|
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:24:56 -0500
From: Americans United <corbin@au.org>
To: Me
Subject: AU @ctivist :: Fed Appeals Court Rules Against Mandatory Funding
of Religious Education
PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
October 25, 2004
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
www.au.org
AMERICANS UNITED PRAISES FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULING AGAINST MANDATORY
FUNDING OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
Public Funds Should Not Be Used To Finance Religious Schooling, Group Says
A federal appeals court has rejected arguments that a Maine education law
must be expanded to include funding for private religious schools.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State had filed a
friend-of-the-court-brief with the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
urging it to reject arguments that the U.S. Constitution requires Maine to
fund private religious schools in the same manner it funds secular schools.
"This is another blow to voucher advocates who argue that the government is
constitutionally required to fund religious schools," said the Rev. Barry
W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church
and State. "The courts have consistently rejected these backdoor voucher
schemes."
The Maine law under challenge provides tuition for students to attend any
school in districts that do not have their own public schools. But the law
bars school districts from paying tuition to any private religious school.
Parents in Minot County who chose to send their children to a Catholic
school sued the state, arguing the law unconstitutionally discriminated
against them because of their religious beliefs.
The 1st Circuit ruled Oct. 22 in Eulitt v. Maine that the state had
legitimate "interests in concentrating limited state funds on its goal of
providing secular education, avoiding entanglement, and allaying concerns
about accountability that undoubtedly would accompany state oversight of
parochial schools' curricula and policies."
The appeals court cited in its decision a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling,
which affirmed that state government may refuse to provide funding to
religious schools to protect church-state separation.
In that decision, Locke v. Davey, the justices ruled that states couldn't
be required to extend scholarship aid to college students training to
become members of the clergy.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a religious liberty
watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization
educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in the
safeguarding religious freedom.
AUcorbin@aol.com
www.au.org
|
| |
| |
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:...
PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
October 25, 2004
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
www.au.org
AMERICANS UNITED PRAISES FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULING AGAINST MANDATORY
FUNDING OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
Public Funds Should Not Be Used To Finance Religious Schooling, Group Says
A federal appeals court has rejected arguments that a Maine education law
must be expanded to include funding for private religious schools.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State had filed a
friend-of-the-court-brief with the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
urging it to reject arguments that the U.S. Constitution requires Maine to
fund private religious schools in the same manner it funds secular schools.
"This is another blow to voucher advocates who argue that the government is
constitutionally required to fund religious schools," said the Rev. Barry
W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church
and State. "The courts have consistently rejected these backdoor voucher
schemes."
The Maine law under challenge provides tuition for students to attend any
school in districts that do not have their own public schools. But the law
bars school districts from paying tuition to any private religious school.
Parents in Minot County who chose to send their children to a Catholic
school sued the state, arguing the law unconstitutionally discriminated
against them because of their religious beliefs.
The 1st Circuit ruled Oct. 22 in Eulitt v. Maine that the state had
legitimate "interests in concentrating limited state funds on its goal of
providing secular education, avoiding entanglement, and allaying concerns
about accountability that undoubtedly would accompany state oversight of
parochial schools' curricula and policies."
The appeals court cited in its decision a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling,
which affirmed that state government may refuse to provide funding to
religious schools to protect church-state separation.
In that decision, Locke v. Davey, the justices ruled that states couldn't
be required to extend scholarship aid to college students training to
become members of the clergy.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a religious liberty
watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization
educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in the
safeguarding religious freedom.
MK. I predict a reversal if this gets to the USSC (without
Kerry-appointed justices). School vouchers do not support religious
education, as in Locke versus Davey (involving a specifically
religious course of instruction). School vouchers support alternatives
to State-operated schools. To exclude accedited Church-operated
schools from a school voucger program is to discriminate on the basis
of religion, obviously.
* MAINE: The first challenge to a state constitution after U.S.
Supreme Court's June choice ruling is now set. Several Pine Tree
State parents, tired of the state's tuitioning program that includes
all schools
but those that are religious, have filed suit. For almost 100 years
Maine has permitted students in districts too small to support their
own high schools to receive tuition to attend public, private,
in-state or out-of-state schools of their choice. In 1981, however, a
law was passed excluding religious schools from the program. This
directly contradicts the Supreme Court's June ruling that choices made
by parents to send their children to religious schools using per-pupil
allotments of public funds is constitutional. Moreover, a law that
excludes schools from a program simply because they are religious
clearly discriminates against religious institutions, and is therefore
unconstitutional. This case could be an important bellwether for
attempts to roll back anti-choice laws in other states. We'll be
watching it closely.
To read details and analysis of the Supreme Court's ruling in the
Cleveland voucher case, go to
http://www.edreform.org/press/2002/ohiovictory.htm.
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky
comment on school. Please read this.)
http://www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
http://www.worldbank.org/research/journals/wbro/obsfeb97/educate.htm
http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=6853
http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=737
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/
http://www.thegantelope.com/archives/cat_school_choice.html
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/index.html
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/
http://www.edreform.com/_upload/NineLies.pdf.
http://www.nlpc.org
http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm
http://www.daycaresdontcare.org/
A book review by John Ray...
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/berg.html
|
| |
| |
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:...
MK. I predict a reversal if this gets to the USSC (without
Kerry-appointed justices). School vouchers do not support religious
education, as in Locke versus Davey (involving a specifically
religious course of instruction). School vouchers support alternatives
to State-operated schools. To exclude accedited Church-operated
schools from a school voucger program is to discriminate on the basis
of religion, obviously.
Bull Shit!
With the same logic, if the state DOESN'T finance private road construction
between me and my girlfriend, they are discriminating!
* MAINE: The first challenge to a state constitution after U.S.
Supreme Court's June choice ruling is now set. Several Pine Tree
State parents, tired of the state's tuitioning program that includes
all schools
but those that are religious, have filed suit. For almost 100 years
Maine has permitted students in districts too small to support their
own high schools to receive tuition to attend public, private,
in-state or out-of-state schools of their choice. In 1981, however, a
law was passed excluding religious schools from the program. This
directly contradicts the Supreme Court's June ruling that choices made
by parents to send their children to religious schools using per-pupil
allotments of public funds is constitutional. Moreover, a law that
excludes schools from a program simply because they are religious
clearly discriminates against religious institutions, and is therefore
unconstitutional.
In other situations, the ruling ONLY applied in situations where adequate
public education wasn't available.
The bottom line, we have NO responsiblity to fund YOUR religious
indoctrination.
|
| |
| |
ZenIsWhen wrote:..
Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
MK. Topic: School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel...
MK. Discussion deleted...
AMERICANS UNITED PRAISES FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULING AGAINST MANDATORY
FUNDING OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
Public Funds Should Not Be Used To Finance Religious Schooling, Group
Says...
MK. Discussion deleted...
Bull Shit!
With the same logic, if the state DOESN'T finance private road construction
between me and my girlfriend, they are discriminating!
MK. ??? To "discriminate" is to detect differences. Where to build
roads? Sensible planners discriminate between options on the basis of
a cost-benefit analysis. How to apply the taxpayer's K-12 education
subsidy? Weigh the options. I was surprised by the USSC ruling in
Locke, since the issues resembled those in the "Witters" case,
(post-secondary, and a specifically religious course of instruction).
In "Witters", the court held that a post-secondary vocational training
subsidy which dis-allowed training for the ministry was
unconstitutionally discriminatory. "Locke" was also a post-secondary
case, involving university education. I don't see how the difference
makes a diference. In any case, I don't see how --either-- applies to
--general education-- at accredited K-12 schools. I predict a
reversal.
MK. Discussion deleted...
In other situations, the ruling ONLY applied in situations where adequate
public education wasn't available.
MK. That is the case. The exclusion of Church-operated schools is
still discrimination on the basis of religion.
The bottom line, we have NO responsiblity to fund YOUR religious
indoctrination.
MK. I was raised in no church. I am no more a Christian than I am a
Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Muslim, or Zoroastrian. The way to teach
tolerance of diversity is to tolerate diversity, seems to me.
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky
comment on school. Please read this.)
http://www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
http://www.worldbank.org/research/journals/wbro/obsfeb97/educate.htm
http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=6853
http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=737
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/
http://www.thegantelope.com/archives/cat_school_choice.html
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/index.html
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/
http://www.edreform.com/_upload/NineLies.pdf.
http://www.nlpc.org
http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm
http://www.daycaresdontcare.org/
A book review by John Ray...
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/berg.html
|
| |
| |
alcolmkirkpatrick@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:...
:|>
:|> PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE
:|>
:|> For Immediate Release
:|> October 25, 2004
:|>
:|> Americans United for Separation of Church and State
:|> www.au.org
:|>
:|> AMERICANS UNITED PRAISES FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULING AGAINST MANDATORY
:|> FUNDING OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
:|>
:|> Public Funds Should Not Be Used To Finance Religious Schooling, Group Says
:|>
:|> A federal appeals court has rejected arguments that a Maine education law
:|> must be expanded to include funding for private religious schools.
:|>
:|> Americans United for Separation of Church and State had filed a
:|> friend-of-the-court-brief with the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
:|> urging it to reject arguments that the U.S. Constitution requires Maine to
:|> fund private religious schools in the same manner it funds secular schools.
:|>
:|> "This is another blow to voucher advocates who argue that the government is
:|> constitutionally required to fund religious schools," said the Rev. Barry
:|> W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church
:|> and State. "The courts have consistently rejected these backdoor voucher
:|> schemes."
:|>
:|> The Maine law under challenge provides tuition for students to attend any
:|> school in districts that do not have their own public schools. But the law
:|> bars school districts from paying tuition to any private religious school.
:|> Parents in Minot County who chose to send their children to a Catholic
:|> school sued the state, arguing the law unconstitutionally discriminated
:|> against them because of their religious beliefs.
:|>
:|> The 1st Circuit ruled Oct. 22 in Eulitt v. Maine that the state had
:|> legitimate "interests in concentrating limited state funds on its goal of
:|> providing secular education, avoiding entanglement, and allaying concerns
:|> about accountability that undoubtedly would accompany state oversight of
:|> parochial schools' curricula and policies."
:|>
:|> The appeals court cited in its decision a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling,
:|> which affirmed that state government may refuse to provide funding to
:|> religious schools to protect church-state separation.
:|>
:|> In that decision, Locke v. Davey, the justices ruled that states couldn't
:|> be required to extend scholarship aid to college students training to
:|> become members of the clergy.
:|>
:|> Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a religious liberty
:|> watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization
:|> educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in the
:|> safeguarding religious freedom.
:|>
:|MK. I predict a reversal if this gets to the USSC (without
:|Kerry-appointed justices).
Do you realize what you just admitted to?
You just admitted that it has nothing to do with law, history, the
constitution but rather it has to do with the allegiance of certain judges
and justices to their political parties, philosophy, politicians who
appointed them rather then law, precedence, history and so on. That is a
pretty major admittance on your part, thank you for being so honest and
coming clean for once.
Not a single one of the following cases really had anything to do with law,
with precedence but rather with the political beliefs and agendas of
certain USSC Justices.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cm0dav0m5hird75bi8oa98rfqte05evamt%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
So based on your comments, one can say that vouncers aren't "legally"
constitutional, buyt rather have been declared "politically" constitutional
by a hand ful of political justices over the past 20 years and as such as
just as likely to be decalred non constittuional when the high court swings
back to the center and eventaully to the left again.
Gee, dude, that is what I have been saying for some time now, remember
this:
Vouchers: Our Position
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm
***************************************
:|School vouchers do not support religious
:|education, as in Locke versus Davey (involving a specifically
:|religious course of instruction).
Hey dippy, Locke v Davy was the case cited in Eulitt v. Maine Department
of Education.
Too bad, so sad, you lose again.
:|School vouchers support alternatives
:|to State-operated schools. To exclude accedited Church-operated
:|schools from a school voucger program is to discriminate on the basis
:|of religion, obviously.
:|>
:|* MAINE: The first challenge to a state constitution after U.S.
:|Supreme Court's June choice ruling is now set. Several Pine Tree
:|State parents, tired of the state's tuitioning program that includes
:|all schools
:|but those that are religious, have filed suit. For almost 100 years
:|Maine has permitted students in districts too small to support their
:|own high schools to receive tuition to attend public, private,
:|in-state or out-of-state schools of their choice. In 1981, however, a
:|law was passed excluding religious schools from the program. This
:|directly contradicts the Supreme Court's June ruling that choices made
:|by parents to send their children to religious schools using per-pupil
:|allotments of public funds is constitutional. Moreover, a law that
:|excludes schools from a program simply because they are religious
:|clearly discriminates against religious institutions, and is therefore
:|unconstitutional. This case could be an important bellwether for
:|attempts to roll back anti-choice laws in other states. We'll be
:|watching it closely.
This case has lost on the state level and now two levels of Federal courts:
Holmes v. Bush and Other Voucher Cases
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2943
******************************************************************************************
April 26, 1999
Taxpayers May Not Be Forced to Pay for Religious Schools, Maine's
Highest Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAINE SUPREME COURT REJECTS
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOL VOUCHERS
The Maine Supreme Court ruled Friday, April 23, that
publicly funded voucher subsidies for private religious schools are
unconstitutional.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS RULES AGAINST
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOL VOUCHERS
The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that
voucher-style subsidies for private religious schools are unconstitutional.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1, 1999
Federal Court Vetoes Tax Dollars for Religious Education in Maine
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Associated Press, 6/1/99:
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) -- A federal appeals court has upheld a Maine law
that bars the state from paying students' tuition at religious schools.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eulitt v. Maine Department of Education, 2004 WL 423981 (D.Me. 2004)
Leg
|
| |
| |
alcolmkirkpatrick@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:
:|MK. [deleted mumbo jumbo ]. . . . How to apply the taxpayer's K-12 education
:|subsidy? Weigh the options. I was surprised by the USSC ruling in
:|Locke, since the issues resembled those in the "Witters" case,
You were surprised because you don't what was going on here, even though I
have tried to educate you in past. You don't read posts of others to learn
anything you read them to find something to use as a launch pad for your
propaganda.
:|(post-secondary, and a specifically religious course of instruction).
:|In "Witters", the court held that a post-secondary vocational training
:|subsidy which dis-allowed training for the ministry was
:|unconstitutionally discriminatory.
Witters should have been held to be unconstitutional as well.
But what we have or had was a justice that was more aligned to his
political beliefs, his political philosophy, his party that appointed him
than to law
Law is constant, there is change but when there is change it is suppose to
be slow and make sense. Law is based on precedence which provides guidance
to judges and justices. There was plenty of well established precedence
present but that precedence didn't lead where Rehnquist and his cohorts
wanted to go. They were bound and determined to overturn previous rulings
that they didn't like and try and establish a new path of precedence. They
wanted to basically over turn and reverse the previous courts and
precedence set by them over the previous 40 or so years.
I have presented this to you before only to have it deleted and ignored,
but if you really want to understand, which you don't, you have too big a
hard on for the public school system you would do well to study it.
***************************************
PART V
You want to study the USSC and its rulings on aid to religion :
Have at it:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cm0dav0m5hird75bi8oa98rfqte05evamt%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
AND
Vouchers: Our Position
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm
AND
From: buckeye@exis.net
Newsgroups:
misc.education,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Cleveland Vouchers unconstitutional
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:43:31 -0500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[I had asked Panther --(MK)]
:|> >:|> What were the facts of "Witters" and what were the facts
:|> > of "Mitchell v Helm"
:|>
[he replied]
:|MK. Go to the Supreme Court website, or visit a law library. The points
:|at issue in "Witters" were close enough to the points at issue
:|in "Mitchell" fopr the Court to cite "Witters".
[I added]
Close enough, huh, well at least in the mind of that "brilliant legal
scholar" Justice Thomas and or his law clerks (LOL) to fit into what
he/they were trying to accomplish.
Do bear this little fact in mind:
On the USSC level Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin
Scalia and Clarence Thomas have led the movement toward greater government
accommodation of religion. Less yielding have been Justices John Paul
Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor have often been considered
"swing votes" in the high courts First Amendment cases.
Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas have all at various times been quoted as
saying they want aid to private religious made legal.
Has nothing to do with law, history, founders, etc, it has to do with their
own personal political philosophy and personal desire to make a mark on
church state jurisprudence. They have been foiled in the past as various
times by either O'Connor or Kennedy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CASE
Witters v. Washington Dept. of Services for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986)
- Witters, a vision impaired individual, applied for state funding for
higher education benefits offered under a statutory scheme to help the
visually impaired become "productive members of society." The Commission
empowered to provide the funds denied Witters application for benefits
because he had chosen to enter a Bible College in preparation for a
vocation as a minister.
ISSUE RAISED
Does state financial aid to an individual who is studying to become a
minister violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment?
HOLDING/RATIONALE
The Court reversed this case on appeal from the State Supreme Court which
had decided that if Witters received funding it would have the effect of
advancing religion. The Supreme Court held that the statute had a secular
purpose and that the program provided "neutrally available" state aid. The
Court then sent the case back to the state court to apply the entanglement
test.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are quite a few differences in the facts of the two cases.
Just to mention a couple:
(1) Witter involved a college, while Mitchell v Helms involved k-12 schools
(2) Witter involved a vocational rehabilitation program. A program that
set aside funds for the specific purpose of subsidizing vocational training
for those who were visually impaired.
How many visually impaired students were involved in Mitchell v Helms?
How many of those computers that the funds awarded by the Mitchell v Helms
ruling will provide will be just for visually impaired students,. if any
are?
If they wanted a precedent, they had it in the cases that involved the
providing of school books and some testing that had previously been decided
There would be no problem with that. I expected, based on those past cases
that Mitchell v Helms would be reversed.
What I have a problem with is the twisting of facts to make cases that
shouldn't fit as precedent to fit, because certain people have a bigger
agenda.
The art of distinguishing (to prove a case cited as applicable) facts is
just that an art. It allows people to say day is night sometimes, and at
least in their minds, and the minds of those who agree with the ruling,,
think they got away with it.
In time, it usually backfires.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original issue/point which took place in a discussion between Alberto
and myself was over the word precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Moreira <junkmail@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
:|buckeye@exis.net wrote:
:|
:|> A "precedent" only applies in cases where the facts are the same.
:|
:|So, given that facts are never the same, there is no such a
:|thing as a real "precedent". It's an oxymoron at best,
:|oppression in its worse embodiment. Or, as it often happens, a
:|substitute for clear thinking.
BTW the concept of precedence was began in Rome By Octavian (or Augustus
(63 Bc-14 AD)
precedence does exist.
One has to begin to get an understanding of case analysis first.
Very simple explanation is
A person would want to know whether the same application of the law in the
previous opinion i.e. the same holding, will be applied to the case you are
involved with. This determination is made though
|
| |
| |
|
