Read the following NYT article about Schools and Religion and post your reaction. Was the Supreme Court right in its approach to this potential establishment of religion?
I believe that the court is right in its decision. The churches began becoming more and more of a part of the schools that they occupied, until it became clear that the schools were "sponsoring" the churches, which is a violation of the separation of church and state. Also, because they do not allow other faiths to practice in schools, it gives off a sense of favoritism and religious persecution. The court was absolutely correct in its decision in an attempt to uphold the establishment clause.
I personally see no problem with a church or any house of worship using the school during the weekend. If the children from the school are not forced to attend the service and no flyers are put inside the school I do not think it violates the establishment clause. The one thing I would add is that the church should pay rent to help nullify the cost on the school district. Despite my view I do understand the Supreme Court's refusal to see the case, because having a church in the school walks the edge towards established religion. Personally, I do not see how this a problem, but I can understand others worry.
I agree that this violates the establishment clause. These religious groups are destroying the line between the church and school. While exercising their right to freedom of religion they are majorly infringing on the right of students to freedom from religion.
I've personally always thought that it was extremely odd that worship services were held in public schools and I agree with the court's decision. The PUBLIC school is meant for public services, mostly school but sometimes also things such as voting. But, it is NOT the place for a house of worship. Plus, a question that popped into my mind was how they decide which church gets the space and which doesn't. Basically, it violates the establishment clause and therefore is unconstitutional, plus it is really weird. I therefore agree.
I believe that the Court is right in its decision to not to step into this battle. Why should they? The Court of Appeals clearly defined the solution here. The Court of Appeals is right in saying that as more and more religious services take place in a school, it takes the appearance that the government is endorsing religion. While I see no problem with a service in a school normally, there is a clear line regarding separation of church and state. This article cites money as one of the deciding factors for the state legislation. I don't see how big of an issue that can be, but I could be wrong. Nonetheless, the ruling was correct in not allowing services in public schools, in my opinion.
This does violate the establishment clause seeing as it is public property that is sponsoring a religious organization. By them giving out flyers and neighborhoods seeming to be associated with certain churches based on the schools, they are violating peoples rights to practice or not practice religion and almost deciding where people can live. There always needs to be a clear line between church and state as it was written
Everyone has the freedom TO and FROM religion. In many cases, there is a gray area between where the church stops and the schools start. Education is not always separate from religion, especially in the area of private schools. But for public schools, there never should be a favored or religious influence (hence the issue with church v. state). I understand why the supreme court does not want to deal with this case. It is a big can of worms, and a lot can be said with America favoring Christianity, so why should that stop at the educational level? I understand that why the court may want to take a back seat on this issue.
I believe that this case is determining a very fine line between freedom of religion and government. Having the school be a place of worship comes close to presenting an estblished religion for our nation. Personally, I feel that as long as the line is drawn from when church is in session and when school is in seesion, having them in the same place should not be an issue. I also agree that the school can have religious clubs or classes, but at no point can they force religion on a student or claim that there is one above the rest. Thank you.
I think that the Supreme Court was wrong and should have stepped into this legal battle. Having religious club meetings and passing out flyers is one thing, however, holding Church or Sunday school at a public school is different. The issue is not necessarily in the potential blend of education and religion in the minds of young children, but rather that the churches don't pay for rent or utilities while operating out of a public school. Yes one could argue that the schools don't have enough money to cover the extra costs, but the bigger issues that city tax payers from all religions (or not from a religion at all)are using their income to pay for the churches fees. Plus, because these taxes are paid to the public school system, citizens are forced to pay for the churches expenses or risk being arrested for tax evasion. The court should have intervened because this is not separating church and state.
I agree with the courts decision as a clear extension of the establishment clause. While I believe that certain religious groups may have access to school grounds as a means of "extracurricular activity," such as FCA or bible study groups. Learning about religion is one thing, but actually practicing its rites and rituals is another altogether. And in not charging rent or electricity, these school districts are offering these churches special privileges that clearly violates the establishment clause. If tax payer money is going towards supporting church services, then something is clearly wrong.
I agree with the courts decision. I personally believe that students should be offered the opportunity to volunteer for religious clubs, but if it gets to a point where students are forced to perform religious practices I have a problem. Also, due to the fact that the schools aren't charging these churches a dime they are in clear violation of the establishment clause. This means that everyday citizens who might even support this have to pay the churches fees as well.
i agree with the courts decision. i believe that we should have the freedom to practice whatever religion we choose to follow and when churches come in contact with government funded schools i believe we are "forcing" kids to choose a religion. there is nothing wrong with a religious based club but when regular services are given at schools, that is when our freedom of religion is questioned.
The separation of church and state are one of the main reasons that America is as stable as it is. There is not a certain religion or set of morals that is being shoved in everyones facing, which in part allows for people to be more free thinking. As we have already discussed, our freedoms are different from every other country in the world, and without freedom of religion and FROM religion, people might be more likely to riot and rebellion. I, obviously from what I have said, believe that church and state should stay very separated. These schools which ended up "supporting" the church were obviously preaching to the students in the school which is wrong when that school is accepting government funding. When there is a small group that meets to discuss their beliefs that is different. Most schools have religious based clubs, but when the entire student body is forced to listen and be subjected to only one set of beliefs you know the school has crossed the line. I agree with the courts decision.
In the United States anything that is payed with taxpayer money and it is considered a public place, church and state should not mix. Church services that are held in educational buildings and takeover the school for a day on Sunday, especially ones that do not allow other religions into the service, should not be allowed. I believe that citizens' right to freedom of religion is just as important as freedom from religion. If the students are thinking of the school and the church as one in the same it is a misrepresentation of our government and what it stands for. Students are being subjected to preaching and favoritism they can not control.
First off the Supreme Court should have helped in this decision. I believe the city over reacted. I can see how it could turn into a permanent place of worship but It's not a regular church where you could stop in for confession or to talk to a priest on a given weekday. I think the site is simply a room in a school being used temporarily for religious activity and since the school is closed on Sunday the church service is not brought about by the school. I have no problem with having a religious congregation at a public school.
I believe that the court is right in its decision. The churches began becoming more and more of a part of the schools that they occupied, until it became clear that the schools were "sponsoring" the churches, which is a violation of the separation of church and state. Also, because they do not allow other faiths to practice in schools, it gives off a sense of favoritism and religious persecution. The court was absolutely correct in its decision in an attempt to uphold the establishment clause.
ReplyDeleteI personally see no problem with a church or any house of worship using the school during the weekend. If the children from the school are not forced to attend the service and no flyers are put inside the school I do not think it violates the establishment clause. The one thing I would add is that the church should pay rent to help nullify the cost on the school district. Despite my view I do understand the Supreme Court's refusal to see the case, because having a church in the school walks the edge towards established religion. Personally, I do not see how this a problem, but I can understand others worry.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this violates the establishment clause. These religious groups are destroying the line between the church and school. While exercising their right to freedom of religion they are majorly infringing on the right of students to freedom from religion.
ReplyDeleteI've personally always thought that it was extremely odd that worship services were held in public schools and I agree with the court's decision. The PUBLIC school is meant for public services, mostly school but sometimes also things such as voting. But, it is NOT the place for a house of worship. Plus, a question that popped into my mind was how they decide which church gets the space and which doesn't. Basically, it violates the establishment clause and therefore is unconstitutional, plus it is really weird. I therefore agree.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Court is right in its decision to not to step into this battle. Why should they? The Court of Appeals clearly defined the solution here. The Court of Appeals is right in saying that as more and more religious services take place in a school, it takes the appearance that the government is endorsing religion. While I see no problem with a service in a school normally, there is a clear line regarding separation of church and state. This article cites money as one of the deciding factors for the state legislation. I don't see how big of an issue that can be, but I could be wrong. Nonetheless, the ruling was correct in not allowing services in public schools, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis does violate the establishment clause seeing as it is public property that is sponsoring a religious organization. By them giving out flyers and neighborhoods seeming to be associated with certain churches based on the schools, they are violating peoples rights to practice or not practice religion and almost deciding where people can live. There always needs to be a clear line between church and state as it was written
ReplyDeleteEveryone has the freedom TO and FROM religion. In many cases, there is a gray area between where the church stops and the schools start. Education is not always separate from religion, especially in the area of private schools. But for public schools, there never should be a favored or religious influence (hence the issue with church v. state). I understand why the supreme court does not want to deal with this case. It is a big can of worms, and a lot can be said with America favoring Christianity, so why should that stop at the educational level? I understand that why the court may want to take a back seat on this issue.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this case is determining a very fine line between freedom of religion and government. Having the school be a place of worship comes close to presenting an estblished religion for our nation. Personally, I feel that as long as the line is drawn from when church is in session and when school is in seesion, having them in the same place should not be an issue. I also agree that the school can have religious clubs or classes, but at no point can they force religion on a student or claim that there is one above the rest. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Supreme Court was wrong and should have stepped into this legal battle. Having religious club meetings and passing out flyers is one thing, however, holding Church or Sunday school at a public school is different. The issue is not necessarily in the potential blend of education and religion in the minds of young children, but rather that the churches don't pay for rent or utilities while operating out of a public school. Yes one could argue that the schools don't have enough money to cover the extra costs, but the bigger issues that city tax payers from all religions (or not from a religion at all)are using their income to pay for the churches fees. Plus, because these taxes are paid to the public school system, citizens are forced to pay for the churches expenses or risk being arrested for tax evasion. The court should have intervened because this is not separating church and state.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the courts decision as a clear extension of the establishment clause. While I believe that certain religious groups may have access to school grounds as a means of "extracurricular activity," such as FCA or bible study groups. Learning about religion is one thing, but actually practicing its rites and rituals is another altogether. And in not charging rent or electricity, these school districts are offering these churches special privileges that clearly violates the establishment clause. If tax payer money is going towards supporting church services, then something is clearly wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the courts decision. I personally believe that students should be offered the opportunity to volunteer for religious clubs, but if it gets to a point where students are forced to perform religious practices I have a problem. Also, due to the fact that the schools aren't charging these churches a dime they are in clear violation of the establishment clause. This means that everyday citizens who might even support this have to pay the churches fees as well.
ReplyDeletei agree with the courts decision. i believe that we should have the freedom to practice whatever religion we choose to follow and when churches come in contact with government funded schools i believe we are "forcing" kids to choose a religion. there is nothing wrong with a religious based club but when regular services are given at schools, that is when our freedom of religion is questioned.
ReplyDeleteThe separation of church and state are one of the main reasons that America is as stable as it is. There is not a certain religion or set of morals that is being shoved in everyones facing, which in part allows for people to be more free thinking. As we have already discussed, our freedoms are different from every other country in the world, and without freedom of religion and FROM religion, people might be more likely to riot and rebellion. I, obviously from what I have said, believe that church and state should stay very separated. These schools which ended up "supporting" the church were obviously preaching to the students in the school which is wrong when that school is accepting government funding. When there is a small group that meets to discuss their beliefs that is different. Most schools have religious based clubs, but when the entire student body is forced to listen and be subjected to only one set of beliefs you know the school has crossed the line. I agree with the courts decision.
ReplyDeleteIn the United States anything that is payed with taxpayer money and it is considered a public place, church and state should not mix. Church services that are held in educational buildings and takeover the school for a day on Sunday, especially ones that do not allow other religions into the service, should not be allowed. I believe that citizens' right to freedom of religion is just as important as freedom from religion. If the students are thinking of the school and the church as one in the same it is a misrepresentation of our government and what it stands for. Students are being subjected to preaching and favoritism they can not control.
ReplyDeleteFirst off the Supreme Court should have helped in this decision. I believe the city over reacted. I can see how it could turn into a permanent place of worship but It's not a regular church where you could stop in for confession or to talk to a priest on a given weekday. I think the site is simply a room in a school being used temporarily for religious activity and since the school is closed on Sunday the church service is not brought about by the school. I have no problem with having a religious congregation at a public school.
ReplyDelete