Steven Singer has a new view of the recent Supreme Court ruling that the state of Missouri is obliged to pave the playground of a church.
If churches are going to receive federal funding, he writes, they should pay taxes.
What is more, think long term. Church schools that receive federal and state funding should expect to meet accountability standards for their curriculum and their hiring practices. Separation of church and state protected religious institutions from government regulation and control. Well, that’s over.
What conservatives seem to forget is that the wall of separation between church and state wasn’t erected just to protect the state from influence by religion. It also was set up to protect religion from the state.
Once you have money flowing from one to the other, regulations are soon to follow.
Expect your cute little parochial school to put away the Bible and replace it with “The Origin of Species”.
What? Your faith compels you to believe in the Creation of Man by God and not scientific evolution of organisms through heritable traits? I guess you’ll just have to teach the controversy.
Some people in America still think that there’s value in having both public and private schools. They seem to think that it’s actually a benefit having school systems where people are taught differently. But this new ruling paves the way (pun intended) to breaking down the walls between each type of institution.
Yes, public schools will become more like religious schools. But religious schools will also become more like public schools.
The entire education system will become one big watered down whole. And – giggle – those pushing for it actually call the process “School Choice”!
Oh the plutocrats will do their best to cover it all up with culture war nonsense. You’ll hear hours of cable news blather about poor conservative bakers fighting not to make cupcakes for gay people. But behind this high profile grist for the mill will be active efforts at homogenization, government overreach and oligarchy.
That’s not a new view. Some of us have been stating that if religious organizations want a piece of public funding, they should be putting into the pot the same as everyone else. Those supposed church leaders who expect public funding in any regard are disgenuous at best, lying, thieving SOBs at worst.
And even if they don’t want a piece of that government funding, they should still be paying taxes. How is it that religious organization’s excrement doesn’t stink like everyone else’s?-holy water I guess!
The real kicker is that many of the religious types also have large families (and some churches “frown on” birth control) which place a significant strain on the public school systems, especially in places like Utah.
And of course, churches pay no property taxes, which are used as a source of funding by many school districts.
Of course, it’s not just the municipal sewer system that they benefit from. I wonder how these churches would feel if they were told ” if you pay no taxes, you get no fire department service and no police protection (eg,from vandalism and theft)”.
You are right Duane. There is a lot of hypocrisy involved.
I agree that Utah should have some kind of user tax for education, or something. To be fair, though, the main religion in Utah refuses to take tax money for any of its charitable functions, even when W. funded the “public/private partnerships” for religious charities.
And the reason why is that the church didn’t want governmental interference.
And, FYI, Mormons don’t frown on birth control. There are other reasons for the large families, but a religious concern about birth control isn’t one of them.
The Mormon Church may not frown on birth control, but many Mormons have large families.
And the Catholic Church actually does frown on birth control.
I actually did not mean to single out the Mormon Church, at any rate.
It’s just one case of a church that greatly benefits from infrastructure, police and fire service, etc, paid for with public dollars while not paying any property taxes.
And the property taxes in that case would be considerable.
It’s all good. You mentioned Utah, so I thought I would set the record straight for others (I know you understand Utah).
And yes, many Mormons have large families. No question there.
Hi señor Swacker:
Your second last question reminds my mother’s advice that if anyone thinks of being saintly beyond all of us, then ask him/her how stink their excrement after their meal.
I keep reminding all my friends that they should not worship any Holy man/woman who keeps insisting to develop their real estate and hold more fame and fortune ON BEHALF OF GOD!!! hahaha…
As long as all educators take their stands on humanity with love, belief and fight for their own rights of being educators, all young learners will have a chance to live in peace and harmony.
May your books reach to many readers. Best wishes to your hard work on publishing your first book. XXX. May
Thanks for the kind words, May! Your mom understood very well the ways of those who seek to exploit others! And obviously she taught you well, eh!!
I’ll be taking a week break from “the world” and hanging out on the Missouri River helping a friend achieve a dream of canoeing down the river. He’ll do the work, I’ll just sit back and watch the river go by!
I agree. If parochial and private schools want to accept my tax dollars, then they have to take the state tests and accept special needs students. It’s all or nothing. They have to have their state educational agencies inspect their campuses and report their data on state exams just like public schools do. As someone who has taught in both public and private schools, I know that most public schools do a significantly better job than most private schools.
Many homeschoolers do not want vouchers.
See https://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000002/00000251.asp
Do you know any home-school parents personally, who do not want vouchers? I know a man who has seven(7) children. His wife home-schools all of the school-age children in the family. The wife cannot work outside the home for wages, so their income is diminished. Although they pay property taxes, to the local schools, they are prohibited from receiving any administrative support, and their children cannot participate in any extra-curricular activities like band or athletics.
This family, would be delighted to receive some rebate on the taxes, so that they could buy textbooks, videos, etc.
Correction: My friend, has nine(9) children, his wife gave birth to the ninth kid, a couple of months ago.
I do not know anyone who honeschools their children. I do know that homeschool associations have publicly stated they they do not want government money because they prefer autonomy
Without sounding too harsh, your friend made those choices. I come from an immigrant family of 7 children. My parents worked to put us through parochial school, without any rebate or cash from the government. They did not demand public monies, nor did they complain about paying taxes for education. They made their choices, like your friend did.
Does your friend adhere to the Quiverful movment? If so, your friend should seek assistance from them. They may have a church school for your friend’s children to attend.
I take issue with seeing public monies (even via rebates) being used for indoctrination. Does your friend’s wife have the credentials to teach such a wide range of children a broad array of subjects, including chemistry and physics? I would be very curious to see the curriculum your friend’s wife is using. Is it from Abeka?
Tax dollars collected for education belong to the public schools, which by law, are accountable to the public and who cannot deny any student admission.
@Eleanor: My friend made the conscious choice to have 9 (nine) children, and to home-school them. He and his wife are intelligent people, and they know the costs.
I do not wish to discuss his religious affiliation (out of respect for privacy). He and wife choose to home-school. Enough said.
The wife has a college education, but is not a certified teacher. They belong to a home-school association, and they “trade-off” with other parents, and they utilize internet, etc. The state of Virginia gives parents wide latitude in how to home-school. Parents get to choose their own curriculum, textbooks, etc.
You say Q Tax dollars collected for education belong to the public schools, which by law, are accountable to the public and who cannot deny any student admission. END Q
I could not disagree more. All tax revenues belong to the public, and are accountable to the public. The public is sovereign, and has the final word, on the conduct of government. “We the people” is on the constitution, not “We the government”, or “We the public schools”.
“The wife cannot work outside the home for wages, so their income is diminished.”
Why? Is she so physically or mentally disabled that it would preclude such employment? Or is it because of her religion, her husband, her kids, etc.? If the latter, then the correct way to say that is that she does not work outside the home for wages. The latter is a choice and, again, the idea that the government should pay people for their personal choices is not a conservative position. If you want the gubmint out of your life (and I suspect your friend and his family do), then you have no business asking the gubmint for money.
Chas,
7 + 1 = 9?
Sorry, Chas, couldn’t resist that one! Just funnin ya a little!
@Dienne. Correct, She has made a conscious choice to stay home and home-school the children, she does not work outside the home for wages, because she chooses not to. She is not physically or mentally disabled.
Fair enough, my friends should not be asking the government for money, to support their personal choices.
How about an alternative? Would you be willing to let them set up a savings account, and save their own money, tax-free, in an educational savings account? People may do this for their retirement, in a 401k.
They could use their own money to pay the costs of home-schooling, and partially offset the loss of income. NO government money involved!
When Singer’s proposition is tested in the Supreme Court, what are the odds that Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and whoever Trump appoints to replace Kennedy (Ted Cruz?), will agree with him. Forget about it. These ideologues don’t care about the problems he raises for religious organizations. In their utopia there are no taxes and no regulations, only freedom of choice and religion as they define those terms.
We’ve gone a long way backwards. Consider what President Grant proposed in a speech he delivered to Civil War veterans in 1875:
“Resolve that neither the state nor nation, nor both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford to every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical dogmas,” Grant said. “Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate. With these safeguards, I believe the battles which created the Army of the Tennessee will not have been fought in vain.”
Grant, in his 1875 annual message to Congress, also proposed a constitutional amendment that would require all public schools to be secular We’re still waiting for ratification.
When I think about the President’s latest tweets from this morning, so vulgar and reprehensible, I have to conclude, sadly, that the Army of the Tennessee did fight in vain.
Trump is nothing if not vain.
“We do not deal much in facts when we are contemplating ourselves.”
___Mark Twain
I need to reemphasize that Kagan and Breyer ALSO agreed in this decision. They’re not considered conservatives.
In other words, BOTH sides have bought into this “private is automatically better” garbage.
Religious institutions, are like any other non-profit entity. Public money (from tax revenue) can be spent by governments on non-profit entities, and the entities can still enjoy their non-profit , 501 (c) 3 status.
The state of Missouri had been providing the tire chips, to all types of groups and playgrounds operated by other non-profits. The Lutheran pre-school had met all of the criteria established by the state, but their application was denied, solely on account of the provision in the Missouri state constitution, banning providing financial support to religious institutions.
The court found that the children who played on the playground (un-fenced, and open to anyone 24/7) were being discriminated against on the basis of their religion, and thus the state was not permitting “free exercise of religion”. Furthermore, the children were being denied “equal protection” under the 14th amendment, solely on account of religion.
Bravo, to the Court!
Steven is right. Where public money goes, accountability, mandates, and regulations follow.
In New York, religious colleges and universities accepting state money for tuition had to remove all religious symbolism.
Diane: We are in agreement. With government “shekels” come government “shackles”. NO government money flows to any person or institution without regulations and strings attached.
If churches get public funds, they should pay taxes [indulgences?] and anticipate government regulations”
I suspect that Martin Luther would not have liked that one bit!
Probably would have been “The 97 Theses” instead of 95.
Remember, Conservatives, money to religious schools will include madrasas (sp?) as well as Wiccan and other non-mainstream religions!
I do not see this as a problem. Freedom of religion, includes freedom of religion for ALL religions.
Students are already redeeming BEOGs and other government financial aid, at schools like Notre Dame, and the Islamic University of Minnesota. Government money flows in rivers to these institutions of higher learning. Government money can flow to K-12 schools as well.
Charles,
Higher education is not mandatory. K-12 is.
Agree with Singer 100%.
DRIP, DRIP, DRIP: This is an important conversation – should religious schools get tax dollars or not? The surprising thing to me is that SCOTUS took up a case about resurfacing playgrounds instead of contemplating the actual flashpoint in this debate, the East Ramapo school board.
That controversy is more important because the it’s now being replicated in other places. What happened was a majority of religious school parents and supporters were elected to the local school board and then set about defunding and dismantling the public schools (predominantly attended by Hispanic, African American and Haitian students) and increasing funding for the yeshivas.
They even voted to close schools and sell the property to yeshivas for millions under market value. Lawsuits and investigations abounded, but went nowhere. Many believe this is because Albany and federal officials are in awe/fear of the voting bloc controlled by the rabbis. As proof, both Bill Clinton and John Boehner came courting the bloc vote in past elections.
The tough question here is how much taxpayer money can flow to religious schools? The Establishment Clause in the US Constitution suggest prohibitions. So does the Blaine Amendment in the NYS Constitution – and yet millions already go to these schools for transportation, special education, textbooks and technology under various state and federal programs.
So when does “not discriminating” against religious schools end and taxpayer funding for religious instruction begin? It may depend on equity, if the equal protection argument is invoked, but NY is already has the greatest IN-equity in the nation.
It’s also a big complaint that NY yeshivas getting tax dollars don’t seem to be providing minimally adequate instruction in English, mathematics, science or social studies.
Current law, however leaves oversight and enforcement of this to the local school board (and God knows Betsy DeVos will not be intervening). This begs questions of the NY state commissioner, but she also began “playing ball” with the school board recently, approving millions in tax dollars for yeshiva busing.
About a month ago I was debating these questions with a supporter of the East Ramapo school board’s 9-1 religious majority and he told me they were hopeful that the impending Missouri case would validate their actions.
Informative post, Jake. Not much fun finding out about yet another taxpayer ripoff, but important to know, all the same.
There’s no doubt in my mind that any religious or private entity receiving tax dollars should be subject to the same laws/oversights as are imposed on those in the public sphere.
To get an idea of just how effective our government reps (state and federal) have been in this area, one has only to look at the charter school movement. About as transparent as unwashed windows in an abandoned house next to an active construction site.
We’ve been in an uphill battle from the start and can now expect DeVos and Co. to be putting more of their considerable wealth and newly acquired governmental clout into midst of it. I’m glad to see Randi and Lily citing Robert’s footnote (“…We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.”), but think that this is wishful thinking. DeVos has just gained a strong foothold and will use it to her advantage.
This is “right way” thinking. I am annoyed at public money going to private/religious schools, but now that the other side of the argument is taxes will flow and that they must be regulated closer, well, that spin may have the playground thinkers thinking a bit differently.