Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
--First Amendment, Constitution of the United States of America
A week from today the good people of Hampton, New Hampshire, a seacoast town of 20,000 will go to the polls to vote for their representatives on the zoning board, the school boards, for selectmen and on twenty pages of "warrant articles."
One of these warrant articles authorizes $40,000 to the Sacred Heart academy, a wholly owned subsidiary of a religious institution.
Whether that religious institution were the Catholic Church, a madrassa or a Jewish school, it would not matter. It is a religious school where religion is taught.
If this were a private school, say Phillips Exeter Academy, there would be no problem.
But this is a school owned by a religious institution on grounds which are not taxed because this is church property and in this country we separate church from state.
Every year for many years, this warrant article has passed with hardly a murmur of dissent. This expenditure of public money in a town which zealously guards every dime spent from its treasury is remarkable and the reasons why Hampton citizens are willing to spent money in this equanimous manner is largely a mystery to Mad Dog.
When pressed, Mad Dog's fellow Democrats, who clearly see the separation of church and state problem, justify the expenditure on practical grounds:
1. It is popular and usually passes by wide margins.
2. The money is said to be for the purpose of paying for transportation of students to the school, for nursing services and for special needs students at the school, so it's not really spent on the school so much as on support services for the school, as if the town were paying for landscaping or plowing of the parking lots at the church connected to it.
3. If Hampton did not support the Catholic school, those students, 100 or more would be sent to the local public school where the cost of educating each is $20,000 a year. So the Catholic school is education on the cheap, a bargain for the taxpayer. It is often said this is why the voters have voted the funds every year.
When a member of the "Hampton Dems"--a motley collection of citizens who range from left of Lenin radicals to homespun Hampton Democrats who attend monthly meetings, stand with signs on Route One in election years and go to Toni Trotzer's annual barbecue--several objections were made:
1. For the Dems to take a position on this issue a week before the election would result in "blowback" from unhappy citizens who may not think much about politics but would be roused from their sleep over this issue.
2. Such blow back may jeopardize the candidacies of Democrats running for various town positions.
Mad Dog, who brought this issue to the agenda, argues:
1. Taking a position officially, by vote to express the opinion of the group is one thing; what to do about that is another.
2. The candidates do not have to endorse this policy and still be supported by the Hampton Dems.
3. The issue as a matter of principle is pretty simple:
The first amendment forbids Congress (and by extension local government) from acting to establish a state religion.
 |
| Warrant Article Tree Massacre |
One might argue Hampton is a town, not Congress, but as Brown v Board of Education demonstrated, that distinction is null and void as all governments from small towns to state legislators are bound by the Constitution.
 |
| Hampton Civil War Dead |
One might argue for Hampton to pay for school buses to Sacred Heart is not "establishing religion" in Hampton. It's just school buses. But if Hampton were asked to pay for new windows at the school, for repaving the parking lot or for other upkeep, would we not then begin to question how much paying the Church's cost in running the school becomes a government participating in establishing a church in town? After all, in Henry VIII's England, the church abbeys were supported by taxes on the people and much of that had nothing to do with what was preached from the pulpits.
We do not tax church property because we know that taxes become a vehicle of control of state over church; so if a church uses taxes for its benefit how is that not a vehicle of church control over state?
Let's assume, for sake of argument, the vote tonight at the Hampton Dems meeting is overwhelmingly in favor of a statement of opposition to the warrant article granting town funds to Sacred Heart: What would we do with that?
1. Establish a committee to study what action we might take for the 2022 warrant article.
2. Pat ourselves on the back for taking a stand for the 1st Amendment and eat cookies.
3. Write a letter to the editor of Seacoast news stating our opposition and the reasons why.
4. Engage the ACLU to bring a 1st amendment case (their favorite) on our behalf and sue the town of Hampton to stop this clearly illegal practice.
Why should we fight over a principle which has no poster child?
Are the students at Sacred Heart injured? No. Are their parents injured? No. Are we as taxpayers injured? Not really: it's chump change, really.
You may say the separation of church and state is not absolute: Congress opens its sessions with a prayer; we pledge allegiance to the flag of one nation "under God" and our coins have "In God We Trust." Mad Dog would argue each of these violates the 1st amendment and is open to challenge, which a suitably constructed Supreme Court would reject, but in none of these does money change hands from the state to the church.
You will say the town votes on this money to the temple: But that is in fact what the Constitution is all about: There are some things you cannot vote on. The Constitution defines these things. You cannot vote to allow involuntary servitude in Hampton, N.H. because that violates the 14th Amendment.
Who specifically is hurt by this expenditure of town funds?
The answer is we are all hurt when we look at our own town violating the law, the most essential law--the US Constitution--for practical reasons. The Constitution is there to ensure that principle is not sacrificed for expediency.
It was practical to have segregated schools when I was growing up. Nobody complained about it. It was cheaper to send the few colored kids in Arlington, Virginia to their own school, which, underfunded as it was, was a lot cheaper than it would be to educate these kids in the pricier white schools.
It was only a matter of principle.
Everyone seemed happy with it at the time.
Our parents decried the practice, but nobody made too big a fuss.
No comments:
Post a Comment