Clarence Thomas on Education
God in schools creates values; but wall of separation needed
SENATOR SIMON: In the church-state, [you said] in Policy Review magazine, “My mother says that when they took God out of the schools, the schools went to hell. She may be right. Religion is certainly a source of positive values,
and we need all the positive values in the schools that we can get.” Since 1971, the Court has followed a three-part Lemon criteria: 1) does it have a secular purpose? 2) is its effect to advance or inhibit religion? 3) does it excessively entangle
government and religion? Do you think they are reasonable criteria? JUDGE THOMAS: I am aware of the tests enunciated in Lemon v. Kurtzman. I have no personal disagreement with the tests, but I say that recognizing how difficult it has been for the
Court to address [numerous specifics].
I think the wall of separation is an appropriate metaphor. W all would like to keep the government out of our beliefs, and we would want to keep a separation between our religious lives and the government.
Source: Senate Confirmation Hearings
Sep 11, 1991
Taxpayer funding OK for parochial school materials.
Justice Thomas wrote the Court's decision on MITCHELL v. HELMS on Jun 28, 2000:
Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act channels federal funds for educational materials such as library media and computer software, to public and private schools to implement “secular, neutral, and nonideological” programs. About 30% of Chapter 2 funds spent in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, are allocated for private schools, most of which are religiously affiliated. Respondents filed suit alleging that Chapter 2 violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
Held:
(Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, and Kennedy)
Chapter 2, as applied in Jefferson Parish, is not a law respecting an establishment of religion simply because many of the private schools receiving Chapter 2 aid in the parish are religiously affiliated. Concurrence:
(O’Connor, joined by Breyer)
The expansive scope of the plurality’s rule is troubling. First, the plurality’s treatment of neutrality comes close to assigning that factor singular importance
in the future adjudication of Establishment Clause challenges to government school-aid programs. Second, the plurality’s approval of actual diversion of government aid to religious indoctrination is in tension with our precedents and is unnecessary to decide this case. [Within those limits], I concur in the judgment. Dissent:
(Souter, joined by Stevens and Ginsburg)
The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause bars the use of public funds for religious aid. The plurality is candid in pointing out the extent of actual diversion of Chapter 2 aid to religious use in the case before us, and equally candid in saying it does not matter. To the plurality there is nothing wrong with aiding a school’s religious mission; the only question is whether religious teaching obtains its tax support under a formally evenhanded criterion of distribution. The plurality equates a refusal to aid religious schools with hostility to religion. I respectfully dissent.
Source: Supreme Court case 98-1648 argued on Dec 1, 1999