Tell me if this isn't an egregious breach of separation of Church

and State? On my local news, they had a piece last night about Christian Wednesday religious services being held for the students of our local agricultural college, California Polytechnic State University on campus. I put the emphasis on State because this would mean it is part of the state government educational system.

So I did some googling and it turns out this is not an unusual thing. On Ash Wednesday, the Catholic Newman Club held religious services in the College's auditorium and distributed ashes to the students.

You know as a tax-payer, I don't want religion, Christian or otherwise proselytized on my property. I don't think the 36% ethinic minority students and the 1% international students are all Christians and it certainly is a slap in the face to them.

I believe, there are enough auditoriums and church space for these religions to hold services off-campus and not on public property. I want to fight back but I don't know where to start. If I can't change this takeover by the religious reich nationwide, I can do it in my own back yard.

The state university in my town also has religious groups that operate on campus. There are important things to know though.

1. The university does not sponsor or endorse the groups or events, nor do they favor one over the other. They provide the opportunity for any group of students to meet for religious purposes if there are enough to organize.

2. The religious groups, such as the Newman club, are self-financed. The university does not provide them with any funds.

3. Meeting space is provided to any registered student group and non-university affiliated groups are scheduled on a first-come first-served basis and charged a nominal rental fee. Basically saying that the University chapter of Phi Beta Kappa can meet for free, but the Young Democrats or the Newman Club get charged.

I don't necessarily think that divorcing religion entirely from a college campus is necessary for the separation of church and state, even if it is a state run institution. However, guidelines must be established that make it clear that the institution is not endorsing, establishing or promoting a particular religion.

i will agree that treated all groups and clubs equally, and permitting equal access without sponsorship is better than directly administering religion.

and, if the campus really tried to isolate itself from the neighboring town, like some private campuses do, then that would be a consideration. it's not fair to the religious to make it overly difficult for them to worship.

however, the original post indicated that there were plenty of alternatives off-campus, so i don't think this is a concern here.

where there's no need to provide public space for religious activity, the first amendment prohibits it.


like it said, though, not that that will stop them.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Nowhere does it say that public space cannot be used in the free exercise of religious activity. Provided the university is not endorsing or promoting one group over the over I have no problem with religious groups meeting whether there are churches in the area or not. Now if the university permitted one to stand outside the admin building and distribute pamphlets while prohibiting another group from such activity, THAT would be "egregious."

The needs of college students may not mesh with the year-round life of a congregation. It's great if they do, but in reality sometimes they do not. So proximity doesn't necessarily mean spiritual needs will be met.

at a high level, you are correct.

the problem is in how many public schools/universities enforce such matters. for instance, requiring any group to have a teacher/professor sponsor may amount to discrimination against certain religious groups, e.g., pagans/wiccans, for whom finding a willing sponsor may be a practical impossibility.

be answered before a determination can be made whether or not an "egregious" violation of separation of church and state has occurred.

than non-religious ones. If they let the pre-law club use rooms, they also have to let the United Campus Ministry do so also. If they didn't, they would be discriminating.

but that'll never stop 'em.

i had to sit through an "ecumenical" benediction at the start of my high school graduation from a public school.

ecumenical, of course, means non-denominational christian, which lets the christians think they're being oh so fair and equal, yet it pissed this jew off to no end. 20 years later, i'm still pissed. how dare they ruin that celebration for me?

seriously, would the absence of a minister really have ruined it for the christians? they could always follow up with a religious celebration at their church, and indeed, many churches did just that. yet, the public graduation was still infused with christian religiousness.

:grr:

The quickest way to put an end to this whole "prayer in the
schools" junk is to allow it. You set up a schedule and each morning a different prayer could be offered in the school. Then ensure that the first prayer was a hindu prayer, the second a wican prayer, the third a prayer to Allah.... The fundies would be screaming to stop it so fast it'da make yer head spin.

You mean, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Ask to have an ecumenical service instead that would include a Rabbi, an Imam, etc. Here is a little of the California statutory law on religion.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without
discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of
conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent
with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion.
A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of
his or her opinions on religious beliefs.

CALIFORNIA CODES
EDUCATION CODE
SECTION 92150




92150. No state funds under the control of an officer or employee
of the University of California shall ever be used for membership or
for any participation involving a financial payment or contribution,
on behalf of the university, or any individual employed by or
associated therewith, in any private organization whose membership
practices are discriminatory on the basis of race, creed, color, sex,
religion, or national origin. This section does not apply to any
public funds which have been paid to an individual employee or
officer of the university as salary, or to any funds which are used
directly or indirectly for the benefit of student organizations.

66292.1. The Chancellor of the California State University and the
president of each California State University campus shall have the
primary responsibility for ensuring that campus programs and
activities are free from discrimination based on ethnic group
identification, religion, age, sex, color, or physical or mental
disability.



66292.2. The President of the University of California and the
chancellor of each University of California campus shall have primary
responsibility for ensuring that campus programs and activities are
free from discrimination based on ethnic group identification,
religion, age, sex, color, or physical or mental disability.




66292.3. (a) A party to a written complaint of prohibited
discrimination may appeal the action taken by the governing board of
a community college district or the president of a campus of the
California State University, pursuant to this article, to the Board
of Governors of the California Community Colleges or the Chancellor
of the California State University, as applicable.
(b) Persons who have filed a complaint, pursuant to this chapter,
with an educational institution shall be advised by the educational
institution that civil law remedies, including, but not limited to,
injunctions, restraining orders, or other remedies or orders, may
also be available to complainants. The educational institution shall
make this information available by publication in appropriate
informational materials.
(c) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require an
exhaustion of the appeal to the Board of Governors of the California
Community Colleges or to the Chancellor of the California State
University pursuant to subdivision (a), before civil law remedies may
be purchased.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who
alleges that he or she is a victim of discrimination may not seek
civil remedies pursuant to this section until at least 90 days have
elapsed from the filing of a discrimination complaint with the local
educational agency. The 90-day moratorium imposed by this
subdivision does not apply to injunctive relief and is applicable
only if the local educational agency has appropriately, and in a
timely manner, apprised the complainant of his or her right to file a
complaint.



66292.4. This chapter may be enforced through a civil action.

CALIFORNIA CODES
EDUCATION CODE
SECTION 66270-66271.1




66270. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis
of sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion,
color, or mental or physical disability, or any basis that is
contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision
(a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code in any program or activity
conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that receives,
or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who
receive state student financial aid.



66270.5. This chapter shall not apply to an educational institution
that is controlled by a religious organization if the application
would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that
organization.


66271.1. The Board of Governors of the California Community
Colleges and the Trustees of the California State University shall,
and the Regents of the University of California may, adopt
regulations as required by law to implement this chapter.

You can find lots more by visiting this website:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

Choose a code like Education or Government and search for "religion" or the topic you want to research. Some issues you might look into are whether the government is endorsing a specific religion, whether it is discriminating based on religion and/or whether it is contributing to a specific religion that discriminates based on religion by allowing it to use space without charge. You would have to know the facts.

Good luck!

among many others would be left outside with this type of service and it shouldn't be on campus, especially a tax-funded campus, at all.

usually under the 'non-denominational' guise.

I enjoyed the looks of confusion and horror from the fundie christians on the few occasions when our Rabbi Chaplain would be invited to give the blessing. The raised eyebrows. The "what? we cant have a Rabbi giving this" looks.

The few times when the shoe is on the other foot, they raise holy hell, and can't seem to fathom that that is what non-christians feel EVERY TIME there is a benediction.

I was under the impression the OP was disturbed by the presence of religious groups meeting on campus. I would agree that a benediction is neither necessary nor appropriate in such a setting. I too had to sit through an "ecumenical" benediction given by an evangelical Southern Baptist. Major emotional squirming on my part and it's absence wouldn't have detracted by the business at hand. Receiving my diploma.

property is open to everyone's events, there really isn't a lot you can do (I'm thinking). Sure you can bitch and moan about it, but it isn't really going to get you anywhere assuming their following the letter of the law.

If the college is denying other religions the opportunity of representation on campus, then it's a problem. But you'll probably note the presence of a pagan club on many college campuses, just as you'll see the Catholic Newman Club on many of them. So, no, it's no violation. In fact, on-campus clubs like these pay for most of their activities through fees and fundraisers, so your taxpayer dollars probably contribute nothing to them, or perhaps only an infinitismally small amount offered to ALL the clubs through the student body council.

had their own centers that were within walking distance of the campus, although things could have changed today, not having worked there in twenty years. The only thing on campus were posters advertising where students could find these places and announcing meetings and other activities.

The University cannot and should not block these kinds of meetings as long as they are under the sponsorship of an independant student organization. Student religious organizations using state facilities are clearly Constitutional as long as the U makes no impediment or encouragement to particular beliefs--which would be an infringement of First Amendment rights of the students. Now if the U itself sponsored this event, there would be a problem. But I don't think that's what happened here.

I am waiting for the news outlet to put the story up on their website. They could be reporting it inaccurately too, so I am trying to make sure. Sometimes they are very slow at this. Then I intend on calling the college to file a complaint as a taxpayer.

Definitely ask questions first.

I don't see any reason it should be.

Most public universities have a large variety of clubs and organizations, many religious, that meet on school property. Thinking of the large university three miles south of me, these clubs include those for Baptists, Catholics, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheists, gays and lesbians, Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, anarchists, Socialists, lovers of the English novel, and quite a few others that slip my mind. This is part of the cultural and intellectual mix that is an integral part of a liberal colledge environment. The essential first amendment question, in the case of a public university, is whether the school allows all such groups, or selects among them on religious grounds. The first is legal; the second not.

Portland State, the student religious organizations had their own buildings just on the edge of the campus. At Portland State, the religious groups were all in one building, which was owned by the mainstream Protestants but which rented rooms and meeting spaces to the Muslims as well.
If it was the Newman Center or Campus Crusade or some other registered student organization holding services on University property, they probably had the same right as any other student organization to claim the space if it wasn't already taken for that occasion. If there is an atheist or Buddhist or Sufi group on campus, they would have equal access. If the Buddhists had already reserved the space for Zen meditation on Ash Wednesday, then the Catholics would have been out of luck and would have had to find some other space.

If the services were organized by off-campus religious groups, they almost certainly had to pay rent. If you're ever been closely associated with a college campus, you'll see that all kinds of organizations rent their facilities. The Southern New England Telephone Company used to rent Yale's Woolsey Hall auditorium for its annual holiday party. Political and civic organizations of all stripes often rent spaces for luncheon meetings and pay dining services to cater a meal at Portland State University because of its central downtown location. Northrup Auditorium on the University of Minnesota campus is rented to a couple of performing arts series and was also rented to the Kucinich campaign for a rally last year. This does not mean that the University supported Kucinich, only that the university was happy to take the Kucinich campaign's money.

So if Cal Poly was giving free space to an outside religious organization, then we have a problem. But it's more likely that 1) a registered student organization used its equal access to reserve the space or 2) an outside organization rented the space.

By the way, the student religious groups are either funded entirely by the denominations or they receive an allotment from student activities fees on an equal basis with other campus groups. Some conservative religious groups refuse to accept school funding because it's often predicated on non-discrimination in membership (can't ban gays, for instance), and other conservatives fight the idea of a student activities fee because it funds (gasp!) liberal organizations.

Colleges allow a wide range of organizations to operate on their campuses, including those with religious affiliations. It's considered part of a liberal education. There's nothing unusual or sinister about it. There would be a bigger concern here if the Newman Club were banned from the campus and other religiously-affiliated student groups were allowed to operate. One could as easily argue that Cal Poly would be a poorer place if all religiously-affiliated student organizations were banned from campus.

I have no reason to believe from what you said that the leaders of the Newman Club checked with the appropriate campus authorities to see what facilities were available and reserved the auditorium. We should presume that neither the Campus Christian Crusade, the B'nai Brith nor the Young Marxist League showed any prior interest in the facility.

No one was forced to attend. If anyone was proselytized, he probably wanted to be.

at my campus I saw signs advertising a Catholic group (their tables are never as busy as the enviro and political ones) also gay/lesbian club and a pagan club. I might have to check the last one out! There's always different stuff and they all apply for space fcfs and grants from the same AS pool.

Nothing in state or federal law prohibits practice of religion in public facilities.

I'm surprised that none of the other prof's here on DU have posted to this.

As other posters here have pointed out, allowing these sorts of activities are not only permissible but REQUIRED. Your college president couldn't stop these even if he wanted to. Why? Because you cannot discriminate against religion any more than you can discriminate in favor of it. In fact, when weighing whether or not a particular group is allowed on campus, you're not even legally allowed to consider religion as a factor. If you allow one student club, or one community group, to be active on your campus, you have to allow them all. If you ban the Newman club from holding meetings in the forum building, you have to ban the Gay & Lesbian Club from meeting in a classroom. If you ban the campus Catholics from holding religious services in the campus auditorium, you have to ban the campus Buddhists from meditating on the schools lawn.

Legally, this whole situation has been answered in the courts many times over. There are dozens of cases of government agencies denying access to religious institutions, and in every case the government has lost...and in several been forced to pay out large settlements as restitution for religious discrimination. The judicial branch has made it clear that as taxpaying citizens, people of faith have just as much right to use public property as anybody else.