c. 2000 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ In a 6-3 decision lowering the wall of separation between church and state, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday (June 28) it is constitutional for the government to provide computers and other equipment to religious schools.

The ruling determined that the federal educational act that channels government funds for equipment loans to schools does not violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause when the law is applied to religious schools. The act “neither results in religious indoctrination by the government nor defines its recipients by reference to religion,” the court said.

The decision reverses a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that the program used in the Jefferson Parish, La., schools was unconstitutional.

“If the government, seeking to further some legitimate secular purpose, offers aid on the same terms, without regard to religion, to all who adequately further that purpose … then it is fair to say that any aid going to a religious recipient only has the effect of furthering that secular purpose,” a plurality of the court agreed.

The decision, which included three separate opinions, referred to its previous church-state rulings, including Agostini vs. Felton, which permitted public employees to teach remedial classes at religious schools, and Zobrest vs. Catalina Foothills School District, which allowed a public school district to provide a sign language interpreter to a deaf student at a Catholic high school.

“Just as a government interpreter does not herself inculcate a religious message _ even when she is conveying one _ so also a government computer or overhead projector does not itself inculcate a religious message, even when it is conveying one,” the court wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the main opinion and was joined by three others _ Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer. Justice David Souter, joined by justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote a dissenting opinion.

Thomas, responding to concerns of the dissenting justices about “pervasively sectarian” nature of the schools receiving government aid, said the government in this case is supplying aid to the religious, irreligious and areligious alike.

“The pervasively sectarian recipient has not received any special favor, and it is most bizarre that the Court would, as the dissent seemingly does, reserve special hostility for those who take their religion seriously,” it said.

Thomas harshly condemns such hostility.

“Nothing in the Establishment Clause requires the exclusion of pervasively sectarian schools from otherwise permissible aid programs, and other doctrines of this court bar it,” he wrote. “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.”

In her concurring opinion, O’Connor stressed that while the neutrality of the government program permits it to be used by religious schools, that should not be the only factor in determining constitutionality. She said the government tools provided through the program are “supplementary” and would not advance the religious mission of the school.

School teachers at religious schools also must be sure that instructional aids provided by the government are not used for religious teaching.

“We have always been willing to assume that religious-school instructors can abide by such restrictions when the aid consists of textbooks,” she wrote. “The same assumption should extend to instructional materials and equipment.”

Souter, in his dissenting opinion, said the decision “breaks fundamentally with Establishment Clause principle” by creating a new interpretation of … neutrality as a “practically sufficient test of constitutionality.”

Saying the opinion written by Thomas contains “manifold” errors, Souter said, “the plurality’s proposal would replace the principle of no aid with a formula for generous religious support.”

Souter also differed with Thomas and the concurring justices that refusing aid to religious schools suggests a hostility toward religion. He said the plurality of justices has undermined what neutrality really means by allowing the governmental aid in this case.

“In rejecting the principle of no aid to a school’s religious mission, the plurality is attacking the most fundamental assumption underlying the Establishment Clause, that government can in fact operate with neutrality in its relation to religion,” he wrote. “I believe that it can.”

Leonard DeFiore, president of the National Catholic Educational Association, hailed the ruling as one that will give nonpublic schools equal access to the Internet.

“This decision is justice served because it assures that these advantages will be accessible to all children and not denied to some because of the type of school they attend,” DeFiore said in a statement.

Jan LaRue, senior director for legal studies at the Family Research Council, also applauded the ruling.

“The government cannot deny school children important educational equipment as long as it is distributed equally among all nonpublic schools,” LaRue stated. “When government treats all schools equally, it does not establish religion.”

Church-state separationists criticized the decision.

“The Supreme Court certainly took a sledgehammer to the wall of separation between church and state,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“This is the first time in Supreme Court history when the justices have allowed a resource to be given to parochial schools that can readily be diverted to religious purposes. At public expense, religious schools can now have students surf the Internet to read the Bible in religion classes, learn theology from Jerry Falwell or download crucifixes as screen savers.”

Lynn and Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, both said they do not think the ruling immediately paves the way for approval of vouchers because the decision addresses materials on loan from the government rather than direct financial aid for religious education.

DEA BANKS