August 7, 2008
On one foot
The case: South Orange-Maplewood School District bans music with religious overtones from its holiday programs.
The background: School board members say in such a diverse community, Christmas music might exclude or offend Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists.
Who objects: Parent Michael Stratechuk says the policy carries a message of disapproval and hostility toward religion.
The New Jersey U.S. District Court heard arguments last week in a case involving the South Orange-Maplewood School District’s ban on religious music at its schools’ year-end concerts.
Attorneys for a Michigan-based group that represents Christian groups in church-state cases argued against the ban, which they say carries a message of disapproval and hostility toward religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
The case appeared July 30 before Judge William H. Walls. He dismissed the case in September 2005, saying the plaintiff had no legitimate challenge.
In October 2006, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Walls’ ruling and sent it back to be reargued.
Michael Stratechuk, who filed the case in district court in March 2005 on behalf of himself and his two school-age children, was represented by Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center. The center has been likened to a conservative Christian counterpart to the American Civil Liberties Union.
Muise faced tough questioning from Walls during almost three hours of oral argument at the courthouse in Newark. As the hours wore on, Walls’ evident disagreement with Stratechuk’s attorney grew more pronounced.
Early in the proceedings, Walls challenged Muise to provide evidence that the school board “went out to attack your client’s religion.” When Muise replied that the high school brass ensemble was prevented from performing Christmas carols, Walls countered: “Was this restriction just on Christmas music?”
“No,” Muise acknowledged.
Muise insisted, however, that the ban remains hostile to religion.
Later Walls picked up this point. “A school board confronted with different religions says it will be neutral with regard to songs for religious purposes whether the holiday is in December, April, or June. Why is that hostile to religion under the Establishment Clause?
Said Muise: “Because the criteria used for the restriction was religion, nothing else.”
Walls also seized on Muise’s argument that holiday celebrations, including Hanukka and Christmas, had their place in the curriculum so long as they were “culturally relevant.”
Said Walls: “‘Culturally relevant’ — you like that term. I’ll put another term to you: ‘religiously relevant.’” And with that, he returned to his chambers.
Although he has not yet issued his decision, both parties told NJJN following the proceedings that they thought Walls would likely dismiss the case.
“I am pleased with oral arguments. I think the judge has a firm grasp on the issues, and I’m optimistic,” said Michael O’Neill, an attorney representing the school board. “From the outset, the judge has seemed to understand that the school board was trying to come up with a balanced position as to the Establishment Clause.”
Muise had a slightly different perspective. “I think we made a very strong record at this level, whether or not we convince Judge Walls,” he said. “All we can do is present our arguments, the evidence, and the law. The judge will decide the way he wants to decide. If we need to go to the appellate court, we will,” he said. Muise expressed the hope that the case would reach the Supreme Court and be decided there.
--TOP--
Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com
