The United States Supreme Court recently demonstrated that the laws of the
land should not discriminate in favor of a particular religion or against religion.
The United States Supreme Court recently demonstrated that the laws of the
land should not discriminate in favor of a particular religion or against religion.
The case in point concerned the Good News Club in Milford, N.Y. Until September
1996, Milfords club met at the Milford Center Community Bible Church.
But problems developed with the bus service, so Pastor Steven Fournier asked
permission for the club to meet once a week, after school hours, in the cafeteria
of Milford Center School.
The district school superintendent denied the pastors application. He
reasoned that meetings of the Good News Club would violate a state policy that
says, in part, “School premises shall not be used by any individual or
organization for religious purposes.”
The church, with the aide of the Rutherford Institute of Charlottesville, Va.,
went into federal court where it lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd
Circuit.
The church, with the help of Rutherford, appealed further to the U.S. Supreme
Court, where their view prevailed. The court ruled 6-3 that the Milford schools
policy discriminated against the Good News Club “because of its religious
viewpoint in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”
According to James J. Kilpatrick, a syndicated Creators columnist, the
court relied chiefly upon two of its recent decisions, the Lambs Chapel
case of 1993 and the Rosenberger case of 1995.
In the Lambs Chapel case, an evangelical church sought to use a Long
Island public school building, after hours, for a six-part film series. The
films would advocate child rearing and parenthood “from a Christian point
of view.”
Local school authorities rejected the request, relying upon
the same state law that later triggered the Good News case. The Supreme Court
ruled unanimously then that permission must be granted for the Lambs Chapel
use of the school facilities because the facilities could be used by other groups
in a like manner. The court said that such “viewpoint discrimination”
denies church groups the same freedom of speech enjoyed by secular organizations.
In the Rosenberger case, the University of Virginia used its Student Activities
Fund to pay the printing costs of certain student publications. But when the
editors of Wide Awake, a student newspaper promoting “a personal relationship
with Jesus Christ,” applied for reimbursement, they were turned down. The
Supreme Court ruled that the state school was wrong to deny the funds to Wide
Awake because the state may not discriminate because of the “content of
a message.” When the government targets “not subject matter but particular
views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is
all the more blatant.”
These rulings are encouraging for those who believe the state should not favor
religion, and it certainly should not discriminate against religion.
Here are, according to Kilpatricks research, important elements that
seem to have allowed the Supreme Court to rule in favor of The Good News Club:
The club sought nothing more than to be treated neutrally or as any
other group wishing to use the schools facilities for whatever purpose.
The Good News Club made sure no child was ever coerced or deceived into
attending one of its meeting.
No member of the schools faculty was involved in the clubs
meeting in any way. This made sure no agent of the state showed favoritism to
the club or used his or her position to encourage among children a particular
religious activity or organization.
The weekly meetings are not held in an elementary classroom. There could
be no confusion in the childrens minds about the Good News Club meetings
being official school activities.
The instructors are not schoolteachers.
We can be thankful for the Supreme Courts ruling in these cases. Separation
of church and state means the state does not become involved in the business
of religion, and it also means it treats religion fairly.
We also need to remember that the freedom and equality the Court ensured for
the Good News Club and Lambs Chapel and Wide Awake also ensure the same
privileges to other religious groups even those that evangelical Christians
may see as teaching heretical doctrines or even rather bizarre beliefs. But
this is part of freedom granting others the same freedom we enjoy.