Residents Sue South Carolina Over Funding For Religious School.

In September, South Carolina residents are suing the state over a legislative earmark in which the government allocated 1.5 million dollars to help the Greenville Christian Learning Center meet their goal of 14 million dollars to construct a new private school. The plaintiffs argue that the earmark violates the South Carolina Constitution, which "expressly prohibits the state from directly funding religious or other private educational institutions." It also violates the South Carolina Constitution's version of the Establishment Clause which prevents the legislature from enacting any "law respecting an establishment of religion" The money was intended to help the organization build a residential school intended to help serve disadvantaged middle school and high school students. The construction would include a six classroom school building, gender specific dorms, capable of housing 32 students, and an administrative office. 

   The Greenville Christian Learning Center is a religious organization that "has identified its primary purpose as religious education." The Center also provides released-time Bible teachings for students during the school day. The organization buses students from schools where they receive religious education before being bussed back to school. This organization faced backlash after the ear mark was initially announced. In response, it denied that it was intending to develop a private religious school, and instead claimed that it was "building a facility where public school students could seek academic tutoring, learn life skills and receive biblical instruction." But, as of October 2nd, the Greenville Christian Learning Center seems to have once again changed its plans, as it now intends to use the funds to help establish a charter school, a public school that does not charge tuition, but that operates separately from the state. When asked to explain how the Learning Center would operate a religious charter school, their executive director Janice Butler declined to comment. 

  South Carolina's decision to earmark funds for the Greenville Christian Learning Center to establish a religious school violates the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause. When reaching this conclusion, one must first look to Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments", in which he argues against a Patrick Henry proposal which would use taxpayer money to fund religious institutions. In his Remonstrance, Madison argued that governments respecting the establishment of religion actually harms the ability of free exercise, as "the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him tot conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever." Madison worries greatly that once one religion is recognized or endorsed by the government, then it could lead to greater suppression of the followers of another religious ideology. He also argues that "If religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to civil Government?" It is with these principles that the Constitution's Establishment Clause was written. It was intended to keep the government and religion separate, especially in regards to the direct funding of religion. 

South Carolina's actions also violate the Lemon Test, a test made of three parts, used to determine if a law respects an establishment of religion. If a law is found to violate even one of the parts, then it has violated the Establishment Clause. This earmarking violates all three conditions. First, it is clear that by providing a religious group with 1.5 million dollars to construct a religious school, it was not a secular action. The purpose of the law was to help support a religious institution and religious education. It is impossible to view this differently, as if the legislature was simply concerned about providing education to underserved children, they could have used the money in a secular manner, like increasing funding in public schools, or implementing a program in public schools to provide more assistance to the children in need. The second condition of the Lemon Test, is whether legislation has a primary effect of either inhibiting or promoting religion. Once again it is clear by allocating funds to a Christian organization with the purpose of constructing a religious school, that this condition has been violated. The school will promote religious education. The last part of the Lemon test, is determining whether the bill fosters excessive government entanglement. It is obvious that excessive government entanglement has occurred, as the ear mark constitutes direct aid from the government to a religious institution, and actively endorses a particular religion. By specifically setting money aside for a particular religious group, South Carolina does not even bother to try and work neutrally. The state is not only favoring religion over nonreligion, but is also endorsing a specific religious sect.