It's hard to understand why or how CT can repeatedly misstate the facts about this case. First, there is currently NOT in effect "a new ban on local church use of Housing Authority buildings." Here's a report from the New York Daily News:

"The New York City Housing Authority is not evicting any of these organizations from our property,” an agency spokeswoman said in a statement...'“We have offered each of the five groups an extension to remain at NYCHA facilities,' the statement continued. City Councilman Fernando Cabrera, who was arrested at last week’s protest, called the agreement 'a great victory.'”

And, as BOTH the Daily News Article and the nycreligion.org article report, the rally is protesting the court ruling permitting the NYC school board to refuse to allow religious groups to use the SCHOOLS for the purpose of holding "worship services." It's NOT protesting any "ouster from housing authority space" since there isn't currently any such ouster in place, nor is any such ouster required by the court ruling regarding schools.

Yes, of course it would be good if fledgling churches could use inexpensive public space to get their start and in the process give back to the community. But, the facts laid out in the Second Circuit opinion make clear that some of those churches were abusing the privilege.

And yes, the NYC Housing Authority may change its mind again as it studies its policy. But why misstate what's happening now? How is that going to encourage the Housing Authority to continue to welcome churches in its space?

In response to a comment given by a "Christian lawyer" about CT's article, "NYC pastors hold prayer rally to protest ouster from housing authority space"...It is true that five churches that meet in Community Centers in New York City have been allowed to renew leases. However, this was not the case until after the first public protest was staged. The church I pastor, Bronx Bible Church at the Sonia Sotomayor Community Center, was informed we must leave by the end of December. Only after the public outcry were we told we could stay. So the lawyer's first statement that, "It is hard to understand why CT can repeatedly misstate the facts" about this case, is in fact, a misstatement. Also, please elaborate on the outrageous innuendo, "It is clear some churches were abusing the privilege." You are welcome to visit us anytime at ll AM on Sundays and see the for yourself. Or, a better idea would to visit one of the many churches that is presently soon to be evicted from public schools in New York City. Rexpectfully yours, Pastor Ed Rumley

@ Ed Rumley --

Your comment just proves my point. CT reported the letters received by the churches from the NYC Housing Authority about not renewing their leases, but CT failed to report either in its first article, the update to the first article, or in this second article that, as you note,that you were told that "we could stay." So, CT only reported half the story, even after it has purported to publish 2 updates. That's a pretty significant misstatement by omission. I made the same point in a comment to CT's original article. I don't understand why they can't, as you do, tell both the first and the second parts of the story.

CT also had a post when the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, which allowed the Second Circuit opinion to stand, and that post also omitted key facts and allowed the pastor writing the post to falsely argue that the schools should be happy for the rent money when, as the Second Circuit opinion makes clear, the school board only charges a small amount that doesn't cover the utilities or janitorial services. I commented on that post as well to correct the facts.

If CT and other Christian news organizations had reported the Bronx Household case more responsibly, and without the hysteria, perhaps the NYC Housing Authority bureaucrat who was given a news report about the Bronx Household ruling, and somehow came to the conclusion that the ruling in the Bronx Household case "required" the Housing Authority to ban churches from its space, would not have been so confused and would not have issued the letter to you in the first place.

CT's first article on the Housing Authority situation quoted a nycreligion.org post that falsely stated that the Second Circuit's opinion was a "ban of religious groups renting space in public schools." As I commented in the earlier CT post on the current situation:

While it's true that the confusion on this matter apparently stems from the recent US Supreme Court decision not to hear the case of Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. of Ed. of the City of New York, it's NOT TRUE that the lower court had "ban[ned] religious groups renting space in public schools during the off-hours." Rather, the lower court decision (from the Second Circuit) held that the NYC school board's policy prohibiting the after-hours use of schools for "worship services" or as "a house of worship" did not violate a church's First Amendment rights. In other words, the decision PERMITTED the NY school board to enforce that policy, but the court DID NOT REQUIRE the school board (or any other public entity) to have or enforce such a policy.

While that may not seem like a big difference, it's that difference that apparently caused the confusion with the NYC Housing Authority, when some low-level bureaucrat received word about the court decision and apparently thought it somehow REQUIRED the Housing Authority, a completely separate agency, to follow the policy adopted by the NYC school board.

Note also that the Second Circuit decision DID NOT prohibt ALL uses of the schools by religious organizations. A church can still use the school for prayer, bible study, choir rehearsal, bake sales, and other activities that are not "worship services."

So, back to you, Ed, about "misstatements."

As to your request for elaboration for what you call my "outrageous innuendo" that the "churches were abusing the privilege." Actually, that's not an "innuendo" at all, and I did provide elaboration by pointing you to the Second Circuit opinion, which provides the details about the churches using space in the public schools.

According to the undisputed facts in the Second Circuit opinion, Bronx Household, the church that brought the suit, wasn't using the school space as a place to get their congregation started. They had been using the school continuously for almost a decade. And, they have been fighting with the NYC School Board going back to 1994 when they first applied to use the school. Some of the churches posted signs, distributed literature, and proselytized outside the school buildings. Some churches so dominated the schools that no other organization used the school building on Sunday.
http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Bronx_Household_of_Faith_v_Bd_of_Education_of_New_York_650_F3d_30