LadyJazzer wrote: Sounds unfair to take taxpayer funds from taxpayers that don't want their taxes used to fund religious schools <snip>
Interesting that LJ quoted this on the first page of the thread, but it seems to have been largely ignored.
From todays Editorial section of the Denver, Post, Ed Quillen writes about the Douglas County voucher program. In my opinion, he quickly brings it into focus.
Now note that the board of the Douglas County School District, based in Castle Rock, has approved a voucher program to use public money to support religious schools.
And then consider Article 9, Section 7 of our state constitution: "Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian society, or for any sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatsoever."
This side of a thundering "Thou shalt not" from a mountaintop, it's hard to imagine how our state constitution could be more clear. Then again, Mark Twain once observed that "God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards."
I was not aware that there was this restriction in the Colorado Constitution. I'm fairly sure this is the reason the ACLU is fighting this voucher plan.
After awhile I get tired of repeating it...So, I just sit back and them rant....
Perhaps you have forgotten the 1982 Colorado Supreme Court decision regarding that statute - let me refresh your memories
Description
The statutory scheme creating the Colorado Student Incentive Grant Program was constitutional.
The Facts: Plaintiffs challenged the Colorado Incentive Grant Program under the federal and state constitutions, arguing that the statutory was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to Regis College. The Program’s stated purpose was “to provide assistance to Colorado in-state students attending institutions of higher education, by utilizing federal and other moneys available for such purpose.” A statute expressly barred provision of funds to “pervasively sectarian” or “theological” institutions, but it left the Colorado Commission of Higher Education to determine whether particular institutions met the statutory definitions of these terms. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all the plaintiffs’ claims. The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the lower court’s ruling on the facial challenge, but it remanded the as-applied claim for reconsideration in light of its opinion.
Establishment Clause: Applying the Lemon test, the court found that the Program (1) had a secular legislative purpose in that it was intended to “provide students with an educational opportunity that otherwise might not be within their financial means”; (2) did not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion because it was designed “to benefit the student, not the institution”; and (3) did not create a “risk of governmental entanglement with religion to any constitutionally significant degree[] [g]iven the non-ideological character of the aid.” Consequently, the Program did not violate the federal constitution’s Establishment Clause.
State Constitution: The court likewise found the Program consistent with the Colorado Constitution, but it remanded the plaintiffs’ as-applied claim to the trial court to ascertain whether Regis College satisfied the statutory criteria for participation in the Program.
For the state to exclude based solely on religion is as much of a violation as it would be to only support based upon religion. The SCOTUS of the nation has said that the government must not only tolerate, it must accommodate the expression of religion within the public realm. If the voucher can be used at any secular private schools that meet the accrediting standards of the state it must be allowed to be used at any religious private schools that meet the accrediting standards of the state for this reason. The state is not allowed to discriminate based upon religion - it really is just that simple folks. It is not allowed to choose based upon religion and it is not allowed to exclude based upon it either.
The Douglas County vouchers, like the Colorado Student Incentive Grant Program, provide an educational opportunity that might not otherwise be within a student's financial means, is designed to benefit a student and not an institution and poses no risk of entangling government with religion because it is the parents, not the state, that decides where the voucher money will be spent.
Sorry folks, you are tilting at windmills here. The program was specifically written to comply with existing Colorado state laws and it will easily survive this challenge.
