The Supreme Court Should Strike Down Missouri’s Ban on State Funds for Religious Institutions

June 21 2017

The Supreme Court will soon issue a verdict in Trinity Lutheran of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, a case in which a Missouri church qualified for a state grant to renovate its playground but was denied because the state’s constitution prohibits giving any funds to religious institutions. The clause in question is known as the Blaine amendment, after the 19th-century Republican congressman who proposed it; although his campaign to do so failed on the federal level, nearly two-thirds of all states adopted such amendments. Explaining the historical context, Philip Hamburger argues that the Supreme Court should strike down Blaine amendments everywhere:

For decades, states had used taxes to support public and private schools controlled by Protestants, with the goal not merely of Americanizing but of Protestantizing Catholic children. There were widespread fears that Catholics would balance this out by voting for politicians, mostly Democrats, who would direct tax funds to public or private schools dominated by Catholics.

Blaine’s amendment appealed to such fears by preventing tax money from coming under the control of any “religious sect.” Existing constitutional provisions against establishments of religion did not bar public spending on education from reaching schools with religious affiliations, and Blaine’s amendment did not propose to alter this arrangement except by excluding Catholics. The Catholic Church, being attached to its orthodoxies, had theological objections to cooperating theologically with Protestants, and it therefore could only operate schools that were distinctly Catholic or “sectarian.” In contrast, Protestants were willing to join with Protestants of other denominations in running schools.

Thus, when the Blaine Amendment stated that public money could not go to institutions belonging to any one “sect,” it effectively proposed to prevent money from reaching Catholic institutions—without cutting off funds for institutions shared by Protestant denominations. . . .

To be sure, states in many instances can reasonably choose not to fund churches. But when the Blaine amendments narrowly single out “sectarian” institutions, or when, as in Missouri, they categorically exclude all ecclesiastically-affiliated institutions, they reveal theologically-driven discrimination.

Welcome to Mosaic

Register now to get two more stories free

Register Now

Already a subscriber? Sign in now

Read more at First Things

More about: Catholic Church, Freedom of Religion, Politics & Current Affairs, Supreme Court

The American Peace Plan May Be Pushing Jordan into the Arms of Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood

June 20 2019

In connection with the yet-to-be-released White House peace proposal, both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been pressuring King Abdullah of Jordan to relinquish his custodianship of the al-Aqsa mosque, and other Islamic holy sites in Israel, to the House of Saud. They have in return offered to put billions of dollars toward solving the kingdom’s severe economic and fiscal problems. But Abdullah has publicly indicated his unwillingness to surrender his position, and Nadav Shragai argues that it would be to Israel’s detriment if he did:

Sign up to read more

You've read all your free articles for this month

Register

Sign up now for unlimited access to the best in Jewish thought, culture, and politics

Already have an account? Log in now

Read more at Israel Hayom

More about: Al-Aqsa Mosque, Donald Trump, Israeli Security, Jordan, Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey