Sunday, December 4, 2011
A small Christian congregation of just 48 members is awaiting a Supreme Court decision that would overturn a ruling outlawing the use of public schools for their Sunday services. Currently, the policy of the New York Board of Education regarding public school usage allows all community groups, including religious ones, to utilize the property; however, the only restriction is that worship services are not allowed to be held. This case involving the Bronx Household of Faith has lasted 17 years, when the church was first denied a permit to hold their worship services at a local public school by the New York Board of Education in 1994. In 1995 church pastor Robert Hall heard Alliance Defense Fund attorney Jordan Lorence talking about barriers to religious rights on the radio. Hall called up Lorence, informed them of their current situation. The ADF, which champions “the legal defense of religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage and the family,” took the case, and the case has been ruled on, appealed, reversed and then reversed again since 1995. In 2002, however, the Board of Education stopped enforcing the regulation, and the Household of Faith has been holding their Sunday services at P.S. 15 ever since.
Once again, we come to a crossroads: do we enforce the establishment clause at the extent of limiting free exercise; or do we champion the free exercise of religion while potentially violating the establishment clause? Due to the fact that the current policy allows “prayer, singing hymns, religious instruction, expression of religious devotion or the discussion of issues from a religious point of view,” but does not allow religious worship services to take place in public schools, it ultimately comes down to drawing a line and distinguishing between the former and the latter. The ADF maintains that this distinction between religious expression and worship is arbitrary. “You can have singing and prayer and Bible study, with all the elements of what people traditionally understand a worship service to be, but you can’t have a worship service?” Lorence asks. However, on the other side of the spectrum, the New York Civil Liberties Union believes that, “when a church sets up shop in a public school in a manner that conveys the appearance that the church is part of, or officially favored by, the school, it seems to run afoul of the separation of church and state.” Furthermore, many others in favor of the policy prohibiting worship services from public schools maintain that when a church holds a worship service in a school auditorium, that auditorium is transformed into a church for the duration of the worship.
Personally, I side with the NY Board of Education. I find the policy to be extremely fair and, quite frankly, more inclusive and sympathetic to religious groups than I would personally be if I was writing the policy. I know we have brought a similar issue like this up in class, and I think the distinction between religious expression and religious worship to be far from arbitrary. Churches, in particular, are known as “Houses of God.” Services are held in “Houses of God.” I truly believe that once you hold a worship service in a public school auditorium, you are metaphorically transforming the meeting space into a “House of God.” Also, since the children that attend these public schools are impressionable, they may not be able to tell the difference between the church and the school. In the article we read in class regarding these similar issues, one girl asked her father if “the church was part of [her] school.” They effectively run the risk of having the children see the two institutions as one in the same. Furthermore, if this policy is overturned and churches are allowed to hold services in public schools outside of school hours, it would not be neutral in practice. While technically, all religious groups are allowed to apply for permits, schools facilities are often only available on Sundays when other school groups are not using the facilities. This, in reality, only caters to Christian groups, since Muslim and Jewish groups hold their worship services on days that are not Sunday.
Ultimately the best way to maintain equality across all religions (which I believe to be the most important tenet of religious and political/legal interaction) is to restrict religious services from occurring in public schools. The propensity for perceived establishment is too high, and the “neutrality” of the policy, if it were to allow worship services, is terribly lacking. Worship needs to be kept in houses of worship, and out of public schools.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
On the website of the Bellevue Baptist church, there is a link to another website that endorses candidates that have “stood for strong family values.” The church’s website reads: “Please access the Family Action Council of Tennessee website (www.familyactiontn.org) and click on the Memphis City Council Elections for a list of those councilmen who have stood strong for our values on this issue and are being strongly opposed by the TEP Political Action Committee.” This church based opposition has stemmed from the Tennessee Equality Project’s (TEP) push to replace some of the anti-gay council members with more gay rights-friendly members.
Now, while the church may believe themselves to have found a loophole by not directly endorsing these candidates on their own website, the IRS has warned houses of worship about linking to campaign related sites. This would not have been a problem if they chose to link to a non-partisan site, or if they linked to the sites of all candidates running for office and encouraged their church members to do their own political research. But, because they linked to a site that specifically endorses certain candidates over others, they are in violation of the IRS’s regulations. According these regulations the church, a 501(C)(3) tax-exempt organization, is prohibited from intervening in politics while the Family Action Council of Tennessee (the group that runs the linked website), a 501(C)(4) organization, is allowed to participate in political discourse. This violation could cause the Bellevue Baptist church their tax-exempt status.
I wholeheartedly agree with the author and feel that the IRS should investigate these issues. The political intervention ban was proposed by Sen. Lyndon Johnson and passed by Congress in 1953. Over the years it has only gotten stronger. Most recently, in 1987, congress updated the language to clarify the prohibition of statements from these organizations opposing candidates. However, the law does not prohibit churches from participating in politics entirely. The IRS lays out ways that these types of organizations can promote civic engagement and political awareness, fore example linking to a non-partisan website, encouraging members to do their own political research, etc.
This regulation is a very good measure imposed by the IRS because it tries to keep church authority and governmental authority separate. However, similar to the child-benefit theory, if a church wishes to promote the overall societal good (heightened, unbiased political awareness, etc.) then the government allows for such engagement. The issue comes when a church tries to impose their political beliefs on their members. This problem seems to be an inverse of the incidence where a math teacher tried to display banners related God in his classroom. Whereas he was prohibited from using “his public position as a pulpit from which to preach his own views on the role of God,” the church, too, should be prohibited from using its religious position as a pulpit from which to preach its own views on the role of candidates in government. The separation of church and state is a two way street. If the government is not allowed to establish a religion, then the church should not be allowed to establish a government.
