NEWS STORY: Supreme Court hears arguments on key church-state case

c. 1999 Religion News Service WASHINGTON _ Should the government provide computers and other equipment to religious schools in an effort to treat all schoolchildren equally? Or does providing such materials violate the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment? The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday (Dec. 1) in the […]

c. 1999 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ Should the government provide computers and other equipment to religious schools in an effort to treat all schoolchildren equally? Or does providing such materials violate the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment?

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday (Dec. 1) in the ongoing debate over the relationship between religion and schools, with the technology of the 1990s at the center of the discussion.


In a wide-ranging hourlong hearing, lawyers debated the 1998 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down a 32-year-old federal law allowing public school systems to lend computers and other equipment to church-run private schools.

Michael McConnell, the University of Utah law professor arguing on behalf of Catholic school parents in Louisiana who support the law, said the statute in question is”particularly careful”in providing safeguards that the material will be used for secular purposes.

The justices peppered the lawyers with questions about how far relationships between schools and government could go, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist asking about the hypothetical instance of a county deciding it would build a new public and private school, each at public expense. McConnell said that would be an example of excessive entanglement.

McConnell also noted that in the case of computers, he believes their authorized use is within”narrow”limitations.”The case here is not one in which computers can be used for whatever you want,”he said.

Deputy Solicitor General Barbara Underwood argued the statute is not used to support religious instruction or indoctrination, thus it”supplements”rather than”supplants”the school’s programs.

The issue of whether religious schools are supplemented or supplanted by such a law was a focus of the justices’ questions.

Lee Boothby, who represents the parents who first questioned the statute 14 years ago, said the case puts at stake whether taxpayers must subsidize religious education. He said the problem with the statute is that”sectarian schools do not compartmentalize the teaching of religion,”and thus, it would be hard to know if their use of government-purchased computers is diverted to religious purposes.”I don’t know how you’re going to police that,”he said.


But Justice Antonin Scalia said there has not been evidence of a”widespread problem of infraction.” As the justices grappled with where a line could be drawn for permissible government action, the chief justice asked Boothby for an example of permissible governmental aid to schools. The lawyer suggested musical instruments and, answering another question from Rehnquist, said they would still be permissible if the musicians used them to play”Oh Come, All Ye Faithful.” Justice David Souter asked about the necessity for some criteria, saying the court seems to be”groping”for some way to determine when there is a risk of government entanglement with religion.”One of the most important concerns in reaching a solution to this very important question is whether there’s an appreciable risk that what the government is doing ultimately results in inculcation,”Boothby responded.

Speaking outside on the steps of the Supreme Court, the two Louisiana grandmothers who filed suit opposing the statute declared their hopes that the court will decide in their favor and, in their opinion, maintain the separation of church and state.”Although I’m a practicing Catholic, I’m a firm believer that … the government should not be involved with religion,”said Marie Schneider of Terrytown, La.”I believe that when government and religion become so interwoven that they are a shade of tweed, it is religion and, in this case, my own, that suffers.” Neva Helms, a Baptist from Kenner, La., another original plaintiff, said only public schools should be benefiting from public funds.”I think when you choose a private school, you’ve made that choice to assume all responsibility,”she said.

Some court observers predict that the decision the court makes, which is expected by next summer, could signal the direction the justices might take on future cases involving vouchers.

After the arguments, McConnell predicted to reporters outside the court that a decision by the justices in favor of the statute would not necessarily lead to wider approval of vouchers.”I don’t think that this particular case has much to do with that,”he said, because vouchers deal with governmental scholarship money to underprivileged children for private _ and sometimes religious _ schools.”This program today has to do with providing educational resources to children in all schools and those are really rather different questions,”he said.

DEA END BANKS

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!