Separation between church and state

[TurismoDreamin]

121st Street between Memorial and Sheridan.

Bixby North Elementary School

A church is being built on what is literally school grounds (not across the street). The school is arranged in an upside down L-shaped configuration to 121st Street and the church is in the middle of this L-shape (google maps is out of date). On top of this, it is a youth church, so their target group is obvious. Is this unconstitutional that they are building a church within that kind of proximity to the school? Shouldn't there be a law that prohibits building so close to a school? Why doesn't separation between church and state also include land and proximity?

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by TurismoDreamin

121st Street between Memorial and Sheridan.

Bixby North Elementary School

A church is being built on what is literally school grounds (not across the street). The school is arranged in an upside down L-shaped configuration to 121st Street and the church is in the middle of this L-shape (google maps is out of date). On top of this, it is a youth church, so their target group is obvious. Is this unconstitutional that they are building a church within that kind of proximity to the school? Shouldn't there be a law that prohibits building so close to a school? Why doesn't separation between church and state also include land and proximity?

If you are so concerned about this, then why not complain about polling stations being located at churches.

[TURobY]

Okay, I'll complain. Why are some polling places at churches? My current one is a fire station, but my last one was a Catholic church.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TurismoDreamin

121st Street between Memorial and Sheridan.

Bixby North Elementary School

A church is being built on what is literally school grounds (not across the street). The school is arranged in an upside down L-shaped configuration to 121st Street and the church is in the middle of this L-shape (google maps is out of date). On top of this, it is a youth church, so their target group is obvious. Is this unconstitutional that they are building a church within that kind of proximity to the school? Shouldn't there be a law that prohibits building so close to a school? Why doesn't separation between church and state also include land and proximity?

I'm not clear on whether this church is being built "ON" school property or simply in close proximity.

Assuming it is in close proximity, no, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state but not by location. As long as zoning laws are observed it doesn't seem to be offensive. However, should a Synagogue or Mosque also locate nearby, the same rules should apply.

A quick check of my memory banks reveals that I have seen this arrangement many times growing up. Downtown schools were always near a church, sometimes several. A Presbyterian church sat across from Kendall Elementary dating to 1913. They did recruit youth from the school for Bible studies with permission of the parents and in exchange for gym class. That, along with forced prayer and Christian only pageants, were obviously discontinued in the 60's as they are a violation of church/state.

Many schools cooperated with nearby churches, renting out each others facilities, utilizing parking lots etc. They still do. Thoreau has a church that uses their site on Sundays. No big deal really.

Nearby or even adjacent doesn't bother me. Now, if they are on school property.....

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

Okay, I'll complain. Why are some polling places at churches? My current one is a fire station, but my last one was a Catholic church.

Well duh Robert, the government obviously wants you to become Catholic. []

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Many schools cooperated with nearby churches, renting out each others facilities, utilizing parking lots etc. They still do. Thoreau has a church that uses their site on Sundays. No big deal really.
Nearby or even adjacent doesn't bother me. Now, if they are on school property.....

They might even benefit from one another's security.  I can see where a live-in pastor at the church watching over the block would be more beneficial than a bunch of school floodlighting and no one watching.

[guido911]

Re: polling places located in churches. Ironically, this issue was addressed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Oklahoma for those not in the know) in a case arising out of Miami, Oklahoma. In Otero v. State Election Board of Oklahoma, 975 F.2d 738, 739-40 (10th Cir. 1992), the Court discussed the application of the "Lemon Test" in responding to the plaintiff/atheist claim that locating polling places in churches was violative of the 1st Amendment:

"We agree with the district court that for the 'establishment' analysis the three part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), is to be applied. That test has been criticized in some aspects but never abandoned. See Lee, 505 U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2655; Friedman, 781 F.2d at 780. Part one of that test is clearly met in that the establishment of the polling place in the church has the 'secular' purpose of providing a place to vote. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612, 91 S.Ct. at 2111. We also agree with the district court that the 'principal or primary' effect is one that 'neither advances nor inhibits religion.' Id.

The final test is that the statute not foster an 'excessive government entanglement with religion.' Id. at 613, 91 S.Ct. at 2111. Plaintiff is perhaps correct in his argument that voting in a church might remind voters of religion, which might make some think of the religious affiliation of a candidate on the ballot or remind them of the candidate's stands on issues on which the voter's church also has taken a stand. But the test is an 'excessive' entanglement, which requires a weighing of the governmental interests and motives and the extent to which the action might promote religion. Here the defendants assert the need for a conveniently located place that can accommodate the voting public. They say, 'Church buildings are located throughout a city, including in the residential areas of which many precincts consist; they have parking lots; and they typically have a commons area, parish hall, foyer, nursery or some other such nonconsecrated portion of the church building which can be used as the polling place.' Answer Brief of Appellees at 6. The appendix to plaintiff's own complaint indicates that of the twenty-nine polling places in Miami, Oklahoma, nine are in churches; but the churches include several denominations: Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Assembly of God, and Christian. Plaintiff has not alleged nor shown that an excessive rent is being paid for these polling places or that the defendants are attempting to promote a particular religion or religion in general. We hold that plaintiff has made an insufficient showing of excessive entanglement to escape summary judgment.

Focusing on the 'free exercise' First Amendment analysis, we agree with the Second Circuit decision in Berman v. Board of Elections, 420 F.2d 684 (2d Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1065, 90 S.Ct. 1502, 25 L.Ed.2d 687 (1970). Plaintiff attempts to distinguish that case as involving someone who had a religion (Orthodox Jew) and on the differences between the absentee ballot laws and the atmosphere in New York versus Oklahoma. We find these differences insignificant. Like the Berman court, we conclude that by voting in a church building plaintiff is not required to attest to the nature of his religious beliefs, and that the burden of free exercise of religious beliefs 'is so slight that it does not begin to outweigh the interest of the state in having available to it the additional polling places which the use of the churches affords.' Id. at 686."

(Internal citations and punctuation in original).

The teachings from Otero is applicable to the issue raised in this thread. Unless the purpose for locating the church is the advancement or inhibiting religion or causes excessive governmental entaglement with religion, then the proximate location of the church to the school is not inconsistent with the 1st Amendment. TextText

[TurismoDreamin]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by TurismoDreamin

121st Street between Memorial and Sheridan.

Bixby North Elementary School

A church is being built on what is literally school grounds (not across the street). The school is arranged in an upside down L-shaped configuration to 121st Street and the church is in the middle of this L-shape (google maps is out of date). On top of this, it is a youth church, so their target group is obvious. Is this unconstitutional that they are building a church within that kind of proximity to the school? Shouldn't there be a law that prohibits building so close to a school? Why doesn't separation between church and state also include land and proximity?

I'm not clear on whether this church is being built "ON" school property or simply in close proximity.

Assuming it is in close proximity, no, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state but not by location. As long as zoning laws are observed it doesn't seem to be offensive. However, should a Synagogue or Mosque also locate nearby, the same rules should apply.

A quick check of my memory banks reveals that I have seen this arrangement many times growing up. Downtown schools were always near a church, sometimes several. A Presbyterian church sat across from Kendall Elementary dating to 1913. They did recruit youth from the school for Bible studies with permission of the parents and in exchange for gym class. That, along with forced prayer and Christian only pageants, were obviously discontinued in the 60's as they are a violation of church/state.

Many schools cooperated with nearby churches, renting out each others facilities, utilizing parking lots etc. They still do. Thoreau has a church that uses their site on Sundays. No big deal really.

Nearby or even adjacent doesn't bother me. Now, if they are on school property.....

I am not sure if it is the school's property and I too would not be as offended if it were across the street, etc.

I have provided a link below. What you will see are the green top buildings (Bixby Public Schools) in an upside down L-shaped arrangement to 121st Street...along with what looks to be a small pond and a construction site in the middle of it. The construction site is where the church will stand.

Link:

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=pzydct707n04&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=16890982&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

[Ibanez]

Where the church is building is not on school property. From what I understand the school system had the option to buy it, but the land owner/developer wanted too much and the church ended up buying it.

[joiei]

After looking at the arial photo I have no objection to the church.  It was originally described as being in the middle of the L shape, from the map it was across the parking lot on adjacent land.  As to being a youth church, no problem there either.  Most of the churches activities will happen when school is not in session for the day.  There is nothing wrong with this.

[nathanm]

While I'd rather not have to vote at a church, I don't have a big problem with it. There aren't a lot of other options, really..at least not that wouldn't make voting more inconvenient.

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Re: polling places located in churches. Ironically, this issue was addressed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Oklahoma for those not in the know) in a case arising out of Miami, Oklahoma. In Otero v. State Election Board of Oklahoma, 975 F.2d 738, 739-40 (10th Cir. 1992), the Court discussed the application of the "Lemon Test" in responding to the plaintiff/atheist claim that locating polling places in churches was violative of the 1st Amendment:

"We agree with the district court that for the 'establishment' analysis the three part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), is to be applied. That test has been criticized in some aspects but never abandoned. See Lee, 505 U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2655; Friedman, 781 F.2d at 780. Part one of that test is clearly met in that the establishment of the polling place in the church has the 'secular' purpose of providing a place to vote. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612, 91 S.Ct. at 2111. We also agree with the district court that the 'principal or primary' effect is one that 'neither advances nor inhibits religion.' Id.

The final test is that the statute not foster an 'excessive government entanglement with religion.' Id. at 613, 91 S.Ct. at 2111. Plaintiff is perhaps correct in his argument that voting in a church might remind voters of religion, which might make some think of the religious affiliation of a candidate on the ballot or remind them of the candidate's stands on issues on which the voter's church also has taken a stand. But the test is an 'excessive' entanglement, which requires a weighing of the governmental interests and motives and the extent to which the action might promote religion. Here the defendants assert the need for a conveniently located place that can accommodate the voting public. They say, 'Church buildings are located throughout a city, including in the residential areas of which many precincts consist; they have parking lots; and they typically have a commons area, parish hall, foyer, nursery or some other such nonconsecrated portion of the church building which can be used as the polling place.' Answer Brief of Appellees at 6. The appendix to plaintiff's own complaint indicates that of the twenty-nine polling places in Miami, Oklahoma, nine are in churches; but the churches include several denominations: Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Assembly of God, and Christian. Plaintiff has not alleged nor shown that an excessive rent is being paid for these polling places or that the defendants are attempting to promote a particular religion or religion in general. We hold that plaintiff has made an insufficient showing of excessive entanglement to escape summary judgment.

Focusing on the 'free exercise' First Amendment analysis, we agree with the Second Circuit decision in Berman v. Board of Elections, 420 F.2d 684 (2d Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1065, 90 S.Ct. 1502, 25 L.Ed.2d 687 (1970). Plaintiff attempts to distinguish that case as involving someone who had a religion (Orthodox Jew) and on the differences between the absentee ballot laws and the atmosphere in New York versus Oklahoma. We find these differences insignificant. Like the Berman court, we conclude that by voting in a church building plaintiff is not required to attest to the nature of his religious beliefs, and that the burden of free exercise of religious beliefs 'is so slight that it does not begin to outweigh the interest of the state in having available to it the additional polling places which the use of the churches affords.' Id. at 686."

(Internal citations and punctuation in original).

The teachings from Otero is applicable to the issue raised in this thread. Unless the purpose for locating the church is the advancement or inhibiting religion or causes excessive governmental entaglement with religion, then the proximate location of the church to the school is not inconsistent with the 1st Amendment. TextText

Interesting. I didn't have a major issue with voting in a church, just wondered how that came to be.[]

[BierGarten]

"Shouldn't there be a law that prohibits building so close to a school?"

I read this entire thread and kept waiting to come to the response where someone calls out TurismoDreamin for such a ridiculous notion.  I never read that reply so I felt compelled to do it.  TurismoDreamin, that is one ridiculous notion.

[cannon_fodder]

SSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSS
SSSS CCCCCC
SSSS CCCCCC
SSSS CCCCCC

S being school property
C being church property

I believe that is the "L" the poster was talking about.

A church is free to buy whatever land they want to.  Just like most other businesses.  A video arcade, a fast food joint, or a daycare could locate on the land just as well.  Some things are evil and would ruin our society if we didn't pretend they did not exist:  bars, liquor stores (which ironically we must have by state law to sell wine), strip clubs porn shops.   Otherwise, build where you want.

Clearly I think they are building there in an attempt to capture the kids.  But it is their right to do so.  As hostile towards religion as I am, so long as the church doesn't try to influence what happens IN the school building I'm I will not complain what they do inside their building or where it is located.  (I realize they do try to influence what happens in schools, but I don't want to stoop to their level).

And re polling in churches - if you don't like it find an alternative polling place that will let you use their facilities for a day free of church and suggest it to the election board.  

[Ibanez]

The church isn't exactly a "youth church" either. It is one of those non denominational places. I work with several people that attend Lifechurch TV.

Bizarre name, but it isn't a youth church.