William McKenzie/ Editorial Columnist Tue., Jun. 21, 2011 | Permalink
This week's question comes courtesy of Texas Faith panelist Cindy Rigby, after she read this New York Times article.
The story deals with an evangelical church using a New York public school for its services. According to the article, the church does not pay rent. It instead pays the fee for the custodians.
As the story indicates, this is not the only church to use a New York public school for its services. Churches, mostly evangelical ones, use at least 60 of them.
The Supreme Court, as well as various equal access laws, have held that schools must give religious groups the same access to their facilities that they do all other clubs. But then, as this story indicates, an appellate court ruled in June that New York City could prohibit churches from holding worship services at a public school. As author Katherine Stewart put it, "Using the school system to subsidize houses of worship...risks violating the constitutional ban on the establishment of religion."
But does it? Does the holding of a church service in a public school imply an endorsement of a particular religion?
As you consider this week's question, I would ask you to think about how you would feel if a church group that you support or like wanted to do the same. How would that affect your views? And what separates a church from holding a service there versus, say, an AA group?
We have not dealt with a church/state question, so thanks to Cindy for bringing up the issue.
MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas
Katherine Stewart's comment in the op-ed piece at the NY Times is wise. As she writes, "In a city blessed with an uncountable number of faiths, it's foolish to get schools tangled up in religion."
Indeed, holding of a church service in a public school implies a tacit endorsement of a particular religion. The group may or may not be affixing their version of the religion on the school building, but it will eventually monopolize zoning and steer (chase) others away.
A conservative value would be what is good for the goose has got to be good for the gander. To build cohesive societies where trust is the norm, and where commitment to the idea of a society where no one is apprehensive of the other becomes customary, we have to treat everyone justly. Fairness ought to be valued by all including the conservatives.
When I and my interest become subservient to the interest of the society at large, no one will lose. In business, one has to be aggressive and selfish to succeed. However, when it is at the cost of other, both will lose at the end.
As a pluralist and a Muslim, I have no problem with "a church that runs a Gender Affirming Ministry Endeavor associated with the movement to "cure" gay men and lesbians," or if the, "movement that instructs its members to pray for a Christian "reformation" of American education and for the election of like-minded political leaders," or a religious group that teaches evolution. All of them should have the access and freedom to preach what they want.
The real problem is why would I want to subsidize a group to use taxpayer's funding?
Muslims have great examples to offer. The mosque in Richardson does not lend its cultural hall to any activity that is ascribable to a particular denomination, including a few groups who celebrate the birth of Prophet Muhammad. A few years ago, Turkey, a Muslim majority democracy, had banned reciting verses from Quran in a city event where people of other faiths were participants.
Muslims have great examples to offer. The mosque in Richardson does not lend its cultural hall to any activity that is ascribable to a particular denomination, including a few groups who celebrate the birth of Prophet Muhammad. A few years ago, Turkey, a Muslim majority democracy, had banned reciting verses from Quran in a city event where people of other faiths were participants.
Indeed, I would urge the ministries using the school for church to hang on to the conservative values of peace and safety for every American, and volunteer to ease out of the situation and not create an entanglement for the school. Let this not be an entitlement.
Even if the school has one child who is an Atheist, Zoroastrian, Native American or a Wicca, he or his parents must have equal access to the facilities to preach his take on the issues. We are a leading civilization of the free world, and we ought to be worth emulating by other nations to create a better world for the benefit of all of God's creation. The best thing for the school is to untangle itself from any religious affiliation.
Ten Panelists have responded to the question and continue for the other 9 at -http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/06/this-weeks-question-comes-cour.html
Mike Ghouse is committed to building a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. He is a speaker, thinker, writer and a frequent guest on Hannity show and nationally syndicated Radio shows and Dallas TV, Radio and Print Media. Over 1000 articles have been published on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, India and cohesive societies. Two of his books are poised to be released this fall on Pluralism and Islam. His work is encapsulated in 27 blogs, four websites and several forums indexed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/.
