You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myPalmBeachPost.com

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.

GREAT REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

  • IN-DEPTH REPORTING
  • INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING
  • NEW TOPICS & COVERAGE
  • ePAPER
X

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks

X

Welcome to myPalmBeachPost.com

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on myPalmBeachPost.com.

Opinion: A case for preventing children’s scraped knees


WASHINGTON — When not furrowing their collective brows about creches and displays of the Ten Commandments here and there, courts often are pondering tangential contacts between the government and religious schools. Courts have held that public money can constitutionally fund the transportation of parochial school pupils to classes — but not on field trips. It can fund books — but not maps. Daniel Patrick Moynihan wondered: What about atlases, which are books of maps? On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutional significance of this incontrovertible truth: “A scraped knee is a scraped knee whether it happens at a Montessori day care or a Lutheran day care.”

That assertion is in an agreeably brief amicus brief written by Michael McConnell, a Stanford law professor specializing in church-state relations. He requires just 13 pages to make mincemeat of Missouri’s contention that a bit of 19th-century bigotry lodged in its constitution requires it to deny shredded tires to Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, which runs a preschool.

Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources, which has a capacious conception of natural resources, runs the Scrap Tire Program. It enables playgrounds to replace gravel and dirt with a rubber protective surface that is kinder to the knees of the devout and heathens alike.

The department refused the church’s request for a $20,000 grant, citing this from the state constitution: “No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion.”

Both sides agree that the U.S. Constitution poses no impediment to Missouri giving a grant to Trinity Lutheran. The question for the Supreme Court is whether Missouri can demand an even stricter separation of church and state. Can it exclude an otherwise eligible entity from a generally available public benefit — a benefit serving a completely separate purpose — simply because the entity is religious?

Missouri’s constitutional language is a Blaine Amendment, named for the Republican Speaker of the House and 1884 presidential nominee James G. Blaine. Protestants resented Catholic immigrants founding parochial schools that taught Catholicism as forthrightly as public schools taught Protestantism with prayers, hymn singing and readings from the King James version of the Bible.

In 1875 Blaine unsuccessfully proposed amending the U.S. Constitution to stipulate that no public money could go to schools “under the control of any religious sect.” But 37 states put versions of his amendment into their constitutions.

Splitting and re-splitting judicial hairs over the years, the Supreme Court has produced a three-part test: A statute pertaining to contact between government and religion does not constitute establishment of religion if the statute has “a secular legislative purpose” (again: knees), it neither advances nor inhibits religion, and it does not involve “excessive government entanglement with religion.”

Missouri cites, in defense of its practice, an utterly inapposite case in which the Supreme Court upheld a state’s refusal to fund students seeking degrees in devotional theology, even though it funded degrees in secular subjects. This involved entirely different issues than Missouri denying an organization access to a public safety benefit simply because the organization is religious. And Missouri’s denial of this benefit is, McConnell writes, “the clearest possible example of an unconstitutional penalty on the exercise of a constitutional right,” the free exercise of religion.

“The religious status of the Trinity Lutheran day care bears not the slightest relevance to the purpose of the state’s program.” Which pertains to knees.

Writes for The Washington Post



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Friedman: Where did ‘We the People’ go?

A few days ago, I was at a conference in Montreal, and a Canadian, trying to grasp what’s happening to America, asked me a simple question: “What do you fear most these days?” “I fear we’re seeing the end of ‘truth,’” I said, “that we simply can’t agree anymore on basic facts. And I fear that...
Parker: Can words be lethal?

Words matter, journalists are fond of saying. This comes lately in the context of presidential tweets that conceivably could have serious repercussions. Otherwise, we seem conflicted about how much words should matter. Political correctness, or ignorance, has caused us to discard words and expressions that some find offensive, despite constitutional...
Letters Easy changes would simplify health care

Easy changes would simplify health care I would like to extend the letter titled, “Medicare for all solves everything” (May 28), two steps further. Every time a health care insurance company pays your bill, they take out their cut since they have administrative expenses to pay and they are profit-making organizations. Take them out of the...
COMMENTARY: Off into the jungle of political suspicion

Let it be said that for one lovely moment, House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi responded exactly as those in authority should to a shocking assault on human lives and our political system. After last week’s shooting on a baseball field, both spoke in a spirit of thoughtful solidarity and genuinely mutual concern....
Opinion: After the ISIS war, a U.S.-Russia collision?

On Sunday, a Navy F-18 Hornet shot down a Syrian air force jet, an act of war against a nation with which Congress has never declared or authorized a war. Washington says the Syrian plane was bombing U.S.-backed rebels. Damascus says its plane was attacking ISIS. Vladimir Putin’s defense ministry was direct and blunt: “Repeated combat actions...
More Stories