The Right to Practice Religion in the Public School System

 

The Right to Practice Religion in the Public School System

Religion in the public school system has been controversial for years, putting the public school facilities and the religious organizations against each other, commonly, the schools deny the religious organizations’ proposal to use the school’s facilities for religious prayers, reading, activity or learning. I have researched cases where religious organizations who were denied their proposals, took the matter to the courts. The courts made decisions to either allow religion to be practiced in the public school facility, or not allow this to occur.

According to N.Y. Education Law section 414 (McKinney 1988 and Supp.1993), the use of school property for the purpose of religious worship is not among the uses designated by the New York Legislature for public schoolhouses and school grounds in New York State. New York Education Law does permit local school districts to adopt regulations permitting the use of such property for a great number of other purposes such as:  educational instruction, public libraries, social, civic and recreational meetings and entertainments, and other community welfare uses, provided such uses are “non-exclusive and open to the general public”. Additionally permitted are meetings where admission fees are charged if the fees are expended for charitable or educational uses, except for the uses of religious sects or certain exclusive societies, polling places, civic forums and community centers, classes for instruction of mentally retarded minors, recreation, physical training and athletics, child care services when school is not in session, and “graduation exercises held by not-for-profit elementary and secondary schools, provided that no religious service is performed.”

In, Bronx Household of Faith v. Community. Sch. Dist. N0.10., 127 F.3d 207, (2nd Cir. 2011.) the Bronx household of faith church was denied rental of public school M.S. 206B building for programs of sports and games. Prior to the case at bar, the school rented its facility to the church once in 1994 and another time in 1995 for a banquet.         M.S. 206B is a middle school in District #10 in the Borough of Bronx, New York, it rents hits facility to different organizations. The public school is governed by the SOP, which stands for Standard Operating Procedures. The rules under SOP states the primary use of school premises is for Board of Education activities and preference will be given to community, youth and adult group activities. The New York City Board of Education established this written policy governing the use of school buildings and school grounds under its jurisdiction. Rule 5.9 of the SOP states:

No outside organization or group may be allowed to conduct religious services or religious instruction on school premises after school. However, the use of school premises by outside organizations or groups after school for the purposes of discussing religious material or material which contains a religious viewpoint or for distributing such material is permissible.

The Bronx Household of faith church, Pastor Hall, wrote a letter to school District # 10 official, Frank Pagliuca seeking approval for a request to rent the gymnasium at M.S. 206B for the purpose of conducting church worship services each Sunday. The pastor wrote that the services would include, “hymn singing, communion, Bible reading, Bible preaching and teaching.” (Westlaw 127 F. 3d 207).The district official of M.S.206B, Mr. Pagliuca denied his request on the basis of SOP rule 5.9 which prohibits the use of school facilities by outside organizations for religious services or instruction. Pastor Hall, disagreed with Mr. Pagliuca, and wrote to the District # 10 Superintendent Irma Zardoya. He advised Superintendent Zardoya that the Church was a, “Christian church of the historic Biblical persuasion,” and that the use of the M.S. 206B facility was necessary to them because of the church’s meeting location was overcrowded, and that he felt that SOP 5.9 was unconstitutional. He ended his letter by asking that once again the request for the gymnasium to be used by the church be granted.(Westlaw 127 F. 3d 207). The permit application was denied by Superintendent Zardoya. The Bronx Household of Faith church, Pastors Jack Roberts and Robert Hall took the matter to court against Charles Williams, President of the Board of Education of District # 10 Community School and the Board of Education for the City of New York. After several appeals by the Bronx Household of Faith church, the matter was granted certiorari and was heard by the United States Supreme Court. The court ruled that it is unconstitutional for public schools to exclude a “private Christian organization for children”  to use space in a school building after school hours to sing songs, read Bible lessons, and pray. New York City Board of Education argued this case was different because, it involved religious worship services. The Supreme Court still disagreed with the Board of education, and the case was reversed, because they felt that the second circuit of Appeals court made an error.

In the next case we see a similar situation but with a different result of a church wanting to use a public school for worship services. In Full Gospel Tabernacle v. Community Sch. Dist. 27, 979 F. Supp. 214, (S.D.N.Y.1997). Full Gospel Tabernacle Church and its pastor wanted to access after school hours from a public school located in Community School District 27, to conduct religious worship services. The Board of Education of the School District of the City of New York, and the Community School District 27, denied plaintiffs access to school facilities on the ground that N.Y. Education Law section 414, and the Board of Education’s policy, prohibit the use of school facilities for religious worship services. The church brought a suit against the school and the Board of Education, stating that their policy, and the law on which it is based on, violate their First Amendment right to have the freedom to practice religion and Fourteenth Amendment, to not deny any person to life liberty and property, without due process of the law (U.S. Constitution). The church moved for summary stating that the right to use the school facilities for worship service under the First and Fourteenth Amendment right was unconstitutional. Judgment was granted to the church, stating that the denial of the church access to school district facilities because they intend to use those facilities to hold religious worship services should be invalid. The School district and the Board of education cross-move for summary judgment, stating that section 414 is constitutional. The defendants also argue that allowing the church to use public school facilities for religious worship services would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion by congress and the preference by the United States government of one religion over another. (U.S. Constitution Establishment Clause) .The district court denied the church’s motion and granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court stated, “facilities at issue were limited public forums by virtue of N.Y. Educ. Law section 414 and school district policy and practice, and that the district’s exclusion of religious worship services from school facilities did not amount to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under First Amendment.”  (Westlaw 979 F. Supp. 214) .The court Affirmed defendant school districts denial to rent its facilities to the church and the plaintiff lost the case.

In the next case, we see a different situation when a church only wants to use a school facility to view religious activities. In Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist. 508 U.S. 384,113 S. Ct. 2141 (N.Y.993). Lamb’s Chapel church wanted to use the school, Center Moriches Union Free School, as a location to show a series of religious films about child-rearing and family values. The school board did not agree to this, and denied the church’s request. The school stated that the film were religious in nature and would not allow them to show the film. The Lamb’s chapel bought a suit against the school claiming that the school’s refusal violated the First Amendment and the Free Speech Clause, which they felt was unconstitutional. ( U.S. Constitution.) The District Court granted summary judgment to the school district, and stated that the school property was a nonpublic forum, which allowed the school district to exclude specific uses of the school property as long as the exclusion was reasonable and viewpoint neutral.  The church appealed and the United States Supreme Court granted Certiorari. The Supreme Court reasoned that the permission for the church to show the film at the school was denied only because the series dealt with the subject from a religious standpoint. The court held that the First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others, which is what occurred in this case. The judgment was reversed because the lower court made an error.

In the next case, we see a similar situation to the last case occur. In  Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch. Dist., 533 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 2093 (2001). Milford Central School made a policy, under New York law, authorizing residents to use its building after school for certain activities including instruction in education, learning, or the arts as well as social, civic, recreational, and entertainment uses pertaining to the community welfare. The Good News Club is a community based Christian youth organization whose purpose is to instruct children in moral values from a Christian perspective. The club submitted a request to hold the Club’s weekly afterschool meetings at the school. Milford school denied the request on the ground that the proposed use to sing songs, hear Bible lessons, memorize scripture, and pray, was the equivalent of religious worship prohibited by the community use policy. The Club filed suit alleging that the denial violated its free speech rights under the First Amendments. The District Court granted Milford summary judgment, under that the church religious worship service is prohibited by the community use policy. The Club appealed the decision. The Second District Court upheld the school’s refusal to allow the club to meet. The Club then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Upon granting certiorari, The Supreme Court reversed the above decision, finding that by allowing other groups to meet at the same time, the school created a limited public forum. The school is not permitted to exclude certain groups based upon their content or viewpoints. The case was reversed and remanded.

In the last case we see a very similar issue to the last case, but in a different way. In Liberty Christian Center, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Watertown, 8 F. Supp. 2d 176 (N.D.N.Y.1998.), A Christian church used the Watertown High School auditorium for numerous religious activities such as religious concerts, religious based talent shows and music by a gospel musician who read passages from the bible during the concerts and sang many Christian songs. Whenever the church requested using the school facility for religious purposes, the high school granted the church’s request. On July 8, 1996 the church wanted to use the school’s cafeteria for worship services which included prayer, music, religious services, religious instruction and Christian testimony. The Board of Education refused this request stating that under The New York Education Law section 414, that they could not grant the church’s request to hold religious services in a public school facility. The church argued that they were previously allowed to use the school’s facility for other religious matters, which were of a similar nature to what they were asking, and that the school’s refusal, went against their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of The United States Constitution. The school still denied their proposal, and the church sued. The United States District Court reasoned that the school should have granted the church the ability to use the cafeteria, since they were allowed to use the school auditorium for similar reasons in the past. Therefore the school had no just justification to deny the request of the church. The court granted motion of summary judgment in favor for the church and denied the cross motion from the school and the Board of Education.

Under section 414 of the New York Education Law, religion cannot be allowed in a public school facility. When the issue arises and a religious organization wants to use a public school facility, they are usually denied by the school, who states that it is not allowed under section 414.  When the church takes a suit against the school for the denial to use the school’s facility, the court usually sides with the church. I understand that the law can be interpreted anyway by the courts but, why should it be written as law, if they are going to disregarded it later. I feel that section 414 should be rewritten because its rules are being disregarded. The New York Education Law section 414, should allow the use of public schools facility by religious organizations for certain reasons as long as it’s used during after school hours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

1.  Bronx Household of Faith v. Community Sch. Dist. No. 10, 127 F. 3d 207. S. Ct. 2012. Online Westlaw. Available
2. Full Gospel Tabernacle v. Community Sch. Dist. 27, 979 F. Supp. 214. S. Ct. 1997. Online Westlaw. Available 979 F. Supp. 214
3. Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384. S. Ct.1993. Online Westlaw. Available 508 U.S. 384,113 S. Ct. 2141.
4. Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch. Dist., 533 U.S. 98. S. Ct. 2001. Online Westlaw. Available 533 U.S. 98,
5. Liberty Christian Center, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Watertown, 8 F. Supp. 2d 176