Most effective way to establish religion

Religions > Atheism > Most effective way to establish religion

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	13 Mar 2006 08:32:17 AM
Object:	Most effective way to establish religion

Justice Douglas concurring
.. . . Through the mechanism of the State, all of the people are being
required to finance a religious exercise that only some of the people want
and that violates the sensibilities of others.
The most effective way to establish any institution is to finance it; and
this truth is reflected in the appeals by church groups for public funds to
finance their religious schools. Financing a church either in its strictly
religious activities or in its other activities is equally
unconstitutional, as I understand the Establishment Clause. Budgets for one
activity may be technically separable from budgets for others. But the
institution is an inseparable whole, a living organism, which is
strengthened in proselytizing when it is strengthened in any department by
contributions from other than its own members.
Abington School District v Schempp and Murray v Cutlett, 374 U.S. 203 83
S.Ct. 1560 (1963)
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Most effective way to establish religion	14 Mar 2006 11:34:33 AM

Final part Part 7
LOCKE v. DAVEY
Davey vs Locke Amicus Brief
http://www.pcusa.org/oga/amicus/am44.pdf
Discrimination was one of the arguments advanced in the above case. Didn't
seem to carry the day
Locke v Davey
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/02-1315.pdf
Vouchers Reloaded [July/August-Church State] Washington State Scholarship
Case At Supreme Court Could Rewrite Church-State Law In America
http://www.au.org/churchstate/03-07-feature1.htm
The Blaine Game, Supporters Of Government Aid To Religious Schools Are
Trying To Eliminate State Constitutional Provisions That Stand In Their Way
By Rob Boston
http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs9021.htm
*******************************************************
A Preview of the Pending Supreme Court Decision in Locke v. Davey By:
Professors Ira Lupu and Robert Tuttle, George Washington University Law
School
Publication Date: 10/14/2003
Date Last Updated: 10/14/2003
Description: The case of Locke v. Davey, to be argued in the U.S. Supreme
Court in early December, could have a great impact on President Bush's
Faith Based Initiative, often described as the top domestic priority of the
Bush administration. In the 2002 Report on the State of the Law, we
described the origins and import of the so-called "Baby Blaine Amendments,"
a widely adopted genre of state constitutional provision designed to impede
state transfers of funds or property to religious institutions, especially
schools.[2] Thirty-seven states have constitutional provisions that
explicitly forbid state financing of religious organizations, and ten
states have constitutional provisions that extend these limitations to both
"direct" and "indirect" financing. These state constitutional restrictions
on government transfers to religious groups may create significant
impediments to state service contracts with, or grants to, faith-based
organizations. As federal restrictions on government interaction with
religious groups have lessened, state constitutions have come to the fore.
Litigation about the meaning, and the validity under the federal
constitution, of the Baby Blaine Amendments, has heated up since the
publication of the 2002 Report.[3] Indeed, the case of Locke v. Davey[4]
may turn out to be as important for the constitutional future of the
Faith-Based Initiative as the Court's landmark rulings in Mitchell v. Helms
and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris.[5].
**********************************************************
Weblog: Supreme Court Clouds Church-State Rules Supreme Court: States don't
have to treat "devotional theology" like all other subjects
The Supreme Court stood on its head today. Actually, had five of the seven
justices actually done headstands in the Supreme Court building, it would
perhaps have been less of a surprise than today's decision in Locke v.
Davey.
Here's a little history: In Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the
University of Virginia (1995), the Supreme Court said that the government
must fund a religious publication if it funds other student publications.
In Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), the Supreme Court
similarly said that a public school can't ban a religious group if it opens
the door to all other groups.
Hear the principle? Open the door to some, open the door to all—even the
religious.
It seemed straightforward enough, but apparently the Supreme Court is
singing from a different songbook than thought. Today, it said that
Washington State may deny scholarships to students pursuing
religion-related degrees even if the door is open to all other areas of
study. In other words, it seems, the state may discriminate against
religion.
Washington is one of 36 states with what's known as a "Blaine amendment" in
the state constitution. These amendments, part of an anti-Catholic campaign
a century and a half ago, ban any public funding of religious education.
And seven of the justices have no problem with that.
"Washington's program imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any
type of religious service or rite," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
wrote for the court majority. "It neither denies to ministers the right to
participate in community political affairs … nor requires students to
choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit.
… . The State has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of
instruction."
Ah, but the court didn't pretend like religion had nothing to do with it.
"Training for religious professions and training for secular professions
are not fungible," Rehnquist wrote. "Training someone to lead a
congregation is an essentially religious endeavor. Indeed, majoring in
devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic
pursuit." And giving a state scholarship for that that, Rehnquist
suggested, is troublesome and un-American. "We can think of few areas in
which a State's antiestablishment interests come more into play," he said.
"Since the founding of our country, there have been popular uprisings
against procuring taxpayer funds to support church leaders, which was one
of the hallmarks of an 'established' religion.
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.o...date.cfm?id=20
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O10B32EBC
*******************************************************
NOW WE HAVE THIS AS WELL:
COURTS: A Decision of Consequence: The Supreme Court issued a significant
free exercise ruling on 25 February 2005 that portends a potential obstacle
for supporters of school vouchers and faith-based initiatives. In a 7 to-2
vote, the High Court overturned a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling
which held that Washington State's exclusion of theology majors in its
Promise Scholarship Program, which offers financial assistance toward
post-secondary education costs to academically gifted students, unfavorably
singled out religion in an unconstitutional manner that did not satisfy a
compelling state interest. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the
Promise Scholarship Program offered an acceptable level of inclusiveness of
benefit to religion, as it allowed those awarded assistance to attend
accredited, private, church-affiliated institutions and permitted students
to enroll in courses in theology so long as the scholarship is not utilized
to solely fund pastoral education. As such, the Court decided that neither
the scholarship program nor the Washington State Constitution demonstrated
any unacceptable animus toward religion. Thus the court could not "conclude
that the denial of funding for vocational religious instruction alone is
inherently constitutionally suspect."
[snip]
According to a report in The Christian Science Monitor (26 February 2004),
the Court's ruling appears somewhat inconsistent with recent decisions that
have underlined a gradual trend of "government neutrality toward religion
and the religious rather than strict separation of church and state." Some
analysts view the decision as a redirection by the Court in an effort to
reaffirm the wall of church-state separation. Executive director of
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Barry Lynn, said that
the Court's ruling would make the current voucher push extremely difficult
to maintain, especially in the majority of states where constitutional
barriers exist to prohibit government funding of any form of ministry.
SOURCE: Journal of Church and State ,Volume 46, Number 2, Spring 2004, J.M.
Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies of Baylor University. Features:
Notes on Church-Stare Affairs, David W. Hendon and AaronTyler, p. 432-3
*******************************************************

malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:

:|buckeye wrote:...
:|> Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
:|>
:|Topic: school vouchers and the NEAAFT/AFSCME cartel...
:|>
:|> > MK. The Food Stamp program is a voucher program. Medicare is a voucher
:|> > program. School vouchers work in numerous other countries.
:|>
:|> False as has been shown to you dozens of times in the past 5 years or so.
:|>
:|MK. What is false?

Your example as you well know:

:|When the State provides services through vouchers,
:|instead of through direct State (government, generally) operation of
:|an industry, the State provides funds to intended recipients of the
:|services, and gives to these recipients power to select providers of
:|the service. This is a --voucher--, right? If jalison objects to this
:|definition, let him attempt a better. In his book __Economics Behind
:|the Headlines__, George Schultz, a PhD in Economics, calls Food Stamps
:|vouchers. Medicare is a voucher program. As to school vouchers working
:|in other countries....
:|>

I can call you an idiot, does that make you an idiot, hmmm LOL maybe I
should use a different example LOL
They can label anything they want.
It doesn't make their labeling accurate. its just great propaganda, such as
Gay rights and special rights for gays was great propaganda. Totally false,
totally *****, total lies, but great sound bites, great propaganda.
They are totally different programs administered differently by different
agencies with different qualifications, rules, regulations.
[Food stamps, Strickland, Batte, Vouchers,]
From:

Subject: Re: Edcucation and Religious freedom
Newsgroups: alt.education, alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.democrats.d,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.society.liberalism
Date: 2004-05-19 12:34:38 PST
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=food+stamps,+strickland,+batte,&hl=...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I135223E8
[How to Apply For Food Stamps, U.S. Gov Info / Resources
Food Stamp Program Information and Web Links, Fact Sheet on Resources,
Income, and Benefits, NOT MUCH CAN BE FOUND ON ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS
AND ELIGIBILITY FOR SCHOOL VOUNCERS, BUT THERE IS THIS:,]
From:

User: ""
Title: Re: Most effective way to establish religion	14 Mar 2006 11:34:11 AM

Part 2
PROFESSOR STEVEN K, GREEN
Steven K. Green
http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/faculty/green.htm
Steven K. Green, "Of (Un)Equal Jurisprudential Pedigree: Rectifying the
Imbalance Between Neutrality and Separationism," 43 B. C. L. Rev. 1111
(2002)
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawrev...3_5/04_FMS.htm
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R10721DBC
**********************************************************
ZELMAN v. SIMMONS-HARRIS
Steven K. Green. "Seminal or Symbolic: The Meaning of Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris," in The Future of School Choice (Stanford Univ. 2003)
http://www.hoover.org/publications/b...eschool/35.pdf
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V22C15DBC
**********************************************************
Steven K. Green, "The Ambiguity of Neutrality," 86 Cornell L. Rev. 692,
706-08 (March 2001).
**********************************************************
Steven K. Green, "Private School Vouchers and the Confusion Over `Direct'
Aid," 10 Geo. Mason Univ. Civ. R. L. J. 47 (Winter 1999/Spring 2000);
**********************************************************
See Steven K. Green, "The Illusionary Aspect of `Private Choice' for
Constitutional Analysis," 38 Willamette L. Rev. 549, 571-72 (Fall 2002)
**********************************************************
Steven K. Green, "Religious Discrimination, Public Funding, and
Constitutional Values," 30 Hast. Const. L. Q. 1 (2003)
**********************************************************
Steven K. Green, "Of (Un)Equal Jurisprudential Pedigree: Rectifying the
Imbalance Between Neutrality and Separationism," 43 B. C. L. Rev. 1111
(2002)
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawrev...3_5/04_FMS.htm
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R10721DBC
**********************************************************
Steven K. Green, "Charitable Choice and Neutrality," 57 N.Y.U. Annual
Survey of American Law 33 (2001)
**********************************************************
Steven K. Green, "Critical Legal Issues Involving Vouchers," 75 St. John's
L. Rev. 209 (2001)
**********************************************************
Steven K. Green, "The Fount of Everything Just and Right? The Ten
Commandments as a Source of American Law," 13 Journal of Law and Religion
101 (2000)
**********************************************************
Steven K. Green, "Private School Vouchers and the Confusion over 'Direct'
Aid," 10 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L. J. 46 (2000)
**********************************************************
Steven K. Green, "Religion in Public Schools: Of Misnomers and
Misinformation," 46 Federal Lawyer 39 (1999).
**********************************************************************
Seminal or Symbolic? STEVEN K. GREEN
http://www.hoover.org/publications/b...eschool/35.pdf
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V22C15DBC
[EXCERPT]
In a similar manner, reliance on private choice. obscures
larger considerations of the degree and comprehensiveness of
government subsidies of religion, concerns that lie at the heart
of the nonestablishment mandate.12 As discussed below,
voucher aid can involve substantial transfers of public funds
to religion, create dependency on the government largesse, and
threaten the autonomy and integrity of religious institutions.
These concerns arise irrespective of whether the act of private
choice is truly genuine, meaningful, and independent.
Granted, we acknowledged in our brief that private choice
could be a factor in assessing an Establishment Clause violation.that .true
private choice,. as Justice O.Connor termed it two years earlier13.could
neutralize the constitutional inÞrmity of aid advancing religion, but only
where a broad universe of options exists among which to choose. Choice is
only genuine and meaningful if the beneÞciary has a wide variety of
options, exercises some independent control over the funds, and is not
effectively forced to redeem his beneÞt only at religious sources.
Otherwise, the beneÞciary.s control and discretion over how the funds are
applied would be transparent, and the ultimate use at a religious school
would correctly be attributable to the state.14
We pointed to the fact that over 80 percent of schools par-
ticipating under the Cleveland program are religious and that when one
considered the number of seats available to voucher eligible students, the
ratio rises to 96 percent religious. (Actually, during the 2001.2002 school
year, religious seats accounted for 99 percent of the available private
school openings). We also noted that no suburban public school participates
in the program, nor are any likely to participate based on past practice
under both the voucher program and interdistrict transfer programs. This
means that meaningful choice is illusive; that if you are a parent with a
voucher, 99 percent of the potential uses are at religious schools. This
skewing of options creates an incentive for religious education and is
unconstitutional.
The Court rejected our argument that true private choice does not
exist, despite the preponderance of religious schools participating under
the program. Initially, the majority reiterated that the number of students
who end up in religious schools under the program is irrelevant. Provided
the program is neutral on its face, the amount of government aid channeled
to religious institutions by recipients has no constitutional significance
that it would be loath to have a constitutional rule turn on how program
beneÞciaries choose to exercise their options.15
This part of the ruling mischaracterized our argument (and
sidestepped the issue of neutrality) in two respects. First, we argued that
the 99 percent figure is indicative not of how parents have decided to
exercise their options in a truly open universe but of the availability of
options themselves. As stated, in Cleveland, if a parent wants her child to
participate in the voucher program, there is a mathematical certainty that
she will attend a religious school, regardless of what that parent
desires.16 This makes the ultimate placement decision attributable to the
state. Second, we argued that the Court could not presume the neutrality of
the program merely from its face but rather from how it works in practice.
The fact that 99 percent of options are religious indicates that the
program is not truly neutral, notwithstanding the absence of any religious
language in the statute. Neutrality cannot be determined in isolation of
the facts.
The Court also held (primarily through Justice O.Connor) that the
appropriate universe to consider for genuine private choice is not that of
the participating private schools but includes magnet, charter, and
possibly even public schools.17The Court maintained that voucher parents
are able to consider
all of these educational options for their children (even though some
magnet and charter schools do not offer the same grades as the religious
schools), and when one considers all these alternatives, the percentage of
children attending religious schools drops to under 20 percent.18 The fact
that two nonreligious private schools had converted to community/charter
schools after the program was initiated added credence to the argument that
the various types of schools are all part of the same universe of options
for the parents.
Despite that last fact, the Court still chose the wrong base-
line, for the entire purpose of the voucher program is to provide an
alternative to public schooling. If a parent desires a voucher in order to
remove his child from the public schools, considering those options in the
universe.or at least traditional public school offerings in the mix19.is
analytically dishonest and skews the range of true alternatives for
parents. For those parents, the alternative of the public schools is
already closed.
Second, eligibility for the various educational alternatives
often varies widely, as do program content and emphasis. Some programs are
needs-based, some are competitive, others rely on lotteries for entry,
while all options are affected by factors such as convenience, available
transportation, and program content. For example, a magnet school with a
French immersion program or one for math-gifted students may not be a
realistic option for many children. Although a small number of children may
be eligible for several of the education alternatives, most children will
likely qualify for only one alternative.
12. See: Steven K. Green, .Private School Vouchers and the
Confusion Over .Direct Aid,. 10 Geo. Mason Univ. Civ. R. L. J. 47 (Winter
1999/Spring 2000); Laura S. Underkufßer, .Vouchers and Beyond: The
Individual as Causative Agent in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence,. 75
Ind. L. J. 167 (Winter 2000).
13. Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 842 (2000) (O.Connor, J.,
concurringin the judgment).
14. See Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist., 509 U.S. 1, 10
(1993) (noting that as a prerequisite for constitutionality, beneÞciary
choices cannot be attributed to state decisionmaking.).
15. 122 S. Ct. at 2470.
16. Id. at 2496 (Souter, J., dissenting) (.The 96.6 percent
reßects, instead, the fact that too few nonreligious school desks are
available and few but religious schools can afford to accept more than a
handful of voucher students.).
17. Id. at 2469, 2478.
18. Id. at 2471.
19. Id. at 2469 (.schoolchildren enjoy a range of options: They may
remain in public school.).
\***************************************************
PROFESSOR DOUGLAS LAYCOCK
Douglas Laycock, "Formal, Substantive, and Disaggregated Neutrality Toward
Religion," 39 DePaul L. Rev. 993, 998 (Summer 1990) ("We must specify the
content of neutrality by looking to other principles in the religion
clauses").
**********************************************************
Laura S. Underkuffler, "Vouchers and Beyond: The Individual as Causative
Agent in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence," 75 Ind. L. J. 167 (Winter
2000).
**********************************************************
Voucher Programs Do NOT Improve Education System
Date: 2003-10-28 09:59:53 PST
http://snurl.com/2rpf
********************************************************
THE SCHOOL VOUCHER DEBATE AFTER ZELMAN: CAN STATES BE COMPELLED TO FUND
SECTARIAN SCHOOLS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION?
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawrev...4_4/17_FMS.htm
http://makeashorterlink.com/?K21A12FBC
[excerpt]
The term "school voucher" includes a broad range of government aid
programs.5 One can raise a variety of legal challenges to school voucher
programs on both the state and federal levels.6 The most widely discussed
state challenges involve individual state constitutional provisions that
require a more stringent separation of church and state than the federal
Establishment Clause.7 School voucher proponents can also raise federal
claims under the Free Exercise and [*PG1399]Free Speech Clauses of the
First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.8
In addition to the legal battles over school choice legislation, there are
a large number of policy considerations for and against vouchers.9 These
heated policy issues create vigorous debate over vouchers, and often blur
the line between constitutionality and social concerns.10 There is also a
well-documented anti-Catholic motivation for the enactment of many of the
more restrictive state constitutions, which further adds to the controversy
surrounding school vouchers.11
5 See Jill Jasperson, Renaissance in Education: The Constitutionality and
Viability of an Educational Choice or Voucher System, 1993 BYU Educ. & L.J.
126, 126 (1993); Martha M. McCarthy, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris: A Victory
for School Vouchers, 171 Educ. L. Rep. 1, 1 (2003).
6 See, e.g., Pew Forum, supra note 4, at 8–12.
7 In School Vouchers: Settled Questions, Continuing Disputes, a group of
leading constitutional law professors issued a joint statement providing an
overview of the next rounds of constitutional debate in the wake of Zelman.
See Pew Forum, supra note 4, at 8–12. The statement finds that the first
set of issues includes state constitutional restrictions on vouchers. See
id. at 8. The statement describes how more than two-thirds of the states
have constitutional provisions that restrict aid to religious organizations
more explicitly than does the Establishment Clause. See id. These state
restrictions vary in their language and will generate their own distinct
set of textual, historical, and precedent-based arguments. See id. These
scholars find it helpful to group these state provisions into three
categories: provisions that say government funds may not be used for any
private school or that all schools supported by public funds must be under
the exclusive control of public authorities (thereby excluding secular as
well as religious private schools); provisions that prohibit the
expenditure of public funds in aid of, or to support or benefit, any
sectarian school controlled by a religious organization (thereby
restricting aid to religious, but not to secular, private schools); and
provisions that forbid the compelled support of religious worship or
instruction, or that forbid state money to be appropriated for or applied
to religious worship or instruction (which may permit aid to religious
schools as long as the aid could be segregated from aid used for religious
teaching). See id. at 8–9. For further elaboration of some of the issues
presented in the Pew Forum statement, see Ira C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle,
Zelman's Future: Vouchers, Sectarian Providers, and the Next Round of
Constitutional Battles, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 917, 917–94 (2003).
For additional reading on state challenges to school choice programs, see,
for example, Joseph P. Viteritti, Choosing Equality 168–78 (1999); Mark
Edward DeForrest, An Overview and Evaluation of State Blaine Amendments:
Origins, Scope, and First Amendment Concerns, 26 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y
551, 551–626 (2003); Richard W. Garnett, Brown's Promise, Blaine's Legacy,
17 Const. Comment. 651, 670–74 (2000); Toby J. Heytens, School Choice and
State Constitutions, 86 Va. L. Rev. 117, 125–34 (2000); Joseph P.
Viteritti, Blaine's Wake: School Choice, The First Amendment, and State
Constitutional Law, 21 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 657, 661–80 (1998).
8 See, e.g., Garnett, supra note 7, at 666–69; Viteritti, supra note 7, at
699–703; Eugene Volokh, Equal Treatment is Not Establishment, 13 Notre Dame
J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 341, 365–73 (1999). In addition, the Pew Forum
statement discusses two lines of federal challenges if a state enacts a
voucher program and excludes religious schools from participation. See Pew
Forum, supra note 4, at 9–10. The first argument is that the exclusion of
religious schools from a voucher program discriminates against religion and
so violates the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Speech Clause (as a form of
viewpoint discrimination against religion), and/or the Equal Protection
Clause. See id. The second argument is that many of the state anti-aid
provisions are constitutionally tainted because their enactment was
substantially motivated by nineteenth century Protestant hostility toward
the growing Catholic population and Catholic school system. See id. at 9.
9 See generally Viteritti, supra note 7, at 1–22, 180–208; Nicole Stelle
Garnett & Richard W. Garnett, School Choice, The First Amendment, and
Social Justice, 4 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 301, 341–61 (2000); Richard W.
Garnett, The Right Questions About School Choice: Education, Religious
Reform, and the Common Good, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 1281, 1303–12 (2002).
10 See Viteritti, supra note 7, at 1–22, 180–208; Garnett & Garnett, supra
note 9, at 341–61; Garnett, supra note 9, at 1303–12.
11 See Viteritti, supra note 7, at 1–22, 180–208; Garnett & Garnett, supra
note 9, at 341–61; Garnett, supra note 9, at 1303–12.
******************************************************
School Vouchers: Settled Questions, Continuing Disputes
http://pewforum.org/issues/files/VoucherPackage.pdf
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Most effective way to establish religion	14 Mar 2006 11:34:16 AM

Part 3
SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
What the founders feared and tried to prevent
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...5cc7448?hl=en&
****************************************
Short General History of The Federal Government and Education
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/educ.htm
******************************************
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick
The US is a Federal republic. The 14th amendment did not repeal the 10th.
Some evidence:
Item #1 (Kindly note the very last sentence in particular )
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law Written by Susan Batte
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p...57#post3173057
****************************************
As usual historical reality is far more involved and complex than you are
trying to indicate.
Let me provide some examples:
''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the
'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and
active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity."
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/consti...nt01/02.html#1
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p...95#post3172995
*******************************************
Establisment Clause History
Do you suppose that "the meaning" of those words is clear?
The First Amendment says "--Congress-- shall make no law --respecting--
--an establishment-- of --religion--.
A point that needs to be made here is, the above did not create church
state separation. It only reinforced the separation that was embodied in
the unamended constitution.
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p...58#post3125758
**************************************************
1. Massachusetts had a State religion. --States-- could make laws
respecting establishments of religion.
2. What constitutes "respecting"? . . .
Struggle in Mass
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p...50#post3172950
*****************************************************
religion/education/taxes/early America
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...cfa8229cb26c43
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C1AE165CC
****************************************************************
edu.govt.taxes, Northwest Ordinance
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...6e20887e4c46/4
f617571b83b1402?lnk=st&q=edu.govt.taxes%2C+Northwest+Ordinance&rnum=1&hl=en
#4f61 7571b83b1402
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1EE245CC
******************************************************************
Historical Data Against "Vouchers"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouchist.htm
****************************************
Since Cantwell and Everson, controversy has infused and sur-
rounded the Court's interpretation of the religion clauses. But before
turning to the Court's rulings and rival interpretations of the religion
clauses, it may be helpful to consider two widely dif-
ferent approaches to religious freedom that have animated constitutional
politics: nonpreferentialism and the high-wall theory of the separation of
government and religion.
President Ronald Reagan's attorney general, Edwin Meese III, took the
nonpreferentialism position in 1985 when he advocated the First Amendment
forbade the establishment of a particular religion or a particular church.
It also precluded the federal government from favoring one church, or one
church group over another. That's what the First Amendment did, but it did
not go further. It did not, for example, preclude federal aid to religious
groups so long as that assistance furthered a public purpose and so long as
it did not discriminate in favor of one religious group against another.11
Chief Justices Burger and Rehnquist, along with other justices, championed
this view, as well as political scientist Walter Berns.
"There was no dispute with respect to the principles on which the
Constitution was built," Berns claims, when observing that "stated in its
most radical form, [the Framers] all agreed that our
institutions do not presuppose a providential Supreme Being." But, he adds,
"whereas our institutions do not presuppose a Supreme Being, their
preservation does."
And on that basis Berns reasons that " [1] iberal democracy must preserve
what it cannot itself generate, and it must do this without jeopardizing
the private character of religion." Thus Everson, from Berns's perspective,
wrongly launched "an interpretation under which the First
Amendment forbids precisely what many a man in the First Congress went to
such pains to protect—namely, public support of religion, albeit on a
nondiscriminatory basis." While criticizing the Court for too broadly
interpreting the establishment clause, he criticizes the Court for narrowly
interpretating the free exercise clause so as to allow individuals to
define religion for themselves and obtain exemptions from certain laws and
government regulations. As Berns puts it:
A private person may think He has (and the Constitution protects his right
to think He has), but he may not act on the basis of this opinion, not when
the law commands otherwise. His belief, however profound, has in the eyes
of the Constitution the status of a mere opinion. His belief that God
forbids him to kill another human being occupies the same status as another
person's belief that he must worship a golden calf, or still another's
belief that she must immolate herself on her dead husband's funeral pyre.
Constitutionally, these are mere opinions, and the law may require the one
to bear arms and forbid the second to hoard gold and the third to commit
suttee. . . . The First Amendment requires Congress to tolerate religious
opinions—all of them—but it is a matter for Congress to decide whether
various acts ("acts of the body") shall be permitted.' 2
By contrast, Justice Black's opinion in Everson resurrected Madison and
Jefferson's high-wall theory of separation of government and religion.
Historian Leonard Levy supports this interpretation when attacking the
nonpreferentialist's approach to the religion clauses:
The fundamental defect of the nonpreferential interpretation is that it
results in the unhistorical contention that the First Amendment augmented a
nonexistent congressional power to legislate in the field of religion
[since Article I does not give Congress any legislative powers over
religion]. . . . Preferring 'religion over irreligion' is a red herring;
the question of such a preference was not an issue. The government
possessed no power to aid irreligion or religion. . . .
Nonpreferentialism, unfortunately, is but a pose for those who think that
religion needs to be patronized and promoted by government. When they speak
of nonpreferential aid, they speak euphemistically as if they are not
partisan. In fact they really are preferentialists. . . .
Nonpreferentialists prefer government sponsorship and subsidy of religion
rather than allow it to compete on its merits against irreligion and
indifference. They prefer government nurture of religion because they
mistakenly dread government neutrality as too risky, and so they condemn it
as hostility. They prefer what they call, again euphemistically,
accommodation.13
Conflicts in constitutional politics over religious freedom, however,
involve not only deciding between and applying the nonpreferentialist or
accommodationist approach versus the high-wall
theory of separation of government and religion. In the contemporary
administrative state, laws and exemptions from laws may be challenged for
violating either the establishment clause or the free exercise clause.
There is an essential tension between these two guarantees. Exemption from
the draft for conscientious (religious) objection to killing and war, for
instance, may be defended by claiming the free exercise clause, but
attacked under the establishment clause for aiding religion. Scholarships,
grants, tax credits, or reimbursements have, likewise, been viewed as
infringing on, alternatively, one or the other religion clauses. In Witters
v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986),
for example, the Court confronted a controversy over the denial of aid for
vocational rehabilitation, available under state law, to Larry Witters by
the Washington State Commission for the Blind. Witters's application for
financial aid was denied because he wanted to pursue a Bible studies degree
at a private Christian college. The commission's denial of financial aid
might have been viewed as infringing on Witters's free exercise of
religion, but the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that giving
assistance to Witters would have the primary effect of advancing religion
and so violated the establishment clause. On appeal, the Supreme Court
reversed that decision and held that such assistance does not violate the
establishment clause. Subsequently, a bare majority of the Rehnquist Court
extended that ruling in Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509
U.S. 1 (1993) (see page 722), when upholding public funding for a
sign-language interpreter for a deaf high school student who attended a
religious school. Four justices dissented vigorously from the Court's
result and reasoning, however. It is such disputes over the boundaries
between government and religion in constitutional politics that this
chapter examines.
NOTES
11. Edwin Meese III, "Address before the Christian Legal Society," given in
San Diego, CA, Sept. 29, 1985.
12. Walter Berns, The First Amendment and the Future of American Democracy
(New York: Basic Books, 1976), 10, 12, 34, 60, and 48-49. For similar
positions, see Edward S. Corwin, "The Supreme Court as a National School
Board," 14 Law and Contemporary Problems 3 (1949); and Michael Malbin,
Religion and Politics: The Intentions of the Authors of the First Amendment
(Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978).
13. Levy, The Establishment Clause, 93-94 and 118. See also Jesse Cho-per,
"The Establishment Clause and Aid to Parochial Schools," 56 California Law
Review 260 (1968); and J. Choper, "Religion in the Public Schools: A
Proposed Constitutional Standard," 47 University of Minnesota Law Review
329 (1963).
Constitutional Law and Politics. Civil Rights, Civil Liberties. Fourth
Edition, David M. O'Brien W. W. Norton & Company, N Y (2000) Pp. 661-663
***********************************************
BLAINE
THE BLAINE GAME
ADL will continue to oppose vouchers beyond our arguments in the federal
court system. Specifically, state constitutional provisions proscribing
government support for sectarian schools remain available as a strong means
of keeping religion out of our nation's public schools.
The provisions' namesake, Senator James G. Blaine, proposed an amendment to
the U.S. Constitution in the late 1800s that would preclude public funds
from reaching schools with sectarian influences. While the House voted
strongly in favor of the "Blaine Amendment," it failed (albeit by a small
margin) to receive enough votes in the Senate. However, many states adopted
similar "Blaine Amendments" into their own constitutions. These provisions
remain viable means of preventing public funding of religious schools.
*****************************************************
Vouchers: Blaine Amendments
http://www.nassp.org/services/lowdown070803.cfm
******************************************
Catholic hatred
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p...98#post3157298
*******************************************
Latest Featured Article
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Blaine Game
The ACLU and its allies pick up the banner of the Know Nothings.
Sunday, December 7, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110004393
******************************************
The Blaine Diversion
The Voucher Debate's Red Herring
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=8024
******************************************
Steven K. Green, "The Blaine Amendment Reconsidered," 36 Am. J. Legal Hist.
38 (1992).
**********************************************************
Religious Protection Laws in the United States
An Historical Timeline of the So-called "Blaine" Amendments
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13390
***************************************************
Vouchers: Our Position
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm
****************************************
Study Guide for Vouchers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd4.htm
****************************************
Facts About Vouchers
How Do Vouchers Affect Religious Liberty?
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=6954
*************************************************
Public Opinion on Vouchers
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2538
************************************************
School Vouchers
Settled Questions, Continuing Disputes
http://pewforum.org/issues/files/VoucherPackage.pdf
*************************************************
Religious Protection Laws in the United States
An Historical Timeline of the So-called "Blaine" Amendments
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13390
***************************************************
Religious Protection Laws in the United States
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13473
**************************************************
School voucher supporters
target state constitutions
http://www.bjcpa.org/Pages/News/2002....28.state.html
Faith-based aid may hinge on high court
By ANDREW MOLLISON
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...jc.com/news/co...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C5E1129A8
******************************************
http://www.aboutonlineeducation.com/...s-Down-School- Vouchers.html
Excerpt
malcolmkirkpatrick at yahoo dot com wrote:

:|> >MK. I agree. So do Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law), Benjamin
:|> > Dowling-Sandor (American School Board Journal school law > >
:|writer), and the US Supreme Court. In any case, your Legislature > >
:|could achieve the same result (State-supported parent choice) > >
:|through a clearly constitutional policy: mandate that districts -> >
:|-must-- hire parents on personal service contracts to provide > > for
:|their children's education, if the parents apply for the > >
:|contract. Parents could then homeschool, hire tutors, or send > >
:|their children to independent schools.

What court does Benjamin Dowliong-Sandor sit on?
Hint, he doesn't. How well does his credentials and experiences match
Professors Ira Lupu, Robert Tuttle, Marci Hamilton, Steven K. Green,
Douglas Laycock, Derek H. Davis.
NATHAN J. DIAMENT, Esq. .Laura S. Underkuffler, John C. Jeffries Jr., and
James E. Ryan,
Why do courts keep shooting down vouchers?
Hint, because they are violating constitutional principles
Explain the impact on the entire voucher situation Locke v Davey
has created.
Hint, many feel that Locke v Davey further weakened the suspect line of
precedence that lead to such odd rulings as the ones handed down in
Mitchell v Helms (a weak plurality ruling and the Cleveland case which was
another of the infamous 5-4 rulings)
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Most effective way to establish religion	14 Mar 2006 11:34:20 AM

Part 4
VARIOUS LINKS ABOUT VOUCHERS:
http://www.nsba.org/site/page.asp?TR...CID=88&DID=220
NEW! Keep Public Education Public: Why Vouchers are a Bad Idea
NSBA's 2003 publication about vouchers and tuition tax credits.
http://www.nsba.org/site/page.asp?TR...1490&DID=33735
NSBA Advocacy Tools on Vouchers
Brush up on the voucher debate with NSBA's reports.
http://www.nsba.org/site/page.asp?TR...D=421&DID=8669
The Top 3
Click here for 3 voucher news items hot off the press
http://www.nsba.org/site/page.asp?TR...1323&DID=32417
Capitol Hill News - D.C. Vouchers
Get up to speed on Congress and the debate over school vouchers in the
District of Columbia.
http://www.nsba.org/site/page.asp?TR...D=429&DID=8680
Cleveland Vouchers - News and Notes
Read the latest on the Cleveland voucher program
http://www.nsba.org/site/page.asp?TR...1315&DID=32344
Colorado Vouchers - News and Notes
Read the latest on the Colorado voucher program
http://www.nsba.org/site/page.asp?TR...1317&DID=32346
Florida Vouchers - News and Notes
Read the latest on Florida's voucher programs
http://www.nsba.org/site/page.asp?TR...1314&DID=32343
Milwaukee Vouchers - News and Notes
Read the latest on the Milwaukee voucher program
http://www.nsba.org/site/page.asp?TR...1316&DID=32345
Voucher News Nationwide
Recent news and views on vouchers from across the country
http://www.nsba.org/site/page.asp?TR...1318&DID=32347
**********************************************************
The truth about school vouchers
http://www.sptimes.com/News/031801/P...th_about_schoo....
By ROBYN E. BLUMNER
********************************************
There is a whole series of articles to be found here
http://www.epinet.org/search.cfm
*********************************************
ULTIMATE VOUCHER SERIES
Here is the complete series:
From:

Newsgroups:
misc.education,alt.atheism,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.republicans
,alt.politics.usa.republican,al
t.society.liberalism
Subject: ULTIMATE Series, Vouchers, updated
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:10:34 GMT
PART I
GOVERNMENT-FUNDED VOUCHERS FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS
QUOTATIONS
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....cbdd013?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O52B22DBC
***************************************
PART II
VOUCHERS REPRESENT A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO
THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....439fb4a?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M23B12DBC
***************************************
PART III
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, 2000 MID 0NWARD
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....cbe48ab?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F54B25DBC
***************************************
PART IV
NOW FOR SOME HISTORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....2098de5?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M25B52DBC
***************************************
PART V
You want to study the USSC and its rulings on aid to religion :
Have at it:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....f7e2662?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B66B21DBC
***************************************
PART VI
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AS DEFINED IN 1947:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....18d3f16?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S27B41DBC
***************************************
PART VII
Mitchell v. Helms
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....d58183e?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z58B53DBC
***************************************
PART VIII
HISTORICALLY SPEAKING:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....1dfa194?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T29B23DBC
***************************************
PART IX
The voucher issue has a very simple solution.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....40d7cf8?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2CB46DBC
*****************************************
UPDATES TO THE UPDATE SERIES
Voucher Violation [July/August-Church State]
Americans United, Allies File Lawsuit Against Colorado School Voucher
Scheme
http://www.au.org/churchstate/03-07-feature3.htm
*****************************************
Jesus & Today's Issues: Church and State
A Snapshot Of Religious Freedom In America
http://www.jesusjournal.com/articles...rticle_98.html
[EXCERPT
But Professor Heyrman says more Americans actually started going to church
after the government got out of the business of supporting religion.
Professor Heyrman says in the 19th century, when churches were forced to
compete with one another for members and financial support, church leader,
particularly Protestants, began to make their sermons more emotional - even
entertaining - so people would want to hear them.
*****************************************
DEBATE 2
http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/public...n/debate_2.htm
SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDE FINANCIAL
SUPPORT FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS THAT OFFER
FAITH-BASED SOCIAL SERVICES?
Moderator
The Honorable Louis H. Pollak *
Introduction
Glen A. Tobias **
Panelists
Erwin Chemerinsky ***
Barry W. Lynn +
Douglas Laycock ++
Nathan J. Diament +++
Summary:¨
The following discussion examines the possible ramifications of Charitable
Choice on the separation of church and state. Charitable Choice is a
proposed government program in which secular organizations would receive
federal funding for programs geared toward assisting the poor. Four
prominent legal religious scholars engage in heated debate addressing the
long-term effects of this program. They are: Nathan Diament, Director of
the Institute for Public Affairs of the Union of Orthodox Jewish
Congregations of America, Douglas Laycock, a leading constitutional scholar
and professor at the University of Texas Law School, Barry Lynn, an
ordained minister in the United Church of Christ and attorney affiliated
with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Erwin
Chemerinsky, a constitutional law professor at the University of California
School of Law.
**********************************************************
[ SOMETHING EXTRA]
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/youth...ct_report.html
A different 6-3 lineup ruled in Mitchell v. Helms, 120 S. Ct. 2530, 2000,
that federal funds can be used to buy computers and other instructional
equipment for use in both public and parochial schools. This time, the
liberal Stevens was in the minority and the conservative Thomas decried
hostility to religion in his plurality opinion.
Still, Court watchers who read the opinion for hints on whether the
justices would one day uphold school vouchers are left with no clear
answers. The issue is likely to come before the Court soon because several
states are giving some parents public aid to send their children to private
schools.
Four members of the Mitchell plurality, led by Thomas, said they were
willing to allow a free flow of aid to parochial schools on a neutral
basis. Because the government sought to further education-not religion-it
did not matter whether the schools had a religious mission, said Thomas.
Indeed, excluding parochial schools would reflect a kind of religious
bigotry, he added.
"Hostility to aid to pervasively sectarian schools has a shameful
pedigree," Thomas said. It flared in the late nineteenth century "at a time
of pervasive hostility to the Catholic Church and to Catholics in general."
Rehnquist, Scalia and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined the opinion, which
could have worked a major change in constitutional law.
However, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor balked. She termed Thomas's open-ended
approach "troubling" and agreed to uphold the federal aid on narrow
grounds.
The lending of computers is not in violation of the Establishment Clause,
she said, because "no funds even reach the coffers of religious schools."
And, she said, publicly funded equipment cannot be used for teaching
religion.
Justice Stephen Breyer joined O'Connor's concurrence in the case.
Justice Kennedy was the biggest swing voter, though. He went from the
liberal majority in the prayer case to the conservative plurality in the
computer case.
*******************************************************
GOVERNMENT-FUNDED VOUCHERS FOR
PRIVATE SCHOOLS
QUOTATIONS
"Satan has established certain strongholds...He has gone after
education and has been very successful in capturing it...Abolish the
public schools.You know they're just getting so bad. We need private
schools. We need choice." Pat Robertson, Chairperson, Christian Coalition.
"[P]arents from all walks of life are hungry for a better education
for their children... I know there's a huge debate raging, but we must not
trap students in low-performing schools. It is time to see if it works:
Let's try a pilot voucher program." George W. Bush, Governor of Texas
during the year 2000 presidential campaign.
"Diverting tax dollars from public schools to support tuition for
some children at private schools would drain the funds we need [for] an
ambitious program of...reform that would allow us to have world-class
schools in the 21st century." Al Gore, Vice President of the U.S. during
the year 2000 presidential campaign.
===================================================
http://www.au.org/relrightresearch/
James Dobson
"Children are the prize to the winners in the second great civil war. Those
who control what young people are taught and what they experience – what
they see, hear, think, and believe – will determine the future course for
the nation." Children At Risk: The Battle for the Hearts and Minds of Our
Kids, Word Publishing, 1990, p. 35 (coauthored with Gary Bauer)
"What's needed is a constitutional amendment protecting the rights of
students and other citizens to voice their religious convictions and apply
their faith to everyday issues. It would require an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to protect voluntary school prayer and
religious liberty generally." Solid Answers (Tyndale House Publishers),
1997, p. 189
"School choice is an idea whose time has come. It would give parents the
right to decide whether to send their children to a public, private, or
religious institution and even to select the specific school to which they
would be sent." Solid Answers (Tyndale House Publishers), 1997, p. 176
D. James Kennedy
"This is our land. This is our world. This is our heritage, and with God's
help, we shall reclaim this nation for Jesus Christ. And no power on earth
can stop us." Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul,
(Zondervan Publishing House, 1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)
"How much more forcefully can I say it? The time has come, and it is long
overdue, when Christians and conservatives and all men and women who
believe in the birthright of freedom must rise up and reclaim America for
Jesus Christ." Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul,
(Zondervan Publishing House, 1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)
"Christians did not start the culture war but...we are going to end it.
That is a fact, and the Bible assures us of victory."Character & Destiny: A
Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1997) (written
with Jim Nelson Black)
"Not all the educators in our public schools and universities are
deliberately deceitful, not all of them want to destroy this nation, but
many do. The major teachers' unions certainly do." Character & Destiny: A
Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1997) (written
with Jim Nelson Black)
"Just a few years ago, there were as many as ten thousand Communist
professors in American universities. The average person never saw any of
them, and many would doubt the truth of that statistic. But I can assure
you it is true." Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul,
(Zondervan Publishing House, 1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)
"Teachers in many of our public schools have acceded to the policies of the
liberal teachers' unions to make sure that students from kindergarten
through high school will be stripped of any sense of moral or ethical
absolutes. Right and wrong are non-issues in our public schools." Character
& Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing House,
1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)
"Every new advance and every step taken by science confirm not evolution
but the Genesis account of creation. Yet evolution still continues to be
taught as fact.... Thus, the honorable place that had been given to human
beings by God is surreptitiously aborted, and they are dragged down into
the slime." Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan
Publishing House, 1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Most effective way to establish religion	14 Mar 2006 11:34:25 AM

Part 5
MITCHELL V. HELMS
Brief for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation
of Teachers, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, Anti-Defamation League,
Hadassah, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and People for the American
Way Foundation in Support of Respondents
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty...m?ID=9121&c=29
**********************************************************
Derek H. Davis, "Mitchell v. Helms and the Modern Cultural Assault on The
Separation of Church and State"
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawrev...3_5/02_TXT.htm
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2E612DBC
**********************************************************
[JUST SOMETHING EXTRA]
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/youth...ct_report.html
A different 6-3 lineup ruled in Mitchell v. Helms, 120 S. Ct. 2530, 2000,
that federal funds can be used to buy computers and other instructional
equipment for use in both public and parochial schools. This time, the
liberal Stevens was in the minority and the conservative Thomas decried
hostility to religion in his plurality opinion.
Still, Court watchers who read the opinion for hints on whether the
justices would one day uphold school vouchers are left with no clear
answers. The issue is likely to come before the Court soon because several
states are giving some parents public aid to send their children to private
schools.
Four members of the Mitchell plurality, led by Thomas, said they were
willing to allow a free flow of aid to parochial schools on a neutral
basis. Because the government sought to further education-not religion-it
did not matter whether the schools had a religious mission, said Thomas.
Indeed, excluding parochial schools would reflect a kind of religious
bigotry, he added.
"Hostility to aid to pervasively sectarian schools has a shameful
pedigree," Thomas said. It flared in the late nineteenth century "at a time
of pervasive hostility to the Catholic Church and to Catholics in general."
Rehnquist, Scalia and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined the opinion, which
could have worked a major change in constitutional law.
However, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor balked. She termed Thomas's open-ended
approach "troubling" and agreed to uphold the federal aid on narrow
grounds.
The lending of computers is not in violation of the Establishment Clause,
she said, because "no funds even reach the coffers of religious schools."
And, she said, publicly funded equipment cannot be used for teaching
religion.
Justice Stephen Breyer joined O'Connor's concurrence in the case.
Justice Kennedy was the biggest swing voter, though. He went from the
liberal majority in the prayer case to the conservative plurality in the
computer case.
********************************************************
A Mitchell v. Helms question
http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/reli...ly/017189.html
and
http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/reli...ly/017190.html
**********************************************************
Re: School Choice (was Re: How Children REALLY React To Control)
[meaning and problems regarding plurality rulings-Mitchell v. Helms]
http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/gr...es/296065.html
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V21713DBC
[excerpt]
Re: School Choice (was Re: How Children REALLY React To Control)
by buckeye-ELO@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jul 28, 2004 at 06:27 AM
malcolmkirkpatrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:

Which doesn't exist.
On Mitchell v Helms, we have something new to add to the mix;
Background:
Divertibility:
That being the ability the ability to divert funds to religious use.
The plurality (that is the four justices had no problem with that. Felt
it
was just fine to use religious public funds for religious teaching, etc.
----------------------------------
[**** **** emphasis added.]
The Divertibility issue: Two justices concurred in Mitchell but disagreed
on the divertibility question. For them, diversion was not permissible and
that aid that was divertible, that is, lent itself to religious use was
improper. ****Were the plurality view to become law it would work a
significant shift in Establishment Clause decisions.****
SOURCE: Constitutional, Law Case Note Law Outlines, Gary Goodpaster,
Casenote Publications, (2000) page 14-5.
Note the emphasized portion. I have posted information before that stated a
plurality opinion didn't not create law, was not binding.
[end of excerpt - read entire article, it is important as well ]]
**********************************************************
Vol. 12 No. 10 (October 2002)
CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS IN CRISIS: DEBATING NEUTRALITY by Stephen V. Monsma
(editor). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002. 276
pages. Cloth $70.00. ISBN: 0-7425-1508-7.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/monsma-stephen.htm
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A63722FBC
[excerpt]
Reviewed by Prof. Marie Ashe, Suffolk University Law School, Boston,
Massachusetts. Email:

In CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS IN CRISIS: DEBATING NEUTRALITY, Stephen Monsma
has compiled a fine set of essays by social scientists, political
scientists and law professors, discussing the principle of "neutrality,"
whose invocation determined the U.S. Supreme Court's decision of MITCHELL
v. HELMS in 2000. The "debate" to which the book's subtitle refers can be
seen as a three-way contestation in which the Justices advance competing
interpretations of the meaning of the First Amendment Establishment Clause
with reference to Federal law permitting the provision to religious schools
of Federally-funded materials and equipment, including materials that could
be utilized for the teaching of religion. While the HELMS division shows a
plurality of four justices (Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy)
supporting "neutrality theory" over "strict separation," the opinion
includes writing of three justices (Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens) strongly
opposing "neutrality theory," and two (O'Connor and Breyer) who attempt to
define a position distinct from – perhaps mediating between – the poles of
"neutrality" and "strict separation." At the same time, the "debate"
designation can characterize the varied and oppositional perspectives of
the contributions to the book. Monsma has structured the book so that two
commentaries – one largely supportive and one largely critical --are
devoted to each of the three separate opinions of HELMS – the Thomas
plurality opinion, the O'Connor concurring opinion, and the Souter dissent.
These essays are supplemented by two pairs of essays that read HELMS as
boding either well or ill for the future of Establishment Clause doctrine
and public policy in general. Monsma himself contributes to the volume a
useful introduction and a concluding essay.
[end excerpt]
**********************************************************************
LIBERTY ONLINE A Magizine of religious freedom, July/August 2004
http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/268/1/28/*********...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R23C62DBC
[excerpt]
On June 28, 2000, Justice Clarence Thomas decided a case against the
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, School District 2 that augurs the demise of
James Madison's protections against compelling Americans to pay taxes to
support another's religion. He did this by shrinking the establishment
clause to merely a simple test of neutrality. Three members of the Supreme
Court, including the chief justice, joined with Justice Thomas in what is
called a plurality opinion (meaning a majority of the Court could not
agree). Mitchell v. Helms challenged a federal program that gave religious
schools millions of dollars of equipment and materials that could easily be
used for religious purposes.
Fortunately, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor rejected the plurality's sweeping
neutrality argument, observing that Thomas's opinion "holds that the actual
diversion of secular aid by a religious school to the advancement of its
religious mission is permissible."3
Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional law scholar at the University
of Southern California Law School, succinctly summarized the three distinct
opinions issued by a fractured Supreme Court in Mitchell this way: Justice
Thomas's plurality opinion's test finds any aid to religious schools valid
if it appears on the program's face to be religiously neutral. Justice
O'Connor's opinion concurring in the judgment concludes that neutrality is
insufficient, and such aid is invalid if it is used for religious
instruction. Finally, Justice David Souter for the dissent argued that such
state aid is unconstitutional if it is likely that it can be used for
religious instruction.
Justice Thomas departed radically from existing law in Mitchell. . .
[end excerpt]
**********************************************************
TESTIMONY of NATHAN J. DIAMENT, Esq. .Director of Public Policy ?
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America March 23, 2004
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:9wmIeY2USI4J:www.ou.org/public/s...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M3FA45809
[excerpt]
In the case of Mitchell v. Helms, decided the previous year,15 the issue
was whether the Establishment Clause would permit religious schools to
benefit from government expenditures – arguably a closer analog to the
issues raised in the faith-based initiative context.
In Helms, like Good News, six of the nine justices came down squarely on
the side of the neutrality view of the Establishment Clause.16 The issue
before the Court was the constitutionality of a federal grant program which
allows local education agencies to use federal funds for the purchase of
supplementary educational materials, including textbooks and computers, for
schools within their jurisdiction.17 Because the aid was also made
available to parochial schools within the jurisdiction, it was challenged
as a violation of the Establishment Clause.18 The Court rejected this
challenge.
Justices Thomas, Rhenquist, Kennedy and Scalia rejected the challenge on
the basis of a neutrality-centered understanding of the Establishment
Clause without any qualifications. For these justices, so long as secular
government aid is provided to religious institutions on the basis of
religion-neutral criteria it does not violate the Establishment Clause, and
the constitutionality of currently enacted and pending charitable choice
laws is unquestionable.
Justice O'Connor, joined by Justice Breyer, also invoked the principle of
neutrality, but with qualifications. 19 Inasmuch as this concurrence was
essential to the Court's holding, it can be said that it is the O'Connor
opinion that is controlling in Helms. At the same time, it must be noted
that Justice O'Connor did not write a concurring opinion in the Good News
case taking exception to the majority's strong focus upon the neutrality
principle – as she did in Helms.
[end excerpt]
**********************************************************
http://www.au.org/helmsanal.htm
Case Analysis
Mitchell v. Helms and its Significance for Charitable Choice and Private
School Vouchers [1]
On June 28, 2000, the United States Supreme Court held that the
Establishment Clause to the federal Constitution does not bar certain forms
of education aid from flowing to religious schools. This decision - and
more particularly, some of the language contained in its various opinions
has led people to assert its significance for other funding programs. In
particular, the Court plurality's adoption of "neutrality" as the operative
standard for analyzing funding programs involving religious recipients and
its criticism of the prohibition on funding "pervasively sectarian"
institutions raises new questions about the constitutionality of Charitable
Choice and private school vouchers.
IN BRIEF, the holding in Mitchell v. Helms DOES NOT SIGNAL THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CHARITABLE CHOICE OR VOUCHERS.
Specific language in the plurality indicates that direct money grants to
religious institutions are still unconstitutional, even when those grants
are administered under neutral programs that are generally available to
religious and non-religious entities alike, such as under Charitable
Choice. All nine justices agreed on this point. MOREOVER, A MAJORITY OF
THE COURT (concurrence and dissent) WOULD NOT ALLOW ANY FORM
OF AID if it supplants non-public funds or will be diverted for religious
uses. Although the plurality would likely consider a voucherized program
constitutional, it is doubtful that this sentiment commands a Court
majority. FINALLY, the plurality's criticism of the pervasively sectarian
standard was not joined by the concurrence or the dissent. The
constitutional prohibition against direct funding of pervasively sectarian
institutions, especially where the funds will be used for religious
purposes, REMAINS INTACT.
Mitchell v. Helms
Mitchell v. Helms involved a challenge to the federal Chapter 2 program
that provides educational equipment and materials, such as library books
and computer software and hardware, to public and private elementary and
secondary schools. The challenge asked whether providing such materials to
parochial schools violates the Establishment Clause, in that the materials
could be used for religious purposes. The trial court upheld the program
as applied, but that decision was reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals based on earlier Supreme Court holdings. The Supreme Court then
granted review and reversed the court of appeals in a 6-3 decision. THERE
WAS NO MAJORITY OPINION, however, with two of the justices concurring in
the result only.
Although one should read all three opinions (plurality, concurrence and
dissent) to appreciate the significance of the case, JUSTICE O'CONNOR'S
CONCURRING OPINION, WHICH ANNOUNCES THE NARROWIST
RULE, MUST BE SEEN AS CONTROLLING.
The Decision
In the plurality opinion, written by Justice Thomas for himself, Chief
Justice Rehnquist, and justices Scalia and Kennedy, Thomas proposed
"neutrality" as the constitutional standard for reviewing funding issues.
So long as aid is "allocated on the basis of neutral, secular criteria that
neither favor not disfavor religion, and is made available to both
religious and secular beneficiaries on a nondiscriminatory basis," then it
is constitutional even if it flows to a religious institution.[2] Thus,
provided the program is broad-based and the aid itself does not have an
impermissible religious content, the ultimate use of the public aid becomes
irrelevant.[3]
Although the breadth of this principle is breathtaking in what it would
allow (e.g., the plurality acknowledged that public aid can be diverted for
religious uses),[4] the plurality opinion is not without limits. First, as
noted, the aid must be secular (i.e., nonreligious content) and suitable
for use in public schools and programs. The content of educational
materials - e.g., books or computer programs - is much easier to document
than cash. Also, the plurality sees the existence of private choice as "a
way of assuring neutrality." Thus, while public aid may be given directly
to religious institutions, the constitutionality of the disbursement will
be more secure if it "first passes through the hands (literally and
figuratively) of numerous private citizens who are free to direct the aid
elsewhere," such as through a voucher.[5] Finally, the plurality
expressly questioned the constitutionality of cash grants, reiterating that
there are "'special Establishment Clause dangers' [citation omitted], when
money is given to religious schools or entities directly rather than, as in
Witters and Mueller, indirectly."[6] This means that even the plurality
is unwilling to uphold a program that gives cash grants directly to a
religious entity, even though the program is otherwise available to a broad
range of groups or persons without regard to religious affiliation. Thus,
while the plurality appears willing to uphold a voucher program that
includes religious schools and social service agencies, and would allow
direct grants of secular in-kind materials, it would find direct money
payments unconstitutional.
JUSTICE O'CONNOR wrote a concurring opinion that was joined by Justice
Breyer in which SHE APPROVED the Chapter 2 program, BUT DID SO under much
NARROWER REASONING than that employed by the plurality. Initially, the
concurrence criticized the plurality's reliance on the neutrality of a
program as presenting "a rule of unprecedented breadth for the evaluation
of Establishment Clause challenges." The plurality opinion, O'Connor
wrote, "foreshadows the approval of direct monetary subsidies to religious
organizations, even when they use the money to advance their
objectives."[7] As an alternative, O'Connor held that if government aid is
given to a religious institution directly, rather than as a result of
"true private-choice,"[8] it must comply with the following safeguards: it
must be allocated on the basis of neutral, secular criteria; it must be
supplemental to the aid that would otherwise be available to the
institution; no funds must reach the coffers of the institution; the aid
must be secular; the program must include adequate safeguards to ensure
that the aid is not put to a religious use; and the aid must, in actuality,
not be put to religious use.[9] These factors thus narrow even further
the type of aid that can flow to religious institutions under a general
program: direct money grants would be unconstitutional in most if not all
instances[10], while in-kind aid and materials would need to satisfy the
above criteria.[11]
Justice O'Connor's concurrence does address the issue of "indirect aid"
distributed through a third party, and statements in her opinion suggest
that she might approve an aid program that used a private choice system
such as a voucher.[12] Several factors counsel against assuming that she
and Justice Breyer would necessarily uphold vouchers for religious schools
or religious social service agencies. First, her opinion disagrees
strongly with the plurality's reliance on neutrality as the operating
standard for reviewing aid programs, a standard which serves as the basis
for "private choice" programs. Second, the use of the phrase "true
private- choice" throughout her opinion suggests that she will
differentiate between programs that offer a true variety of options and
those that merely use a third person to direct the financial benefit to a
religious institution. Factors she would consider include the breadth of
available applications of the aid (whether there is a true universe of
options), whether the program creates incentives for religious use, and the
degree of independence the recipient has in exercising his or her
choice.[13] Even assuming those factors are present, O'Connor would still
have to square a voucher system with her other statements about public
funds not supplanting private funds and not reaching "the coffers of
religious schools."[14] The most that can be drawn from her opinion is
that she (and Justice Breyer) are open to a "true private-choice" program
that contains the above criteria but that they will judge each situation by
its particular facts. A voucher program that offers a limited universe of
options and creates incentives for religious use would likely be struck
down.[15]
Finally, three dissenters, Justices Souter, Stevens and Ginsburg, agreed
with the limitations endorsed by the concurrence, but added the
requirements that the aid must, by its nature, not be divertable to
religious use, must not supplant services that the religious institution
would have otherwise undertaken, and must not amount to a "substantial"
amount of assistance.[16]
Conclusion
THE MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE OF THE THREE OPINIONS
THAT WERE WRITTEN IN MITCHELL IS THAT THE CONCURRING
JUSTICES, TOGETHER WITH THE DISSENTERS, MADE UP A
MAJORITY OF THE COURT. These justices agreed that neutrality is not the
sole factor in analyzing whether government aid may be given to religious
institutions. Rather, after the holding in Mitchell, a program in which
aid is given directly to religious institutions --pervasively sectarian or
otherwise -- will gain the approval of a majority of the Court only if it
complies with the principles enunciated in Justice O'Connor's concurring
opinion. FURTHERMORE, NEITHER THE CONCURRING NOR
THE DISSENTING JUSTICES JOINED ON THE PLURAITY VIEW
THAT THE PERVASIVELY SECTARIAN STANDARD IS NO LONGER
GOOD LAW, rather, these five justices agreed that monetary benefits pose
even greater constitutional concerns than non-monetary benefits, and
indicated that the pervasively sectarian standard remains applicable to
monetary benefits that are given directly to religious institutions.[17]
Finally, only four justices indicated their support for vouchers; while
justices O'Connor and Breyer appear open to the concept, they would require
several conditions that are not present in any current voucher program.
[1] By Steven K. Green, General Counsel and Director of Policy,
AmericansUnited for Separation of Church and State. Americans United
participated in Mitchell v. Helms below and is involved in several ongoing
voucher cases.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Most effective way to establish religion	14 Mar 2006 11:34:29 AM

Part 6
*****************************************
malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:

:|MK. This:"...If there is any common ground on which a majority agree,
:|then, as to that position, the opinion is a majority opinion and is
:|the law."
:|>

Would you mind providing some legal cite for the above opinion?

:|MK. One of us, perhaps, misunderstands. I suppose we both understand
:|the court's ruling well enough.

You don't.
You have already demonstrated that in this series of posts/replies.

http://atheism.about.com/library/dec...l_MichtellHelm...
Mitchell v. Helms (2000)
Background Information
Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of
1981 channels federal funds via state educational agencies (SEA's) to local
educational agencies (LEA's), which in turn lend educational materials and
equipment, such as library and media materials and computer software and
hardware, to public and private elementary and secondary schools to
implement "secular, neutral, and nonideological" programs.
In an average year, about 30% of Chapter 2 funds spent in Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana, are allocated for private schools, most of which are
Catholic or otherwise religiously affiliated. Respondents filed suit
alleging, among other things, that Chapter 2, as applied in the parish,
violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
Lee Boothby, representing parents who opposed the parochial aid
program in Louisiana, said the issue at stake was "our historic commitment
that taxpayers not be required to subsidize religious schools."
Court Decision
Voting 6-3, the Court found that the program was indeed
Constitutional and that aid could continue to flow to religious schools.
However, the there was no majority opinion, only a plurality of 4 with 2
justices concurring in part.
The Court used the two relevant criteria of the Lemon Test: (1)
does the program have a secular purpose? (2) does the program have a
primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion? The third criterion of
the Lemon Test (does the program create an excessive entanglement between
government and religion) was held in Agnostini v. Felton not to be
relevant when evaluating aid to religious schools. Thus, the decision for
whether or not such aid is permissible is narrowly based:
Significance
This decision effectively overruled Meek v.
Pittenger, and Wolman v. Walter, to the extent those decisions conflicted
with its chosen analysis in this case. Both of those cases invalidated aid
in the form of instructional materials to sectarian schools.
The Court decision that aid to religious groups can be made so long as it
furthers some legitimate secular purpose and is granted in the same manner
to non-religious groups would allow for the government financing of
religious agendas on a massive scale.
Because this is was a plurality rather than a majority deicision, it has no
authority as legal precedent. However, the opinions do point out where we
are likely to go. If this decision holds, it won't matter if religion is
aided, so long as all religions are aided equally.
*****************************************
BUT WHEN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IS ONLY A PLURALITY OPINION, THE IS, WHEN
A MAJORITY HAS CONCURRED IN THE RESULT ONLY BUT NOT IN THE
REASONING, THEN THE REASONING OF THE PLURALITY IS NOT BINDING IN FUTURE
CASES.
Mitchell v. Helms was a plurality opinion!!!!!!!!!!
It is not binding on any future case.
It is not mandatory authority. It can be persuasive, it can also be totally
ignored.
Here is one example of Mitchell v. Helms not meaning much:
**********************************************
In a 40-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis ruled in favor
of the college. In doing so, he applied the test established in the 1976
case of Roenzer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland. In that case the U.S.
Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional for a state to provide
public subsidies toinstitutions that are "pervasively sectarian." The
implication was that there were institutions that were sectarian but to
which public subsidies could be constitutionally provided; however, there
were some institutions that were too sectarian and therefore could not
constitutionally receive public funds.
In reaching his decision, Garbis REJECTED an argument by Columbia Union
lawyers that the Supreme Court in the Mitchell v. Helms case OVERRULED the
Roetner case. In Mitchell v. Helms, the Supreme Court held that Louisiana
parochial schools could use federal education funds to purchase computers.
In this case judge Garbis apparently distinguished between providing public
funds to religious schools for the purchase equipment as in the Mitchell
case from direct financial subsidies.
Notes on Church-State Affairs, David W. Hendon and Donald E. Greco, JOURNAL
OF CHURCH AND STATE, Volume 42, Autuman 2000, Number 4 pp 891-92
************************************************************
Mitchell v Helms
MK: Here's Clarence Thomas, for the majority, in the case Mitchell versus
Helms: [/quote]
False.
I have told you over and over for 3 years now. Mitchel v Helms was a
PLURALITY OPINION.
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p...73#post3154173
***************************************************
ZELMAN v. SIMMONS-HARRIS
Civil Rights Report ADL in the Courts
Litigation Docket 2002
http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/Docket2002.pdf
[excerpt]
6
The Court explained that "the Ohio program is neutral in all respects
toward religion" and represented an effort by the State of Ohio to bring
increased opportunities to students who may be suffering due to problems of
their school district. The Court added that the vouchers were available to
a wide range of students, without regard to religious preferences, and that
a number of schools had the opportunity to admit voucher students. While
the Court added that students could use their vouchers in a "range" of
schools, it also admitted that 46 of the 56 private schools participating
in the Ohio voucher program were religious institutions.
DISTINGUISHING ZELMAN – WHY IT IS UNIQUE
While the Supreme Court upheld school vouchers in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris,
vouchers have not been given a green light by the Court beyond the narrow
facts of that case. Indeed, Cleveland's voucher program was upheld in a
close (5-4) ruling that requires a voucher program to (among other
things):
• be a part of a much wider program of multiple educational options, such
as magnet schools and after-school tutorial assistance,
• offer parents a real choice between religious and non-religious education
(perhaps even providing incentives for non-religious education),
• not only address private schools, but to ensure that benefits go to
schools regardless of whether they are public or private, religious or not.
This decision also does not disturb the bedrock constitutional principle
that no government program may be designed to advance religious
institutions over non-religious institutions.
Finally, and of critical importance, as many state constitutions provide
for a higher wall of separation between church and state, voucher programs
will likely have a hard time surviving litigation in state courts.
Dissenting, Justice Stevens' noted that less that five percent of Cleveland
students used vouchers during the 1999-2000 school year, demonstrating that
vouchers are not very instrumental in increasing educational opportunities
for most students. Further, Stevens wrote:
The fact that the vast majority of the voucher recipients who have entirely
rejected public education receive religious indoctrination at state expense
does, however, support the claim that the law is one ‘respecting an
establishment of religion.
Further, Stevens argued that even if parents voluntarily choose to send
their children to parochial school, the state should not pay for this
religious education.
In an extremely vigorous separate dissent, Justice Souter noted that in
Cleveland, almost 97% of all of the students using vouchers were going to
religious schools. Souter reasoned that in Cleveland, the students could
not employ true choice in choosing which school to attend. First, because
the number of seat at nonreligious private schools in Cleveland was small,
Souter explained that even if every school accepted vouchers, few students
would be able to avail themselves of the educational opportunity. Second,
Souter noted that the voucher amount precludes non-religious private
schools, with higher tuition rates, from opening their doors to voucher
students. Ohio has spent more than $33 million of taxpayers' money into the
voucher program since its implementation in 1996 (this figure is in
addition to the approximately $600 per student that Ohio sends to private
schools, in the form of textbooks, reading and math tutors, laboratory
equipment, and other school-related items). Most of this money is funding
religious education. It is deeply troubling that a majority of the Supreme
Court chose to ignore this critical fact in finding the voucher program
acceptable under the Establishment Clause.
***********************************************************
The Cleveland case did not overturn Nyquist which is still good law and is
a "voucher" ruling, voucher ruling as in strict separation. The Cleveland
case is not carte blanc for vouchers. There are limitations and
restrictions
SEE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR VOUCHER PROGRAMS
http://www.au.org/zelmananal.htm
The Cleveland case did not overturn 47 state constitutions.
SUPREME COURT RULING FOR RELIGIOUS SCHOOL VOUCHERS SHIFTS BATTLE TO STATES,
CONGRESS, Despite Court Ruling, Voucher Schemes Will Still Face Major
Hurdles,
http://www.au.org/press/pr062702.htm
Case Analysis
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
http://www.au.org/zelmananal.htm
****************************************************
ZELMAN v. SIMMONS-HARRIS
Steven K. Green. "Seminal or Symbolic: The Meaning of Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris," in The Future of School Choice (Stanford Univ. 2003)
http://www.hoover.org/publications/b...eschool/35.pdf
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V22C15DBC
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Most effective way to establish religion	14 Mar 2006 11:34:03 AM

wrote:

:|Buckeye wrote:
:|
:|Justice Douglas concurring: ". . . Through the mechanism of the State,
:|all of the people are being
:|required to finance a religious exercise..."
:|
:|The problem is with the word "to". "To" is a statement of intention.
:|Food Stamps finance nutrition. They do not finance any particular
:|grocery store. Recipients are free to buy a Hindu-or Zen-acceptable
:|vegetarian diet, a kosher diet, or Muslim-acceptable diet. Food Stamps
:|do not "establish" any particular grocery store chain. Medicare
:|vouchers finances medical care. They do not finance any particular
:|hospital. Recipients are free to buy care from a Catholic hospital, a
:|Jewish hospital, a Methodist hospital, or from a for-profit, secular
:|hospital. Medicare does not "establish" any particular Church-operated
:|chain of hospitals. There is no constitutional problem with nutririon
:|vouchers, medical care vouchers, or education vouchers.
:|
:|School vouchers are legal. With Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito
:|on the USSC and replacements most likely to come for Stevens or
:|Ginsberg, the court is not likely to depart from the reasoning of
:|Mitchell v. Helms any time soon.
:|
:|Competition between service providers improves service and lowers
:|costs, across industries. Students, parents, real classroom teachers,
:|and taxpayers would gain from policies which give to parents the power
:|to determine which institution, if any, shall receive the taxpayers'
:|K-12 education subsidy. Policies which restrict a parent's options for
:|the use of the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy to schools operated by
:|the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel raise costs and lower overall system
:|performance.

Above is one viewpoint on this Church state topic:
Here are other viewpoints on this same church state topic:
Part 1
Some people like to portray the voucher, aid to schools, etc in general as
a very simple settled issue. However, as the following from a variety of
sources demonstrate, this is far from being true
You will find duplications in the following, for this I apologize. You will
also find comments that are pro vouchers and cites to pro voucher articles
etc. That reflects the real world. In the real world there are things that
support, things that disagree and things that do neither. Unlike those on
the other side I have no problems indicating there are other viewpoints.
This posting is not complete, there is far too much out there for that and
new info coming along all the time. However, it is pretty in depth with
regards to my focus of this topic, church state separation, i.e. the
Establishment Clause, govt-religion.
************************************************************
EXCERPTS FROM
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p...40#post3193740
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B732DBC
A CONVERSATION ON SCHOOL VOUCHERS
A conference call convened by the Economic Policy Institute
June 12, 2003
"The belief that private schools…are more effective than public schools is
not consistent with the evidence." – Helen Ladd
"All in all, [the voucher policy] is not a big-hit policy. In fact, it's
probably a no-hit policy, and it's not free….It's a nice windfall for the
private schools, and a net loss to the public schools."
– Martin Carnoy
"What we found was that the effect of vouchers for African American
students was quite weak; indeed, it was very difficult to distinguish no
impact at all from a small impact." – Alan Krueger
My best guess is that offering a voucher to elementary school students in
New York City probably had no impact on the African American student's test
achievement." – Alan Krueger
"In Milwaukee, there is no accountability requirement for voucher schools,
aside from some very minimal financial oversight … (the voucher) is not
only saving the religious schools, it's actually subsidizing them." –
Martin Carnoy
"The evidence form New York is not nearly as strong as has been previously
characterized."– Cecilia Rouse
"On average, students using vouchers don't have higher achievement than
students who remained in public schools." – Richard Rothstein
********************************************
Voucher advocates prepare to regroup
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...200443/1006/NE WS01
Indianapolis Star - United States
Voucher advocates prepare to regroup
Legislative losses won't hush debate over choice, they say By Staci Hupp
[excerpts]
The death of school vouchers at the Statehouse this month triggered
high-fives and handshakes on both sides of the debate.
Public school loyalists celebrated the demise of an effort to send public
schoolchildren to private schools at taxpayer expense.
Voucher supporters saw a different turning point. There are fund-raising
dinners in the works, billboards on busy roads and a new grass-roots group
searching for a headquarters in Indianapolis and support from parents
statewide.
But vouchers have been a tough sell in Indiana. The concept is so touchy it
has divided the state's Republicans.
Reed points to lawsuits elsewhere. The Florida Supreme Court last month
ruled vouchers violate the state constitution's requirement of a uniform
system of free public education.
Other court decisions have said vouchers violate the separation of church
and state. U.S. Supreme Court justices, however, have upheld vouchers. "The
last thing we need to do is spend money to go to court," Reed said.
The effectiveness of school vouchers is difficult to measure.
A Columbia University study of children in a voucher program in Cleveland
showed no major academic gains over their public-school counterparts.
However, the argument that vouchers drain money from public schools is
weak, said Clive Belfield, associate director of Columbia's National Center
for the Study of Privatization in Education. "There's a lot of opposition
to vouchers, which is politically motivated," Belfield said, "and there's a
lot of advocacy of vouchers, which is evidence-blind."
Skeptical public
Hoosiers remain largely split over school vouchers, according to public
opinion polls.
[end excerpts]
*********************************************************
*Their* Money: Thoughts on Vouchers by Wayne Aiken
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/aikenvch.htm
**********************************************************
Susan Batte food stamps pell grants fire protection etc
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p...41#post3156941
**********************************************************
Myron Lieberman says that Americans United for the Separation of Church and
State is (at the time he wrote) funded (in some part) by the NEA.
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p...23#post3157423
**********************************************************
Groups that support vouchers
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p...06#post3172906
************************************************************
Follow the Money: Funding and Support for Voucher Programs Key Individuals
Supporting the National Voucher Movement
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10721
**************************************************************
Follow the Money: Funding and Support for Voucher Programs Foundations
Supporting the National Voucher Movement
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10722
****************************************************************
Follow the Money: Funding and Support for Voucher Programs Local and
National Organizations Supporting Voucher Initiatives
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10723
*****************************************************************
Vouchers: Who's Behind It All?
I. Background Information
http://www.aasa.org/edissues/content.cfm?ItemNumber=964
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E39C24DBC
*******************************************************************
Who's Behind the Money?
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/arc...4/who194.shtml
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D5AC22DBC
********************************************************************
Who's bankrolling vouchers?
http://www.njea.org/Issues/bankroll.asp
**********************************************************************
New report details links between charity and vested interests in campaign
against public schools
http://members.fortunecity.com/edito.../vouchers.html
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P29751DBC
***********************************************************************
Pro-voucher brain trusts vital to NCLB sanction fallout Friday, April 30,
2004
http://www.educationnews.org/pro-vou...s-vital-to.htm
*************************************************************************
The choice is theirs Bill Berkowitz - Working For Change
http://www.workingforchange.com/prin...m?itemid=12584
************************************************************************
The Voucher Circus
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/...her_circus.htm
**************************************************************************
RELIGIOUS GROUPS QUIETLY TARGET OBSCURE STATE CONSTITUTION PROVISION
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vouch13.htm
*************************************************************
GOVERNMENT-FUNDED VOUCHERS FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sch_vou.htm
[Excerpt]
Overview:
Some Christians, mainly Roman Catholics and conservative Protestants, have
strongly supported the transfer of government revenue to religious schools.
However, direct financial support has been unconstitutional, because of the
principle of separation of church and state which is part of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A
recent technique has been to promote "school voucher" programs at the state
or municipal level. The government gives a voucher to parents that they may
use to pay for part of the fee for enrolling a child in a private school.
In effect, the state would be returning money collected from parents in the
form of taxes for the public school system, so that they could help finance
their child's education in a private school, either religious or secular.
***************************************************************
Religious Right, GOP Allies Should Stop Pushing Voucher Plans That
Undermine Public Schools
http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt051701b.html
******************************************************************
GROUPS THAT ARE PRO VOUCHERS SELDOM IF EVER MENTIONED PRO VOUCHER PEOPLE.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...?output=gplain
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E6DC23DBC
***********************************************************************
[Colorado to take school vouchers step State to be first with program since
Supreme Court ruling
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/04....ap/index.html ]
[Who really represents the will of the people?]
A goal of conservatives for years, vouchers were twice rejected by Colorado
voters. But the bill was pushed through the Legislature after Republicans
won control in November's elections, with supporters saying it will give
poor students a better education and force public schools to
improve.
Democratic lawmakers say the voucher program could cost public schools as
much as $200 million in state aid based on the number of students.
The Colorado Education Association, representing 36,000 teachers, is
considering a legal challenge. It says the bill may violate guarantees
against giving tax dollars to religious institutions or any school not
under control of the state.
"The Legislature is blatantly ignoring both the Constitution of the state
of Colorado and the express wishes of the voters," CEA President Ron Brady
said.
******************************************************
EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE 47 OR SO STATE CONSTITUTIONS THAT FORBID USE OF
PUBLIC FUNDS FOR RELIGION
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE I-Declaration of Rights
Sec. 3. Religious freedom
There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or
prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom
shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or
safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency
thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly
in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any
sectarian institutio