Legit Separation of Church & State- or Over-Zealous?

[toymachines]

Local Public Agency Monitor Up In Arms About Public High School Meetings in Churches
Santee Patch

Ray Lutz, the La Mesa native and public-agency monitor, says he won’t be deterred in his efforts to stop the local high school district from holding after-school meetings at churches.

His demands Tuesday to halt a meeting at Sonrise Community Church in Santee went unheeded, so Lutz said Wednesday: “I’ve reported this to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Here is what they say the courts have held in this matter: 'A public school may hold school activities in a religious building, if at all, only if the venue is effectively secularized so as not to associate the school with religion...’”

Read More

What do you guys think about this? Over zealous separation of church and state or well founded?

[Sinistrous]

1. Are he churches compensated for the use of their facilities?

If they are, that would add another difficulty in justifying use of their facilities. Payments could/would be construed as support for the religious institution.

[WolverineDG]

2. It's not clear from the article

(big surprise--not) but in reading the comments, the meeting was about Dating Violence & there was no other venue available in town.


dg

[dmallind]

3. Easy question for those with a smidgen of self-examination.

Any time you hear about mixing up schools with churches, all you have to do is ask yourselves: "if this event was held in exactly the same way in a mosque, in a Hindu temple, or even in a Satanic congregation, would it be ok?" Same goes for any involvement of a clergy member or religious activity that is often considered fair game.

Your answer should always be the same for any religious entanglement - either you are ok with any, you reject any, or you are a hypocrite (generic "you", natch)

[darkstar3]

4. The concern is well founded, but having been here before myself I can say he's out of luck.

The fact is simple enough that a public school event is being held in a church, and that is NOT the best of circumstances for the preservation of separation. As noted above, compensation for space usage leads to public funds being used to back a particular religion, but that's not really the biggest issue. The school, as an entity, is a type of authority for the children, and that authority should not be used, even unintentionally, to support or lend credence to any one religion.

So I think Lutz is right to be concerned. I don't think he has a legal case, however.

The problem is that the school knows EXACTLY what they're doing here. The event isn't technically sponsored by the school, but rather sponsored by a private parents' group that just happens to be affiliated with the school. The event is non-mandatory. I would venture a guess that any fliers displayed and any announcements made on school property have been clear about the sponsorship, and clear about the fact that this activity is optional but may be helpful. The line between safety and violation in these cases is paper thin and as curvy as a test track, and school administrators in the bible belt have been dancing on it for decades, for a number of reasons.

I think this school district, like so many others, has ditched the spirit of the law while carefully adhering to the letter of the law. I also think there is more to this story.

Side note: "Sonrise"...How the fuck do members avoid embarrassment every time they utter that awful name?

[humblebum]

5. This has been going on since day one in this country. In this case,

a building is a building, and a function is a function. The precedence is in the history. Does the "Old North Church" ring a bell? There is not, nor has there ever been an ABSOLUTE separation of C&S in this country.

[darkstar3]

6. What's your point?

It's certainly something to strive for...

[Meldread]

7. The questions I would ask:

1. Was there no other venue available for the meeting? Why can't the meeting be held on school property?
2. Is the meeting a secular meeting? (In other words, are they merely using the building for the meeting?)
3. Is the church being compensated in any way for the use of their building?

I would find it acceptable if the answers are as follows:

1. The meeting cannot be held on school property (for whatever reason), and there is no other venue available.
2. The meeting is completely secular, they are merely using the space to hold the meeting with no religious overtones what-so-ever. (Outside, of course, of ornamentation that already exists within the Church.)
3. The church is not receiving compensation for the use of their building.

To me the above is acceptable. Ideally, they should continue looking for another place to hold the meetings.

It becomes unacceptable to me if any of the following occurs:

1. The meeting can be held on school grounds, or on a suitable non-religious property.
2. The meeting has religious overtones.
3. The church is receiving compensation for the use of their building.