Build Back Better Shouldn’t Withhold Money from Religious Schools

Dec. 29 2021

Included in the White House’s Build Back Better bill—currently on life support, but possibly to be revised and revived—is funding for preschools and daycare centers, both for renovations and to help parents cover tuition costs. As written, the bill would limit the ability of schools affiliated with religious institutions to receive these monies. Mitchell Rocklin and Howard Slugh argue that such limitations are discriminatory and ill-conceived:

Several provisions of the bill as currently drafted would prevent religious schools from receiving benefits. For example, . . . something as simple as celebrating Jewish holidays might result in a school’s complete exclusion. . . . One section makes childcare providers located in houses of worship ineligible for grants aimed at renovating their facilities. A second provision prohibits funds from being used to renovate facilities “in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.” At the very least, this would exclude any childcare program housed in a synagogue, mosque, or church.

The First Amendment does not require the government to discriminate against religious people or to treat them like second-class citizens. . . . The Constitution does not give the government license to exclude religious people from generally available benefits because of their faith—in fact, it prohibits such discrimination.

The Supreme Court dealt with a similar issue in the case of Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer. The plaintiff, a preschool located on the premises of Trinity Lutheran Church, applied to a Missouri program that offered grants to help make playgrounds safer for children. The state determined that the school qualified for the program. In fact, it decided that the school was one of the most deserving recipients in the state. Unfortunately, however, the state denied the school’s application because it refused to allow schools located in churches to participate.

Missouri claimed that it could exclude the school in order to maintain a separation between church and state. The Supreme Court rejected this argument.

Read more at Jewish Link

More about: American law, Freedom of Religion, Supreme Court, U.S. Constitution

American Middle East Policy Should Focus Less on Stability and More on Weakening Enemies

Feb. 10 2025

To Elliott Abrams, Donald Trump’s plan to remove the entire population of Gaza while the Strip is rebuilt is “unworkable,” at least “as a concrete proposal.” But it is welcome insofar as “its sheer iconoclasm might lead to a healthy rethinking of U.S. strategy and perhaps of Arab and Israeli policies as well.” The U.S., writes Abrams, must not only move beyond the failed approach to Gaza, but also must reject other assumptions that have failed time and again. One is the commitment to an illusory stability:

For two decades, what American policymakers have called “stability” has meant the preservation of the situation in which Gaza was entirely under Hamas control, Hizballah dominated Lebanon, and Iran’s nuclear program advanced. A better term for that situation would have been “erosion,” as U.S. influence steadily slipped away and Washington’s allies became less secure. Now, the United States has a chance to stop that process and aim instead for “reinforcement”: bolstering its interests and allies and actively weakening its adversaries. The result would be a region where threats diminish and U.S. alliances grow stronger.

Such an approach must be applied above all to the greatest threat in today’s Middle East, that of a nuclear Iran:

Trump clearly remains open to the possibility (however small) that an aging [Iranian supreme leader Ali] Khamenei, after witnessing the collapse of [his regional proxies], mulling the possibility of brutal economic sanctions, and being fully aware of the restiveness of his own population, would accept an agreement that stops the nuclear-weapons program and halts payments and arms shipments to Iran’s proxies. But Trump should be equally aware of the trap Khamenei might be setting for him: a phony new negotiation meant to ensnare Washington in talks for years, with Tehran’s negotiators leading Trump on with the mirage of a successful deal and a Nobel Peace Prize at the end of the road while the Iranian nuclear-weapons program grows in the shadows.

Read more at Foreign Affairs

More about: Iran, Middle East, U.S. Foreign policy