~With respect to whether public money to religious schools violates the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court has previously set up a three-pronged test: Any such law "must have a secular purpose, must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and cannot involve excessive entanglement of government and religion."~
Excerpts from a Nat Hentoff piece on the subject of whether vouchers will be in action unconstitutional:
Had I been arguing for the other side that day, I would have shown the Court this stern advice to parents who want to use vouchers from a Lutheran school in Cleveland:
"It is highly inconsistent for any parents to send a child to this school if they . . . are not living a Christian life or willing to learn how to lead such a life [and] are not supporting part of a Congregation through worship and sharing of time and talents."
Jews, Muslims, atheists, and agnostics need not apply to this school, however "genuinely independent" their choice to send their kids, with public money, to a religious school.
I have the mission statements of other schools in the Cleveland program, and you can decide for yourself if public money going to these schools advances religion and entangles the state with religion:
The Saint Rocco School handbook says that education there is designed "to make . . . faith become living, conscious, and active through the light of instruction" and that "religious truths and values permeate the whole atmosphere of the school."
The Saint John Nottingham Lutheran School handbook states that "the one cardinal objective of education to which all others point is to develop devotion to God about our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier."
The Calvary Center Academy handbook requires students to "pledge allegiance to the Christian flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands. One Savior crucified, risen and coming again with life and liberty for all who believe."
villagevoice.com;
Unless you toss out the Establishment Clause test, the use to which the tax payers' money is being put at those schools sounds suspiciously unconstitutional to me. |
