New York City has recently had a ruling in court that "portable churches" that rent schools during closed hours can no longer do so. There reason is the "separation of church and state" clause. They claimed it was unconstitutional for a religion to use a government facility to "practice" their religious beliefs. USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-07-18-portable-churches-worship-schools_n.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Religion-TopStories+%28News+-+Religion+-+Top+Stories%29
Most of you know how I feel about religion, but I will always stand up for peoples rights to practice their beliefs. Basically, it "seems" the area government wants to stop public schools from being rented by churches......but still allow any other organizations to continue to rent the space. It appears that they are directing the law changes strictly at churches. I find that to be legally unfair and borderline unconstitutional. If the churches are paying for their permits and following the states rules they should not be exempt to the use of the facilities that others are still allowed to use.
Here's where I had a problem. In their petition, they used the line "The community is served by having a congregation in their midst." Come on... You can't "fight" a legal situation with insinuation that just because you are there.....a community is better. They have a legal leg to stand on, but that 1 line doesn't help their cause, in my opinion. So, I decided to email the writer and creator of the petition.
I saw a group on facebook today that is promoting your petition on the recent ruling from NYC regarding portable churches in schools. I read the page and agree that there seems to be a valid argument that having a service, while the schools closed, after paying to rent the facility should not be realistically something that the school board/local government should have a problem with. But, I did have an issue with part of your argument.
"The community is served by having a congregation in their midst." There is no proven facts that having a church, portable or established, benefits the community just because they are there. There is validity in most of your argument......but that line makes it seem something "special" is going to happen if they are allowed to continue to rent schools and that it will make the community a better place.
Having a valid, legal argument should never be pasted with "beliefs" that a church being in a location with some how better the community as a whole. There is no facts to support that and those kind of notions are exactly what opposition will attack to make your validity in your other arguments less creditable.
I support your right to practice what you believe even in a public building you have rented as long as there is no "propaganda" left in the schools during operating hours and the school is not being used as an advertising method to promote your religious beliefs. I do disagree, however, in the notion that having a portable church in a school or anywhere else for that matter, seems to better the community or it's occupants in any way.
Sticking to the facts will validate your argument, promoting your "agenda" wont.
Good luck,
Jeff McLeod
And he responded....
Jeff McLeod,
Thank you so much for taking the time to read through the petition and for providing such thoughtful feedback. When I first drafted the petition, I leaned toward polarizing language to move people to action. Because of the response that I’ve received from you and others who support what is fair and just, even when they disagree with another persons beliefs, I realize that your feedback is right on. I’ve just edited the petition to read as follows:
When schools rent to churches, it is good for the school, good for the church, and good for the environment. The school collects rent that supplements it’s budget. The church is more accessible to the community that live near the school….
Sincerely,
Brian Koehn
I was glad to see he understood that even if he believes that his churches help or better the community, thats not a fact and has no place in a legal argument. I hope they do get to keep doing what they are doing, not because they are right....but because they have the right to do it.
Most of you know how I feel about religion, but I will always stand up for peoples rights to practice their beliefs. Basically, it "seems" the area government wants to stop public schools from being rented by churches......but still allow any other organizations to continue to rent the space. It appears that they are directing the law changes strictly at churches. I find that to be legally unfair and borderline unconstitutional. If the churches are paying for their permits and following the states rules they should not be exempt to the use of the facilities that others are still allowed to use.
Here's where I had a problem. In their petition, they used the line "The community is served by having a congregation in their midst." Come on... You can't "fight" a legal situation with insinuation that just because you are there.....a community is better. They have a legal leg to stand on, but that 1 line doesn't help their cause, in my opinion. So, I decided to email the writer and creator of the petition.
I saw a group on facebook today that is promoting your petition on the recent ruling from NYC regarding portable churches in schools. I read the page and agree that there seems to be a valid argument that having a service, while the schools closed, after paying to rent the facility should not be realistically something that the school board/local government should have a problem with. But, I did have an issue with part of your argument.
"The community is served by having a congregation in their midst." There is no proven facts that having a church, portable or established, benefits the community just because they are there. There is validity in most of your argument......but that line makes it seem something "special" is going to happen if they are allowed to continue to rent schools and that it will make the community a better place.
Having a valid, legal argument should never be pasted with "beliefs" that a church being in a location with some how better the community as a whole. There is no facts to support that and those kind of notions are exactly what opposition will attack to make your validity in your other arguments less creditable.
I support your right to practice what you believe even in a public building you have rented as long as there is no "propaganda" left in the schools during operating hours and the school is not being used as an advertising method to promote your religious beliefs. I do disagree, however, in the notion that having a portable church in a school or anywhere else for that matter, seems to better the community or it's occupants in any way.
Sticking to the facts will validate your argument, promoting your "agenda" wont.
Good luck,
Jeff McLeod
And he responded....
Jeff McLeod,
Thank you so much for taking the time to read through the petition and for providing such thoughtful feedback. When I first drafted the petition, I leaned toward polarizing language to move people to action. Because of the response that I’ve received from you and others who support what is fair and just, even when they disagree with another persons beliefs, I realize that your feedback is right on. I’ve just edited the petition to read as follows:
When schools rent to churches, it is good for the school, good for the church, and good for the environment. The school collects rent that supplements it’s budget. The church is more accessible to the community that live near the school….
Sincerely,
Brian Koehn
I was glad to see he understood that even if he believes that his churches help or better the community, thats not a fact and has no place in a legal argument. I hope they do get to keep doing what they are doing, not because they are right....but because they have the right to do it.