Sam asked a good question in class on Wednesday. He said why should the First Amendment be interpreted as requiring neutrality in Espinoza in light of the long history of anti-Catholic animus in our Nation. Today, of course, in elite circles there is a great amount of anti-religious animus targeted at Evangelicals.
It's a great question, but the issue the Court deemed relevant was the history and tradition of government support to private schools, including private religious schools. Consider this discussion in Espinoza on p. 1890:
But no comparable “historic and substantial” tradition supports Montana’s decision to disqualify religious schools from government aid. In the founding era and the early 19th century, governments provided financial support to private schools, including denominational ones. . . . Local governments provided grants to private schools, including religious ones, for the education of the poor. . . . Even States with bans on government-supported clergy, such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, provided various forms of aid to religious schools. . . . Early federal aid (often land grants) went to religious schools. . . . Congress provided support to denominational schools in the District of Columbia until 1848, . . . and Congress paid churches to run schools for American Indians through the end of the 19th century . . . . After the Civil War, Congress spent large sums on education for emancipated freedmen, often by supporting denominational schools in the South through the Freedmen’s Bureau. . . .
It was a great question, because it helped us focus on what the Court deemed to be the relevant historical question.
No comments:
Post a Comment