The Supreme Court ruled today by 7-2 that Missouri could not deny funding for the resurfacing of a church playground when the state was funding the resurfacing of public school playgrounds. The court apparently overturned the state constitution’s prohibition on funding religious institutions in any manner. If this ruling overturns state constitutional amendments prohibiting the funding of sectarian (religious) schools, it clears the way for state funding of capital cost of religious schools, and very possibly, for vouchers. (Ironically, before the decision, Missouri had already reversed course and resurfaced the church’s school playground.)
“The court ruled 7-2 that religious institutions may not be excluded from state programs with a secular intent — in this case, making playgrounds safer.
“Missouri’s state constitution, like those in about three dozen states, forbade government from spending any public money on “any church, sect, or denomination of religion.”
“Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Mo., wanted to participate in a state program that reimburses the cost of rubberizing the surface of playgrounds. But the state said that was not allowed. The exclusion has raised big questions about how to uphold the Constitution’s prohibition on government support for religion without discriminating against those who are religious. Missouri’s state constitution, similar to those of about three dozen states, directs that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion.”
“ Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who authored the opinion, wrote, “The exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution … and cannot stand.” The two dissenting votes came from Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.”
In another decision, the Supreme Court agreeed to hear a case in which a baker refused to make a cake for a gay couple, because of his relious views. Given the decision today about the Missouri case, this Supreme Court might decide that discrimination based on religious principles is constitutional.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
But the intent of religious education is not secular, it is both to teach both secular and religious content and principles. So based on that precedent, religious schools should not receive tax funding since the intent is not secular.
This decision will have huge implications. Religious schools can apply for capital funding. They can apply for funding of teachers who teach non-religious subjects. Can the state monitor religious schools to assure that their “science” teachers are not teaching creationism?
Religiously-operated schools can already get tax funding for capital improvements. See Tilton v. Richardson (1971)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/153
See the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
Am trying to follow this interesting exchange. Charles, the majority opinion in both the cases you cite hinge on whether the statute overly entangles the state with religion.
I think the first cite (state aid allowed for relig-school capital expenditure, as long as the bldg is never used for sectarian purpose) does not apply to a preschool. Much was made of the fact that these were college bldgs, & that college-age students are past the point of religious indoctrination [nevertheless, the court struck down the portion that would allow eventual sectarian use].
Your 2nd cite responds to Diane’s concern that religious schools can apply for state funding of teachers who teach non-religious subjects, whereas this case denies that, as an entaglement of state w/religion.
BUT. The Zelman case still requires that the statute’s goal be ‘neutral’. Providing low-income kids w/better alternatives to ‘failing’ local schools was deemed to be a neutral goal. [Even tho most available local alternatives were religious– that was considered just facts on the ground, w/family voucher $ not seen as promoting or advancing religion.] So it looks like voucher programs can still be challenged under the establishment clause — IF provided as a way for non-low-income people to choose a religious school over their non-failing local school…?
The line between providing for certain goals, and excessive entanglement with religion is blurry. There is no exact age, where religious indoctrination can occur. I switched religions when I was 32. If public tax money can be used for capital expenditures at an institution for higher learning (run by a religious organization), then it should follow that similar funding can be used for capital improvement at schools for younger children. This is exactly what was decided in the Trinity school district v. Pauley case, which was announced yesterday.
There may new challenges to voucher programs, based on religious grounds. But I doubt if a Trump-led Supreme Court will seek to reverse the Zelman case.
What a surprise!
The case where a baker refused, on religious grounds, to bake a cake for a gay couple is truly disturbing if it is allowed to stand. Already, the court has decreed that a business can deny contraceptive coverage for its employees, once again based on religion.
I will believe this “religious excuse” is genuine when I am allowed to refuse to fund wars with my taxes. That will be the true test for me.
Being a conscientious objector was grounds to defer being drafted in the 70’s. You pose a good question: should it defer a portion of taxes to support it. Of course, what happens to the portion to protect you from outside threat?
Mathman,
If you are a conscientious objector, you should not be taxed to pay for war.
But I doubt you will win this one.
Huge decision. This goes beyond saying that taxpayer funding from a program that’s generally available to the public may be given to religious institutions. It says that funding must be given to religious institutions.
This is frightening. What will this conservative court rule next?
But at 7-2, this decision isn’t just the conservative wing of the Court. At least two of the more liberal justices had to agree to this as well. I don’t know who decided where, but this doesn’t bode well for future cases.
Thanks for the input. I made an incorrect assumption that it was only the conservatives that want to destroy public education. Guess its the whole system…very sad.
It IS incredibly sad. The Supremes are SO removed from actual human beings that even the “liberal” part of the Court aids in destroying public institutions.
The retirement talk for Justice Kennedy is loud. People are worried that Kennedy will retire, allowing the orange scumbag to appoint another justice, and the enabling Senate to confirm him (this is Trump. It will be a “him.”). But it really doesn’t matter, I guess, because the liberal justices are selling us down the river, too.
So much for checks and balances.
This decision is not “Conservative” or “Liberal”.
It’s just dumb and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the US Constitution.
What are our law schools teaching these people?
I think we need VAM for law schools (just kidding)
“This Supreme Court might decide that discrimination based on religious principles is constitutional”
I thought the SC had already decided that with the owners of Hobby Lobby could cite their religious convictions as reasons to exclude employees from receiving specific ACA benefits.
If the Roberts court prevails, the “baker” case is sure to authorize business owners the right to deny services based on their religious beliefs.
I imagine that David Duke and fellow travelers will formally align their white supremacy “beliefs” with a specific religion.
Clever lawyers might argue that service will be denied to a person wearing the “wrong” religious symbol.
This decision leaves me wondering (1) whether Missouri paid to rubberize the playgrounds of private, secular non-profit preschools (2) whether this decision opens the door to taxing non-profits (secular and religious)
The Missouri program provides shredded tire chips to all kinds of recipients. See
https://dnr.mo.gov/env/swmp/tires/tirefinassistance.htm
So Justice Elena Kagan voted with Roberts? Awesome.
Good thing Obama appointed such liberal justices.
He choked, just like he choked on revealing what he knew about the hacking last summer.
First they came to pave the playgrounds.
Then they came to vouch the vultures.
Next they’ll ban dissenting sounds
and the voices of all different cultures.
This will just add to Voucher Mania in DC. They alternate weeks- voucher mania and charter mania.
There are no weeks where they focus on public schools.
If you added up the time lawmakers spend funding, regulating and promoting charters and vouchers and compared it to the time and effort they spend on public schools I bet it would be 90/10 vouchers/charters.
It’s what “capture” looks like.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1947, that it was permissible for tax money to be used to transport students to/from non-public schools. see Everson v. Board of Education of the township of Ewing, NJ, et. al :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
States/municipalities have been providing financial support to students attending religiously-operated schools for decades.
Q government may provide aid to religious schools as long as the aid is (1) secular in content, such as funding for bus subsidies or secular textbooks; (2) generally available to students in both public and private schools; and (3) primarily directed toward students rather than toward schools. END Q
see
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/05/14/shifting-boundaries5/
If my tax monies go to tax exempt religious organizations, then they should also pay taxes. Talk about free riders! Hypocritical bastards are what those religious people who accept tax monies are.
If we just gave ed reform unlimited private school vouchers would they agree to just drop out of weighing in on public schools completely?
They can pursue their passion for private schools and we’ll find people who value public schools to work on and in them.
It really could be a win/win. Let’s face it- they’re not doing a whole lot for public schools anyway. No real reason they should be on the public payroll.
The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly, that governments can provide tax money to religious institutions for secular purposes. For example, tax money can be provided to a religious institution, to set up a substance abuse recovery program.
For example, in Freedom from Religion Foundation v. McCallum (2003), the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Establishment Clause allowed public funding of a religious group’s substance abuse treatment program because its beneficiaries exercised true private choice in determining whether to use public funds for religious or secular treatment.
The Trinity case posed quite a different question, though.
What is so different? The religiously-operated school has a playground, without a fence. Any child in the neighborhood can use the playground. The state program provides the tire chips to any qualifying entity, now including religious entities.
Religious organizations operate shelters for battered women, and receive tax money for doing so. Religious groups operate food pantries, and people can redeem their food stamps there.
You can use your social security payment to pay for an apartment at a retirement home run by a religious group.
Trump’s nominee Neil Gorsuch is a zealot on religious issues.
Justice Neil Gorsuch delivering as Trump’s promised conservative – CNN
https://apple.news/ALEvRhiZtSYW9C_3bq-PZ5A
I foresee a future in which my partner and I may be excluded from restaurants, hotels, and other businesses and denied services by other companies because we offend the religious views of the owner.
It’s the difference between asking whether a state is permitted to do something and whether a state is required to do something. That’s a pretty big difference.
Q I foresee a future in which my partner and I may be excluded from restaurants, hotels, and other businesses and denied services by other companies because we offend the religious views of the owner. END Q
Your fears are well-justified, and that day may be very soon. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Masterpiece v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The Court will decide if a person can refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, if it violates his religious beliefs. see
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/supreme-court-religious-liberty-case-next-term/index.html
The next step will be when businesses are allowed to exclude Muslims or blacks because doing so offends their religion.
We now have a SupremeCourt that values religious freedom more than the right to equal treatment under the law.
Q We now have a Supreme Court that values religious freedom more than the right to equal treatment under the law. END Q
You may be right. And if Judge Kennedy retires, and Trump appoints a strict constructionist, the court will move even more to the right.
In the Masterpiece case, the Court is going to have to weigh the civil rights of people against the religious freedom of a business owner.
Will the case lead to businesses refusing to sell to people based on race, religion, or some other criteria? I don’t know.
“We now have a SupremeCourt that values religious freedom more than the right to equal treatment under the law.”
No, they don’t value religious freedom. They value xtian fundie (even of the Catholic kind, yes there are hardcore fundie Catholics) values.
Wonder what the vote would have been if that school had been a Muslim madrassa instead of a Lutheran one?
Just like the original gun control legislation grew out of the Huey Newton and the Black Panther party walking into the California legislature with assault Rifles . I suspect something similar has happened here. Time to open up the Holly school of Devil worship and Secular Humanistic radical Jihad-ism and apply for state aid . I would love to see the convoluted court cases.
“your sect by it’s sufferings has furnished a remarkable proof of the universal spirit of religious intolerance, inherent in every sect, disclaimed by all while feeble, and practiced by all when in power. Our laws have applied the only antidote to this vice, protecting our religious, as they do our civil rights by putting all on an equal footing ”
That equal footing that Jefferson referred to in 1818 was the wall of separation that the Christofascists are now tearing down brick by brick .
I was also wondering, only half-facetiously: if I got an online minister credential– & held a few prayer mtgs at the house– while cordoning off the driveway for supervised Christian kiddie games– would the state pay to re-asphalt my driveway? [It’s about due…]
Good idea, Bethree
b35,
Hey, I need my driveway resurfaced too. How about I award you a PhD in divinity and vice versa! Kind of like a Broadie degree, eh! Time to apply to the state for funds then!
Elections have consequences. Notice also today that the Supremes decided not to hear the case challenging California’s law restricting the carrying of firearms in public. But Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented, protesting how the judges are not according the 2nd Amendment the respect it deserves and relegating it to second class status in the Bill of Rights. Guess they want guns in schools and guns in the Supreme courtroom too. Sad.
This has nothing to do with elections, as judges nominated by Clinton and Obama also voted for this religious school.
And don’t even get me STARTED on the unanimous decision to allow Trump’s refugee ban to go through….
This court is looking like the same kind of court that found that it was fine to inter all Japanese Americans during WWII (Korematsu v. United States) or that “separate but equal” was constitutionally sound (Plessy v. Ferguson).
This has everything to do with elections. There would be no travel ban before the court but for the fact the Democrats couldn’t figure out a way to defeat the worst person to ever run for the presidency or to win back the Senate and control the judicial process going forward. But for Bill Clinton’s misadventures in the ’90s we would have had Al Gore in the White House, Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch would not be on the court, Citizens United would not be the law of the land, and the EPA would still be a going concern. Elections have consequences.
Omg. The Supreme Court isn’t so supreme.
Diane,
After a large number of comments posted previously regarding the Trump exec order and the 9th circus decision along with the 4th’s on immigration of the 6 muslim countries I am disappointed in the silence from you would comment on the SCOTUS upholding Trump Travel exec order.
A reminder of Trump’s plenary powers -unfettered discretion – no review by lower courts – afforded him in the Constitution: So I CUT and PASTE from the 1952 decision – U.S. Code Law 1182, passed by a Democratic House and Senate said the President of the United States has authority to bar immigrants from any country, regardless of race or religion if he believes they represent a threat to the United States. The claim by Washington State that the immigration ban violates the First Amendment (freedom of religion) or the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (equal protection clause) may seem, at first blush, like a reasonable argument. Until you consider that our Constitution applies only to citizens and those on American soil.
This unanimous decision to allow the Trump travel ban to be implemented shows that the court thinks it’s highly likely that Trump will eventually prevail during oral arguments and the formal presentation of the case when the court hears it in October.
The only exception here that the court carved out is that immigrants and refugees and others entering the country cannot be kept out if they can show a definite link, familial or some other type of relation, to somebody who is a citizen living in America.
the decision today on the travel ban actually warns nonprofits about setting up phony relationships in order to secure entry by foreigners banned by the travel ban. This is anybody who can claim a legitimate relationship with somebody living in the country now can be exempted from the ban. Trump travel ban limit its application to 90 days It provides a period of time for the administration to change, ramp up, or vet new vetting procedures.
The Supreme Court may be figuring that by the time they get back after their summer recess, which will be October, that the travel ban order will have lapsed, 90 days, 120 days. By the time they get back, it’s over.
I am not tired of seeing Trump win again!
Jscheidell,
I am not obliged to comment on every thing this Putin-selected man does.
Why isn’t Saudi Arabia on the list of banned nations? That was the country of origin of most of the 9/11 terrorists? Is it because of the Trump hotel there? No Trump hotels in the 6 nations that are on the list. To understand Trump foreign policy, see which nations have Trump hotels.
I lived in Saudi Arabia for one year. The reason that travel is not banned from the Kingdom is simple O-I-L! Saudi Arabia has the largest oil reserves in the Mideast, and enormous political influence in the Gulf region.
Saudi Arabia abuses women. Women can be beaten by their husbands, and if a Saudi woman is raped, she can be stoned to death for committing adultery. Women cannot drive in Saudi. A woman can be divorced at any time, on a whim.
Black people got all “lathered up” about South Africa, over their apartheid system. Why don’t (American) women get bent out of shape over Saudi’s treatment of women? I guess too many women like driving their SUV’s.
The 9/11 hijackers were predominately Saudi, and Osama Bin Laden, was from a prominent Saudi family.
Charles
Treatment of women in Saudi Arabia did not seem to bother Melania or Ivanka . I am betting that the same Republican women who support Trump (all of them ) could not tell you where Saudi Arabia is
what their human rights record is . Tell you what “the nexus between terrorist states and terrorism is ” as it pertains to the Saudi Royal family .
Nor did the connection between Saudi Arabia and the continued funding of terrorists in Iraq and Syria bother Trump or any other Republican. I am sure you wept for the children of Aleppo.
But why worry about Saudi women when American women are about to lose access to vital parts of the healthcare system. When the troglodyte party that you associate with seeks to deny equal pay for equal work .
Seriously, though, are you capable of formulating a thought in your own words?
Plagiarized from Fox News
“The claim by Washington State that the immigration ban violates the First Amendment (freedom of religion) or the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (equal protection clause) may seem, at first blush, like a reasonable argument. Until you consider that our Constitution applies only to citizens and those on American soil.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/06/gregg-jarrett-why-law-is-on-trumps-side-with-his-immigration-ban.html
<b.Plagiarized from Rush Limbaugh
“[T]his unanimous decision to allow the Trump travel ban to be implemented shows that the court thinks it’s highly likely that Trump will eventually prevail during oral arguments and the formal presentation of the case when the court hears it in October.
The only exception here that the court carved out is that immigrants and refugees and others entering the country cannot be kept out if they can show a definite link, familial or some other type of relation, to somebody who is a citizen living in America.”
“. . . the decision today on the travel ban actually warns nonprofits about setting up phony relationships in order to secure entry by foreigners banned by the travel ban. This is anybody who can claim a legitimate relationship with somebody living in the country now can be exempted from the ban. . . . ”
“[The terms of] the Trump travel ban limit its application to 90 days or four times, 90 [days] . . . . It provides a period of time for the administration to change, ramp up, or vet new vetting procedures.”
“The Supreme Court may be figuring that by the time they get back after their summer recess, which will be October, that the travel ban order will have lapsed, 90 days, 120 days. By the time they get back, it’s over . . . ”
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/06/26/supreme-court-upholds-trumps-travel-ban/
Wow. The Trump-ites can’t even write their own words or cite their own sources. Thanks for finding this, FLERP!
Fish in a barrel.
Essentially, whenever you see writing that makes sense in one of his comments, you can be confident it’s plagiarized. The inverse of that rule also tells us that jscheidell did not plagiarize the first paragraph of his comment above. (“the 9th circus decision along with the 4th’s on immigration of the 6 muslim countries I am disappointed in the silence from you would comment on the SCOTUS upholding Trump Travel exec order. [sic]”)
“Plagiarized Alt-facts”
Plagiarized alternatives facts
From “Fairly un Balanced” (TM) source
Great as grist for blog attacks —
And Fairy Tales, of course
Reblogged this on Exceptional Delaware 2017.
All together now one, two, three…
All men are equal under the eyes of the law. This is a government of the
people, for the people, and by the people. Public education is the cornerstone
of democracy. Democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests
and opinions of the minority.
When the results don’t map onto the illusions, repeat the illusions. Lather
rinse and repeat, for illusions may well be the concepts by which we measure
our pain. (Plagiarized from J. Lennon song, God)
Have we not been conditioned to believe “degrees” cast a glow of “superiority”
over less titled mortals, only to discover the “degrees” are badges of
conformity, as we realize, to our horror, we wear the same yoke, as do the
masses.
Do the results support the illusion that the institutional mechanisms
established by the powers that be, were established to hobble or
control the powers that be?
So much for state’s rights, eh!
The day the good ol U.S. of A. elects an avowed atheist to the highest office of this land is the day this country will be truly free. . .
. . . free from 2,000 year or older Eastern Mediterranean mythical fantastical tales that so infect and contaminate homo supposedly sapien being.