Voucher Plan That Would Fund Religious Schools In Colorado Upheld

Appeals Court Upholds Voucher Plan That Would Fund Religious Schools In Colorado

Ruling Will Be Appealed To Colorado Supreme Court, ACLU And Americans United Say

Feb 28, 2013

A Colorado appeals court ruled 2-1 today that a voucher plan adopted by the Douglas County School District does not violate the Colorado Constitution by diverting taxpayer money to pay students’ tuition at religious and other private schools.

 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado and the national ACLU criticized the ruling.

 

“This misguided decision fails to enforce the Colorado Constitution’s strict prohibitions against public funding of religious education,” said Alex J. Luchenitser, associate legal director for Americans United. “It’s clear that this voucher plan will funnel taxpayer money primarily into the coffers of religious schools.” 

 

The organizations challenged the program on behalf of a group of parents, clergy and other taxpayers. A lower court had previously struck down the plan.

 

“While families have the right to decide where their children should attend school, the state cannot finance religious education at private institutions,” said Heather L. Weaver, staff attorney for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Public education funds should be used to help improve our public schools, not to promote religion in violation of the state constitution.”

 

AU and the ACLU plan to file an appeal before the Colorado Supreme Court.

 

“The Colorado Court of Appeals got it wrong today when it found that Douglas County’s scheme to underwrite the religious education of children was constitutional,” says Mark Silverstein, Legal Director for the ACLU of Colorado.  “We hope and expect that the Colorado Supreme Court will ultimately decide this case and affirm the district court’s ruling that diverting taxpayer money to pay students’ tuition at primarily religious, private schools is a clear violation of the religious liberty provisions of the Colorado Constitution.” 

 

“The decision fundamentally misinterprets prior Colorado Supreme Court cases interpreting the religion clauses of the Colorado Constitution,” said attorney Matthew J. Douglas of the Denver office of the international law firm Arnold & Porter LLP, who argued the appeal

and is serving as cooperating counsel for the ACLU and Americans United

. “Ultimately these issues should be decided by the Colorado Supreme Court.”

 

The so-called “Choice Scholarship Pilot Program” offered tuition vouchers worth $4,575 to 500 students to spend at religious and other private schools. For the purposes of obtaining state per-pupil educational funds, Douglas County still counted these children as “public school students” attending an imaginary school that exists only on paper.

 

In reality, the voucher money was spent at district-approved “Private School Partners.” As of the filing of the lawsuit, 18 of the 23 approved Private School Partners are religious.

 

Dissenting from the 2-1 decision, Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Steve Bernard wrote, “In my view, [the Colorado Constitution] prohibits public school districts from channeling public money to private religious schools. I think that the Choice Scholarship Program is a pipeline that violates this direct and clear constitutional command.”

 

The lawsuit, LaRue v. Colorado Board of Education, argues that the voucher plan violates the Colorado Constitution’s ban on the use of public funds for religious schools and state laws that require educational funds to pay for public education and remain under government control.

 

The plaintiffs are represented by Douglas, Timothy R. Macdonald, and Michelle K. Albert of Arnold & Porter LLP; Luchenitser and Ayesha N. Khan of Americans United; Weaver and Daniel Mach of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief; and Silverstein and Sara Rich of the ACLU of Colorado.

 

 

Americans United 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 safeguarding religious freedom.

https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/appeals-court-upholds-voucher-plan-that-would-fund-religious-schools-in?utm_source=AU+main+email+list&utm_campaign=9bdb3bb809-2013-02-28+Court+Upholds+CO+Vouchers&utm_medium=email

Disingenuous Discourse: Sectarian Lobbies Defend DOMA, Prop 8 On Secular Grounds

Feb 20, 2013 by Simon Brown in Wall of Separation

Most of these groups are tossing around some pretty flimsy secular arguments in a weak attempt to make it seem like their opposition isn’t based in religious dogma. We know better.

As the U.S. Supreme Court considers two cases dealing with same-sex marriage, the Religious Right and its allies are attempting to sway the justices with a barrage of briefs in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8.

Most of these groups are tossing around some pretty flimsy secular arguments in a weak attempt to make it seem like their opposition isn’t based in religious dogma. We know better.

Consider this breakdown from USA Today, which shows the various arguments from religious lobbies that want their sectarian doctrines to be enforced by the civil marriage laws of the United States. The article notes that one of the most quoted sources among these many legal briefs is none other than the Bible.

Still, some tried to pretend that they support DOMA and Prop 8 for secular reasons.

Take the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The bishops said that if gay marriage is legal, they would be forced to accept it in order to remain tax exempt and be eligible for government contracts.

“If the Constitution were construed to require government affirmation of same-sex relationships as marriage, it would seem a short step to requiring such affirmation as a condition of receiving government contracts, participating in public programs or being eligible for tax exemption,” the bishops said. “Those who disagree with the government's moral assessment of such relationships would find themselves increasingly marginalized and denied equal participation in American public life and benefits.”

That seems highly unlikely. The bishops are already known to discriminate and ignore the provisions outlined in government contracts if they contradict their beliefs, and yet Catholic organizations remain tax exempt and Catholic groups continue to secure federal contracts for various services. And, frankly, if the bishops don’t want to serve legally married gay couples on the same basis as straight couples, maybe they shouldn’t get government grants.

The bishops’ brief also brought up the old logical fallacy that legalizing gay marriage will lead to all sorts of other legalizations, like marriage among minors, relatives or polygamists.


No one is seriously arguing for the legalization of any of those things, and having same-sex marriage on the books no more legitimizes incest than does traditional marriage.


Others, like the Family Research Council, said gay marriages can’t fulfill the primary purpose of marriage, which is child bearing.


But what about couples who marry when they are too old to have kids or couples who simply don’t want to have them?  Would the Family Research Council support a ban on those marriages?
Still other groups cited historical reasons for supporting DOMA and Prop 8.

“Before 2003, same-sex marriage had never existed in the United States, and it still is comparatively rare,” said the Marriage Law Foundation, a group of college professors, in a brief. “Indeed, before 2000, it had never existed in human history.”


That proves absolutely nothing. Any history of discrimination is wrong, and just because something is tradition doesn’t mean it’s right. Slavery was a “tradition” in America from 1619-1865 and you don’t see many people arguing for the return of that.

Then there’s the Rev. Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church. There is no question that group spews vile hatred, but at least it is up front about the religious basis for its opposition to same-sex marriage.

“Same-sex marriage will destroy this nation,” the group said in its brief. “If the leaders of this country treat what God has called abominable as something to be respected, revered, and blessed with the seal of approval of the government, that will cross a final line with God.”


American laws should be based on fairness, justice and equality, not religious dogma. Let’s hope the Supreme Court makes its decision based on those concepts and isn’t fooled by sectarian lobbies trying to disguise their doctrines with paper-thin secular farces.

https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/disingenuous-discourse-sectarian-lobbies-defend-doma-prop-8-on-secular

Americans United Urges U.S. House To Reject Taxpayer-Funded Repair Of Houses Of Worship

Americans United Urges U.S. House To Reject Taxpayer-Funded Repair Of Houses Of Worship

Bill Would Authorize Federal Agency To Pay For Rebuilding Of Houses Of Worship Damaged By Hurricane Sandy

Feb 13, 2013

Taxpayers should not be asked to pay for reconstruction of houses of worship damaged during hurricanes and other natural disasters, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Americans United is urging the U.S. House of Representatives to vote against HR 592, a measure that would authorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency to issue direct grants to churches and other religious institutions. 

 

 

On Wednesday, the House is scheduled to take up the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013. Some religious lobbies are urging Congress and the Obama administration to approve aid to churches, synagogues and other houses of worship that were damaged last October by Hurricane Sandy.

 

Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director,

“A fundamental rule of American life is that congregants, not the taxpayers, pay for the construction and repair of houses of worship. We must not let a storm sweep away the wall of separation between church and state.”
 

Americans United says public funding of religion violates the U.S. Constitution and a long line of federal court decisions bars government support for buildings used primarily for worship.

 

 

Lynn noted that the George W. Bush administration, which approved an array of “faith-based” subsidies, drew the line at FEMA funding of church reconstruction in the wake of Hurricane Katrina

In a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives, AU Legislative Director Maggie Garrett noted that houses of worship, like most non-profit organizations and businesses, are eligible for government loans – just not direct grants – to rebuild. 

 

 

Garrett said houses of worship are not being singled out for unfair treatment as some claim. FEMA, she said, only funds nonprofits with facilities that are used for emergency services and other essential, government-like activities. Eligible facilities, such as community centers, must also be open to the general public.  

 

 

“Although it may not be seem easy in times of tragedy to tell those seeking aid that they are ineligible for government grants,” wrote Garrett, “the bar on the government rebuilding of houses of worship is an important limitation that exists to protect religious freedom for all. 

 

“It upholds the fundamental principle that no taxpayer should be forced to fund a religion with whom he or she disagrees,” she continued, “and that the government should never support building (“establishing” religion in its most basic form) religious sanctuaries.  And, it protects against the government favoring, or creating the perception of favoritism for, certain religions over others.”    

Americans United 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 safeguarding religious freedom.

February 12, 2013

Re: Oppose HR 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013 Dear Representative:

Americans United writes to express our strong opposition to HR 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013, which will be debated on the House floor tomorrow, Wednesday, February 13. The sole purpose of the bill is to authorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to issue direct grants to fund the rebuilding of houses of worship. We oppose this bill because such funding would violate the Constitution and represent a significant shift in longstanding federal policy. Indeed, the George W. Bush Administration followed the policies of the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton Administrations when it disallowed FEMA grants for the rebuilding of "houses of worship" after Hurricane Katrina.1

1 Alan Cooperman, "Parochial Schools to Get U.S. Funds for Rebuilding," Wash. Post, Oct. 19, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801622.html.

2 Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971) (holding unanimously that a government subsidy used to construct buildings at colleges and universities was constitutional only if the buildings could never be used for religious activities); Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973) (upholding issuance of revenue bonds to finance the construction and renovation of facilities because the law included a condition barring government-financed buildings from being used for religious worship or instruction); Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973).

3 Nyquist, 413 U.S. at 777.

4 Recent federal court decisions, including Community House v. Boise, 490 F.3d 1041, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007), 567 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2009), apply Tilton’s holding that "to avoid an Establishment Clause violation, a publicly financed government building may not be diverted to religious use." The only case that diverts from this longstanding precedent is one from the Sixth Circuit, American Atheists v. City of Detroit Downtown Dev. Auth. Yet, even this case does not stand for the proposition that federal grants can fund the reconstruction of houses of worship. Instead, the case distinguishes Tilton and Nyquist, arguing that the grant program before the Sixth Circuit was a "one-time grant limited to exterior cosmetic repairs" and "one-time surface-level improvements" that served a particular purpose and was very limited in scope. Id. at 298-99.

5 Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 819 (1999) (quoting Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 842 (1995)) (Thomas, J.); see also id. at 856 (O’Connor, J., controlling and concurring opinion) (describing Tilton as striking down the grant statute because it lacked a "secular content requirement").

As someone who was born and raised at the Jersey shore and whose parents are still making repairs to their home and cleaning up after the storm, I certainly appreciate the needs the community faces. But, I also recognize that the Constitution places certain limits on the government’s ability to fund houses of worship. The Tilton/Nyquist 2 line of Supreme Court cases firmly establish that it is constitutionally impermissible for the government to provide aid for the construction and repair of houses of worship. In accordance with these cases, "the State may not erect buildings in which religious activities are to take place" and "it may not maintain such buildings or renovate them when they fall into disrepair."3

The rule set down by the Supreme Court in these cases remains controlling law as neither they, nor the principal behind them, have ever been overruled in any subsequent Supreme Court decision.4 To the contrary, in its more recent cases examining the constitutionality of government aid to religious institutions, the Supreme Court has maintained that direct money grants create "special Establishment Clause dangers."5 Congress too just recently recognized the applicability of this precedent when it limited green construction funding in the Recovery Act to buildings in which secular activities take place.

Furthermore, proponents’ claims that Tilton and Nyquist are inapplicable and that Congress should instead look to free speech forum and in-kind aid cases must be rejected. The Supreme Court has squarely held that free speech forum cases are inapposite to federal aid cases6 and that money grants are distinct from in-kind funds. 7

6 In Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 720 n.3 (2004), the Supreme Court explained that the free speech line of case law does not apply to federal aid cases: "Davey, relying on Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, contends that the Promise Scholarship Program is an unconstitutional viewpoint restriction on speech. But the Promise Scholarship Program is not a forum for speech. . . . Our cases dealing with speech forums are simply inapplicable."

7 Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. at 819 (explaining that direct grants of money create "special Establishment Clause dangers").

8 Eligible facilities are limited to "educational, utility, irrigation, emergency, medical, rehabilitational, and temporary or permanent custodial" facilities and "any private nonprofit facility that provides essential services of a governmental nature to the general public (including museums, zoos, performing arts facilities, community arts centers, libraries, homeless shelters, senior citizen centers, rehabilitation facilities, shelter workshops, and facilities that provide health and safety services of a governmental nature)." 42 U.S.C. § 5122(10).

9 Disaster Assistance Policy 9521.1 – Community Center Eligibility, http://www.fema.gov/9500-series-policy-publications/95211-community-center-eligibility: "Facilities established or primarily used for political, athletic, religious, recreational, vocational or academic training, conferences, or similar activities are not eligible PNP community center

It is also important to note that houses of worship, like most non-profit organizations and businesses, are eligible for government loans—just not direct grants—to rebuild. In addition, houses of worship are not the only nonprofits that are ineligible for direct grants for reconstruction. To the contrary, only nonprofits with facilities that are used for emergency, essential, and government-like activities are eligible.8 And, eligible facilities, such as community centers, must also be open to the general public.9 To say that houses of worship are singled out among all other non-profits, therefore, is untrue. It is similarly inaccurate to claim that FEMA grants should be extended to houses of worship because the grants are akin to "general government services," such as police or fire. FEMA grants—unlike general government services —are not available to every business, nonprofit, private residence, or other building.

Although it may not seem easy in times of tragedy to tell those seeking aid that they are ineligible for government grants, the bar on the government rebuilding of houses of worship is an important limitation that exists to protect religious freedom for all. It upholds the fundamental principle that no taxpayer should be forced to fund a religion with whom he or she disagrees and that the government should never support building ("establishing" religion in its most basic form) religious sanctuaries. And, it protects against the government favoring, or creating the perception of favoritism for, certain religions over others.

Houses of worship are special in our country and our constitution. They are both the place where worship takes place, and, adorned with religious symbols and iconography, are themselves expressions of worship. Accordingly, they are accorded special protections—exemptions, accommodations, and tax deductions. Restrictions on government funding of religion is also a special protection—they protect the conscience of the individual taxpayer, safeguard the autonomy of the religious institution, and ensure an equal playing field for all religions by prohibiting the government from playing favorites.

For the reasons listed above, we urge you to oppose HR 592.

Sincerely,

Maggie Garrett Legislative Director

complete at:

https://www.au.org/files/pdf_documents/AU%20Letter%20House%20Floor.pdf?utm_source=AU+main+email+list&utm_campaign=03327ef2a7-2013-02-13+Reject+HR.592!&utm_medium=email

The Truth About Religious Freedom and the ACA

 

from Flickr by Steve Rhodes

Your right to swing your fist in religious practice

 ends when your fist reaches my nose, or uterus.

clip  This particular conversation is indicative of a broader unwillingness on the left—inspired in part by Obama’s efforts toward a declawed, pan-American progressivism—to acknowledge publicly that there are true value differences across the same aisle that the President so loves to straddle. In a gut-check reflex, we all agree that religious freedom is constitutionally guaranteed. But we don’t actually agree on what that means. While unwilling to say clearly that there are basic rights—such as access to healthcare—that override religious beliefs by definition, the left will continue to sound, as the right so often does, as if it’s playing dumb.

complete at:
 http://www.guernicamag.com/daily/katie-ryder-the-truth-about-religious-freedom-and-the-aca/

Red Dirt Report on the OKAU 2013 Legislative Preview

Andrew W. Griffin / Red Dirt Report

Mike Fuller, with the Oklahoma City chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State  addresses members at a gathering on Saturday.   OKLAHOMA CITY – Over doughnuts and coffee, the Oklahoma City chapter of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State gathered Saturday morning in a conference room in the Belle Isle Public Library to discuss this year’s upcoming legislative session and the various bills they believe cross the line in regards to the separation of church and state.

Andrew W. Griffin / Red Dirt Report

Mike Fuller, with the Oklahoma City chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State

 addresses members at a gathering on Saturday.

 

OKLAHOMA CITY – Over doughnuts and coffee, the Oklahoma City chapter of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State gathered Saturday morning in a conference room in the Belle Isle Public Library to discuss this year’s upcoming legislative session and the various bills they believe cross the line in regards to the separation of church and state.

Complete at  http://www.reddirtreport.com/Story.aspx/25043

Very Old Barton: ‘Christian Nation’ Propagandist Channels Louis L’Amour’s Western Fiction

Very Old Barton: ‘Christian Nation’ Propagandist Channels Louis L’Amour’s Western Fiction

Feb 5, 2013 by Simon Brown in Wall of Separation

David Barton’s shoddy record means he has not earned the benefit of the doubt.

Since “Christian nation” propagandist David Barton’s book about Thomas Jefferson has been debunked, it seems the Texas-based “historian” has set his sights on a new cause: defending the Second Amendment. But just like Barton’s assertions about Jefferson, his latest claims reek of fiction.


Back in January, Barton was on Glenn Beck’s radio show. The conversation focused on guns, and Barton told three stories that range from very difficult to believe to patently false in his attempt to defend gun ownership.


First, Barton claimed that the National Rifle Association (NRA) was founded, in part, to arm freed slaves so they could defend themselves against the KKK.


Warren Throckmorton, a professor at conservative Grove City College in Pennsylvania who has exposed Barton before, was quick to question that assertion. Throckmorton pointed out that the NRA’s own website makes no mention of former slaves or the Klan. Instead, it says the group was founded mainly to “‘promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.’”


If the NRA really had been founded to help freed slaves defend themselves against violent racists, I am confident it would make mention of that.


Barton’s second false claim was that conservative icon Ronald Reagan opposed James Brady’s gun control efforts. Barton said “[Reagan] fought gun control, was not going to allow it, and it didn’t, I mean, it didn’t for 15 years. So you had the press secretary of Reagan (Brady, who was also shot during the assassination attempt on Reagan) who is for it but Reagan himself said: ‘No, no, no, we punish the perpetrators, not taking everybody’s guns away.’”


Again, Throckmorton pulled the plug on that assertion. He noted that Reagan wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in 1991 calling for the passage of the Brady Bill.


Barton’s third claim about guns was dubious to say the least. He told Beck that back in the 1850s, a male teacher somewhere in the west was saved from an assassination attempt thanks to his own elementary-school-aged students who were armed. Barton said the would-be killer walked into the schoolhouse with murderous intent, but when he took aim at the teacher “all the kids pull their guns out and point it at [the assassin] and say, ‘You kill the teacher, you die.’ He says, ‘Okay.’ The teacher lives. Real simple stuff.”


Did this story come from some long-forgotten diary of a Western pioneer? Not likely.


Chris Rodda, senior research director at the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said Barton’s story bears a striking resemblance to a novel by Louis L’Amour. In Bendigo Shafter, a reformed gunfighter and gambler named Drake Morrell was working in Wyoming as a school teacher. But Morrell had enemies, one of whom went to Morrell’s school with the intent to kill him, but was stopped by his armed students.


Throckmorton supported Rodda’s assessment of Barton’s story and also wants to see some proof.
Americans United does not have a position on gun control. This isn’t about guns, though. It’s about Barton’s lousy research and unproven claims. Americans United has been debunking Barton’s revisionist history since 1993, and frankly his act is getting old.

As long as Barton continues to spout bogus history, however, we will continue to demand that he back up his statements. Add AU’s voice to the chorus of those who want some proof for Barton’s tall tale from the Old West.

Barton’s shoddy record means he has not earned the benefit of the doubt. If he has any proof of his latest claims, he needs to bring it forward. The ball is in your court, Mr. Barton.

h


ttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/very-old-barton-christian-nation-propagandist-channels-louis-l-amour-s

Oklahoman story about the 2013 Legislative Preview

http://lite.newsok.com/2013/02/03/group-says-bills-chip-away-at-rights/

Group says bills chip away at rights

clip 
Some of the measures include legislation that was introduced last year, but stalled during the legislative process, such as a bill that would grant “personhood” status to a human embryo and another that opponents say could allow religion in public schools.


The conservative-leaning measures, if approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed into law by a GOP governor, could interfere with a woman’s choice to have an abortion and allow certain religious views to creep into public school classrooms, said members of the Oklahoma City chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. About 45 attended Saturday’s meeting at the Belle Isle Public Library, 5501 N Villa Ave.

complete article at:
http://lite.newsok.com/2013/02/03/group-says-bills-chip-away-at-rights/