a state can also pass laws hindering the free exercise of religion, though Congress cannot.
I’m not a lawyer, but I believe that this case may have been “decided” correctly from a constitutional standpoint. Now, the people have the right to move away from a state that represses religious freedom arbitrarily, or to boot their politicians out of office, but that doesn’t mean the Supreme Court can decide that the state had no such right.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, ever since the doctrine of incorporation has been accepted, the court no longer restricts the Bill of Rights to the federal government. Rightly or wrongly, I don’t think that was the reason why the court did not take the case. Hopefully there will be one more to their taste at some point that will enable a decision that worship is not to be considered a dangerous, second-class activity whose participants have no protection against discrimination.
Redwal — could you be more explicit, then, about the process that was affirmed? Because I don’t see anything that was either at risk, or came out positive, as a result of any “affirmation.” At best, it seems to me that something that was never really at risk was not destroyed, so I’m not quite finding a reason for any special gratitude over and above just being glad I live in a reasonably free country. And I’m asking this sincerely, because I really don’t get what you mean.
Report comment to moderator
Pentamom, I know the First Amendment isn’t “restricted” thus, but it is definitely written that way.
Report comment to moderator
#44 Conan “But really, you’re describing a world that doesn’t exist. There is no impediment to the expression of Christianity in this country.”
There are cases nearly every day where kids can’t put scripture quotes in their yearbooks, or teachers are fired for expressing their beliefs, or religious quotes must be removed from walls or public prayer is banned and so on. All beliefs are not censored, only traditional ones which might be construed to be “religion”. Freedom of religion has come to mean the freedom from religion. Freedom of speech has come to mean the freedom to not hear what you don’t want.
“These conversations only come up when somebody wants to government to help support Christianity (in this case, using a government facility at low cost.) Nobody is being “silenced.” That’s just ridiculous.
Your position is that any entity supported by government money should not promote religion. The reach of government money expands daily. But if religion is a belief system and all people have one, then you would place only traditional belief systems under this gag rule.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: There are cases nearly every day where kids can’t put scripture quotes in their yearbooks, or teachers are fired for expressing their beliefs, or religious quotes must be removed from walls or public prayer is banned and so on.
I would agree that many of those cases are overreaching, but even so, they’re all cases where religion and government are entangling. If a kid wants to buy a package of graduation cards, write scripture verses in them and give them to classmates off school grounds, nobody’s going to object.
There’s no suppression of the message, just of using government resources to spread it. I would argue that yearbooks are not government resources, since students have to purchase them, but even agreeing with you that that’s excessive, I don’t see any sensible argument that it constitutes systematic persecution of Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
#52 Conan “There’s no suppression of the message, just of using government resources to spread it.”
What is religion? Everyone has a belief system, but you would only censor people who have traditional beliefs. All others can say whatever they want. Carl Sagan promoted a belief in space aliens and taught that God doesn’t exist. No one was allowed to respond. How is that fair?
Once you advocate government censorship, then you must promote police enforcement. What you are enforcing is thoughts with a thought police, and government must arbitrate as to what can be said and not said.
Your argument is that any entity touched by government money cannot promote any belief system. As government grows and touches every aspect of society, the speech of traditional religions will become more and more censored.
It is interesting that you advocate censorship only against speech you don’t like, namely conservative speech, whether religious or political. Those two kind of speech were specifically protected by the First Amendment.
Report comment to moderator
Only about 1% of petitions for certiorari are granted. What makes evangelicals think that the Court needs to grant certiorari on everyone of these inane culture-war disputes?
Churches want to meet in schools because they believe that meeting in a school will confer some kind of legitimacy on the gathering. The school should have the right to ensure that religious groups do not unfairly capitalize on the school’s goodwill in the community.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: It is interesting that you advocate censorship only against speech you don’t like, namely conservative speech, whether religious or political.
Why do you continue to make this ridiculous assertion? I do no such thing. I wouldn’t want the government endorsing and aiding my own religion, and I wouldn’t want a corporation using its vast resources to elect a politician or support a cause that I like.
I take my stands on principle and apply them consistently. Is that concept just so foreign to your way of thinking that you simply can’t comprehend someone who doesn’t shift positions based on expediency?
Report comment to moderator
XIon: What is religion? Everyone has a belief system, but you would only censor people who have traditional beliefs. All others can say whatever they want. Carl Sagan promoted a belief in space aliens and taught that God doesn’t exist. No one was allowed to respond. How is that fair?
What do you mean, “no one was allowed to respond?” Who was stopping anyone from responding? In what context are you saying he did this?
Carl Sagan didn’t teach at a public school, and no public school is being used to promote a belief in alien atheists.
Report comment to moderator
#55 Conan “I take my stands on principle and apply them consistently. Is that concept just so foreign to your way of thinking that you simply can’t comprehend someone who doesn’t shift positions based on expediency?”
How is it consistent to say that some people can say what they believe and others cannot. Atheists and the secular left can say whatever they want whenever they want, but the religiously conservative must keep quiet if public money is involved.
How is it consistent to say that individuals have rights until they band together, except for unions and other groups that lean left? How is it consistent to say that corporations should be silent during elections, unless they are media corporations which are typically to the left.
When you say you are consistent, what you mean is that you consistently support lots of freedom for the left and limited freedom for conservatives. The Bill of Rights apparently only applies to people you agree with.
Report comment to moderator
#56 Conan “What do you mean, “no one was allowed to respond?” Who was stopping anyone from responding? In what context are you saying he did this? Carl Sagan didn’t teach at a public school, and no public school is being used to promote a belief in alien atheists.”
Carl Sagan taught at various schools, some private (Harvard, Cornell) and some public (Berkley). The point is that a teacher who believes in space aliens and says there is no God can express his beliefs freely, according to your interpretation of “free speech”, but a Christian who believes the opposite cannot. You are perfectly fine putting the government in charge of determining which thoughts can be uttered audibly and which ones cannot.
You will say that “saying there is a God” is religion, but “saying there is no God” is not. Progressivism is the trashing of old ideas and promoting new ones. You, being a progressive, are therefore perfectly fine banning traditional thought and allowing all sorts of non-traditional beliefs such as space aliens put us on earth or pond scum left to itself long enough becomes car salesmen and dentists.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!