Supreme Court rules Taxpayers must pay for Religious Education

[peoli]

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court delivered a major victory Tuesday to parents seeking state aid for their children's religious school education.

The court's conservative majority ruled 5-4 that states offering scholarships to students in private schools cannot exclude religious schools from such programs. The decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who has joined the liberal justices in three other major rulings this month.

The court stopped short of requiring states to fund religious education, ruling only that programs cannot differentiate between religious and secular private schools.

"A state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious," Roberts said.


“Members of non-Christian faiths are now required to fund Christian education."


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/30/supreme-court-religious-school-students-eligible-state-aid/5122877002/

[dchill]

1. F. F. S.

[ck4829]

2. Open a madrassa and watch how quickly these "parents seeking state aid" would sour on it

[peoli]

3. No doubt

[Ms. Toad]

5. Legally it wouldn't matter.

The principle behind the decision (consistent with the law starting as early as the 30s) is that the government can neither promote nor discriminate against religion (it has to remain neutral).

If it allows state resources to be used for private purposes, it cannot pick and choose which private purposes based on whether they are religious or not.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

6. The Lemon test.

[Ms. Toad]

9. Yup.

There are a few - but that's the one most frequently used in school settings.

[DFW]

8. For so-called "Christians" it is never a two way street

They think it's fine for taxpayer subsidies to go to "Christian" schools, but ask them if they're cool with THEIR tax money funding Jewish or Muslim schools. Their enthusiasm wanes quickly.

I know how this works. I was once asked to contribute to a "Christian's" mission to go to India and convert the people there to Christianity. I said I would contribute an amount equal to the amount she contributed for Hindus to come to the USA from India to convert Americans to Hinduism. No money changed hands, needless to say.

[Ms. Toad]

4. This is nothing new - despite all the hoopla.

Taxpayers have been using public money to pay for religious education since the 30s (at least), in the form of paying to bus children to religious schools, providing textbooks in religious schools,providing auxiliary services in religious schools, and providing tax deductions or credits for money spent to send children to religious schools.

In a separate (but more directly analogous line of cases), a public school is not obligated to allow community use of its facilities. BUT - if it chooses to permit community use, it cannot exclude community use on the basis that the entity asking to use the facilities is religious.

This is just one more in this line of cases applying the basic principle that the effect of a state law must be neutral as to religion (neither support nor inhibit).

Essentially all this opinion says is that the state is not required to allow state money to be spent to support private schools. BUT if it does choose to allow state money to be spent on private schools, it cannot exclude religious schools from the private schools eligible to receive funding.

The solution, which I wholeheartedly support, is for the state to stop funding private schools - which threaten the quality of public education in the first place. If those with resources (social, educational, financial) to send their children to private schools all do so, the public schools will continue to fall farther and farther behind in quality. Public money should not be siphoned off to support private schools. That is a far bigger problem than using some portion of the money to fund private schools that happen to be religious.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

7. I'm horrified and disgusted at this ruling.

It seems to clearly violate the First Amendment.

I sent my sons to a private secular school for reasons that had to do with them personally. In parking lot conversations, when I'd support the notion that we (meaning those who sent their kids to a private school) should NOT be exempt from school taxes, I made several enemies. I understood quite clearly that I (and everyone else in that parking lot) was supremely privileged. I also understood that a strong public school system benefits all of us, including those who never had kids in the public school system. I actually knew a mom who worked cleaning houses so she could afford the tuition at that private school. I'd have done the same thing, but I had in-laws who paid for my sons' tuition. For which I was mightily grateful.

Over the years I've been in too many places where people opt out of paying for public schools. That's a disgrace. Oh, and if you want a religious school for your kid, you should absolutely have to pay for it yourself. I honestly hope that Moslems and Jews, just to name two groups, immediately found schools and apply for state aid.

Us atheists are always left out, aren't we?

[Ms. Toad]

10. No. Atheists are included (as are Muslim and Jewish schools)

The ruling said essentially two things:

The state can choose not to make public school money available to private schools.

BUT - if it chooses to make it available, it must be neutral as to religion (i.e it cannot exclude religious schools). Which means that you can get it whether you have an atheist school or a religious school or a school that is agnostic as to religion you can get money.

Since you sent your child to private school, you were almost certainly subsidized by public money in the same way religious schools were since at least the 30s, whether you are aware of it or not. This is nothing new. Students who sent their children to private schools (religious or not) are generally entitled to busing (or vouchers), frequently textbook subsidies, auxiliary support staffing (specialized staffing), and (more recently) tax credits. That support has been provided - since the 30s - to private schools of any flavor (religious, atheist, agnostic, or neutral as to religion).

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

12. The private school I sent my kids to did not get any public money subsidies.

No busing, no textbook subsidies, no support for staffing.

I do know that the state I currently live in, New Mexico, has been providing textbooks to the religious schools for years. I strongly think that's wrong. I suspect that every single parochial school is Catholic here. No Hindu or Moslem or Jewish schools here. And probably not one run by Baptists or Seventh Day Adventists. Let the Catholic Church support them and buy those textbooks. Pay all of their own staff. And so on.

As someone else has already pointed out in this thread, if you suggest to a supporter of this nonsense that money also go to a Jewish or Moslem school, they will almost without a doubt be completely opposed to that.

Giving money or textbooks or busing to religious schools seems to clearly violate the separation of Church and State.

[Squinch]

11. I don't think any government should be funding any private schools. That's what makes them private.

But if they are going to fund private schools, they can't say they're going to fund some and not others.

I thought this ruling was much worse when I first heard of it than I think it is now.

States can avoid the issue by simply not offering scholarships to private schools. And hopefully Democratic state legislators will introduce legislation to make that happen.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. +1

Just use tax dollars on public schools.
This is coming from a guy that went first grade to PhD, & 2 more MS degrees in private schools.
No tax dollars on private schools, unless...
Higher education money is used for a limited term to promote a more diverse student body. (For instance, Illinois state scholar money used for greater minority presence, based upon financial need, to any school in the state.)

[Bettie]

14. Frankly, I don't think ANY private school should receive

public school money. None. At. All.