Government Watch / Instagram / Politics / We The People

No More Discrimination Against Religious Schools

Religious

In a ground-breaking case called Carson v. Makin, originating in rural Maine, the Supreme Court last week made clear States giving tuition assistance cannot discriminate against parochial or religious schools – just because they offer religious education. Hooray for common sense!

In short, three families challenged Maine’s restriction on use of K-12 education vouchers. The State, since 1873, has allowed school “choice.” Families living in a place without a public school (half the state) could choose to send their children to a public or private school, in-state or out. Simple, fair, good.

In 1980, a Democrat Attorney General, selected by a Democrat-controlled legislature – Maine is the only state where the legislature picks the AG – decided to add a “non-sectarian” requirement. This upended 100 years of educational practice, forcing parents NOT to send kids to schools teaching religious values.

The parents in Carson v. Makin challenged this notion, asking: “If our neighbors have the freedom to choose a private school and receive tuition from our town, why are we denied this same benefit just because we desire a religious education for our daughter?”

What these parents asked – and the ruling resolved – has national significance. As public schools increasingly discriminate against students, parents, and families of faith, restricting free exercise of religion, pushing secularism over moral values taught by many faiths, parents are objecting.

Across the country, public schools – dominated by secularist, increasingly unconnected, often left-leaning teachers’ unions, many not out of touch with parents, some openly hostile to traditional values, objective and non-politicized history, basic math, biology, established law, even Title IX – are no longer the first choice of concerned parents.

Accordingly, a case challenging rising anti-religious, anti-faith sentiment in public education was timely. Shouldn’t parents have a right to protect their children from indoctrination by leftist ideas, anti-religious teachings, racism through Critical Race Theory, dumping Title IX – which has long given biologically different boys and girls equality in sports and academics? Had they no rights?

While the First Circuit sided with the State, effectively ignoring discrimination against “free exercise of religion” by public schools, which often effectively “establish” a secularist religion, the Supreme Court looked harder at the facts, and applied a combination of text and case law to reverse.

What the Supreme Court said, without hedging their bets, is that all parents – and not left-leaning school systems, administrators, state legislators, or attorneys general – get to decide how their children will be educated.

Returning to how education was managed for most of our country’s history, not just in Maine but nationally, the Supreme Court reset the table. In a 6-3 opinion, which split on judicially conservative versus judicially activist lines, the High Court favored the parents’ choice.

Citing prior caselaw, the Court found Maine’s discrimination against schools with religious instruction violated the First Amendment’s “free exercise clause.” The opinion is cogent, clear, and compelling.

The majority writes: “…a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause,” adding that prior cases make clear the outcome turns “on the substance of free exercise protections, not on the presence or absence of magic words,” such as words that restrict the right by state law.

The point made is that covering up discrimination against those who live life by religious precepts, people of faith, by claiming to be “religiously neutral,” is really a half-truth, foil, way of dismissing those of faith, or rendering them “second class citizens” – by elevating those of non-faith and teaching that this is proper. The Constitution does not ask that people of faith by demoted, just that the government does not “establish” one religion for all people, such as the Church of England.

The dissent in this case is also revealing. Using the Jeffersonian warning that church and state be separated, a concept often (perhaps intentionally) misunderstood, the dissent tries to split hairs unable to be spilt. They say money can go to a school of “religious character” but not one that teaches “religious ideals.” 

The comeback is simple. Religious character involves ideals, and these are – by the way – the ideals that created, sustained, and today keep society together. To pretend these ideals – especially chosen by parents of a child for the child’s education – are somehow mischievous, unworthy, wrong because they stem from a religious source, or insufficiently secular, is hokum.

The dissent’s idea that “religiously neutral” values should be taught is a poor disguise for a secular, anti-religious, political agenda. To believe that teaching “woke-ism,” socialism, Marxism, racism, and anti-faith-ism is what parents signed up for, want, must accept is legal nonsense.

This case is important – because it opens the door of freedom wide, affirming the rights of parents, students, communities, and all those Americans – more than 250 million – who believe in God, who believe values taught by their faith matter, and who wish to impart to their children respect for these values, including at school. More, it disposes of the idea that atheism, statism, leftism, and disparagement of religion is ascendant. Quite the reverse – it is unconstitutional.


We hope you've enjoyed this article. While you're here, we have a small favor to ask...

Support AMAC Action. Our 501 (C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, and the rule of law.

Donate Now

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!


Subscribe
Notify of
23 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob
5 months ago

I still find it curious how the amendment (1st) that was supposed to limit the federal government from religious misconduct somehow (the 14th, no doubt) found its way to Johnnie’s classroom. I wonder what the founders (who apparently had no issue with basic Christian morality being taught) would think of the virtue destroying secularism that is being force fed our progeny.

Roberta L Hartley
5 months ago

I am hoping that we prisoners in the state of Washington, one of the states held hostage by the Blaine Amendment, will be closer to being able to participate. Our own children are grown and gone now, but we support local religious schools. My husband even has taught in one for over 25 years. Every one of the books his Literature classes read were bought by us. People talk about how much money caring teachers spend for their classrooms. Try being a teacher in a school with no federal funding. Truly it is a labor of love. But the true blessing comes when he runs into former students. When he asks them what the one thing he did for them, they invariably answer “How to think”. What greater gift is there for a teacher than to know they have educated the next generations in the ability to weigh all the options and make their own weighted decisions. He is now teaching the children of former students.

Barb304
5 months ago

I’ve never had a problem in having religious classes in public schools but, they should be elective not required. Same with the Pledge of Allegiance, any student who has been told by their parents not to say the pledge should be allowed to either sit down or leave the room.

HocasPocas
5 months ago
Reply to  Barb304

How about leave the country

Rl
5 months ago
Reply to  HocasPocas

Amen

Debi
5 months ago

I believe this is true article and I think the same should be for medical and holistic medicine
If I pay for insurance I have to go to the medical doctors they say I can’t go to a holistic doctor
I don’t think that is fair as I pay for my insurance I should be able to use it for the medical treatment that is natural versus there science

K
5 months ago
Reply to  Debi

Agreed

Gwyn
5 months ago

Exactly !

Carol
5 months ago

About time the SCOTUS started protecting our rights based on the Constitution and not leftist activism!

Rl
5 months ago
Reply to  Carol

????

Charlotte Childers
5 months ago

THANK GODThank

J. Farley
5 months ago

We now have a Supreme Court that follows the Constitution, and not an Agenda, to destroy America, pray that all the Conservatives, on the court live long enough to see another Conservative Republican in the White House.
God Be with Us!

Rl
5 months ago
Reply to  J. Farley

EVERYONEGet all your neighbors and friends out to VOTE

PaulE
5 months ago

I’m sure the Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats will try to draft some federal legislation that ties forced acceptance of all aspects of the “woke culture” and usage of the federal “progressive” education guidelines to any federal money that any of schools might be reliant on. If the Democrats can’t stop school choice directly, then they just will come at the issue from another angle by trying to federally mandate any federal money received by these schools being tied directly to completely adopting the socialist agenda via the back door. The fight for school choice in this country is far from being over. The left in this country is fully committed to ensuring the indoctrination of the young to socialism, whatever it happens to take.

HocasPocas
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulE

Where does the federal government get federal monies? I believe it’s from the people that they are trying to force into accepting their agenda

Rl
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulE

Exactlty right.We need true Americans to take back OUR country

Dave
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulE

That’s exactly what’s going to happen. It had been kicked around for several years before this came to the Supreme Court as they’ve found that if it comes from that angle, it tends to ‘play’ better…

It’s their ‘insurance policy’.

Donald Lonhart
5 months ago

About time !!

Hal
5 months ago

Hmmm. Now the Commie DemocRat Party will go into the function of subsidizing religious schools who will subtly teach their Party Doctrines as a part of their curriculum. And of course, the DemocRats will provide the funds to subsidize them from government taxes. Never forget … the DemocRat Party is about RULING the people … not GOVERNING the people based on a Constitutional Democracy and the Constitutional laws that are produced as needed in accord with the Constitutional dictates.

DonS
5 months ago
Reply to  Hal

Hal,

Instead of stating: “Constitutional Democracy…” please consider it is accurate to state, the governed is a “Constitutional Republic..”

Thank you, I like and agree with your post. :-)

Darius Dickison
5 months ago
Reply to  DonS

YES YES YES!

J. Farley
5 months ago
Reply to  DonS

More yes’s it is a republic!

Rl
5 months ago
Reply to  DonS

ExactlyWe need to remind everyone of that and return to it

23
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x