NYC Churches Can Have Access To Public Schools For Religious Services, Judge Rules

NEW YORK -- Churches won back the right to hold services in the city's public schools when a federal judge issued an injunction Friday against its no-worship policy.

The city said it would immediately appeal, guaranteeing that a case that has gone back and forth for 17 years will continue.

District Judge Loretta Preska ruled in Manhattan that a tiny evangelical Christian church, the Bronx Household of Faith, has a good chance of ultimately winning its lawsuit claiming the policy violates freedom of religion.

City lawyers had argued that the church's use of a public grade school ran afoul of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, the prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion.

But the judge said, "In this court's view, losing one's right to exercise freely and fully his or her religious beliefs is a greater threat to our democratic society than a misperceived violation of the Establishment Clause."

A Bronx Household lawyer, Jordon Lorence, said the church welcomed the latest decision.

"The city can't single out religious expression and treat it worse than the expression of everybody else," Lorence said in a statement. "The court's order allows churches and other religious groups to meet in empty school buildings on weekends just as non-religious groups do while the lawsuit proceeds."

The judge had issued a similar temporary injunction last week, but the city appealed and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed it to cover only the Bronx Household of Faith, not the 50 or so other congregations that were worshipping in city schools until this month.

The city had begun revoking the churches' permits after an earlier 2nd Circuit decision upheld the no-worship policy and the U.S. Supreme Court decided against hearing the case.

As the appeals and injunctions continued, churches had to scramble for permits to worship in schools, then try to find space elsewhere.

City lawyer Jane Gordon promised another appeal, saying Friday's injunction was "inconsistent with the recent Second Circuit order and that court's prior decision on the case's merits."

The city said it would consider pending applications from churches for school space this weekend.

___

Associated Press writer Jim Fitzgerald contributed to this report.

Comments

[lbeb2]

09:46 AM on 03/04/2012

Does the church pay a rental fee for the use of the premises, as other organizations do? Or are they demanding free access?

[Lfwngcons]

07:24 PM on 02/28/2012

Okay I have a question. Why does a church need to use a SCHOOL?? Now I am all for this ruling, I think that a church has every right to use this building as any other non-religious group does as long as those religious groups are nto preaching to the students against the will of the parents. I guess I am just confused on why they are trying to use the school??

[Biblebelt Socialist]

03:19 PM on 02/28/2012

I don't have a problem with this, and to be clear I am a generally an ANTI-organized religion atheist. However, if this church gets to use a public school, I would expect that any church should, even if they are from religions that are not generally approved of (including Islam), or indeed any group including, but not limited to LGBT and Pro-Choice groups. I would also EXPECT (but I guess not require) that this church group would stand up for the rights of ANY group to use a public school (or other building) for their organizational meetings, even if they do not personally approve of them.

[ldyqtee6]

08:21 PM on 02/27/2012

It's time to eliminate tax-exempt status from all religious denominations. The nation's economy is crappy (thanks GWB) so everyone should pay their share.

The church is without question a for profit organization that continues to suck money from every possible source.

[Lfwngcons]

07:25 PM on 02/28/2012

Actually you are mistaken. Most churches are very poor and not nearly a "for profit" organization. You are making reference particularly to the catholics. But if you take away tax exempt status from ALL churches then many of them would have to close their doors forever and that would deprive many people the right to practice their religion.

[ldyqtee6]

08:12 PM on 02/27/2012

I wonder what this church was doing with all the "building fund" money it has been squeezing its members for. If it truly is a small church then perhaps they should consider holding weekly services in members' homes instead or perhaps hold service in religious schools where religion is already part of the landscape of the building.

A brick and mortar building dedicated solely to worship is not a requirement to hold "church"; if it were then Jesus was wrong for holding church outdoors.

[ldyqtee6]

07:57 PM on 02/27/2012

So this judge is saying that all religious groups can hold worship services in public schools. I'm sure they won't be any problems if, for example Jews, Buddists, or Hindus want to hold services BUT if Muslims, Wiccans, Satanists or another other such group wants to, all hell will break loose.

[sabela]

06:19 PM on 02/27/2012

Okay, evidenlty this started with a church that for 17 years, has still not BUILT A CHURCH. They don't have the money to they use the public schools for their services.

[rinpochet]

07:46 PM on 02/27/2012

What then are they doing with all the tax exemptions? They don't pay taxes so where is the money going?

[sabela]

08:17 PM on 02/27/2012

They have the property and according to their site, they are 800,000 away. They are a relatively small church. Anyway the suit started with just them but somehow has morphed into any church that doesn't actually have a church but is in the process of having a church even if they are almost 20 years away from having a church.

[nymexdvd]

06:01 PM on 02/27/2012

Let them meet at the VFW post on weekends. That's a neutral site.

[neolow]

05:37 PM on 02/27/2012

This is not about freedom of religion. The state is obligated to defend a church's freedom of religion. That defense does not extend to providing a place of worship. To be fair to all organizations that use public buildings, religious and non-religious organizations should be treated equally. If the Girl Scouts and Alcoholics Anonymous get to use vacant public buildings then so should religious groups.

[Dennis Higgins]

05:02 PM on 02/27/2012

Be careful what you wish for...of course now the Muslims, Aryians, White Supremist and anyone else claiming to be a "Religion" will have to be granted the same courtesy. How nice!!! Clearly Separation of Church and State has always been intended. Hope the Court slams this in the dumpster where it belongs before it starts.

[Lfwngcons]

07:28 PM on 02/28/2012

The point is that this is not directly about religion. The school allows other non-religious organizations to use it. Therefore any religious organization should be able to use it under the same premise. That would include all the groups you have mentioned.

[cat09tails]

03:14 PM on 02/27/2012

It's perfectly fine if any community organization wants to pay for the use of space in a public building.

It is not fine for a tax-exempt organization to use (for free) a public space they do not pay support. This is not about them being religious, or not. They don't want to support the community, they don't use the community buildings.

[Joe Bigg]

04:52 PM on 02/27/2012

Well said.

[Janusface]

06:53 PM on 02/27/2012

They don't use it for free, they pay the NYC Department of Education for use of the schools. In NYC, it is cheaper to rent out a public school building once a week then it is to pay rent for a permanent site.

Let me just say that I live and teach in NYC. I am an agnostic and a progressive who believes in church/state separation.

This is not about church and state. This is about Mayor Michael Bloomberg's crusade to destroy poor communities and kick out people of color. The minority population of NYC has been shrinking under Bloomberg and it is by design.

For a more detailed analysis of this, refer to to my blog post about it. I actually sympathize with the point you make here but there is much more to this story than simple 1st Amendment issues.

http://theassailedteacher.com/2012/02/12/bloombergs-destruction-of-poor-communities-continue/

Cheers

[cat09tails]

08:16 PM on 02/27/2012

Thank you for the info. I am also agnostic and absolutely believe in the separation of church and state. I also think we should not discriminate against one community group renting a community space in favor of any other.

The way the headline was phrased, I don't think many people read the article- they just assumed the church group was going to come in and preach to schoolkids.

It's deplorable if this is about racism.

[iamaconservative]

02:32 PM on 02/27/2012

Praise the Lord.

[Bah]

04:28 PM on 02/27/2012

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT PRAISE SATAN! NOW WE CAN HAVE OUR SATAN WORSHIPERS ON WED EVENING. THEN ON THURSDAY THE WICCA CAN MEET BUT DON'T CONFUSE THEM WITH THE WICKED WITCHES, AND THEIR CRAZEY COVEN, THEY ARE MEETING ON MONDAY AFTER 5PM.. THE MUSLUM, SHITIAT, CAN MEET ON SAT IN THE AM. VOODOO MEETINGS, WILL TAKE PLACE ON EVERY OTHER SUNDAY. THANK THE FORCE, WE CAN HAVE A PLACE FOR THE WORSHIPPERS OF STAR WARS. TOO MEET ALSO.

[iamaconservative]

02:31 PM on 02/27/2012

Thank you Judge Preska for allowing churches to meet in schools again.

It was wrong for Dictator Bloomberg to impose this ban because of his distorted knowledge of separation of church and state.

Again, thank you Judge Preska.

[sabela]

05:54 PM on 02/27/2012

Except that can't meet IN school. Or at least DURING school. They want to use the buildings while school is not in session. I would normally not care but as on poster mentioned, they do not pay taxes to support the schools so why should they be able to rent the buildings out? Perhaps if they pay double what anyone else pays, I could be in favor of that.

[Lfwngcons]

07:31 PM on 02/28/2012

How does the fact that they are tax exampt matter at all. The church is paying to use the school during the designated hours, just like any other organization. Whether they are tax exempt is irrelevant. By that logic then a church on fire should not get use of the fire department. A church that has been vandalized should not be able to call the police.

[JessCostello]

02:19 PM on 02/27/2012

It's remarkable how many angry, atheist trolls make accounts just for articles like this.

[sabela]

05:58 PM on 02/27/2012

How about non angry atheists who have had an account for a long time? As long as they charge the non tax paying churches double or triple what other tax paying orgainzations pay for use of the school buildings while school is not in session, I don't have a problem with it. They just have to make sure their dogma is picked up prior to Monday's school session and I hope you feel the same way with a mosque wants to use the facilities.

[JessCostello]

10:08 PM on 02/27/2012

I was commenting on the angry, atheist trolls specifically. Nothing to add on the usual atheist trolls who can manage to string a sentence together..

[JessCostello]

10:10 PM on 02/27/2012

As for the mosque, I have a much lower opinion of Islam than Christianity, that's due to history of Muslim aggression towards the West and reading the Koran versus the New Testament. Try it sometime before commeting. You may end up agreeing with me. As a non-believer, I'd much rather be amongst Chrstians than Muslims. It's not islamophobia, it's islamorealism.

[truthwithoutgod]

01:46 PM on 02/27/2012

They should not be allowed to set up shop in our schools. They should stick to their churches, and leave our children alone.

[Lfwngcons]

07:33 PM on 02/28/2012

1. Maybe they don't have a church, not all churches can afford a specific building.
2. They are not doing anything with children, they are using an EMPTY building during off hours.

[truthwithoutgod]

07:48 PM on 02/28/2012

As long as it is not backed by the school, or interferes with school activities, I'm completely fine with them using extra space. I can't see any problems with renting out an empty room or gymnasium on weekends or after school and such.