In June of this year, federal judges ruled on a case regarding Maine’s tuition program that pays for approved, non-sectarian private school tuition of students that live in districts without a public secondary school, which is 143 of the total 206 districts in the state. Maine also has a state law that does not allow for the use of tax-payer funds to pay for any sectarian institutions, so the program will only pay for certain private schools that the district has arranged to have students attend. Students that wanted to attend Bangor Christian Schools and Temple Academy were denied their claim to tuition because it would be used “to teach students religious doctrine and train them in religious rites and observances.” They filed a lawsuit saying that their exclusion from the program is because of their religious affiliation and is therefore unconstitutional.
Organizations that have sided with Maine’s school board are the ACLU of Maine, the national ACLU, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU). They all submitted an amicus brief in support of the defendant, A. Pender Makin in Carson v Makin. Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband points out that students and their families cannot be excluded from benefit programs based on their faith, which would be a violation of their First Amendment rights. The court cited Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v Comer (2017) a Supreme Court case in which the Court held “denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion.” The ACLU states that the schools involved in the case discriminate against LGBTQ people and non-Christians. Temple Academy specifically requires its faculty to sign a statement that reads “God recognize[s] homosexuals and other deviants as perverted” and Bangor Christian requires students to renounce their gender identity if they come out as part of the LGBTQ community.
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It has also been interpreted to include state and local governments from violating these rights as well. The question this case raises is: does the exclusion of students from receiving tuition benefits from the Maine tuition program violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment? On the other hand: would allowing the program to pay for sectarian schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? The Maine state law that says tax-payer money cannot fund sectarian institutions has been upheld as Constitutional by four different court cases (Strout v Albanese; Bagley v Raymond Sch. Dept; Anderson v Town of Durham; Joyce v State). Maine's district court ended up denying the students and their families the ruling but recognized that this case will most likely work its way up the court system on appeals.
Organizations that have sided with Maine’s school board are the ACLU of Maine, the national ACLU, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU). They all submitted an amicus brief in support of the defendant, A. Pender Makin in Carson v Makin. Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband points out that students and their families cannot be excluded from benefit programs based on their faith, which would be a violation of their First Amendment rights. The court cited Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v Comer (2017) a Supreme Court case in which the Court held “denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion.” The ACLU states that the schools involved in the case discriminate against LGBTQ people and non-Christians. Temple Academy specifically requires its faculty to sign a statement that reads “God recognize[s] homosexuals and other deviants as perverted” and Bangor Christian requires students to renounce their gender identity if they come out as part of the LGBTQ community.
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It has also been interpreted to include state and local governments from violating these rights as well. The question this case raises is: does the exclusion of students from receiving tuition benefits from the Maine tuition program violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment? On the other hand: would allowing the program to pay for sectarian schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? The Maine state law that says tax-payer money cannot fund sectarian institutions has been upheld as Constitutional by four different court cases (Strout v Albanese; Bagley v Raymond Sch. Dept; Anderson v Town of Durham; Joyce v State). Maine's district court ended up denying the students and their families the ruling but recognized that this case will most likely work its way up the court system on appeals.
I think the future rulings on the case will defend Maine’s tuition program and the overall prohibition of using tax-payer money for sectarian institutions.
Although I do agree with the Assistant Attorney General that this does exclude religious groups from a governmental benefit programs, I think that since Maine’s law about funding sectarian institutions has been upheld, this ruling will also be upheld throughout the court system. I think the only way for the program to be fair is if it pays for all private schooling, regardless of religious affiliation; or if it pays for no religious schooling, which it does. The program does not prioritize one religion over the other and does not prohibit students from attending sectarian schools. If students wish to attend a religious private school, they are free to do so on their own dime. To allocate tax-payer funds for religious schooling would violate the wall of separation between church and state that is effectively protected by Maine state law.
Although I do agree with the Assistant Attorney General that this does exclude religious groups from a governmental benefit programs, I think that since Maine’s law about funding sectarian institutions has been upheld, this ruling will also be upheld throughout the court system. I think the only way for the program to be fair is if it pays for all private schooling, regardless of religious affiliation; or if it pays for no religious schooling, which it does. The program does not prioritize one religion over the other and does not prohibit students from attending sectarian schools. If students wish to attend a religious private school, they are free to do so on their own dime. To allocate tax-payer funds for religious schooling would violate the wall of separation between church and state that is effectively protected by Maine state law.
9 comments:
I completely agree with the post and its author's opinions. The protection of religion is extremely important, but the separation between public funds and religious institutions has been set in stone by numerous cases (for example, the McCollum case we spoke of today). These cases restrict the state from spending any amount of public funds for any reason, for good cause. Although the sectarian schools may claim that all religions would benefit from public funding, there is inevitably more assistance allotted to certain, more present religions in the area. Therefore, with failure to provide for all religions without bias, the Maine courts will hopefully follow the law upheld numerous times and deny the sectarian schools funding.
I also agree that public funds should not be used to support religious private schools. This lack of payment does not prevent parents from sending/exercising their right of having their children get a religious education. If the term separation between church and state is expected to be upheld, state interference (direct public funds) should not be used.
Maine’s tuition program should not be deemed unconstitutional as it does not violate the First Amendment. The program is neutral by not prioritizing one religion over another. It does, however, prioritize non-religion over religion, by only providing aid for secular private schools, yet I believe that is in Maine’s right to do so. By giving aid to those who wish to attend religious private schools, tax-payer dollars would be used, violating the separation between church and state. Like Selby mentioned, students are not prohibited from attending a religious school, yet if they do wish to attend, it must be paid for by them.
I would also agree that the state should not use public funds to send pupils to religiously affiliated schools. Because students are given a secular option, the same as a public school, I believe that students should not be entitled to choosing a religious school. Students in most states do not have the ability to choose a religious publicly supported school and imagine Maine will draw on similar logic.
I agree with Selby that the state should not be allowed to use public funds for these religious institutions, so therefore there is no clear separation between church and state. In addition to this, by allowing funds for these religious private schools, the government could be giving aid to individuals who choose to attend a religious school.
I agree that the government of Maine should not be required to provide tuition for students attending religious schools. I think that the initial proposal to pay for the tuition of students attending secular private schools, in districts where there is no public secondary school, is reasonable because those students are receiving the same type of education as the students attending the public schools, which are payed for by the state. I think that not paying the tuition of students wanting to attend religious schools is not a violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment because those students are given the option to attend a religions school or to attend a secular private/public school, with the latter free of charge. This law does not violate the Free Exercise clause because the students still have the option for religious schooling.
Our government preaches this idea of the "separation between church and state," so I agree with Selby that Maine should not have to provide tuition for students attending religious schools. I can understand the frustration of the state aiding some private schools and not others (others being religious schools), however, these private secular schools are getting the same education as the public schools. If the state of Maine was to aid in religious teaching, they would be promoting and encouraging religion, which is not government's intention.
Emma makes an interesting point that the program favors non-religion over religion, which prevents it from being neutral. However, the program does not favor one religion over another, as it does not support institutions that promote any particular religious doctrine. A question remains: What is the true difference between funding these private and public schools? To further Emma's point, is the government then promoting non-religion by funding private, secular education?
Post a Comment