Home » LAW » Good News Club v. Milford Central High School (2001)

Good News Club v. Milford Central High School (2001)


40 Comments

  1. Facts: 6-3 in an opinion delivered by justice Thomas, the majority focuses on

    Question:

    Didi Milford central high violate the first amended free speech rights of the good new club when it excluded the club from meeting after school hours
    Pg. 252-253

  2. This is an interesting case because the New York state allowed the public school buildings to be open to the public so, I don’t understand why the superintendent’s decision to deny the Good News Club for accessing the school’s buildings after the classes. To refuse the accessibility of Good News Club necause it is a Christian club and the superintendent didn’t want to violate the Establishment clause for denying a Christian Club to operate in the public school after class, while other organizations were allowed to operate in the school’s buildings after classes.

  3. I believe that the ruling of the superintendent in this case was irrational because any activities or organization taking place after school should be allowed since they are not interfering with any rights or ideologies of students nor forcing them to participate. It is solely based on free will.

  4. The State of New York allowed for their public schools to open their buildings up in order for the public to use them when school was let out. The club sang Christian songs, had lessons and read the Bible. The school board denied their request to use Milford Central School’s building. The school claimed there was religious worship and the act prohibited religious organization. The club filed against the school claiming they violated free speech rights under both the first and fourteenth Amendments. The court decided in favor of the school and the club appealed. The Court of Appeals stated that there was conflict among the court if they could deny certain speech in a public place based on religion.

  5. I do not think I understand the ruling of this case. Non-curriculum activities were happening within the building that is payed for with taxpayer money. If a state law says district members can use the building, it would be combining the state with religion because the state made the law. There is no separation of church and state in my eyes in this case.

  6. This case is about a religious club that was held on schools grounds, where the club would hold weekly religious meetings consisting of bible readings, singing and applying the bible to your life. McGruder denied the Clubs request to host repeatedly, the club then claimed their 1st and 14th amendment rights are being restricted by McGreuder. The district court ruled in favor of McGruder because of the clubs “subject matter is decidedly religious in nature, and not merely a discussion of secular matters from a religious perspective that is otherwise permitted under use policies”

    • Court of Appeals ruled for the Club stating “we are not convinced that there is any significance in this case to the possibility that elementary school children may witness the Good News Club’s activities on school premises. and the Supreme Court ruled the same

  7. It is honestly very weird to see such arguments against the exercise of their club, even though it was beyond the curriculum. Similar to the earlier case which allowed the religious club to meet after school, I agree with the court ruling that it violated their freedom of speech. It is not fair to become excluded over this specific reason, prohibiting the exercise of their religion even though it is beyond the use of the school’s resources. Very different case.

  8. Statement of Facts:
    New York State authorized public schools to open their buildings up after hours for public use. The Good News Club, a Christian club, requested to use Milford Central School’s building. The main activities of the club were singing Christian songs and telling Bible lessons. The school board denied their request because they claimed there was religious worship and the act prohibited religious organization. The Good News Club filed against the school claiming they violated free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court decided in favor of the school and the club appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed; however, there was conflict among the court if they can deny certain speech in a public place based on religion.

  9. Although I can see McGruger concerns about being perceived as aiding certain religious to hold meetings in a public use as it can be seen as indirectly supporting a particular religious, I also agree that being “neutral” about religious matters could mean that we can allow certain organizations to hold activities with the public facilities.
    I think the question would be what if certain organizations/clubs disguise the meetings in the public facilities to produce fake news, expanding hate speech, or other actions that could harm other people or group. Would that be perceived as the public school indirectly supporting certain crimes or harmful actions?

  10. A New York school authorized community members in the district to use the buildings after school. The Good News Club was a christian organization that sought approval to use the high school for it’s programs. The high school denied the request because the religious worship was prohibited by the community use policy. The Club filed suit claiming it violated their freedom of speech.

    Since it was after school, I don’t see the issue. Schools should celebrate religious diversity, and these programs help build the community.

  11. I agree with the majority opinion, the school space was open to any residents or people to organize any group or events they want, as long as there is no state involved in either directly or indirectly aiding the after school activities. And by restricting the Good News Club from meeting, Milford did in fact violated their 1st Amendment’s free speech.

  12. This case reminds me of Westside v. Mergens with the Christian Club and its after school religious activity. In Mergens, the club was allowed to conduct their club regardless of its religious nature because it was non-curricular and after school hours. In this case, the good news clubs first amendment rights were violated as per the holding- regardless of violation to the establishment clause.

  13. When I was a kid, I remember a church group meeting in my middle school. They met after hours, while I stayed back for cheer practice. At the time I thought it was weird because I knew religion wasn’t allowed in schools. Learning about the establishment clause I pondered this idea again. This case answered my curiosity about how this church group was allowed to meet in my public middle school.

  14. Justice Thomas’ opinion:

    He distinguishes between an open public forum and a limited public forum. Argues that the exclusion is a case of viewpoint discrimination. Any group that “promotes the moral and character development of children” is eligible to use Milton’s facilities, whether it is a religious group or not.

    – Free Speech: The ruling is that Milton violated their right to free speech. Schools everywhere teach young students lessons of morality and character. Why should any lessons that contain a religious viewpoint be banned? We are all influenced by our culture and religions one way or another anyway, so is it even possible to hold this kind of standard? Given the nature of the school’s “limited public forum”, it did discriminate against the Fourniers, which was a violation of their right to free speech.

    – Establishment Clause: Giving the club the green light would not be breaking the Establishment Clause. One cannot discriminate against a religious group based on what children may or may not perceive or understand at times they may or may not be present for its meetings. Good News isn’t indoctrinating children, but instead is a neutral club just like any other. It isn’t going to take place in classrooms or be taught by any school instructors. It is not enforcing a religious viewpoint on students, but rather is an organization that parents decide if they would like their kids to join or not join. Just like any other club or group focused on “moral and character development of children”. There’s the emphasis on parents’ free choice here.

    Justice Stevens’ Dissent:

    He distinguishes between three types of “speech” for “religious purposes”:
    1. Religious speech surrounding a specific topic as understood from a religious viewpoint.
    2. Religious speech that is a form of worship.
    3. Religious speech with the goal of recruiting more people to join your faith. The fancy word for this is “proselytizing.”

    He argues that if in a public forum a speaker was not allowed to due their religious viewpoint, this would amount to discrimination of that individual’s right to freedom of speech. However, this is an important distinction from #2 and #3. While Thomas conflated each of these three types of religious speech together, Stevens wants to segment them from one another.

    Stevens argues that the Good News Club does not fall under #1, but instead it falls under #3. The goal isn’t to express any specific religious viewpoints of various topics, but instead has the goal of imposing their religion onto young and impressionable children. He was unsure if #2 applied here. At the end he sides with the former decision made by the Court of Appeals.

    In other words, his argument is that Milton Central did accurately label the group as proselytizing and did not discriminate.

    An example I thought of and like to give is this one. Imagine a Religious Studies or Social Science course that is teaching about Christianity. There is a big difference between teaching that Jesus is a central figure in the mythos of the Christian religion, and teaching them that Jesus came and died for our sins so that we can be saved. The first example would fall under Stevens’ #1 type of religious speech. The latter example would fall under #3 and perhaps #2 depending on context.

  15. I understand why Milford was skeptical to allow the club because it did have a religious affiliation. However, the court made an excellent point of how they try to be neutral toward religion which extends to those who have positions that align with religion. Additionally, stating ” we consider whether the community would feel coercive pressure to engage in the Club’s activities, the relevant community would be the parents…” ( Good news Club v Milford Central School pg 4), I think this coveys how members of the community would not be participating in the club unless they wanted to and knew what it would entail.

  16. I agree with the Court’s decision. A concern over violating the Establishment Clause is not good enough of a concern because it still does not allow people to exercise their religion freely.

  17. When Milford denied the clubs access to the school’s buildings to host a private Christian organization for the children after class. It led many to believe Milford violated the first amendment of free speech. The court ruled that the restrictions violated the clubs right of free speech. In addition, added that no concern of establishment clause justifies the violation in Milford’s defense.

  18. Personally, I agree with the decision made in the circumstance considering that the space was meant to be open to the public after school hours. As long as the school was not providing any support at all besides allowing their space to be used by the public then I think it was justifiable. Meaning no advertising the events to your students, perhaps no staff attending at all, and truly leaving the space up to public use. I understand they were attempting to maintain the boundary to avoid being accused of establishing a religion, but if the space was supposed to be open for public use then they were not establishing anything as it was open to all people of all religious.

  19. The use of the school was allowed by all district residents to use. I agree with the majority opinion. Denying access to this resource would be denying access to public goods solely because of someone’s religion.

  20. According to Justice Thomas, Milford’s restriction of the Good News Club does violate the free speech rights guaranteed in the First Amendment because it wrongly believes the Club’s only purpose is to advance religion through religious teaching and practices. Based on the cases of Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District and Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, the Club actually has a religious viewpoint. It is not “quintessentially religious” or “decidedly religious in nature” because it is actually teaching children morals and character development among other topics. Attempting to prevent their teachings inhibits their free speech in a public forum. In regards to Milford’s argument that the existence of the Club violates the Establishment Clause, the Club (1) wants to be treated neutrally and be given access to speak about the same topics as other groups, (2) is not being coerced (it is a matter of private choice), and (3) does not take place on school grounds, (4) has no possibility of taking young students away from their classrooms, (5) is not being forced on impressionable children.

  21. I agree with the majority opinion. I think that because the Club is operating essentially in private even though they’re using a public building is enough to protect the school from Establishment Clause violation so long as participation in the club is non-coercive and there is equal access for similar speech.

  22. The main premise of this case is whether or not a school district can restrict an after school religious club from meeting on campus. The State of New York, had implimented N.Y. Educ. Law §414, which its langugage “enumerated” schools in the State of New York to allow their facilities to be used for public use after school hours. The Milford School District had adopted this policy in 1992. In 1996, the Fournier’s had come to the school district as they resided within its boundaries and asked the interim superintendent to allow their Good News Club to be allowed to use their facilities after school. The Good News Club is a private Christian organization that is for children ages 6-12. The interim superindent had denied the request of the Good News Club, and the Club filed suit. The case of violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments was hear by the Disctrict Court for Northern New York. The Club had filed an injusction to not allow the school to forbid them from meeting. The Court granted the injunction, and the Club was allowed to meet from April 1997 to June 1998. In August 1998, the Milford School District had filed for a summary judgment, which was granted and the Club once again was not to meet at the school. The Court of Appeals had difficulty deciding the case, where the Supreme Court granted the writ of certitorari. The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision had sided with the Good News Club stating that by not allowing the Club to exercise their religion on public grounds as permitted by New York State Law. The actions of the Club were seen as in line with the Establishment Clause, hence it was CONSTITUTIONAL. (Side note: one conservative justices sided with the minority/dissent and one liberal justice sided with the majority/decision).

  23. The Good News club was a Christian club that taught children, and was seeking to use Milford Central high as a meeting place since Milford central high had a policy that allowed for residents of the district to use the building for after school activities. However, Milford turned the Good News Club down because the club was religious, and their policy did not allow for religious groups since it was a public school. The Good News Club filed suit claiming that Milford Central High violated their rights to free speech granted in the first amendment. The court rules 6-3 in favor of the Good News Club.

  24. I think that after classes may children or their parents can decided if they want let their kids to participate in religious practice or not. For those that were sharing the same religious beliefe, it may was a good idea. About the public facilities, I think if the believers want to use the building, they can be charged with a fee.

  25. Milford Central High school allowed district residents to use occupy its building after school hours. Good News Club, a Christian club for children, tried to obtain a room but was denied by the high school. The school stated that the planned programs/actions of the club were prohibited by its community guidelines.The court ruled that the high school did violate the free speech clause of the 1st amendment and because the school discriminated against the club solely based on its religious viewpoint it had also violated the free speech clause.

  26. The court’s holding was that the permission to use the schools facilities for this Christian club did NOT constitute a violation of the Establishment clause, because public/state funds were not sponsoring. This was afterschool, so it did not make up the classroom environment DURING school hours, rather, simply extracurricular. I do believe there was a violation of free speech for the Fournier couple trying to restrict what THEY were speaking on/doing within their club hours.

  27. I find it very interesting (and confusing) in reading about how the free speech and establishment clauses of the First Amendment interacts with each other. It seems almost self contradictory that the federal government cannot establish a religion, but at the same time will allow religious groups to utilize public facilities (schools) paid by taxpayer money to hold their activities under the protection of free speech via limited public forum. The government also prohibits said forums from discriminating against “speech based on viewpoint.” The case was decided because the S.C. deemed that the high school’s facilities during non-school hours was in essence a limited public forum and that they were acting discriminatory towards the Good News Club. To me, it sounded like the high school was following the procedures and guidelines set by the state law’s Community Use Policy. Does this mean that the government in a way contracts itself?

    • This is a very interesting point because I’m struggling with this too. On one hand, the school was doing exactly what is expected of them by means of the Establishment Clause. However, denying a club that was not state/government sponsored a room (after school hours) simply because they were a religious club seems a little extreme. The government absolutely contradicts itself in every aspect.

  28. According to this case the court overlooked the subject which was shared by the religious group and focused on their accessibility to the building as a whole. I think an argument can be made that the discrimination was not made based on religious faith. Allowing religion to be taught and spread in a building that is public funded could be seen as a violation to the establishment clause. Whereas if the group sought to host meeting there for the youth and participated in secular activities Milford would have been commuting discrimination. This is another case where we can see a struggle for one right over another. Interestingly the Supreme Court Justice’s made an argument that there are instances where discrimination can occur to give preference to the establishment clause.

  29. In Good News Club v. Milford Central HS we see that the high school was allowing the rental of the building after school hours for educational or art instruction, entertainment events, and social/civic or recreational meetings. What the Good News Club sought was to use part of the school to hold their religious meetings because they were a private church group that met with kids age 6-12. They would encourage the kids to participate and reward them with treats if the remembered such things as bible verses, prayers, etc. Due to the usage of the facilities being religious the HS decided not to allow them to use the facilities. This case ends up reaching the supreme court due to the fact that the argument that the HS infringed upon the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech as stated in the establishment clause. Due to this happening after hours the Supreme court sided with GNC

  30. Milford Central High School allowed for its building to be used after school hours. Some residents sought to use the building for their Christian organization called the Good News Club. The school denied their request because the club’s religious activities would violate the school’s policy. The club filed a suit against the school claiming the First Amendment was violated. The Supreme Court ruled that the club’s free speech rights were violated. I agree with the Court’s decision, using the school’s building does not equal an establishment of religion, like the school was concerned about.

  31. I think that the problem that the school had with the organization was because the students are 6 to 12 years old which is a pretty impressionable age that may constitute a coercion. However, like others have said, it is completely optional and there is no harm in not attending, if any of the students feel ostracized by not attending this club then they need new friends.

  32. This reminded me of the Mergens case. I agree with the court’s ruling. It was after school hours. I think the community should be able to tolerate religious speech under these circumstances.

  33. I find myself agreeing with the ruling of the Court on the issue of the establishment clause violation. The program in New York allowed for after school usage of the public school facilities. This happened on school property however it was after school hours and a voluntary program in which the children could participate. I don’t think this was violative of the Lemon Test and therefore the Establishment clause. There is no excessive entanglement of religion with government, the statute held a secular purpose, and the statute did not attempt to advance or inhibit any religion Seeing how the program was conducted after school hours which didn’t subject all students to the religious teachings of the organization, I don’t take an issue with it.

  34. I agree with the Court. The district was allowing residents to use the school building after school hours for instruction on any class of education or the arts. In this case, school faculty (aka public funds) were not being used to sponsor the club. The space was requested to be used for the religious educational instruction. I believe those residents had the same right to use the building as any other club that used the building after school hours.

  35. In his opinion, Thomas wrote that Milford, acting as a limited public forum, was not required to allow persons to engage in every type of speech. He stated that, in the restriction of speech, Milton cannot discriminate based on viewpoint. The Court held that Milton discriminated against the club because of its religious viewpoint by denying their request to hold wekly after school meetings at the school. It’s interesting that the Club filed suit claiming a fre speech violation because clearly that was effective for them.

  36. This was a very interesting case that denied the Good News Club access to Milford High School’s space for club activities. The court found that the school was well within their rights to exclude the club from using school space. I was just a little confused and would love to go over the three different forms of religious speech, though.

  37. Brittany TamayoOct 19, 2020
    By denying the Good News Clubs applications on the basis that the
    club is “religious by nature” Milford violated the free speech clause by discriminating against the group.
    Reply
    Zain Hussain
    Zain HussainOct 14, 2020
    In this case, Milford school allowed access to their building for after school activities. Two students wanted to use it for the Good News Club a private Christian organization for children. The school denied their request because of the religious activities they would perform which was prohibited by the school policy. The question is if Milford school violates the first amendment free speech of rights by excluding the club from using the school. The SC ruled in a 6-3 decision that it did violate free speech but not the establishment clause.
    Reply
    Brianna Guedes
    Brianna GuedesOct 14, 2020
    This case ruled that the Goodnews clubs free speech rights were violated
    Reply
    Matt Springer
    Matt SpringerOct 14, 2020
    In Good News Club v. Milford, Milford Central School rules students to use its building after school for certain activities. Fournier were students eligible to use the school’s facilities. They sought approval of their proposed use and sponsorship of the Good News Club, Christian organization for children. The Fourniers submitted a request to hold the Club’s weekly afterschool meetings at the school. Milford denied the request reasoning that the proposed use some real religious things. The CQ in this case is did Milford Central School violate the First Amendment free speech rights of the Good News Club when it excluded the Club from meeting after hours at the school? If a violation occurred, was it justified by Milford’s concern that permitting the Club’s activities would violate the Establishment Clause? The Court, in a 6-3 vote, sided with the club
    Reply
    Nay Tjatur
    Nay TjaturOct 13, 2020
    The Good News Club, a local Christian organization for kids, submitted a request to hold meetings in the school cafeteria. Their request was denied on the grounds that it is equivalent to religious worship. The Good News Club filed a lawsuit contesting that Milford’s denial is a violation of the equal protection clause under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Using the precedent of the Lamb’s Chapel case, the Court ruled that the exclusion of Good News Club is unconstitutional.
    Reply
    Nizar Quafisheh
    Nizar QuafishehOct 13, 2020
    I find myself agreeing with the court here, as I think no violation would be made of the establishment clause by having the couple use the school for their club. While in previous cases something being voluntary did not properly protect from violating the establishment clause due to the effects of not participating, in this case there is absolutely no cost for not participating, because this is simply an additional activity and thats it.
    Reply
    Haneen Abdelhafez
    Haneen AbdelhafezOct 12, 2020
    The court ruled that by denying the Club access to the school’s limited public forum on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, Milford discriminated against the Club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the Free Speech Clause.
    Reply
    Osikenoya Usman-Aliu
    Osikenoya Usman-AliuOct 11, 2020
    Facts:
    Under New York law, Milford Central School policy authorizes district residents to use its building after school for certain activities. Stephen and Darleen Fournier were district residents eligible to use the school’s facilities. They sought approval of their proposed use and sponsorship of the Good News Club, a private Christian organization for children. The Fourniers submitted a request to hold the Club’s weekly afterschool meetings at the school. Milford denied the request reasoning that the proposed use, including singing songs, hearing Bible lessons, memorizing scripture, and praying, was the equivalent of religious worship prohibited by the community use policy. The Club filed suit alleging that the denial violated its free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Ultimately, the District Court granted Milford summary judgment. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that because the subject matter of the Club’s was “quintessentially religious”, and the activities “fall outside the bounds of pure ‘moral and character development,'” Milford’s policy of excluding the Club’s meetings was constitutional subject discrimination, not unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
    Reply
    Drew Fowler
    Drew FowlerOct 11, 2020
    The court ruled here that the schools denial of access to the Club violated the Free Speech Clause of the constitution, and that no establishment clause concern justifies that violation. Stating that the school had discriminated against the club’s religious viewpoint.
    Reply
    Nora Afify
    Nora AfifyOct 11, 2020
    If students are not being coerced or forced, then it is not a violation of the Establishment Clause! The confusion here may involve the fact that these children are ages 6-12, meaning they are young, and not actually deciding themselves, but their parents are the ones who are making the decision.
    Reply
    Hannah Ellis
    Hannah EllisOct 10, 2020
    In 1992, Milford Central School enacted a policy stating that district residents may use the school for instruction in any branch of education. The Good News Club, a Christian organization, used the school to educate children who were members. The activities in which the club engaged were religious in nature, so Milford eventually rejected the Club’s request to use the school. So, the club sponsors filed suit, citing Free Speech clause violations. The Supreme Court ruled that Milford did violate the Good News Club’s free speech rights. Since the club was held after school hours and required parent consent, there is no coercion or other sort of pressure or influence that would indoctrinate children into a specific religion.
    Reply
    Mateusz Plewa
    Mateusz PlewaOct 8, 2020
    With the previous precedents in mind, specifically Edwards v Aguillard and Santa Fe v Doe, the ruling of the Supreme Court in Good News Club v Milford Central High does not align, at all. Given that all the judges remained the same during the decisions of these three cases, one would think that the same process of deduction would ensue in deciding Good News Club v Milford. I fail to understand how according to the Supreme Court, a public school hosting a religious institution in its building does not violate the Establishment clause, which according to the previous majority opinions, is violated when “a law significantly entangles interests of church+state ‘by seeking support of the government to achieve a religious purpose'”. There is nothing clearer than “supporting the achievement of a religious purpose” than providing publicly funded institutions into the hands of a religious organization, and allowing it to use its resources. The private, student led and student initiated prayers in Santa Fe v Doe were also “open to the public, making [them] nonexclusive” as is stated in the majority opinion in Good News Club v Milford, however, in Santa Fe v Doe, there was no institutional or religious “meeting” organized by the students or their represented religious institution, as IS seen in Good News Club v Milford. These two landmark cases specifically emit overtly hypocritical conclusions when paired next to each other. Not quite seeing how denying the Good News Club use of public facilities is discrimination, but denying the students a privately led prayer before/after their own football game is NOT.
    Reply
    Jyah Vora
    Jyah VoraOct 5, 2020
    In Good News Club v. Milford Central High School the court ultimately ruled that Milford violated the Good News Club’s right to free speech by not allowing the club to use the school’s cafeteria to meet weekly. The Good News Club is a private Christian organization for children ages 6-12. The court’s reasoning was that the meetings were to be held after school hours and that young children would need the permission of their parents, which means that they wouldn’t be coerced into attending.
    Reply
    Anshu Nidamanuri
    Anshu NidamanuriOct 4, 2020
    Having students explore their faith without government involvement is fine and constitutional. As long as no public funding is used to promote the teaching students should be able to create clubs based on their opinions and furthering their personal ends using their labor and time.
    Reply
    Rama Izar
    Rama IzarOct 4, 2020
    This case is different than others we have covered since the religious club was meeting after school and their religion was not being established by the entire school. Also, since it was non-exclusive, it meant that it was open to anyone and not something forced (like having to say a school prayer or opting out of it).
    Reply
    Emma Whaley
    Emma WhaleySep 29, 2020
    The supreme court found Milford Central School’s denial of the Good New’s Club’s use of school’s limited public forum because of club’s “religious nature”, unconstitutional and in violation of the free speech clause of the first amendment. What I found interesting was the use of precedents in this case, particularly from Lambs Chapel and Rosenberger. The court heavily relied on these cases to display the main point, to me, of the case’s unconstitutionality. The court ruled that “speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded from a limited public forum on the ground that the subject is discussed from a religious viewpoint”, therefore constituting Milford’s exclusion of GNC from use of school, as impermissible viewpoint discrimination. The court related the GNC’s use of religion to teach morals and character development, to Lamb’s Chapels case’s film that taught family values from a religious perspective, and Rosenberg’s case of Wide Awake publication with obvious religious content, to show that the GNC deserves the same first amendment protection as them.
    Reply
    Liliana Diaz
    Liliana DiazSep 28, 2020
    The Court ruled that Milford Central School violated the Club’s free speech rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
    Reply
    Elizabeth Peralta
    Elizabeth PeraltaSep 27, 2020
    in this case the court decided that milford central school was in violation of the the free speech clause of the first amendment when they denied the good news club access to the limited public forum on the ground that the club was religous in nature.
    Reply
    Ben Lee
    Ben LeeSep 26, 2020
    SCOTUS rejected the High Schools claim that allowing a religious event would violate the establishment clause. Instead they found that because the meetings would happen after hours and away from the primary function of the school no reasonable person would view the school as respecting that religion. Further the schools choice to deny their facilities on the basis of them promoting their religion would violate the clubs right to free speech. Since this was a limited public forum and Because their the school permitted the teaching of morals generally but prohibited the teaching through a Christian moral lens, they were discriminating against their Christian viewpoints of morals, not the teaching of morals
    Reply
    Yj Hwang
    Yj HwangDec 11, 2019
    Like Mergen, clubs are fair game in not establishing a religion as school curriculum.
    Reply
    Ashanti Simpkins
    Ashanti SimpkinsOct 5, 2019
    This is an interesting case because it is the first free speech case. When the club was denied, it violated the free speech clause by not allowing them to to use the space solely on the fact that they are a religious club. Religion is protected ny the 1st amendment
    Reply
    Alfredo Navarro
    Alfredo NavarroOct 2, 2019
    The SC avoided the question of the establishment clause by making this an issue of freedom of speech. Given that argument, the SC was right in its choice to uphold the Good News Clubs’ actions.
    Reply
    Kelsei Peppler
    Kelsei PepplerOct 2, 2019
    The court focuses on the freedom of speech and not the establishment clause. I think it’s interesting that they looked at the free exercise clause. I think this is often the case in issues regarding religion.

    The court ruled that it did not violate the constitution because the good News Club met after school and not during the time of school. After school the space was supposed to be open to the public and by denying the Good News Club acoses was infringement on freedom of speech.
    Reply
    Diana Alvarado
    Diana AlvaradoOct 2, 2019
    The SC ruled that Good News Club did not violate the Establishment Clause since the organization did not force it’s religion upon anyone. The club was also open to the general public which supports the previous finding.
    Reply
    Nate Wasilowski
    Nate WasilowskiOct 1, 2019
    This case suing under the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment raises an interesting contention between the Establishment clause and free exercise. I now see the utility of the Lemon Test even if it may need revision.
    Reply
    Jessica Amyette
    Jessica AmyetteOct 1, 2019
    I think that its interesting that the Court seems to ignore the Establishment Clause question and redirects the ruling to be based on infringement of free speech.
    Reply
    Nadeen Elsayed
    Nadeen ElsayedOct 1, 2019
    Is it possible that the Supreme Courts overtime became more concerned over the free exercise clause versus the establishment clause?
    Reply
    Andrew Tuider
    Andrew TuiderOct 1, 2019
    The majority ruling in this case focuses more on free speech rights rather than the establishment clause, ruling that denying this club from gathering is a violation of free speech
    Reply
    Jacob Mattenson
    Jacob MattensonSep 30, 2019
    What exactly is the difference between subject and viewpoint discrimination?
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 30, 2019
    I believe that suing under the Free Speech clause of the first amendment strengthened the case. It also complicates things by trying to find a balance between free speech and free exercise, if such balance does exist.
    Reply
    Omar Leon
    Omar LeonSep 30, 2019
    In this case we encounter a debate between the First Amendment and Free Exercise Clause against the Establishment Clause. It is a moment when the court has to determine which one is dominant over the other. It was difficult for the court to establish a decision as it declared the Milford school’s restriction violated the their right to free speech while at the same time banning Good News Club from meeting in school property as they were a religious club and it violated the Establishment Clause.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 29, 2019
    Milford was sued because they denied the Good News Club from coming together after school to discuss religion. This was deemed unconstitutional because they violated the establishment clause by not allowing them to practice free speech.
    Reply
    Jeanine Saleh
    Jeanine SalehSep 29, 2019
    This case led to the weighing the establishment clause and the first amendment. That meant deciphering if there was a loophole between the two.
    Reply
    Ines Josefina Castaneda
    Ines Josefina CastanedaSep 29, 2019
    They fought this under the Free Speech and Equal Protections clause it would of made a stronger case also using the Free Exercise clause. The school did not approve their application because it said it violated the establishment clause which we can see how that can happen aside from the reason that one of the allowed uses under the rule was not to have religious club
    Reply
    Monalisa Mensah
    Monalisa MensahSep 29, 2019
    The Good News Club was denied access to the school’s facilities by Milford on the grounds that the club was religious in nature. On that note, it discriminated against the club because of its religious viewpoint which is a violation of the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment rights.
    Reply
    Brooke Saunders
    Brooke SaundersSep 29, 2019
    The “Good News Club” brought this case before the Court to challenge Milford Central School and in doing so gave the court a case to decide whether the Establishment Clause is a justification for the violation of the First Amendment rights.
    Reply
    Leya Ismail
    Leya IsmailSep 29, 2019
    In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that “Milford’s restriction violates the Club’s free speech rights and that no Establishment Clause concern justifies that violation.
    Reply
    Marissa Scavelli
    Marissa ScavelliSep 29, 2019
    The states power to restrict speech is limited; the state should not restrict speech on the basis of viewpoint. Therefore, the court ruled that the Milford Central School engaged in impermissible viewpoint discrimination when it excluded the Good News club from using the after school forum.
    Reply
    Joseph Strom
    Joseph StromSep 29, 2019
    School did not allow religious worship for the after school community use of the building. Petitioners wanted to be able to set up a Christian club for Bible study, songs, etc. after school there. Does the exclusion violate free speech? Not establishment or free exercise. Court found that the school did violate their right to freedom of speech in denying the after-school club and, therefore, the ability to express that religious viewpoint.
    Reply
    Julio Hernandez
    Julio HernandezSep 29, 2019
    This case involving an Evangelical Christian Organization “the Good News Club” to use school facilities after school hours; was not considered through the Lemon Test for the courts decision. The court answered the question ” if the exclusion of the Good News Club a violation of freedom of speech?”; it which it does. The court used prior cases; in which were designed to prevent “viewpoint discrimination”; deciding that in this case, Milford was violating the organizations Freedom of Speech. Also the court stated that this was not a violation of the establishment clause because there was no establishment of religion (or endorsement) and that the club meet after school hours, was not school funded and parents had to give consent if their child wanted to attend.
    Reply
    Sylvia Waz
    Sylvia WazSep 29, 2019
    In this case, the court allowed a private club to exercise their right to speak freely in a limited public forum in the facilities of a school. The Court decision was a 6-3 decision. They argued that this is not an infringement on neutrality of the state towards religion. I found it interesting that the case did not directly use the Lemon Test to come to their decision. They used precedent to allow the club to meet. I found it interesting because I think that if they used the Lemon test, they might have come to the issue of whether it advanced religion or not. The court said it did not because it included private membership of students who needed parental permission to join, however they did not even mention the Lemon Test in their opinion.
    Reply
    Henry Jiang
    Henry JiangSep 29, 2019
    The issue in this case was whether Mildred Centrals school violated the free speech rights of the First amendment of the Good News Club when it prevented the Good News Club from meeting together after school and if there was a violation, was it justified for the school’s concern that allowing the Club’s activities would violate the Establishment Clause. The Court answered yes and no in consecutively. The Court held that Establishment Clause was not justified for this violation. Rather, Justice Thomas stated that “when Milford denied the Good News Club access to the school’s limited public forum on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the Club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted user
    To play the Devil’s Advocate, looking solely at the Establishment Clause claims, I fail to why this case should be treated any differently from Westside v. Mergens. In fact, unlike the Christian Club at Westside High School, the Good News Club operated after school-hours and wasn’t even run by any of the students or faculty at the school. Like the club at Westside High School, the Good News Club received no taxpayer funding and had no authority or power whatsoever over the curricula being taught at the school. In other words, the club was completely “noncurricular” in nature.
    Sep 29, 2019 (edited Sep 29, 2019)•Delete
    Deleted user
    Deleted user
    Now, with that being said, the free speech claims presented by the Good News Club are more troubling and problematic. If the Good News Club puts up Christian posters on the wall of the classroom that it uses, is that part of their free speech? What if non-Christians enter the classroom the next day and find that the posters violate their religious beliefs?
    Sep 29, 2019•Delete
    Kevin Lyles
    Crystal Lopez
    Crystal LopezSep 28, 2019
    This case involved the use of a school’s facilities by the public that reside within the district. Anyone that lives near could use it upon approval by the school. The school denied the Fournier’s request to use the lunch room for their christian club since it the community policy stated that individuals or organizations with religious purposes couldn’t use it. Since they decided to sue the school through the violation of freedom of speech of the first amendment and not as a violation to the establishment clause the Supreme Court decided to reverse the appellate court’s ruling. There was a clear violation of the groups freedom of speech and right to religious freedom.
    Reply
    Daniel Garcia
    Daniel GarciaSep 28, 2019
    This is a particularly interesting case. On the surface, it seems almost identical to Westside v. Mergens. Even the decision by the Supreme Court in both this case and Mergens is very similar. In both instances, SCOTUS said that forbidding a religious club to meet on school property was unconstitutional. However, the additional element in the Milford case is that the Good News Club sued in part under the Freedom of Speech Clause of the first amendment. To my knowledge, this is the first case that we are going to learn about in which the Constitutionality of an action will be judged under the Free Speech clause. I wonder if in the Santa Fe v. Doe case, had the defendants used the Freedom of Speech clause to justify their ability to say a prayer at a football game, would the outcome have been different?
    Reply
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin Lyles
    excellent point: “However, the additional element in the Milford case is that the Good News Club sued in part under the Freedom of Speech Clause of the first amendment.”
    Sep 28, 2019•Edit•Delete
    Kevin Lyles
    Philip Garza
    Philip GarzaSep 27, 2019
    i think it’s interesting how this case isn’t was a violation of Free Speech and not a violation of the Establishment Clause, because even though it took place on public school grounds it wasn’t during school hours, wasn’t sponsored by the school and was open to the public. This is interesting to think about. If everything in this situation remained the same, but it took place during school hours this would be a violation of the Establishment, but because it takes place when school is not in session it isn’t a violation.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 1, 2017
    Milford was concerned that allowing the club to meet on school grounds after school would violate the establishment clause. the court ruled that it would not have been in violation because the club would not have been sponsored by the school.

    religious organizations make use of public goods such as water and law enforcement. why is a public school building any different, especially if the club activities have nothing to do with the school/ its students.

    if anything, i feel like not allowing the club would actually be more a violation than to allow them. not allowing religious groups to use the school is like favoring non-religion over religion.
    Reply
    Parya
    ParyaOct 1, 2017
    Although I agree with the court’s decision, I am curious as to why the Good News Club didn’t just change their curriculum and/or intent. I’m not sure if I misunderstood the argument The Good News Club was making but what I got from the facts of the case was that the club was intended to develop moral values through the use of the Bible and welcomed children and students of all faiths. If their main focus was on the development of moral values for the children, why did any religion influence need to be involved? Or why couldn’t they include stories and songs from other faiths? Was the use of materials from a specific religion that vital to the development of childrens’ moral values that the club had to take it all the way to the Supreme Court?
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 1, 2017
    This case was interesting to me because while it did rule in favor of a religious club being able to use public school property, a kind of loophole was found in which it stated that it did not violate the Establishment Clause because the club was not to meet during school hours. Therefore, this poses the question, does separation of church and state only apply to schools when it is during school hours? Does that mean that religion can exist in public schools so long as they are not in session?
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 1, 2017
    Justice Souter’s dissent on Good News Club v. Milford:
    “It is beyond question that Good News intends to use the public school premises not for the mere discussion of a subject from a particular, Christian point of view, but for an evangelical service of worship calling children to commit themselves in an act of Christian conversion. The majority avoids this reality only by resorting to the bland and general characterization of Good News’s activity as ‘teaching of morals and character, from a religious standpoint’. If the majority’s statement ignores reality, as it surely does, then today’s holding may be understood only in equally generic terms. Otherwise, indeed, this case would stand for the remarkable proposition that any public school opened for civic meetings must be opened for use as a church, synagogue, or mosque.”

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-2036.ZD1.html
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 30, 2017
    The Court’s opinion in this case cites Lamb’s Chapel and Rosenberger as precedents for viewpoint discrimination in this case, but they seem to be much different cases. In Lamb’s chapel the question revolved around films being shown that presented a viewpoint from a religious perspective, and in Rosenberger it was a matter of students with religious viewpoints being refused funds for their publication based on that religious perspective. Neither of these situations seem to exhibit any level of direct religious teaching or practice as it does in the case of the Good News Club’s practice of giving treats for memorizing Bible verses.

    Could it be argued in this case that for the school to be able to draw the line between “worship” and a more general teaching of morals through the activities of the Good News Club would require monitoring, and therefore require “excessive entanglement” with government, similar to the argument made in Lemon v. Kurtzman against funding teachers of secular subjects in parochial schools?
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 21, 2016
    Good News Club v. Milford–this case wasn’t assigned to my team, but since I spent some time with the case, I thought I would add my notes here.

    Does Mildford School’s refusal of participation in an after hours limited public forum to a private adult-led Christian club for the purpose of religious worship constitute viewpoint discrimination thereby violating that club’s First Amendment right to free speech?

    Does the presence of that club on school grounds create an assumption by a reasonable person that the state approves of or prefers the religious viewpoint being presented thereby violating the Establishment Clause?

    Yes, where all other organizations, save partisan political meetings and those for a commercial purpose, are permitted use of the school facilities after hours, the state may not discriminate against a particular request on the basis of a religious viewpoint.

    No, the threshold of reasonableness of conference of state approval merely by the presence of a religious organization in a limited public forum used by many other organizations is not met.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 20, 2016
    2. Apelle/ Appellant side:
    Stephen and Darleen Fournier were district residents who were eligible to use the school’s facilities, and thus sought approval to use these facilities that were provided by the Good News Club, a private Christian organization for children. Hence, the Fourniers submitted a request to hold the Club’s weekly after-school meetings at the school. However, Milford denied the request reasoning that the proposed use, including singing songs, hearing Bible lessons, memorizing scripture, and praying, was the equivalent of religious worship prohibited by the community use policy.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 20, 2016
    Concurring Opinions:
    Justice Scalia concurred with the Court’s majority opinion. In his concurring opinion, he argued that the Good News Club having an after school program did not violate the Establishment Clause because “it does not signify state or local embrace of a particular religious sect”. Justice Scalia also expressed that Milford’s exclusion of the Good News Club could be categorized as “subject-matter discrimination”. Justice Scalia stated that Milford lacked a “ legitimate reason” to not allow the Good News Club’s activities.
    Justice Breyer wrote in his concurring opinion that a child’s perception that “a child’s perception that the school has endorsed a particular religion or religion in general may also prove critically important”. He argued that the children’s perceptions of religion being promoted by the school determine is a factor in whether the Establishment Clause was violated by the school.
    Dissenting Opinions:
    Justice Stevens declared in his dissenting opinion that the Club’s activities could be categorized as “religious proselytism”. He argued that the Club activities would promote their religion and the Club would be attempting to convert the children to their religious beliefs. The school had the right to exclude Club activities that inadvertently promoted religion.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 20, 2016
    4. Relevant Constitutional questions:

    The legal issue the court is addressing, is whether or not district residents can utilize public schools, during after-school hours, to engage in religious practice(s).

    it is under New York state law (and not federal law), that district residents can utilize the public school’s facilities for certain activities, perhaps specified in the “community use policy.”

    Did Milford school violate Good News Club’s right to freedom of speech/religion? Does allowing taxpayers to reap the benefits of their hard-earned tax dollars (by utilizing public school space/facilities for religious activities), violate the establishment clause? If less than 100% of the tax-payers’ children (within a particular district) DON’T attend the public school, shouldn’t the tax-payers be allowed to utilize the building they pay for? What exactly is the “community use policy?” Who is/are the individual(s)/bureaucrat(s) who determine what activities the district residents are allowed to utilize the school facilities for? How does he/she/they determine what activities to approve?

    Suppose several (a majority) of the district residents would like to participate in these “religious” practices, should it be allowed then? What if one of the district residents (who pays his/her property taxes, and DOES NOT send his/her child(ren) to the public school) would like to reap their tax benefits by utilizing the school facility space?
    Reply
    Jenny Huh
    Jenny HuhSep 20, 2016
    #5 The issue of the case was if Milford Central School violated the First Amendment free speech rights of the Good News Club when it excluded the Club from meeting after hours at the school?And If a violation did occur, was it justified by Milford’s concern that permitting the Club’s activities would violate the Establish Clause? The Court ruled yes and no.
    Justice Clearance Thomas delivered the majority opinion and held that the school’s restriction violates the club’s free speech rights. The court also held that Milford denying the club’s access to the school’s limited public forum on the ground that the club was religious discriminated against the club because of its religious viewpoint, and thus violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 20, 2016
    4. Arguing for Milford:
    Milford argued that a club practicing certain religious rituals, i.e. memorizing scripture and singing biblical songs, violated the community use policy. They could also argue that allowing this to occur in a public, government funded institution, it violates the Establishment Clause of the First and Fourteenth Amendment. According to the Lemon Test, it (1) does not have a secular purpose, (2) the primary effect is to advance their religion, and (3) due to the public nature of the school, it would cause entanglement with the government.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 20, 2016
    #3

    Opposing Side: The argument made by the opposing party,Good News Club 1992, of prior rulings made by the United States District Court of the Northern District of New York and the United States Second Court of Appeals was based on the rights provided by First Amendments’ freedom of speech clause and the neutrality approach in the establishment clause that prohibits any laws that inhibit the free exercise of religion. After the passing of the Religious Freedom Restauration Act of 1993 which prohibited any governmental agency to hinder the exercise of religion, thus protecting religious practices; the Supreme Court, through writ of cert, reviewed the case and decided in 2001.

    Team 4
    354
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 20, 2016
    7. one team member explains the significance of the case and relates it to the topic we are studying.

    Voluntary religious clubs have a right to equal access to public facilities at the high school and college level. Milford Central School denies that this principle carries over to the elementary school level when the student activity is highly religious. The Second Circuit agreed, voting 2-1 to uphold the school’s decision to bar a Christian youth group from using its facilities after school hours. The majority cited the establishment clause; the dissenting judge — noting that the school granted access to other groups such as the Boy Scouts — cited the free speech clause.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 19, 2016
    #1

    – Milford Central high school policy authorizes district residents to use its building for activities after the school day ends, under the New York law.
    – District residents Stephen and Darleen Fourner, sought approval of their proposed use and sponsorship of the Good News Club.
    – Good News Club is a private Christian organization for children.
    – Meetings would take place weekly after school.
    – The proposed meeting would include singing songs, hearing bible lessons, memorizing scripture and praying which is equivalent of religious worship prohibited by the community use policy.
    – Milford denied the request.
    – The club filed a suit under the 1st and 14th Amendments.
    – the Club’s was “quintessentially religious”, and the activities “fall outside the bounds of pure ‘moral and character development, “Milford’s policy of excluding the Club’s meetings was constitutional subject discrimination, not unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

    Team 4
    354
    Reply
    Katherine Stryker
    Katherine StrykerSep 23, 2015
    I absolutely agree with the supreme court ruling on this case. Allowing the private christian club to use their facilities does not promote or establish Christianity as a religion. This group was going to meet after school hours, is not affiliated with the school in any way, and was completely non curricular. The school denying the group to hold after school meetings purely on the grounds that it is a religious group, is indeed violating the free speech clause.

    Katherine Stryker Team 4
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 23, 2015
    In regards to the question of coercion, the Court argued “Any bystander could conceivably be aware of the school’s use policy and its exclusion of the Good News Club, and could suffer as much from viewpoint discrimination as elementary school children could suffer from perceived endorsement”.

    I slightly disagree with this claim. Yes, Good News Club’s inclusion or exclusion could be conceived as endorsement or viewpoint discrimination, but the amount of energy it takes one to get to those conceived conclusions are not equal.

    – Joe Anderson – Team 4
    Reply
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin Lyles
    not sure I understand?
    Sep 23, 2015•Edit•Delete
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin Lyles
    I read it again, got it
    Sep 23, 2015•Edit•Delete
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 23, 2015
    In this case, the concept of “a limited open forum” from Westside v. Mergens is of importance. As Milford had not restricted its facilities usage to curriculum-related clubs, the school was unable to claim it had a closed forum which could have acted as a legitimate claim of denial under the ruling in Mergens.

    Thomas Delregno – Team 4
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 23, 2015
    In a 6-3 decision the the Supreme Court ruled that the decision by Milford Central school violated the establishment clause and furthermore “restricted” the free speech rights of the Good News Club. In this case we see a public school restricting the rights of a religious entity to hold after school meeting for children. The issue therein lies the fact that the school is discriminating against the Club solely on the basis of it being religious. The case was not decided solely on the basis of the establishment clause or but also according to Justice Clarence Thomas it “discriminated against the Club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 23, 2015
    Good News Club v Milford Central High School (2001)

    Facts:

    – Milford Central School in New York allows district residents to use the facility after school for various clubs and activities, such as “instruction in education, learning, or the arts, and social, civic, recreational, and entertainment uses pertaining to the community welfare”.
    – Stephen and Darleen Fournier requested to be able to hold meetings for the Good News Club, a private Christian organization intended for children aged 6 – 12 years old during non-school hours
    – Their intended purpose of the club was to have “a fun time of singing songs, hearing a Bible lesson and memorizing scripture”
    – Their proposal was denied, due to the nature of the clubs [intended] activities, which, according to Milford, were deemed to essentially be religious worship.
    – As such, the Fournier’s filed suit claiming that by denying them the freedom to hold such club meetings after school, that it violated their first amendment right for freedom of speech as well as, their right to religious freedom.

    Questions:

    Did Milford Central School violate the first amendment right to free speech of the Good News Club when it denied the club from meeting after hours at the school? If so, was it due to Milford’s concern for violating the Establishment Clause?

    Ruling:

    Yes and no.

    Reasoning:

    – “An elementary school could not deny the use of its facilities after school to religious groups”
    – Denying the Good News Club access to the facilities for after school use on the basis of the clubs religious nature violated the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment.
    – The fear of violating the Establishment Clause does not justify that.

    Ashley Clary, Team 4
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Maria E
    Maria ESep 23, 2015
    Milford Central school had every right to deny the religious group a space to practice there beliefs. If they didn’t want them there then, there is nothing wrong with that. Though it would have been courteous to allow the group to practice their beliefs considering that it would be after school and not practices solely during school hours, it was an option they choose not to take.
    Reply
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin Lyles
    courteous vs. constitutional?
    Sep 23, 2015•Edit•Delete
    Maria E
    Maria E
    Look, I’m just saying that they had every right to say no to the religious group’s request.
    Sep 23, 2015•Delete
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin Lyles
    “every right” specifically, what is that right? where is that right?
    Sep 23, 2015•Edit•Delete
    Maria E
    Maria EMarked as resolved
    Sep 23, 2015
    Maria E
    Maria ERe-opened
    The equal protection clause ? I don’t understand why the 14th amendment would protect the rights of the club but not those affiliated with a religious party. Would the equal protection clause not also protect the rights of those who did not want to affiliate their school with the religious group?
    Sep 23, 2015
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 24, 2014
    Religious practice shouldn’t be involved in a public school. Violation of the Establishment Clause.
    Lucas Woody Stanfield
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 24, 2014
    I do not know what to say except, I think that this is a classic case of a non avoidable mix of religion and government like many of the other cases.
    -Matthew j Payauys
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted user
    You’re right. Any time you mix public school and any type of religious activity someone is going to get upset and it’s hard to draw a line between what is acceptable and what is not.
    -Egle Sideikyte
    Sep 24, 2014 (edited Sep 24, 2014)•Delete
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 24, 2014
    Exactly, if the school allows them to knowingly perform religious instruction in the school that school would become a church wouldn’t it? i agree with Scalia that it wasn’t coercive, but I feel that religion is supported if you allow them to use government regulated and funded schools as a place of worship. -d. Mortimer
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 24, 2014

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 250 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

css.php