Wah wah wah! Okay I got that out of my system. Now I will say, unless the school is church based school... the graduation really shouldn't be held at any church--stay with me--UNLESS there isn't anything big enough to accommodate the class and their families.

School officials defended their decision to schedule graduation at New Hope Baptist Church, saying it was based on the need to accommodate 250 graduating seniors.

I rest my case.

I really should read BEFORE I hit the submit button. Then I wouldn't have to go back and edit and accidentally hit the quote button instead. Okay so I am trying for more points. Points piggie.

Damn, I am sick of this! Just get over your damn selves!!

Who is this directed at?

Another fine example of the press grasping onto a story involving the word Muslim that may appeal to the Anti-Muslim sentiment that is ever brewing and festering thanks mainly to the media making a Brouhaha over anything that provides a sensationalistic headline.

I see so many of these kinds of stories as I'm looking through RSS feeds but I refuse to buy into this kind of non-story put forward as newsworthy and to post it and perpetuate this kind of crap.

It's a toughie...I agree and disagree...The whole "separation of church and state" certainly gives somebody the right to complain, but I think the problem here is that religion is pushed TOO FAR for some people. When I was growing up (Christian) I was invited to Synagogue to celebrate my friend’s Bar Mitzvah...I had NO intentions of being Jewish but I had no problems wearing a beanie for my buddy for a few hours. :)

One thing the article doesn't mention is if it was held in the actual CHURCH or in a banquet hall located on church property. In the actual church would be a supreme no-no, so I have feeling it was just in a banquet hall.

..and BTW...I'm sure there are plenty of other places to hold 250 people but I'd bet none of them are nearly as cheap as a church's banquet hall.

Take away the word Muslim and you still have the same thing. This has less to do with Muslims or anti-Muslim feelings than other stories posted. It is certainly newsworthy.

It is more a PC story than a Muslim story. It is more the desires of a majority of people being over-rided because of 2 people. (Nothing was said about the religion of the earlier person who complained. I'm guessing he was not Muslim)

Separation of church and state does not mean that the state can't rent out a building that is owned by the church.

The article stated that the building was used because of the need to accommodate the number of attendees

As I was thinking about this I wondered if this would be a different story if the only place large enough for the graduation was a Mosque. I sure hope this suit wasn't after money (didn't say specifically in the article). If it was, then this was about financial gain and not for the belief and faith aspect. The room was for a graduation and not for a religious ceremony.

Did you catch the second to last line? "Barocas said an ACLU volunteer who called various locations around Newark was able to find a number of suitable alternatives." ..that's why I mentioned cost. In a city the size of Newark I find it hard to believe there are no places to accommodate 1,000+ people (250 grads and family)!

2many you might not like the comment I previously made hence the downvote but is it now considered rude to point out your feelings on a story?

Is it only okay to comment as long as it fits with your opinions and how you want the comments to go?

I was just interested in knowing why you took offence to it, I'd much rather know the reason and have a comment addressed so it can be discussed openly.

If it was cost, then Bravo school. Again, nothing against the law for using property that is owned by a church. Finding the least expensive arena should be praised not vilified because 2 people complained in years that this was done.

Freedom of religion does not necessarily mean freedom of practice. Just because 1 person (don't know the reason for the previous person's complaint) felt that being in the building was against his religion, doesn't mean that the state has the duty to hold it somewhere else.

The claim of the ACLU that holding graduation ceremonies in a church somehow favors that religion over another is preposterous.


What if some other individual filed a similar lawsuit for holding it everywhere else that can be imagined. Perhaps one feels that it must be held outdoors under the full moon, another might feel that the graduation gowns are an affront and the ceremony must be held in the nude, perhaps another might feel that it must be held at the highest point of the land, etc, etc. You can think of an infinite number of complaints for holding it anywhere or even holding a graduation at all.

I 100% agree with you. I think we're starting to venture into very dangerous territory where people are so sick of being PC that there is backlash against it, even when it's the proper course of action.

I think after reading the article - and based on some of the comments I see in this place, I wonder if reading the entire article is a common practice, or if people just spew comments as they see fit from reading the article synopsis - it's pretty clear that the church was not the only option.

I think larknet is completely right in thinking that we would have a very different reaction if it had been held in a Mosque. If this suit was about money, I have no doubt that would have been mentioned. It was about policy and cultural respect for all students.

If it was in a mosque, there would probably have been a complaint. It would have been shot down and the individual would have been ridiculed as a bigot. Certainly the ACLU wouldn't have helped.

It isn't about "policy and culture respect for all students" is was about policy and culture respect for ONE student. One student who does not have respect or tolerance for the others.

As I mentioned above, all religions are supposed to be treated equally. If one student complained that his religion decreed that holding such a ceremony indoors was an affront against his god, and that it must be held at night under the full moon, would it be "the proper course of action" to bow to the individual wishes?

If not where do you draw the line? At what point is it reasonable and unreasonable. How much control over group do you give one person?

There were damages requested, including punitive damages

HOWEVER after reading the complaint, I have changed my mind on this issue.

In 2005, when the previous complaint was made, the scgool said it was too late to reschedule the 2005 ceremonies but in the future they would do all that they could to refrain from holding future ceremonies in a church and would also work on covering the crosses and other iconography as possible.

In 2006, they again held the ceremony in the church and did not cover up any of the symbols.

So it isn't a case of PC, it isn't even a case of religious discrimination. It is simply a breaking of a promise, a written reply to a previous threatened lawsuit. A lawsuit which was dropped because of the promise made.

That makes it a completely different story. I have to agree with the student here.

You also have to recognize that there is a difference between holding an event that FOLLOWS your specific religious belief..like under a full moon...as opposed to something that is decreed religious to somebody else (a church) and you are forced into it.

If the principal was wiccan would you be OK sitting inside a huge wiccan symbol painted on the stage during your graduation? I wouldn't. It's an extreme example, but the equivalent to this guy!

I have always felt that religious aspects and state controlled schools need to be kept separate, it's the only way we can truly have a freedom of religion. The only exception I have to that would be Chrismas or other holidays, but ALL students should be allowed to express their religion provided it's a recognized religion by the state...that way it becomes educational as well.

I can certainly see your point too...we have to draw the line SOMEWHERE so some crack pot can't make life difficult, but as I sit here I have a hard time coming up with a situation that would force a school to do something to avoid OFFENDING a religion..no matter how odd the request...but that's different from FOLLOWING THEIR BELIEF...that sort of request should ALWAYS be thrown out....Full moon, etc. :) I can see a distinct difference in the two, I don't know if you do.

If not...who cares. :) Bottom line...school officals said one thing and did another. Big surprise...and that justified the lawsuit...now if they sued on the first round I'd still think the school was in the wrong for doing it, but it wouldn't justify a lawsuit.

I personally do not mind graduation to be held in a church. It's building first, place for religion SECOND.

I personally think that ACLU was too overzealous (Pun intended).