Religious liberty under attack: Small Church Congregations

In 1994, New York City's Department of Education denied the request of the Bronx Household of Faith and several other churches to rent space from public schools on weekends for worship services, even though non-religious groups could rent the same schools for scores of other uses.Litigation began soon afterward, and now, nearly 18 years later, about 60-80 small church and synagogue congregations continue to fight for their rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.The church groups have been serving their communities for years and simply wish to be able to rent vacant school space as the City allows other groups to do.

In June 2011, a federal appellate court upheld New York City's ban on private worship services meeting in vacant public schools on weekends.The court stated that a church could conduct a meeting in the NYC public schools that contained singing, praying, preaching, and fellowship, but that they could not conduct a "worship service." But some denominations' worship services consist only of singing, praying, preaching, and fellowship.

New York City claims that it only goes on the word of the religious group—that is, if the group says that it is not conducting a worship service, then it can meet. However, the churches claim that the City and school employees have been investigating what the churches do in the public schools and that the City has made its own assessments of whether the meetings constitute a "worship service" or not.

Many New York City churchgoers have been protesting the City's plans to evict them ever since the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case in December 2011.

In June 2012, a federal district court issued a permanent injunction against the City's policy, ruling that the policy violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, the City has fought against the churches' constitutional rights every step of the way, so litigation and appeals will continue.

On the legislative front, the New York Senate passed a bill in January 2012 essentially repealing New York City's ban on private worship services, but the bill stalled in the Assembly.

While New York City's discrimination would not frequently affect Catholic parishes, which generally own their own buildings, this kind of discrimination can be devastating to many smaller congregations, who merely seek to rent vacant space in schools on weekends, as civic clubs and other organizations do. The City's policy is a simple case of discrimination against religious believers: people may assemble in vacant school space for any peaceful purpose—except worship.

Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat? Among many current challenges, New York City's policy severely diminishes many churchgoers' right to exercise freely and fully their religious beliefs.Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans suffer.

Religious liberty under attack: Christian Students on Campus

In its over-100-year history, the University of California Hastings College of Law (UC Hastings) had never denied student organization status to any group.  That is, until the law school decided in 2004 to strip the campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) of recognition.

The UC Hastings student CLS chapter welcomed all members of the university community to participate in its activities but required its officers and voting members—who spoke on its behalf, voted on its policies and programs, and led its Bible studies—to share and abide by the group’s core beliefs.  These beliefs included being Christian and abstaining from sexual activity outside of marriage.  UC Hastings decided at the beginning of the 2004 school year that CLS’s voting membership and office-holder requirements violated the religion and “sexual orientation” provisions of its Policy on Nondiscrimination.  UC Hastings then denied CLS “Registered Student Organization” (RSO) status.

 That same year, approximately sixty RSOs—organized around diverse interests in politics, religion, culture, race, ethnicity, and human sexuality—existed on campus.  However, the CLS student chapter became the only group ever denied RSO status at UC Hastings.

CLS then sued, claiming that UC Hastings violated its constitutionally protected rights of free speech, expressive association, free exercise of religion, and equal protection of the laws.  Unfortunately, CLS was denied relief by the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, because of the specific nature of the policy at UC Hastings, which allegedly required student groups to accept all students, regardless of their status or beliefs.  The Court concluded that public universities may override a religious student group’s right to determine its leadership only if it denies that right to all student groups.

The decision in CLS v. Martinez, 561 U.S. __ (2010) could have a damaging effect on the religious liberty of all students attending public colleges and universities.  The decision puts many other student groups across the country at risk and leaves room for absurd scenarios, such as requiring CLS to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies.  Recently, a similar policy at private Vanderbilt University forced the school’s Catholic student group off campus because Vanderbilt Catholic requires that its leaders be Catholic (although it allows anyone to be a member of the group).

Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat?  Among many current challenges, such extreme “nondiscrimination” policies deprive students of the right to exercise freely and fully their religious beliefs.  Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home.  It includes our ability to gather with other members of our faith outside of church and reinforce our beliefs within a group setting.  Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans, including students on campus, suffer.

Religious liberty under attack: Christian Students on Campus

In its over-100-year history, the University of California Hastings College of Law (UC Hastings) had never denied student organization status to any group.  That is, until the law school decided in 2004 to strip the campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) of recognition.

The UC Hastings student CLS chapter welcomed all members of the university community to participate in its activities but required its officers and voting members—who spoke on its behalf, voted on its policies and programs, and led its Bible studies—to share and abide by the group’s core beliefs.  These beliefs included being Christian and abstaining from sexual activity outside of marriage.  UC Hastings decided at the beginning of the 2004 school year that CLS’s voting membership and office-holder requirements violated the religion and “sexual orientation” provisions of its Policy on Nondiscrimination.  UC Hastings then denied CLS “Registered Student Organization” (RSO) status.

 That same year, approximately sixty RSOs—organized around diverse interests in politics, religion, culture, race, ethnicity, and human sexuality—existed on campus.  However, the CLS student chapter became the only group ever denied RSO status at UC Hastings.

CLS then sued, claiming that UC Hastings violated its constitutionally protected rights of free speech, expressive association, free exercise of religion, and equal protection of the laws.  Unfortunately, CLS was denied relief by the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, because of the specific nature of the policy at UC Hastings, which allegedly required student groups to accept all students, regardless of their status or beliefs.  The Court concluded that public universities may override a religious student group’s right to determine its leadership only if it denies that right to all student groups.

The decision in CLS v. Martinez, 561 U.S. __ (2010) could have a damaging effect on the religious liberty of all students attending public colleges and universities.  The decision puts many other student groups across the country at risk and leaves room for absurd scenarios, such as requiring CLS to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies.  Recently, a similar policy at private Vanderbilt University forced the school’s Catholic student group off campus because Vanderbilt Catholic requires that its leaders be Catholic (although it allows anyone to be a member of the group).

Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat?  Among many current challenges, such extreme “nondiscrimination” policies deprive students of the right to exercise freely and fully their religious beliefs.  Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home.  It includes our ability to gather with other members of our faith outside of church and reinforce our beliefs within a group setting.  Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans, including students on campus, suffer.

Religious liberty under attack: Christian Students on Campus

In its over-100-year history, the University of California Hastings College of Law (UC Hastings) had never denied student organization status to any group.  That is, until the law school decided in 2004 to strip the campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) of recognition.

The UC Hastings student CLS chapter welcomed all members of the university community to participate in its activities but required its officers and voting members—who spoke on its behalf, voted on its policies and programs, and led its Bible studies—to share and abide by the group’s core beliefs.  These beliefs included being Christian and abstaining from sexual activity outside of marriage.  UC Hastings decided at the beginning of the 2004 school year that CLS’s voting membership and office-holder requirements violated the religion and “sexual orientation” provisions of its Policy on Nondiscrimination.  UC Hastings then denied CLS “Registered Student Organization” (RSO) status.

 That same year, approximately sixty RSOs—organized around diverse interests in politics, religion, culture, race, ethnicity, and human sexuality—existed on campus.  However, the CLS student chapter became the only group ever denied RSO status at UC Hastings.

CLS then sued, claiming that UC Hastings violated its constitutionally protected rights of free speech, expressive association, free exercise of religion, and equal protection of the laws.  Unfortunately, CLS was denied relief by the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, because of the specific nature of the policy at UC Hastings, which allegedly required student groups to accept all students, regardless of their status or beliefs.  The Court concluded that public universities may override a religious student group’s right to determine its leadership only if it denies that right to all student groups.

The decision in CLS v. Martinez, 561 U.S. __ (2010) could have a damaging effect on the religious liberty of all students attending public colleges and universities.  The decision puts many other student groups across the country at risk and leaves room for absurd scenarios, such as requiring CLS to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies.  Recently, a similar policy at private Vanderbilt University forced the school’s Catholic student group off campus because Vanderbilt Catholic requires that its leaders be Catholic (although it allows anyone to be a member of the group).

Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat?  Among many current challenges, such extreme “nondiscrimination” policies deprive students of the right to exercise freely and fully their religious beliefs.  Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home.  It includes our ability to gather with other members of our faith outside of church and reinforce our beliefs within a group setting.  Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans, including students on campus, suffer.

Religious liberty under attack: Christian Students on Campus

In its over-100-year history, the University of California Hastings College of Law (UC Hastings) had never denied student organization status to any group.  That is, until the law school decided in 2004 to strip the campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) of recognition.

The UC Hastings student CLS chapter welcomed all members of the university community to participate in its activities but required its officers and voting members—who spoke on its behalf, voted on its policies and programs, and led its Bible studies—to share and abide by the group’s core beliefs.  These beliefs included being Christian and abstaining from sexual activity outside of marriage.  UC Hastings decided at the beginning of the 2004 school year that CLS’s voting membership and office-holder requirements violated the religion and “sexual orientation” provisions of its Policy on Nondiscrimination.  UC Hastings then denied CLS “Registered Student Organization” (RSO) status.

 That same year, approximately sixty RSOs—organized around diverse interests in politics, religion, culture, race, ethnicity, and human sexuality—existed on campus.  However, the CLS student chapter became the only group ever denied RSO status at UC Hastings.

CLS then sued, claiming that UC Hastings violated its constitutionally protected rights of free speech, expressive association, free exercise of religion, and equal protection of the laws.  Unfortunately, CLS was denied relief by the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, because of the specific nature of the policy at UC Hastings, which allegedly required student groups to accept all students, regardless of their status or beliefs.  The Court concluded that public universities may override a religious student group’s right to determine its leadership only if it denies that right to all student groups.

The decision in CLS v. Martinez, 561 U.S. __ (2010) could have a damaging effect on the religious liberty of all students attending public colleges and universities.  The decision puts many other student groups across the country at risk and leaves room for absurd scenarios, such as requiring CLS to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies.  Recently, a similar policy at private Vanderbilt University forced the school’s Catholic student group off campus because Vanderbilt Catholic requires that its leaders be Catholic (although it allows anyone to be a member of the group).

Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat?  Among many current challenges, such extreme “nondiscrimination” policies deprive students of the right to exercise freely and fully their religious beliefs.  Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home.  It includes our ability to gather with other members of our faith outside of church and reinforce our beliefs within a group setting.  Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans, including students on campus, suffer.

Religious liberty under attack: Christian Students on Campus

In its over-100-year history, the University of California Hastings College of Law (UC Hastings) had never denied student organization status to any group.  That is, until the law school decided in 2004 to strip the campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) of recognition.

The UC Hastings student CLS chapter welcomed all members of the university community to participate in its activities but required its officers and voting members—who spoke on its behalf, voted on its policies and programs, and led its Bible studies—to share and abide by the group’s core beliefs.  These beliefs included being Christian and abstaining from sexual activity outside of marriage.  UC Hastings decided at the beginning of the 2004 school year that CLS’s voting membership and office-holder requirements violated the religion and “sexual orientation” provisions of its Policy on Nondiscrimination.  UC Hastings then denied CLS “Registered Student Organization” (RSO) status.

 That same year, approximately sixty RSOs—organized around diverse interests in politics, religion, culture, race, ethnicity, and human sexuality—existed on campus.  However, the CLS student chapter became the only group ever denied RSO status at UC Hastings.

CLS then sued, claiming that UC Hastings violated its constitutionally protected rights of free speech, expressive association, free exercise of religion, and equal protection of the laws.  Unfortunately, CLS was denied relief by the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, because of the specific nature of the policy at UC Hastings, which allegedly required student groups to accept all students, regardless of their status or beliefs.  The Court concluded that public universities may override a religious student group’s right to determine its leadership only if it denies that right to all student groups.

The decision in CLS v. Martinez, 561 U.S. __ (2010) could have a damaging effect on the religious liberty of all students attending public colleges and universities.  The decision puts many other student groups across the country at risk and leaves room for absurd scenarios, such as requiring CLS to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies.  Recently, a similar policy at private Vanderbilt University forced the school’s Catholic student group off campus because Vanderbilt Catholic requires that its leaders be Catholic (although it allows anyone to be a member of the group).

Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat?  Among many current challenges, such extreme “nondiscrimination” policies deprive students of the right to exercise freely and fully their religious beliefs.  Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home.  It includes our ability to gather with other members of our faith outside of church and reinforce our beliefs within a group setting.  Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans, including students on campus, suffer.

Religious liberty under attack: Christian Students on Campus

In its over-100-year history, the University of California Hastings College of Law (UC Hastings) had never denied student organization status to any group.  That is, until the law school decided in 2004 to strip the campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) of recognition.

The UC Hastings student CLS chapter welcomed all members of the university community to participate in its activities but required its officers and voting members—who spoke on its behalf, voted on its policies and programs, and led its Bible studies—to share and abide by the group’s core beliefs.  These beliefs included being Christian and abstaining from sexual activity outside of marriage.  UC Hastings decided at the beginning of the 2004 school year that CLS’s voting membership and office-holder requirements violated the religion and “sexual orientation” provisions of its Policy on Nondiscrimination.  UC Hastings then denied CLS “Registered Student Organization” (RSO) status.

 That same year, approximately sixty RSOs—organized around diverse interests in politics, religion, culture, race, ethnicity, and human sexuality—existed on campus.  However, the CLS student chapter became the only group ever denied RSO status at UC Hastings.

CLS then sued, claiming that UC Hastings violated its constitutionally protected rights of free speech, expressive association, free exercise of religion, and equal protection of the laws.  Unfortunately, CLS was denied relief by the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, because of the specific nature of the policy at UC Hastings, which allegedly required student groups to accept all students, regardless of their status or beliefs.  The Court concluded that public universities may override a religious student group’s right to determine its leadership only if it denies that right to all student groups.

The decision in CLS v. Martinez, 561 U.S. __ (2010) could have a damaging effect on the religious liberty of all students attending public colleges and universities.  The decision puts many other student groups across the country at risk and leaves room for absurd scenarios, such as requiring CLS to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies.  Recently, a similar policy at private Vanderbilt University forced the school’s Catholic student group off campus because Vanderbilt Catholic requires that its leaders be Catholic (although it allows anyone to be a member of the group).

Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat?  Among many current challenges, such extreme “nondiscrimination” policies deprive students of the right to exercise freely and fully their religious beliefs.  Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home.  It includes our ability to gather with other members of our faith outside of church and reinforce our beliefs within a group setting.  Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans, including students on campus, suffer.