Public Funds for Church School: The Ghost of JFK

 

"I believe in an America where separation of church and state is absolute, where no public funds are ever granted to any church, or to any church school. Today the finger of suspicion may be pointed at me, but tomorrow, it may be at you. Until the whole  fabric of our harmonious society is ripped."

--John F. Kennedy

Hampton Union Publicity 

Yesterday, the Hampton Union published an article about the fight over a Hampton warrant article, voted in every year, which sets up an account ($55,000 this year) from which bills are paid, after being presented by the Sacred Heart School (parish school of Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal) to the SAU treasurer. 

The Hampton Union quotes an attorney parishioner, who claims that despite the clear language of the New Hampshire constitution saying, "But no person shall every be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denomination," state supreme court decisions say otherwise. No response to that assertion was solicited or elicited by the reporter, Max Sullivan. The fact is, despite what Ms. Nevins (who always identifies herself as "attorney Nevins") says, this is by no means settled law. Mr. Sullivan simply quotes her, but never investigates whether or not this is true.

Beyond that, Ms. Nevins allowed that the 1969 decision public funds may go to religious schools "if sufficient safeguards are provided," and clearly there are no safeguards with respect to this tithe to the school. The treasurer of the SAU, Mariah Curtis, has on several occasions admitted she has no idea what the bills for supplies are used for, although "everything is audited."  As opponents have suggested molding clay may be used to fashion crucifixes for classroom walls, and computers may be used to stream religious services--there is no safeguard at all. Ms. Curtis admits in all the years she's been presented invoices from the church school, she's never once refused to pay for an invoice

The history of this warrant article is reported to date to a time when public schools were crowded and diversion of students to the church school was seen as a way of saving money, but the reporter failed to say that is no longer true in Hampton, and, in fact there are empty seats at Hampton public classrooms, and the SHS award diverts needed funds from public schools. That $55,000 could pay for a desperately needed school custodian.

The principal is quoted as saying this is all about educating Hampton students, whose parents pay taxes in the town, but she does not say that only 25% of the students at the school are from Hampton; the rest are from out of town. 

So what the taxpayers are really paying for is to support families from anywhere who want to educate their kids in the Church.

This phrase, "It's all about the kids," particularly galls opponents because it says really, "it's only about the kids," which of course is not true. It's also about separation of church and state. Not to mention there is something so sanctimonious about saying "I am all about the kids'" as if you are more about the kids than the opponents of the article, who feel they are just as much "about the kids."

The warrant article process is, of course tainted by a state law which requires that the School Board and the Budget Committee vote to either recommend or to not recommend voters vote for the article and those recommendations are printed right below the article and right above the checkboxes "yes" or "no" where the voters marks their ballots.

One might ask why the state wants these boards to put their thumbs on the scale so flagrantly, but one look at the 20 page "ballot" and you know why. Voters are allowed to vote based on what the authorities in town recommend, authorities who have presumably given more thought to the article than the voter who has only thought about it for a minute.

This year, Mr. Sullivan tells us, the School Board voted 2 in favor to 0 against to 3 abstentions to recommend. He tells us two of the 3 who abstained abstained because they were parishioners. He does not mention these two parishioners voted public funds to their own church last year when the warrant article vote came up, but this year they were called out for that at a public School Board meeting, and they abstained rather than being accused of doing what they had done in the past--voting for public funds to their own church. 

The 3rd abstainer, Wendy Rega, had voted against the article last year, but this year she thought it would be defeated only if she abstained, because if she voted no, then a majority of the Board would have voted, (i.e. 3 out of 5) and it would be carried as a 2-1 vote. But with her abstention, it was a 2-0-3 vote and that meant the majority had not voted. It was a tactical move. Mr. Max Sullivan reported none of that.

He also did not mention that Ginny Bridle Russel, the chairperson of the school board voted for the warrant article as a School Board member and again as a Budget Committee member, so she got to cast deciding votes twice.

He did not mention that the Budget Committee voted 4-3 to recommend, and it is not known how many of those 4 voters were parishioners. And he did not report what the three No voters had said to explain their votes. Sullivan explained why the abstainers abstained--but he did not give equal space to those who voted against the article.

So, according to the Hampton Union, the fight over separation of Church and State is over in Hampton.

As Justice Sotomayor has noted, with the current United States Supreme Court it may be that separation of church and state is now unconstitutional. It certainly is in Hampton.

And it's too bad, really.

What was that "finger of suspicion" JFK was talking about? Well, in 1960, I well recall being told by my neighbors, "Oh, you can't vote for a Catholic to be President. You may as well move the Pope into the White House. Your taxes will go right to the Church."

JFK promised that would not happen and he kept that promise. It is his legacy, his sacred legacy, that nobody ever asks if a candidate for high office is Catholic anymore.

I've met plenty of people who do not even know Joe Biden is Catholic. Never comes up. John F. Kennedy did that for us. This abstract notion, separation of church and state, which elicits nothing but dull stares and slack jaws from so  many, has very real, practical consequences.

So, when the voters at the Deliberative Session on February 5th, mustered out to vote for the warrant article, to support their Church and their faith, they will actually be doing just the opposite.

They will be voting to destroy the legacy of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, which allowed Catholics to fully participate in the politics of their nation, without that ugly "finger of suspicion" pointed at them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CClNXNeYBIw&t=7s

I Come to Bury The 1st Amendment, Not to Praise It

 

Friends, neighbors, countrymen, we have gathered here tonight, some in opposition, and some are here to support, the warrant article which seeks to grant Sacred Heart School taxpayer money, as we have done, I am told, for over 50 years.

First, it must be said:  I know nobody here tonight who wishes anything but the best for the Church of the Miraculous Medal or its wholly owned subsidiary, the Sacred Heart School. 

Those of us in opposition come not to oppose the Church, but to embrace the Constitution.

As far as I know, Sacred Heart is a fine school and, in fact, I have personally contributed to it from my own bank account.

I know that the Church has sent its congregants here tonight, and they are honorable people, here to support their church. 

They are faithful to their Church and good citizens, too, as far as I can see. They are here tonight to stand immovably with their Church.

3 TIMES OVER

But I also know that the good townsfolk of Hampton have paid for the 60 to 65 Hampton children who attend SHS, three times over, every year. They have paid first by providing enough seats and enough teachers for these children in Center School, Marston School and the Academy. There are warm desks and teachers there, already funded, by town taxpayers ready to receive those 65 students, who would represent no more than an extra 3% to the student body.  We do not have too many, but too few children in Hampton. And the taxpayers will pay a second time for these students, by paying for the state vouchers for private school students, and the taxpayers pay a third time with this warrant article.

But the Church folk of Miraculous Medal are here tonight to support their Church. The warrant article money has been used to buy glitter crayons, molding clay, finger paint, paper crowns, and computers for the school. They support that. 

And they are good citizens.

And yet, the New Hampshire Constitution, in its Bill of Rights, article six,  says, and I quote, "But no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denomination. "

So this warrant article the congregants have come to vote for tonight violates the state Constitution. What the congregants are voting for is illegal, or it is illegal to the extent it violates the most basic law of the state of New Hampshire, its own Constitution. And yet the congregants are good citizens. 

These folk have come tonight to support their Church.  And who can say this is not a good thing? I know these folks consider themselves good citizens. And they consider themselves good Catholics. And who can say otherwise?

The warrant article also violates the United States Constitution, which I hope and expect the students of the Sacred Heart School have learned: Government "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." That is in the first sentence of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.

And yet the folks from Miraculous Medal have come here tonight with the admirable intent of supporting their church, even if they rebuke the US Constitution. 

Who can fault that?

What does that even mean, "respecting the establishment of religion"?  Unlike the wording of our state Constitution, the US Constitution is still, apparently, open to interpretation. Our current Supreme Court, with its seven Catholic justices, supports the idea that separation of church and state is a violation of the Constitution. That is the observation of Justice Soto Mayor, herself a Catholic, and herself dismayed by recent Court decisions which have held that if a town wishes to offer any sort of support to the children of that town, then they must offer it without discrimination against children who go to religious schools, whether it's busing or playground maintenance or scholarships. The current Court has even said that where the only schools available are religious schools, as in remote parts of Maine, Maine taxpayers have to pay to send kids to those religious schools. 

But there are public schools available in Hampton. This is not rural Maine.

And in Hampton, we have gone the Court one better: We have simply voted to fund the Sacred Heart School as a special case, just like the English have done with their Anglican Church of England, which Henry VIII established when the Pope would not allow him to marry Anne Boleyn. We are not extending equal benefits to each and every child in Hampton; we are extending special benefits to the students at Sacred Heart. This is not a case of the town being sure that kids going to Sacred Heart are afforded the same benefits as kids going to public schools: This is a special tithe paid by the town to the Church of the Miraculous Medal.

And the members of the Church of the Miraculous Medal have come here tonight to support their Church and what could be wrong with that?

One could argue that the town has promised the children of Hampton an education, any education, and so if they choose to have a Catholic school education we owe them that, as matter of principle, we owe any child in Hampton the education his family deems appropriate for him or her, this argument would go.

But last year, when an amendment to the warrant article was offered to make money available to any student who wanted to go any religious school of their choice, a man rose to object, saying that might mean we'd have to pay for a school of a Church of Satan, and the amendment was immediately voted down.

So we are here tonight to vote. 

Some will vote to deny taxpayer funds for glitter crayons, computers, office supplies, books and computer services to the Sacred Heart School.  They vote to deny this without a shred of animus to the Sacred Heart School--but out of love for the Constitution, and the principle of separation of Church and state. They do this so no individual in town is forced to pay to support schools of any demonination or sect, as the state Constitution guarantees.

They do this to be good citizens.

But others are here to support their church, and who will say they are not right to do so? They want to direct funds to their church school, and they do this to support their church. 

And they are good citizens.