Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrDarwin · 06-27-2002, 06:57 AM

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54802-2002Jun27.html" target="_blank">Supreme Court OKs School Vouchers</a>

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]

Nikolai · 06-27-2002, 07:06 AM

Now the posibilities of not overturning the "under god" part look even smaller...

Stephen Maturin · 06-27-2002, 07:19 AM

The case is Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and the opinions are available for download at the <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01slipopinion.html" target="_blank">Court's website</a>. The decision will no doubt be available on Findlaw as well before long.

hezekiah jones · 06-27-2002, 07:36 AM

Interestingly Thomas (or more likely Thomas' clerk) argues that the 14th amendment should not incorporate the establishment clause against the states as stringently as it applies to Congress.

That's just a little bit alarming.

Autonemesis · 06-27-2002, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54802-2002Jun27.html" target="_blank">Supreme Court OKs School Vouchers</a>

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]

Wow. The ironic part is this ruling spells the end of private schools. As soon as they are addicited to the government teat, the rules and regulations will start coming down, and they won't be able to teach religion-disguised-as-science, either.

I am actually quite pleased at this one, because it tantamount to shooting themselves in the foot. I will laugh in a few years when private schools are as dismal as public ones - and it's all their fault.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]

Stephen Maturin · 06-27-2002, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiah jones:
Interestingly Thomas (or more likely Thomas' clerk) * * *

LOL

Quote:

* * * argues that the 14th amendment should not incorporate the establishment clause against the states as stringently as it applies to Congress.

Quote:

Clarence sez:

Thus, while the Federal Government may �make no law respecting an establishment of religion,� the States may pass laws that include or touch on religious matters so long as these laws do not impede free exercise rights or any other individual religious liberty interest. By considering the particular religious liberty right alleged to be invaded by a State, federal courts can strike a proper balance between the demands of the Fourteenth Amendment on the one hand and the federalism prerogatives of States on the other.

Christ. This stops short of saying "For example, Georgia is free to declare itself a Southern Baptist state so long as it doesn't mandate that all its citizens join up," but not much short! Even Scalia didn't sign on to this lunacy.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen Maturin ]

Toto · 06-27-2002, 09:20 AM

Haven't had time to read the entire opinion, but it could have been worse.

<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-1751" target="_blank">Findlaw link</a>

At least the holding does not establish any really bad new law.

Quote:

The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits.
. . .

Rather than creating financial incentives that skew it towards religious schools, the program creates financial disincentives: Private schools receive only half the government assistance given to community schools and one-third that given to magnet schools, and adjacent public schools would receive two to three times that given to private schools. Families too have a financial disincentive, for they have to copay a portion of private school tuition, but pay nothing at a community, magnet, or traditional public school. No reasonable observer would think that such a neutral private choice program carries with it the imprimatur of government endorsement.

I think one of facts is wrong - I think that the motivation here was to aid religion, but the program carefully concealed that, and the Court chose to ignore that possibility.

So we just need to find a number of Atheists, Wiccans, and other unpopular minorities who will set up schools to get government reimbursement.

Worth noting: O'Connor's concurrence lists all of the aid that government currently provides to religion in the form of tax exemptions, medicare reimubsement, etc, to argue that "the support that the Cleveland voucher program provides religious institutions is neither substantial nor atypical of existing government programs." Some of us would undoubtedly draw a different conclusion from those numbers.

RufusAtticus · 06-27-2002, 10:41 AM

Well the government has been funding private colleges for a while through scholarships. Vouchers are not much different. The question is wheather the government should be giving out scholarships for k-12 schools, which I think is ridiculous. The law would violate the 1st amendmnet if it was inacted with the expressed purpose to fund religious education.

Just my initial thoughts.

~~RvFvS~~

Toto · 06-27-2002, 05:11 PM

Just to bump this up to the top:

If the two cases under discussion had been reversed, if Newdow had lost and vouchers had lost, we would a lot further ahead of the game.

<a href="http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067471" target="_blank">Praise the Lord and pass the vouchers to the churches!</a> By Dahlia Lithwick

Quote:

The hysteria over yesterday's 9th Circuit decision to ashcan the Pledge of Allegiance quieted today when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, proclaiming that there's still a place for God, sectarianism, and religious chauvinism in this country. . . .

. . .The First Amendment should have kept all of us from this ugly project of wooing the state into financing our particular church or using the state's money to convert others. The whole battle that begins with "my God can beat up your God" should never have been started in this country, and it shouldn't start now, simply because we mostly agree that God is a good idea.

Toto · 06-27-2002, 05:38 PM

Key phrases from the dissent:

Quote:

Justice Stevens, dissenting.

Is a law that authorizes the use of public funds to pay for the indoctrination of thousands of grammar school children in particular religious faiths a law respecting an establishment of religion within the meaning of the First Amendment?

{Well, when you put it that way. . .)

Quote:

I have been influenced by my understanding of the impact of religious strife on the decisions of our forbears to migrate to this continent, and on the decisions of neighbors in the Balkans, Northern Ireland, and the Middle East to mistrust one another. Whenever we remove a brick from the wall that was designed to separate religion and government, we increase the risk of religious strife and weaken the foundation of our democracy.

Quote:

Justice Souter, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

The Court's majority holds that the Establishment Clause is no bar to Ohio's payment of tuition at private religious elementary and middle schools under a scheme that systematically provides tax money to support the schools religious missions. . . .

Quote:

Public tax money will pay at a systemic level for teaching the covenant with Israel and Mosaic law in Jewish schools, the primacy of the Apostle Peter and the Papacy in Catholic schools, the truth of reformed Christianity in Protestant schools, and the revelation to the Prophet in Muslim schools, to speak only of major religious groupings in the Republic.

Quote:

[T]he scramble for money will energize not only contending sectarians, but taxpayers who take their liberty of conscience seriously. Religious teaching at taxpayer expense simply cannot be cordoned from taxpayer politics, and every major religion currently espouses social positions that provoke intense opposition. Not all taxpaying Protestant citizens, for example, will be content to underwrite the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church condemning the death penalty.(25) Nor will all of America's Muslims acquiesce in paying for the endorsement of the religious Zionism taught in many religious Jewish schools, which combines a nationalistic sentiment in support of Israel with a deeply religious element.(26) Nor will every secular taxpayer be content to support Muslim views on differential treatment of the sexes,(27) or, for that matter, to fund the espousal of a wifes obligation of obedience to her husband, presumably taught in any schools adopting the articles of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention.(28) Views like these, and innumerable others, have been safe in the sectarian pulpits and classrooms of this Nation not only because the Free Exercise Clause protects them directly, but because the ban on supporting religious establishment has protected free exercise, by keeping it relatively private. With the arrival of vouchers in religious schools, that privacy will go, and along with it will go confidence that religious disagreement will stay moderate.

06-27-2002, 06:57 AM	#1
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Supreme Court OKs School Vouchers <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54802-2002Jun27.html" target="_blank">Supreme Court OKs School Vouchers</a> [ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-27-2002, 07:06 AM	#2
Nikolai Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Richmond, Virginia Posts: 422	Now the posibilities of not overturning the "under god" part look even smaller...

06-27-2002, 07:19 AM	#3
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	The case is Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and the opinions are available for download at the <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01slipopinion.html" target="_blank">Court's website</a>. The decision will no doubt be available on Findlaw as well before long.

06-27-2002, 07:36 AM	#4
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Interestingly Thomas (or more likely Thomas' clerk) argues that the 14th amendment should not incorporate the establishment clause against the states as stringently as it applies to Congress. That's just a little bit alarming.

06-27-2002, 10:41 AM	#8
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Well the government has been funding private colleges for a while through scholarships. Vouchers are not much different. The question is wheather the government should be giving out scholarships for k-12 schools, which I think is ridiculous. The law would violate the 1st amendmnet if it was inacted with the expressed purpose to fund religious education. Just my initial thoughts. ~~RvFvS~~

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.