Saturday, January 4, 2025

Remarks at the Deliberative Session



There is a technique of public speaking which holds you should tell the folks what you are going to tell them, tell them and then tell them what you've told them.

That can get tedious, but I'll at least engage the first two, if for no other reason than it will help you know when I'm about done, and you won't have to keep looking at your watch, wondering when I'm going to finish.



So the three points I'm going to make with respect to this warrant article which grants public, taxpayer money to the Sacred Heart School of the Church of the Miraculous Medal are these:

1. Nullification

2. Money

3. Separation of church and state: Is it good for Catholics or bad?

1. With respect to nullification:  

I visit New York City, Manhattan, now and then and I come to a crosswalk and see that sign flashing in red letters: DON'T WALK. I look down the grid in both directions and I see no car approaching, and I cross the street. Often, I'm accompanied by a policeman or a dozen other citizens. What we have done, of course, is against the law, but if we do not obey the law and if there is no enforcement, we have nullified that law. 

There are other examples: The governor of Alabama, George Wallace, stood in a schoolhouse door and said no Negro child would ever cross that threshold into a public, all White school. He did not care what the Constitution or the Supreme Court said. Nullification.  

And then there is judicial nullification, in which judges nullify a law. The state of Maine refused to use public funds to pay tuition for students to a religious school and Justices Thomas and Alito ruled the state had to pay. They said to discriminate against a religious school simply because it was religious was discrimination.  Justice Sotomayor noted that this ruling at its heart said that separation of church and state is unconstitutional.

This is a peculiar finding, of course, to say that the First Amendment, a part of the Constitution, is itself unconstitutional. 

Some say separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The First Amendment clearly says government shall not establish a state religion. And the Constitution was not written for lawyers; it was written for the common man, and when it was written every common man knew what state establishment of a church meant, because they already had an established church: The Church of England. And they knew there were only two ways to establish a religion:  if you state this is the state church, or if you used taxpayer money to support a church, that was state establishment of a church. Apparently, Justices Alito and Thomas have forgotten all that. 

But they won't serve forever.

The question we have before us today is whether the nullification of the United States Constitution, the First Amendment, as we do it every year through this warrant article is more like crossing against the light, or more like the more pernicious forms of nullification of the Governor of Alabama or the US Supreme Court.


2.Then there is the money argument: 

For years it was argued that it was simply cheaper to pay for Hampton kids to go to Sacred Heart, which was less expensive than the oh so expensive public schools. That may have been true once, but now there have been empty seats in Hampton schools for years; we have already paid for those Sacred Heart students once and now we pay again.

The corollary to this is "I am a Hampton taxpayer, and my taxes should go to pay for my kid's education and I want my kid going to Sacred Heart." But the fact is only 25% of the kids at Sacred Heart live in Hampton. 75% of the student body is from out of town, so what we are really paying for this a Catholic school education for anyone who wants one, no matter where they live. 

There is simply no money argument for spending Hampton taxpayer money on Sacred Heart--for paying for computers for Sacred Heart, especially when it has always been promised that the funds were spent for only "non religious" things like computers, but when pressed  on the subject, officials admitted they have no idea whether those computers are used to stream religious services.


3. Separation of Church and State: Good for Catholics or an Insult?

You will say to me, "You have no right to tell Catholics what is good for them as Catholics. You are not even Catholic."

This is true: I am not a Catholic.

But I am old.

And I remember, before most of the people in this room were even born, a man named John F. Kennedy, who said, "Because I am not a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, it is apparently necessary for me to state that I believe in the absolute separation of church and state, that no public funds should ever be granted to any church, or to any church school." 

Then he went on to explain why he felt he had to discuss this, but even at age 13, when I heard him, I already knew why: My neighbors said, "Oh, you can't vote for Kennedy, he is a Catholic. That would be like putting the Pope into the White House. He would be a puppet on a string."



Of course, Kennedy did keep that promise, and it was not always easy, but because he kept that promise that finger of suspicion was never pointed at a Catholic candidate again and Catholics have been elected at every level of government, including the Presidency, since Kennedy.

So separation of church and state is good for Catholics, I would submit.

I'll close with my favorite story about separation of church and state, and it involves a past governor of Texas, Ann Richards. 

One day, Governor Richards looked up from her desk and found herself confronted by four very morose looking staffers who told her they had some bad news.

"What is it?" she asked

"Well, you see that nativity scene out there on the lawn outside your office, just a few feet from the entrance to the Capitol? The Supreme Court has ruled we have to take that down, because it violates separation of church and state!"

Governor Richards turned and stared wistfully out her window at the manger scene, and said, "Oh! I do so hate to do that. It's a such damn shame! This is the one and only time, every year, when we are ever able to gather three wise men together in one place at the Capitol!"




9 comments:

  1. With respect to nullification, jaywalking is now legal in nyc. So you’ve started with a fallacy. ,

    ReplyDelete
  2. I heard that on NPR--the process to legalize had been put into place, just recently.
    But it was not legal at the time, so the point remains.
    Apparently, after years of ignoring and nullifying, the powers that be in NYC decided to recognize the will of the people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And there is nothing unconstitutional about eliminating the jay walking law...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can you address the fact that the US Congress opens with a sectarian prayer and a National Menorah is lit on a federal park across from the White House? Religious organizations are tax exempt - do you oppose that as well? There are reasonable accommodations clearly (your position on those is unclear to me), but when it comes to financing, I believe your constitutional interpretation is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would not have a prayer before Congress.
    No National Menorah.
    No White House Christmas tree.
    And no "One nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance, and in fact, no pledge of allegiance for that matter, but that's got nothing to do with Separation of Church and State.
    No "In God We Trust" on the coins, although, for some reason I cannot explain, that bothers me least of all. There are so many weird things on our dollar bills and coins--like that eye on top of the pyramid--what's with that?

    Most of my friends and family think all this is closer to the DON'T WALK violation than to George Wallace, and are in the camp of "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff."

    Lincoln in his 2nd Inaugural, when trying to explain how the calamity of the Civil War could have occurred, noted that both sides prayed to the same God and said, "The Almighty has his own purposes," and proposed the war might have been God's vengeance for the crime of slavery, a "drop of blood drawn the lash, repaid with one drawn by the sword." So there we have the ultimate state official struggling for answers and considering God's will as one of them.
    I have no problem at all with that, even with his "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
    But it's the ritual of religion on a stage which should be neutral, completely bereft of anyone's religion, which bother me.
    Separation of church and state should be a whole semester's course in every American high school. I'm not saying the students ought to be taught it's a good thing, but I do think the history, the reasons for the idea of separating church and state are that important and should be discussed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, and here's a link to youtube on jaywalking in NYC. You are more uptodate than I am. I guess I should change the "what we have done is against the law" to "what we have done is against the law--or was until recently." But it's too small a point to bother.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft7XJb25LZc

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, I missed one of your most important points: Exemption from taxation of religious organizations.
    If the power to tax is the power to destroy, then I do think we should exempt religious organizations from some forms of taxation. There are so many different forms of taxes. Are the taxes on phone lines or purchases of computers by churches exempt? I don't know. If a priest buys an airplane ticket or stays in a hotel room, should taxes connected with all that be voided? What an accounting nightmare.
    Property taxes have generally been exempt and there have been calls to end that exemption.
    In general, I think government should avoid taxing churches and all religious organizations.
    The idea is strict neutrality, hands off religion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mad Dog,
    You’ve certainly made a comprehensive argument as to why public funds diverted to Sacred Heart school should cease. In a deliberative session supporters of tax funds going to a Catholic school should be expected to make the case as to why this is not nullification, that separation of church and state is not implied in the constitution and that this funding is okay as a financial decision. The money argument I find most offensive- since it posits that the decision to fund a Catholic school doesn’t have to be based on right or wrong, but rather on how much moolah is in the town coffers in any given year.

    I agree the national Christmas tree and menorah probably have to go, however I do believe churches should be taxed in the same manner as any other non profit. ( Of course to say many churches aren’t turning a healthy profit is rich.) At the very least, real estate holdings, which in some cases is quite extensive, should be taxed.
    Maud

    ReplyDelete
  9. Your argument for taxing churches is cogent, treating churches as any other non profit.
    But, the fact is, we make exceptions for church schools and we have argued they should not be treated as any other non profit; where the religious school in Maine should not get public funds because it is religious, whereas if it were not teaching religion we would fund the church school just as we are willing to fund private non religious schools.
    So, to be consistent, I would argue if we are not going to fund religious schools because of SOC&S then we should not tax church schools b/c of SOC&S.
    I can see it both ways, however and there are all sorts of wrinkles: Suppose, for example, a church school undertakes social activism--campaigns against abortion or birth control or racial integration, and takes that stand outside of the walls of the church to its soup kitchen, where, in order to eat soup you must listen to the church argument; or suppose the church puts up poster for a particular candidate? Do we still treat the church as simply "religious?" or is there a point where a church steps outside its role of teaching religion, and into an area which makes it political entity?
    Mad Dog

    ReplyDelete