The issue regarded whether or not the Bronx Household of Faith had a right to use the public space on Sundays since opponents felt that the use violated the Establishment Clause and its presence promoted Christianity to schoolchildren.
The vague ruling from the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel is a result of miscommunication over free speech and how to exactly define “worship.”
"The fact is," wrote second judge John Walker Jr., "that none of us who are judges are competent to offer a legal definition of worship."
The Bronx Household of Faith, which has been meeting since 2002 at Public School 291/P.S./M.S. 15 in University Heights, has been fighting for the right for more than a decade to hold service in a public school. It is one of about a dozen New York churches that hold their services in these locations.
Each of these churches is awaiting a lawsuit that was filed against the Bronx Household in 1995, following a sanction for churches providing worship in a public setting. Churches can, however, hold religious instruction or discussion on school grounds since secular groups are allowed use of the spaces, and it would be discriminatory not to let them.
The three judges offered three different ruling about the Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education case. One judge sided with the church, the other with the Board of Education’s anti-church policy, and the third found that a proper decision could not be found from the three judges and that it would be more fitting to send the case before the Supreme Court.
Until an official ruling has been given, all churches abiding in schools will continue to have services there.
"It will ultimately address an issue that the Supreme Court apparently did not make as clear as it should have in other equal access type cases for churches and religious clubs," explained Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, in CitizenLink. "Don't confuse the First Amendment's religion clauses with the free speech clause. These equal-access cases are all about speech – even religious speech – but the question here in at least one of the three appellate judges' minds is whether worship equals speech."
The main objection that some have against the church’s use of school property is that public institutions generally have the most availability for space on Sundays, which lines up with the Christian Sabbath. The procedures thus discriminate against Jewish and Muslim groups whose Sabbath is not on Sundays.
"No child should feel alienated from his or her school for any reason," said city lawyer Jane Gordon, who worked on the case, to the New York Sun. "And that is what's happening."
Others have argued that a ban on church services is illogical, however, since no students go to class on the weekends. Thus, there is no indoctrination towards students.
"This is an empty government building on a Sunday morning,” explained lawyer Jordan Lorence from the Alliance Defense Fund to the New York Sun. “This is not a public school as such."
The case will now be sent back to trial court where it is assumed that the involved parties will clean up any confusing evidence. It is expected to either return to the Second Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court.
