Comments about ‘Supreme Court won't protect religious worship at schools’

The ruling or lack thereof makes sense. Religious groups meeting inside a school could lead one to believe that the school is affiliated with that religion in some way. The only possible way around that would be to have many different religions have meetings in the schools, which I doubt would work out very well and is simply not worth it.

This is probably for the best. If one Christian group was allowed, then a Muslim or Jewish group wanted to use it, would that create problems with the Christian group because, we are, afterall, a "Christian" nation (not).

Heaven forbid that a Wiccan or Hindu group wanted to use it. Can you imagine what the outcry would be if a Satanist group were to try to use it?

Oh my bob, you can just hear the keening already.

Jamshid, the first amendment says nothing about seperation of church and state. It's not part of the constitution. Prohibiting the free excercise of religion is however. With that said, I believe it is a correct decsision by the supreme court unless the school was charging for space. If the school was making money of these religious groups, then that's a different story.

Right call on this one. I do not think my tax dollars should provide a venue for any religion to have their services. Now, if the students wanted to form a group that met at the school, that would be different since it is their school, but the church should have to procure their own place of worship.

In Western Washington it is quite common for a church group to use a school's gym or theatre as a weekly meeting hall for a given time, usually when the church is remodeling or constructing a new building. Seems like a 3-18 months is the time they'll use it. What ive seen is this, to be equal the school has to legally charge the church for use, it only violates law if its given to them for use for free. So, the schools just charge them $1 to satisfy the law. I wonder if there's a similar way to do this there.

*'Religious lobbying is changing political focus' - By Mercedes White, Deseret News - 11/21/11

'Number of lobbies has grown from 40 to over 200's'

Re: Sikeli | 9:00 a.m. Dec. 6, 2011
"I do not think my tax dollars should provide a venue for any religion to have their services"

Other news outlets reported that they wanted to RENT (pay money) to utilize public schools for religious worship. That would help, not hurt, the tax payers.

On several occasions the LDS Church has made their churches available to house people after national disasters ..... and didn't even require them to get baptized first!!

'On several occasions the LDS Church has made their churches available to house people after national disasters ..... and didn't even require them to get baptized first!!' - Rifleman | 11:06 a.m. Dec. 6, 2011

They are also tax EXEMPT Rifleman.

Correct?

IMHO the Des news is being disingenous with the headline as it should read public schools but otherwise this is fantatstic news! It is great to see this type of ruling!

Hold on here for a minute. I just read a story about a "Atheist display: Skeleton Santa nailed to a cross." Seeing Santa is not God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, it don't really matter what a Atheist would do. The skeleton in a Santa suit didn't survive for long outside the Loudoun County courthouse lawn, but it generated plenty of controversy in Leesburg, Va. The skeleton was nailed to a cross by a mother and son associated with an atheist group, one of the nine approved displays for the Christmas season. But the macabre Kris Kringle was not standing for long. Someone tore the skeleton down, sparking a debate about free speech. The display was discussed Monday night at a Loudoun County Board of Supervisors meeting, where it was labeled "provocative" and "obscene." In the meeting, some suggested a complete ban of public displays in front of the courthouse. So if there is (from this act) a complete ban of public displays in front of the courthouse, will they remember to always keep Christ in Christmas?. After all he's a good man, not "provocative" and "obscene."

Supreme Court won't protect religious worship at schools, does BYU count?.

A few issues people seem to be ignoring.

First off, there are Orthodox Jewish groups using school buildings in New York City that will be removed by this ruling. It is not only Christian groups that are affected.

Secondly, the schools have policies that open the schools to independent groups like the boy scouts, girl scouts and other groups for use in off hours. They have implemented a policy that explicitly excludes religious use, which is viewpoint discrimination in violation of the 1st admendment.

The idea that schools renting space to a group means that they endorse the group is just not an accurate portrayal of the situation.

The issue is not even if the schools were charging for the space. The issue is if the schools were able to use the space on the same conditions as other independent groups. That is what the Church sought, the right to use the school on the same conditions as independent groups. I believe they did pay a rental fee, but that is not the central issue.

Another point that people are missing is that the supreme court did not rule. They refused to hear the case letting the ruling of the lower court stand. That is a very different issue.

According to the Wall Street Journal 160 churchs will be removed by this ruling. With the growing hostility towards allowing any land to be used to build a new Church this is an extremely disturbing ruling for the rights of new and emerging religious groups. This will further disadvantage those who advance religious ideas that break with the religious establishment.

The WSJ article also confirms that the Churchs pay fees for use of the space.

Maybe they should just go "occupy" some other public space.