Government semantics support religious education tax expenditures, Part II

As humans, we are a covenant species that rely on written words to justify our belief in an ideology, which forms a legal system.  If someone wrote it down, most will not challenge it, but some will question.

If someone plays a board game, and one player creates new rules for an advantage; the same applies to words and ideals that forms a legal system.  New words for old ideals become rules and laws, then becomes an advantage for some, and disadvantage for many.  What about educational law?

In my last blog article, I mentioned about the 2011 Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Kathleen M. Winn case.  Arizona School Tuition Organizations (STOs) won against taxpayers suing their education tax credits that it violated the Establishment Clause, redirecting tax expenditures to religious private schools.

These STOs exist in Georgia as Student Scholarship Organizations (SSOs), and similar to two other U.S. Supreme Court cases on government supporting religion.

The 2002 case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, was voted in favor by a 5-4 vote for Ohio educational vouchers.

Justice Rehnquist found “The Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion.  It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district.  It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious.  The program is therefore a program of true private choice.”

Ohio vouchers like Georgia's SSO scholarships for religious private schools, are suppose to be “neutral” for a “wide spectrum” of students, but these private schools are not required by law to accept all students that apply, like public schools.  They can pick the best by discrimination against sexual orientation, religion or by lotteries; leaving the rest behind.

According to NPR Justices Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist, argued this case of school vouchers “bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life.”

If government supported one religion in “public life,” then they would get favorable treatment over all others.  Human history is full of examples of “true private choice” supported by government.

Religion in “public life” is how the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.  Just because it happened over there, does not mean it will not happen here too, with a favored belief system.

Remember we are covenant legal positivist beings; if it is the law, then we have to enforce it.  We sometimes forget, we are humans with ever-changing game rules.  If I get my way it is Ok, but if you get your way, its unfair.

Justice Stevens believes “the voluntary character of the private choice to prefer a parochial education over an education in the public school system seems to me quite irrelevant to the question whether the government's choice to pay for religious indoctrination is constitutionally permissible.” 

“Choice” for private over public schools, are being chosen by government through tax credits.  “Private choice” is based on family's incomes.  Anyone can choose to buy a Lamborghini, but few can afford that choice; unless government favors one side, picking a winner in the competition.

Justice Souter understands why vouchers were created, because Cleveland public schools are failing, but “If there were an excuse for giving short shrift to the Establishment Clause, it would probably apply here.  But there is no excuse.”

Justice Souter believes if “Public tax money will pay at a systemic level for teaching the covenant with Israel and Mosaic law in Jewish schools, the primacy of the Apostle Peter and the Papacy in Catholic schools, the truth of reformed Christianity in Protestant schools, and the revelation to the Prophet in Muslim schools, to speak only of major religious groupings in the Republic.”

What if all religious private schools were funded separetly?  If other Georgia belief groups created their own SSOs with private schools, like Hindus, Buddhists, Humanists, Atheists, Sikhs and others.  All private schools would compete for $50M in tax credits, which currently Christian private schools have a monopoly.

How soon would a Christian taxpayer group sue, over competition with other groups; claiming it was unfair?  I forgot, they cannot sue the government.  If the tax credit cap was increased, there would be less tax revenue for public education, because scholarship vouchers would only allow two “choices”:  charter and private schools.

Another case was the 2007 Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, voted in favor by a 5-4 vote.  The White House used their discretionary spending authority for the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, to support religious nonprofits with federal aid.

Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas believe “the payment of taxes is generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an action taken by the federal government.”

Again, taxpayers have no “standing” in this third case to challenge discretionary spending by the Executive Branch of the federal government; compared to the other cases on state government expenditures.

Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, co presidents of the Wisconsin agnostic atheist group, Freedom From Religion Foundation; believed President Bush's faith-based initiative was unconstitutional.  Claiming it was giving unfair advantage to religion groups, by federal grants.

If an atheist group got more grants from a president than other religions, would a Christian group sue?

Justice Souter believes this case “closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury.  I see no basis for this distinction in either logic or precedent.”

Taxpayers have no voice on how their government spend taxes.  Same applies to Atlanta's new Falcons stadium of $200M from hotel-motel taxes, but the hidden infrastructure costs will be paid by local taxpayers with no voice.

Justice Alito believes “it is a complete fiction to argue that an unconstitutional federal expenditure causes an individual federal taxpayer any measurable economic harm.  And if every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus.”

According to Boston Globe, President Bush asked the Supreme Court to block this case because “government would be unable to function if taxpayers were allowed to sue over its spending decisions.”

Paul Clement, the U.S. Solicitor General representing the Bush administration; told the Court taxpayers have no right to sue government over spending.

During the Oral Argument, Justice Breyer asked Clement “Suppose that Congress passes a law...to commemorate the Pilgrims by building a Government church at Plymouth Rock, where we will have the regular worship in the Puritan religion.  Now can a taxpayer from California in your view challenge that?”

Justice Breyer asked further if “All over America, they build churches dedicated to one religion,” where Congress passed a law requiring every hamlet, town and city to have “a Government minister, a Government church, and dedicated to the proposition that this particular sect is the true sect; and they pass a statute like that, nobody could challenge it?”

Clement told the Court “What Flast makes clear is that you can challenge a congressional statute that is a taxing and spending statute...(where taxpayers has) standing, you need two things:  You need a congressional statute that is an exercise of the taxing and spending authority; but then you need the money to go outside the Government...a private group.”

This “private group” are nonprofit STOs and SSOs to go outside of government, to exercise tax spending by redirecting taxes for foreign aid and private schools.

In the 1968 Flast v. Cohen case, a statute allowed expenditures of federal funds from the General Treasury to support “instruction in reading, arithmetic, and other subjects in religious schools, and to purchase textbooks and other instructional materials for use in such schools.”

The condition for unconstitutionality, is if there is a “logical link” between the plaintiff's taxpayer status “and the type of legislative enactment attacked.”  Also, if a condition for “a nexus” between the plaintiff's taxpayer status and “the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged” exists.

If the General Assembly redirect taxpayer funds to “seminaries of learning,” then it would “undoubtedly would have been religious in character.”  In short, if it is not written into law of supporting religious nonprofits and schools, then there is no evidence of harm or support of religious institutions.  Pure semantics.

If a “private group” nonprofit redirects taxes for a tax credit by government, then those nonprofits are not government, but still dependent on government to exist.  Just because it is not written down, does not mean those practicing how the law is not written, will act selflessly.  Unless a computer picked those faith-based grants at random – human bias was a decider.

Andrew J. Pincus, representing the Freedom From Religion Foundation, gives an example of this bias.

Justice Scalia asks “It is easy to tell from time sheets and other things how much money is expended on Air Force One and on security for the President when he goes to address a religious organization, okay.  And he urges the importance of religion in American life and so forth.  The whole trip is about religion.  That's measurable.  Would a taxpayer have standing to?”

Pincus states “I don't think so, because, as the court of appeals said, that this Court has identified a second limitation, which is not incidental...Just as you couldn't challenge a prayer breakfast...The money has to be central to the violation...in this case... the entire conference program was a program to further religion over non-religion.”

Justice Souter believes “There is no dispute that taxpayer money in identifiable amounts is funding conferences, and these are alleged to have the purpose of promoting religion...When executive agencies spend identifiable sums of tax money for religious purposes, no less than when Congress authorizes the same thing, taxpayers suffer injury.”

Justice Alito believes faith-based initiative funds are “paid for out of general Executive Branch appropriations,” not funded directly by Congress.  Where then does the money come from to support the Executive Branch?

In 2006, the Boston Globe examined allocated funds for faith-based foreign aid contractors, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

From 2001-05, 159 faith-based groups were awarded $1.7B, compared to other secular groups.  U.S. foreign aid for faith-based groups doubled under Bush, from 10.5 percent in 2001 to 19.9 percent in 2005; where “98 percent of which went to Christian groups.”

According to Boston Globe, President Bush said he created the faith-based initiatives, because “I got a little frustrated in Washington because I couldn't get the bill passed.”  In 2004, “Congress wouldn't act, so I signed an executive order -- that means I did it on my own.”

President Bush believes, the Courts decision was “a substantial victory for efforts by Americans to more effectively aid our neighbors in need of help.  The faith-based and community initiative can remain focused on strengthening America's armies of compassion and expanding their good works.”

In all three Court cases, the government supported religious nonprofits and schools.

Replacing words like “public education” for charter and private education, is hoping a new human organization will be better than the old human organization.  We all forget that when humans are involved, there will be flaws of self-interest; where scandals will arise from new institutions.

We do not know all the factors, once we make a decision to create any public or private human organization.  We learn by trial and error.  In time no matter public or private, all human organizations become bureaucratic with too many rules or laws.

As a covenant species, we rely on words and ideals to have a CIVIL-ization of selfless humans.  Liberty restrictions applied by laws for the Common Good for all, should also apply for those that create new rules in the board game of life.  Communities are not just full of like-minded individuals with the same goals, but those with opposing perspectives that reflect diversity.

The same applies to these Court cases that favor government tax expenditures, for nonprofits and education.

If one child gets all the good toys, there will be another child that will become jealous and demand new rules.  Ask any parent with many children, if they have to buy many toys to keep peace in the house.

Same applies to keeping society civil.  All sides need some level of fair treatment by words and ideals or there will be unrest, even in education.

Part 1 of this article at:

http://vahi.patch.com/blog_posts/government-semantics-support-religious-...