United States Supreme Court Told School Ban of Christian Children's Club is Unconstitutional
	WASHINGTON, D.C. (EP) - A school district's decision to ban a Christian children's club from meeting after hours in an elementary school building unconstitutionally restricts free speech because other groups are allowed to use the building, the U.S. Supreme Court was told Feb. 28.     Lower courts hearing the case, Good News Club v. Milford Central School, have ruled that the school can exclude the club even though it permits Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and a 4-H Club to meet. The New York school district's policy forbids use of its facilities "for religious purposes." Several justices questioned the reasoning behind the policy.     The club met on campus for 18 months before being banned, and has since moved to a nearby church. Good News Clubs are an outreach of Child Evangelism Fellowship, and are designed for children ages 6-12. School district officials said they banned the program because its content wasn't merely a discussion of secular subjects from a religious viewpoint, but "were in fact the equivalent of religious instruction itself."     Steve Fornier, who runs the Good News Club that sought access to school facilities in Milford, N.Y., said lower courts ignored the religious rights of the club. "We believe the evidence shows we are being discriminated against, not because we teach morals and values, but because we teach morals and values from a Christian perspective," he said.     Thomas Marcelle, an attorney for the club, told justices the school is not permitted to limit "free speech, even when it is a religious ceremony." He argued that the school could ban all groups, or could restrict days and times for meetings of outside groups, but can't simply exclude groups based on the religious content of their speech. "We're not asking for unique access, just equal access," he said.     Associate Justice David Souter suggested that the age of the children might make this case different from other "equal access" cases, because very young children may not be able to make their own decisions on religious questions. Marcelle noted that parental approval is required before children are permitted to attend club meetings.     Frank Miller, an attorney for the school, argued that the school's policy of banning all religious groups was necessary to maintain "neutrality." But Associate Justice Stephen Breyer responded that it looked as though the policy - far from being neutral - discriminated against religion.     Chief Justice William Rehnquist joined Breyer in questioning Miller about a 1993 Supreme Court decision which went against a New York school district with a similar policy. In that case, the Court unanimously ruled that the school violated the free speech rights of an evangelical church by prohibiting Lamb's Chapel from renting space at a high school, even though other groups were allowed to use the space.     Miller argued that the Equal Access Act didn't apply, because that law was created to protect student-led groups, while adults sponsor Good News Clubs. But Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor responded, "What difference does adult-sponsored make? I assume the Girl Scouts are adult-sponsored."     Miller also argued that the Equal Access Act specifically mentions colleges and high schools - not elementary schools. Scalia replied, "The Equal Access Act does not prohibit you from [letting religious clubs meet] at the elementary level. It just does not require such activities at elementary schools."     O'Connor asked, "Isn't all that's being asked for is access to the facilities on the same terms as everyone else?"     The school policy specifically forbids religious worship. That led the Court to spend time discussing exactly what constitutes worship. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said, "Teaching the Scripture, teaching what the Scripture has to say about morality, I think it's a great distortion to call that religious worship, even if you do throw in a prayer or two."     John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said the school's policy is unconstitutional because it requires school officials to make decisions about what is and is not religious worship - exactly the kind of church-state entanglement the Constitution forbids. "If you're going to allow school officials to do that," he said, "they should be theologians."     A decision in the case is expected by late June.     In a related case, an appeals court ruled March 1 that a California school was wrong to exclude a Christian students' club from meeting in the school.     Justin Van Schoick, a former student who led the school's chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, sued the Saddleback Valley Unified School District after his group was not allowed to meet as an officially sanctioned club at Mission Viejo High School in 1996. The club sought permission for student-initiated voluntary meetings.     "Merely granting the FCA the same privileges enjoyed by all other campus clubs offends neither the United States Constitution nor that of this state," a three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled, reversing a lower court's decision.     Orange County Superior Court Judge Dennis S. Choate ruled earlier that officially recognizing the club would "amount to impermissible state sponsorship of religion." But the appeals court said it was "highly unlikely that FCA's on-campus meetings would convey a message of the state approval or endorsement of religion."     The American Civil Liberties Union backed the court's decision. "If schools allow some clubs, they need to give equal access to other clubs, regardless of whether or not those clubs foster religion," said Elizabeth Schroeder, associate director of the ACLU of Southern California.     Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute said, "This is without question a major victory. This decision makes it clear that school districts will be given no latitude in discriminating against religious clubs." In other Supreme Court news:     • The Court rejected an appeal by a California high school valedictorian who was forbidden to deliver a graduation speech in which he would have urged listeners to "accept God's love" and to follow the example of Jesus. Without comment, the Court refused to hear Chris Niemeyer's argument that Oroville High School officials violated his First Amendment rights in 1998 by denying him the chance he had earned to deliver a valedictory address.    • The Court rejected a case involving landlords in Alaska, who argued that an Anchorage ordinance violated their First Amendment religious rights by forcing them to rent to unmarried couples.    • The Court turned away an appeal of a lower court ruling which reinstated a rule book for abortion clinics in South Carolina. The 27-page book of regulations for abortion clinics was challenged as an unconstitutional restriction on the right to abortion, but the Court refused to hear that argument. Ironically, the rules were inspired by complaints of abortion clinic workers, who complained to the state health department that their employer was simply grinding up the bodies of aborted fetuses in a sink disposal. Their complaints led to a TV news story which documented bloody and dirty facilities in abortion clinics.
	All site contents Copyright © 2002 St. Louis MetroVoice
	St. Louis MetroVoice • PO Box 220010 • St. Louis, MO 63122 314/965-5757 • Fax 314/965-5757 Email: stlmv@aol.com• Web site: www.metrovoice.net