Let’s say that, in the state of Maine, there are two very different “Lutheran” schools. You could, in this hypothetical case, also say “Episcopal,” or “Presbyterian” or “Congregational.”
Leaders at one of these schools insist that their school is in “the Lutheran tradition,” and it may retain ties to a doctrinally liberal flock. The school has a chapel, but attendance is optional since its students (it may be an elite boarding school) come from all kinds of religious faiths or have no stated faith at all. Classes on hot-button moral issues — sexuality, for example — stress this church’s progressive doctrines.
Academic life is very different at the other Lutheran school, which draws most of its students and financial support from a conservative Lutheran body. Chapel attendance is required and classes linked to moral theology are quite countercultural — defending 2,000 years of Christian tradition.
The question, in the latest church-state case at the U.S. Supreme Court, is whether the state of Maine has the power to say that the first school is eligible for tuition support — using tax dollars — because it’s policies do not clash with those in public schools. Students at the conservative school are not eligible, because its beliefs are “sectarian.”
This is tricky territory and church-state experts on the Religious Right would certainly disagree with experts from the Religious Left and secular think tanks. The question discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) is whether journalists covering this case allowed readers a chance to understand the views of activists on both sides.
Let me state, right up front, that my dueling Lutherans illustration is based on “equal access” church-state principles that emerged from a left-right coalition during the Bill Clinton administration. The big idea: If state officials create policies that affect nonprofits, they cannot back secular groups while discriminating against religious organizations. States could, however, deny aid to both. In other words, religious faith is not a uniquely dangerous form of speech or activity.
Let me state this another way. Under the separation of church and state, officials are not supposed to use tax dollars to back state-approved forms of religion. Ah! But what if some religious groups have doctrines that are consistent with state policies, while others clash with the doctrines of the state?
You can see these conflicts, sort of, in mainstream-media coverage of this case. Here is the top of the Associated Press report:
The Supreme Court appeared ready … to rule that religious schools can’t be excluded from a Maine program that offers tuition aid for private education, a decision that could ease religious organizations’ access to taxpayer money.
After nearly two hours of arguments, the court’s six conservative justices seemed largely unpersuaded by Maine’s position that the state is willing to pay for the rough equivalent of a public education, but not religious inculcation. The court’s three liberal justices signaled they were more aligned with the state’s arguments.
Note the statement that this decision “could ease religious organizations’ access to taxpayer money.” This implies that all religious groups have the same teachings and relate to the state in the same way.
Readers can see this conflict in the statement that the “state is willing to pay for the rough equivalent of a public education, but not religious inculcation.” State officials get to say that one form of religion is “equivalent” to state teachings — and thus approved — while another form of faith is unacceptable? That’s some pretty serious state “entanglement” in religious doctrines.
The New York Times coverage offered some solid information about the landmines in these arguments. See this crucial passage about an earlier case:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in … Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, said a provision of the state's Constitution banning aid to schools run by churches ran afoul of the federal Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion by discriminating against religious people and schools.
“A state need not subsidize private education,” he wrote. “But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
But the Montana decision turned on the schools’ religious status rather than their curriculums. There might be a difference, Chief Justice Roberts wrote last year, between an institution’s religious identity and its conduct.
“We acknowledge the point,” he wrote, “but need not examine it here.” The Maine case will turn on the point.
Later in the story, it’s clear what kinds of doctrines are involved in this case — think sex and salvation (#DUH).
One of the schools at issue in the case, Temple Academy in Waterville, Maine, says it expects its teachers “to integrate biblical principles with their teaching in every subject” and teaches students “to spread the word of Christianity.” The other, Bangor Christian School, says it seeks to develop “within each student a Christian worldview and Christian philosophy of life.”
The two schools “candidly admit that they discriminate against homosexuals, individuals who are transgender and non-Christians,” Maine’s Supreme Court brief said.
In other words, the doctrines taught in the conservative schools clash with the views of the state. Schools are eligible for state aid if their doctrines are deemed appropriate by state officials.
There’s the rub. What kind of schools are safe? Here is a crucial passage, quoting Christopher C. Taub, a lawyer for Maine officials.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked whether the program allowed parents to use state money for tuition at elite private boarding schools in other states but not at local religious ones.
Mr. Taub said yes. “An Andover or a Phillips Exeter may be different from Bangor Public High School in many different ways,” he said. “But what they share in common is the most important feature, which is that they are not inculcating religion.”
It’s interesting to dig into the history of the two elite schools mentioned, Andover and Phillips Exeter. It’s pretty easy, especially in the case of Phillips Exeter, to see the religious ties in the past.
If readers are looking for mainstream coverage that fits snugly inside a secular template they can turn to the Los Angeles Times. The top of this story could have been dictated by lawyers for the state of Maine or the editors of the newspaper’s editorial pages.
After imposing a strict church-state separation for decades, the Supreme Court appears poised to allow — and in some cases even require — more government funding of church-run schools.
Legal experts say that could open the door to church-sponsored charter schools operating with public funds in many cities.
The court's shift to the right on religion and schools may not be as sharp and dramatic as on abortion and guns, but its impact could prove to be just as far-reaching.
Previously the high court held the Constitution called for a clear separation of church and state, which had long been interpreted to mean that public funds could not flow to religious schools.
But in recent years, the court's conservatives have flipped the equation and argued this exclusion amounts to discrimination against religion.
Once again, “religion” means conservative religion — period. It appears that liberal religion does not exist.
Need to see more about this warfare, which the Los Angeles Times describes as nakedly political?
Two other justices said they would go much further and rule that states were free to promote religion.
The 1st Amendment forbids laws "respecting an establishment of religion," which had been seen as barring the government from subsidizing religion. But Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch disagreed.
Read on. See any signs that there are forms of religion that are Maine-approved and others that are not? Did these journalists even recognize that this kind of question is being asked?
Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it on to others. And consider making a tax-exempt gift to support GetReligion as we near the end of 2021.
FIRST IMAGE: From the website of Bangor Christian School.