Concerns Raised Wisconsin City Might Be Caving to Atheists Opposing ‘Jesus Lunch’ Adjacent to School
ICC Note: As previously reported, school administrators and community members at a Wisconsin high school are clashing over a weekly event called “Jesus Lunch,” where parents offer free lunch and a Christian message to students. Community members are now concerned as city administration has proposed to eliminate the option to reserve the pavilion where “Jesus Lunch” is held. While the city is saying that this option guarantees that no group is shown preferential treatment, others believe that this is a direct response against those in favor of “Jesus Lunch.”
By Heather Clark
07/23/2016 United States (Christian News Network) – Concerns are being raised over the possibility that a proposal to eliminate reservations for a pavilion in a public park in Wisconsin is actually a means of caving in to a prominent atheist activist group that has taken issue with a weekly “Jesus Lunch” gathering at a local high school.
As previously reported, the “Jesus Lunch” began in 2014 as the parents of several students at Middleton High School decided to provide a free lunch in Fireman’s Park, which is adjacent to the school grounds. Students discuss a Bible topic during the lunch and attendance is voluntary.
According to reports, the weekly event began with 40 students attending and now has grown to 400 two years later.
But in April, Principal Steve Plank and District Administrator Don Johnson sent a letter to parents stating that the lunch violates district policies, as it is led by adults who also do not check into the school as guests. They told reporters that the rules are applicable because the city leased the park to the district years ago.
“The parents contend that it is their First Amendment right to provide free food and hold a religiously oriented event on this property during school hours,” the letter stated. “The district believes that we have jurisdiction of this leased property, which is part of our campus.”
However, the parents asserted that the park is public property and is consequently not subject to district requirements.