wfn.org | Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Key Church-State Case

[PCUSA NEWS <pcusa.news@ecunet.org>]

2-December-1999 
99402 
 
    Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Key Church-State Case 
 
    Can a public school lend computers to a parochial school? 
 
    by Adelle M. Banks 
    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 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 benefitting 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. 

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  This note sent by Office of News Services, 
  Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
  to the World Faith News list <wfn-news@wfn.org>.
  For additional information about this news story,
  call 502-569-5493 or send e-mail to PCUSA.News@pcusa.org

  On the web:  http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/

  If you have a question about this mailing list, 
  send queries to wfn@wfn.org