This is only Part 1 because likely at some point there will be a Part 2 or more. However, don't think of that as a promise or even a likelihood. I will probably get distracted and forget.
For all the power the President of the United States has and the the seemingly overreaching actions of Congress, there are 9 powerful people who are spoken of less frequently. Watch the news if you want. You will see. Even when important issues are at hand, 99% of the coverage that is actual "news" goes to Congress and the President. (I am referring to real news about national government, not what flavor gum Justin Bieber chewed this afternoon). The lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court give the Justices great power. And with great power, comes tremendous responsibility. The cases they choose to hear often send the country into uproar. Opposing views have fought for many years to make their case before arriving. But this post isn't about my fascination with the Justices.
My thoughts are on a case they chose not to accept.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/us-usa-religion-schools-idUSTRE7B41ML20111205
Public schools can no longer be used to host religious services. The appellate court decision stated that it was a violation of the Constitutional requirement of separation of church and state.
I used to attend a church that met in a high school. It was a large church. That church paid a significant sum of money to rent the facility. The school depended on the income. The church depended on the space. If you are thinking I disagree with the court's ruling, you would be wrong.
While I do agree that there should be options for space-sharing unused facilities because it maximizes usage and generally allows everyone the best financial position, I cannot allow my want to override the underpinnings of the decision. If you advertise that you meet at "ABC Middle School", some people may take that as a ringing government endorsement of what you teach. Is that something I want? You can argue that people would not. But there are people who would, even if they are not the majority.
Other questions must also be pondered.
Who gets to rent the facility? Do you care to argue that any religion can rent it? Are the contracts considered a marketable item? Does it go to the church with the most money or the people with the most political power? If you do rent it out, how then do you decide the length of the contract and the re-bidding process?
Mostly my question comes down to the what religion argument. You are asking government officials to decide who gets to use the building. What if a bid doesn't go through because it would "look bad" or be unpopular? What happens if citizens protest a certain group using the facility?
Do I want my children attending a public school that is rented out to a differing faith? Would they know that a different faith uses the building? Where is the line? Is it with mainstream religions? What about cults? Who decides what is mainstream, a cult, or what is acceptable? It is easy to defend why I want my former church to keep their "home". I know them. I love them. We are brothers and sisters in Christ.
But what about other faiths? How would I feel? How would my family be impacted? What restrictions could be placed if you meet at a school?
People in government positions have shown their inability to fairly allow people to worship according to the rights given them by the Constitution. Look at the intolerance of other religions in Tennessee as an example. Someday, someplace...you might be that "other" religion. How do you feel about religious freedom through another person's view point. And what I need to do today is protect my freedom to worship tomorrow.
It is easy to look at this decision and say, I think my church should get to stay. But is it as easy to say, "in 6 months, I will let someone else use this facility who opposes everything I believe"?
American history teaches us a lot. The Constitution guarantees us the right to freely practice (or not practice) religion and prohibits Congress from declaring a national religion. While the First Amendment itself does not declare that there will be separation of church and state, the Justices made that clear in several cases establishing it as principle.
I do not want an government institution or government official choosing one religion over another. Even when it comes to simply renting out a building. If there are ground rules that are voted on by the population at large, then maybe there is still room for churches to rent space. But if an official makes a decision based on what "they" want or turns down a religious entity solely because of a belief that religion has...then they have endorsed a religious choice.
In some locations, I am sure that legislation will be passed to bypass this ruling. In other locations, likely schools will just renew their contracts without consideration for the ruling. Some churches are currently looking for new facilities. I don't envy them. They are in a tough spot. There wasn't much time given to move. And there generally aren't a lot of places for them to meet.
I understand the situation seems dire for the churches who suddenly need new facilities. But my God is big enough to fulfill their needs. I think of the many countries around the world where religious meetings are prohibited. Our rights in this country are not curtailed by this decision. They are protected. My right to join together with others to worship remains intact. But to protect my right to worship, I must also protect the rights of others. Even if their views are not the same. And in this case, I am willing to say that the schools should be separate.
No comments:
Post a Comment