Loading...
Title : Symposium: Stripping church-state separation to the bone? The Supreme Court considers mandatory government funding of religious education - SCOTUSblog
link : Symposium: Stripping church-state separation to the bone? The Supreme Court considers mandatory government funding of religious education - SCOTUSblog
Symposium: Stripping church-state separation to the bone? The Supreme Court considers mandatory government funding of religious education - SCOTUSblog
Symposium: Stripping church-state separation to the bone? The Supreme Court considers mandatory government funding of religious education - SCOTUSblogSymposium: Stripping church-state separation to the bone? The Supreme Court considers mandatory government funding of religious education
Daniel Mach is Director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Supreme Court will address a question that would have been unthinkable even to ask until quite recently: Can a state be forced to underwrite religious education with taxpayer dollars? Although the court has previously allowed the government to adopt school-voucher programs that provide indirect government aid to religious schools, it has never suggested that the U.S. Constitution somehow requires doing so ― and certainly not in the face of state constitutional rules barring taxpayer funding of religious education. Yet that is essentially what the petitioners are seeking in Espinoza, the latest in a disturbing line of cases attacking the very foundations of the separation of church and state.
At issue in Espinoza is a voucher-type program in Montana designed to divert millions in government dollars to private schools, the overwhelming majority of which are religiously affiliated. The program, enacted in 2015, allows taxpayers to receive dollar-for-dollar tax credits for donations to Student Scholarship Organizations, which then award scholarships to students attending private elementary and secondary schools. In other words, if a taxpayer owes the state, say, $100 in taxes, she can decide instead to send that money directly to an SSO, which will then spend it on private-school scholarships. In practice, the tax-credit program has served its unmistakable goal of funneling government dollars to religious education: The only SSO operating in the state supports 13 private schools, 12 of which are religiously affiliated, and over 94 percent of program scholarships have gone to finance religious education.
Such religious funding, even though indirect, violates the Montana constitution, which includes heightened protections against government-funded religion. The state constitution’s “no-aid provision,” adopted to promote the separation of church and state and to ensure continued taxpayer support for public schools in Montana, expressly prohibits the government from providing “direct or indirect” aid for religious education. In light of the no-aid provision, the Montana Department of CONTINUE READING: Symposium: Stripping church-state separation to the bone? The Supreme Court considers mandatory government funding of religious education - SCOTUSblog
thus Article Symposium: Stripping church-state separation to the bone? The Supreme Court considers mandatory government funding of religious education - SCOTUSblog
that is all articles Symposium: Stripping church-state separation to the bone? The Supreme Court considers mandatory government funding of religious education - SCOTUSblog This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article Symposium: Stripping church-state separation to the bone? The Supreme Court considers mandatory government funding of religious education - SCOTUSblog with the link address https://onechildsmart.blogspot.com/2019/09/symposium-stripping-church-state.html
0 Response to "Symposium: Stripping church-state separation to the bone? The Supreme Court considers mandatory government funding of religious education - SCOTUSblog"
Post a Comment