Congress shall make no law respecting the 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.
--AMENDMENT ONE: RATIFIED 1791
Readers of this blog are understandably weary of the fight over the Sacred Heart School warrant article. The voting this year voted it down, but it will surely be resurrected (excuse the pun) next year.
The Seacoast News, what passes for our local paper, carried this screed from a columnist for the paper in support of the warrant article slush fund for the church school and that it carried no rejoinder is all that we can expect from this amateurish journal.
 |
| Alicia Preston Xanthopoulos |
So, knowing it will arise again, Mad Dog provides the rejoinder, for those not completely fed up with the whole debate.
Commentary: Here's why I support
Hampton tax dollars going to Sacred Heart School
Alicia Preston Xanthopoulos
Sun, February 11, 2024 at 5:08 AM EST
5 min read
When I go to the polling location to vote in the Hampton
town election on March 12, I will vote yes for $52,521 for non-religious costs
(like a school nurse) for Sacred Heart School, as I do every year this question
is posed to me. Which I think is every year I’ve been eligible to vote.
I am not Catholic. I have never attended a private school
or religious one — unless Sunday School at the First Congregational Church
counts. I am a product of the public schools in Hampton and feel I received a
wonderful education and experience as a student. I'm still voting for that
small amount of funding for Sacred Heart so students and parents who choose to
attend can keep tuition reasonable and give them choice as to what is best for
their child. I hope I am in the majority, but the opposition is getting louder.
I find the opposition, based on “separation of church and
state” and “government shouldn’t be funding religious anything,” to be both
constitutionally untrue and not in the best interest of our community and most
importantly, our students.
First, on the constitutionality issue, quite simply the
U.S. Constitution doesn’t protect us “from” religion, it protects the freedom
“of” it. It has been interpreted that way for generations.
No, actually,
Alicia, this is not even close to being true. The First Amendment has two
clauses: 1. The establishment clause (which is what the Sacred Heart School
slush fund warrant article violates) and the 2. Free exercise clause, which is what
you are talking about. The free exercise clause has not been predominate for
generations; in fact, the opposite is true, although lately with the Trump Court,
it has gained advocates. Of course, "Congress" is now accepted as meaning "government," state, city or town, and some have argued that making no law respecting establishment means no law for or against establishment, but that is such sophistry, nobody bothers to say that anymore.
More and more frequently, this issue of “government” money
going to religious schools is being raised as a constitutional dilemma. I don’t
find it to be. As a matter of fact neither does the U.S. Supreme Court as
recently as 2022, when it ruled that our neighbors next door, Maine, cannot
exclude families who send kids to religious schools from its tuition
reimbursement program.
The Maine case
had peculiarities which do not apply to Hampton and the SFS slush fund. In
Maine, children sued the state for refusing to pay their tuition to a religious school,
saying there simply was no other alternative school for them to attend within a
hundred miles. In Hampton, there are four public schools within a mile of SHS.
In the opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “A state
need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it
cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
In her
dissent, Justice Sotomayor asserted with Robert’s ruling the Supreme Court
(SCOTUS) had virtually ruled that separation of church and state is
unconstitutional. As the First Amendment is what embodies separation of church
and state, SCOTUS had ruled, very peculiarly, that a part of the Constitution
is unconstitutional. If we ever get a SCOTUS comprised of actual jurists, as
opposed to the Alito/Thomas/Gorsuch/Barrett/Kavanagh cabal, this decision will
be surely overturned.
While this is a very different case regarding state
“voucher” programs, what it demonstrates is there is no absolute ban of
taxpayer dollars funneling through a government to a religious school. In that
respect, it is no different than Hampton taxpayer dollars simply funneling
through Hampton to Sacred Heart.
Oh, no, Dear
Alicia, there is a ban on state funds being granted to churches and church
schools, and that is called the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution and even more unambiguous, the New Hampshire state constitution
which says: “No person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of
the schools of any sect or denomination.”
What is wonderful about our form of government in our small
town, is that we actually vote directly on these funds. That is quite an
empowerment and if “we the people" want our tax dollars to go to a
religious organization, we do and should have the right to say so.
The thing
about the Constitution of the United States is that it applies all across the
nation, from every mountain top to every hamlet, and it tells you what you
cannot vote on. For example, you cannot vote to segregate your local schools on
the basis of race, even if the local voters want that. We have nullified the
Constitution in Hampton for 50 years, just as the governor of Alabama tried to
nullify the Constitution, but we got away with it, and ultimately, he didn’t.
Besides, we already do it all the time. We approve funding
to St. Vincent de Paul to support its amazing efforts to assist low income
families with needed food, clothing and even home medical supplies. We support
money to assist with the “Christmas Parade," one of my favorite days of
the year.
This is what
is called the “common good” thing. It is accepted that government cannot do
everything, and some charities which happen to be religious run soup kitchens
and may ask for government money for this charitable purpose. But the
distinction is they do not teach religion in a soup kitchen and you can have
your soup and not sign up to be converted or taught a particular gospel. But,
as Justice Robert O. Jackson noted in his Everson decision, a church would give
up everything before it gives up its church school, because without church
schools every church would be doomed to extinction with the next generation.
The difference between SHS and St. Vincent de Paul and all the other examples
of Catholic charities is that schools teach religion; charities do not.
We give tens of thousands of dollars to maintain our
cemetery, a place that hosts more religious services than anywhere but a church
itself.
This is an
embarrassingly inept analogy: Our Hampton cemeteries have interred people of
all faiths and government funds to maintain these or, for that matter parks, do
not violate the separation of church and state.
You might have
cited other examples of violation of government establishing religion which would
be more problematic: The “In God We Trust” on our coinage; the “one nation
under God,” in our pledge of allegiance, the opening of Congressional events
with a chaplain and a prayer. Yes, all of these mix state with religion, and
the only thing one can say about all that is, "wish it weren’t true," but these erosions of separation do not make us a theocracy.
We’ve given, through our ballots, to Waypoint, who doesn't
seem as religious now but was founded “as the Manchester City Missionary
Society, a collaborative of several Protestant churches in the areas, whose
purpose was to ‘save the unclaimed souls of the city.’ Primarily, it tried to
church the ‘unchurched.’”
Should we look at the founding of an organization to see if
it meets the criteria of “no religious connection anywhere”? Of course not.
That’s absurd. Let’s remember, these funds we’re talking about do not go to any
religious activities, so a religious connection is simply irrelevent. The only
questions that matter to me when I decide whether to vote on one of these
“donation” articles is, 1. Does it do good work for the community? 2. Is the
amount requested fair and reasonable? When it comes to Sacred Heart, it checks
both boxes so I will check mine “yes” in a few weeks.
Oh, Alicia,
you haven’t been listening to the Deliberative Sessions. It is very clear from
public statements (available on Channel 22) that the money given to SHS is not
separable into money spent on religious things (like crucifixes) and money
spent on non religious stuff. To try to separate monies is like telling the
person who is allergic to peanuts it’s just fine to eat the stew because you
can eat the carrots and the peas and use your spoon to separate out the
peanuts. The Treasurer who wrote the
check for the SHS computers testified that she had no idea if those computers
were used to stream services from St. Patrick’s cathedral. And even the
principal of the school never denied that only 25% of the students at SHS come
from families in Hampton; the other 75% of students at SHS come from families
who are paying taxes in other towns, not Hampton. So what the taxpayers of
Hampton are being asked to do is to fund a Catholic education for anyone who wants
one, no matter what town they come from.
Some often say — not just regarding Sacred Heart but these
types of issues in communities across the state and country — “if you want to
donate, donate, but use your own money!” Whose money do you think we're talking
about? The magic money tree in Depot Square, or our money, in the form of
taxpayer dollars, that go to where we vote it to go to, after it just passes
through the town on the way to its intended target?
I also don't understand the argument that is noted on this
matter, as well as regarding our state Education Trust Fund Program, that money
spent on a religious or private schools comes directly out of the coffers for
public schools. How? If they don't have to educate that kid, aren’t they saving
money? And these voucher programs and the non-religious funding for Sacred
Heart is far less than the allotted "per pupil spending” local schools
get. They're actually making out on this deal.
This is the
old, “it’s cheaper to send kids to SHS than to the expensive public schools." Fact
is, we have empty seats in our public schools, so paying again to send kids to
SHS is like going to the cafeteria, where the meals are all set out to feed all
the kids, and then saying, “Well, but for those of you who want to go eat at
McDonald’s, here’s some cash to do that.” We are paying twice for these kids.
Across society and multiple topics, there’s a lot of “just
because it’s always been done, doesn't mean it still should be.” Well, it also
doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be either. For four decades we’ve assisted this
school, and more importantly our fellow community members who are students,
families and neighbors, I see no constitutional, fiscal or political reason to
stop now.
Oh, back to
the “we’ve always done it this way” thing. That argument is so worn and
corrupted (as it was in the Jim Crow South) it hardly is worth mentioning.
"But we've always had Negro children going to Negro schools and White children going to White schools!"
This is the old "hasn't done no harm," thing. We have nullified the Constitution here in Hampton and nothing bad has happened argument. "We haven't done no harm having the school teacher lead the students in the Lord's Prayer every morning. What's all the fuss about?"
What you are really saying, dear Alicia, is that we have done it this way, offended principles this way, for years and you haven't felt harmed by it. That does not mean other people have not felt offended, belittled or outraged.
On March 12, this Protestant, public school product will be
voting for funding Sacred Heart’s non-religious costs, and I hope the majority
joins me.
The famous "Everson" decision:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State
No comments:
Post a Comment