What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

A court case to watch

While we all had our eyes on the oral arguments at SCOTUS recently on a more famous case, word came of an extremely bad decision handed down by a federal judge in Massachusetts.

The short version: The HHS used to have a contract with the USCCB to run anti-trafficking programs to help women who have been trafficked into prostitution in the United States. The USCCB contracts specified that no sub-contractors under them could provide contraception or abortion "counseling or referrals" (or, presumably, actual contraception or abortion). The judge ruled that for the HHS to contract with a Catholic organization that put these allegedly "religiously motivated" restrictions on sub-contractors constituted an establishment of religion. Let that one sink in for a moment.

Richard Garnett at NRO has an excellent legal take-down of the decision, which it would be gilding the lilies for me to add much to. Some choice quotations from Garnett:

This is the wooliest of wooly-headed reasoning. For starters, it would not violate the Establishment Clause for the government to decide its human-trafficking funds should not be used, by anyone, to pay for abortion- and contraception-related counseling. To understate the matter, the government is not required to subsidize or support abortions, and opposition to abortion is no more suspect because many religious believers oppose it than opposition to human trafficking is suspect because many religious believers oppose it.
Next, it is not the case that the religion-inspired policies and practices of institutions that receive public funds somehow become, for constitutional purposes, the government’s own policies. If Judge Stearns were right (and he certainly is not), then it is unconstitutional for a Catholic school that receives some special-education-related or school-lunch funding for low-income students to have morning chapel or First Communion classes. If Judge Stearns were right (and, again, he isn’t), the federal government would be required to forbid any religious institutions that participate in “charitable choice” and “faith-based initiative” programs from taking religious-mission into account when hiring.

This article also has a quotation from Steve Wagner, a former director of the HHS human trafficking program, pointing out that it would have been illegal anyway for federal funds to be used for abortions because of the Hyde Amendment. Wouldn't it? Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Is the Hyde Amendment going to be the next ACLU target? Or is the weaseling taking place here on the grounds that the USCCB also wouldn't allow them to provide "counseling or referrals"? One wonders if that's supposed to mean that counseling and referral for abortion is now some sort of federal right even while federal law prohibits use of federal funds to pay for abortion! Or is it only "unconstitutional" to block such funding if done by a religious organization? As Garnett says, the wooliest of wooly-headed reasoning.

I cannot let this opportunity pass to draw a moral: Stay as far away as possible from dependence on government money. Now, to be clear, our current totalitarian federal government is only too happy to go after religious people and organizations that aren't taking federal money. So this is not a route to some sort of full safety. They will still come after you. But you are a lot more vulnerable, and have been more vulnerable for a long time, if you take government money. This is all the more true if your organization's very existence becomes dependent on government money.

One reason I bring this up, at the risk of seeming un-ecumenical, is that Catholic organizations, like mainline Protestant organizations but generally unlike fundamentalist Protestant organizations, have always sort of yearned for a comfortable, mutually beneficial relationship with the government, including the federal government. "Look at Europe!" we're often told. "Look how they fund Christian schools!" Yes, and how's that workin' out for you?

It's not like there haven't been plenty of warnings. This federal court ruling is just another.

Comments (21)

How do you expect to exercise any sort of control over government if you constantly exhort a retreat from government?

If Christians adopt an anti-government mentality and encourage their children away from seeking employment in the public sector, how can they expect the government to be in any way sympathetic to their concerns?

The failure to participate in government seems to be even more dangerous than participation in government.

Republican-leaning Christians and traditionalists have been bashing the government when they should be scheming how to take it over.

Kevin, I'm talking about religious entities with a religious identity being funded by the government. I'm not necessarily talking about being a politician or taking a job as an individual working for a government branch. That would entirely be a case-by-case issue.

Take it over? Are you kidding? In the realm I'm talking, the takeover is *most definitely* going the other way. He who pays the piper calls the tune. I could give you enough examples to fill columns. The USCCB isn't "taking over" the government. They're being told, "You must do as we tell you to get our mula."

Oh, by the way, another example that happens to be on my mind because it's recent: Obama's HUD has ruled that Catholic organizations that take HUD money must rent to homosexual couples. Who is taking over whom?

One reason I bring this up, at the risk of seeming un-ecumenical,

Not at all. I've been saying for awhile that bishops need to have contingency plans in case the cozy relationship with liberal agnostic Establishment goes sour. And you are right. It is not advocating a total pull-out from government, and certainly not a retreat from the public square. Simply, taking Uncle Sam's money is like taking a mob loan--you never know when they are going to call in a "favor". Heck, look at all the clucking from 'da haters about pulling the Church's tax-exempt status. Obviously they think the do-re-me is a good lever to get the Church to shut up, play along, or get out.

P.S. I forgot to mention that in yesterday's local newspaper, there was an Op-ed column calling for churches to knuckle under the mandate to provide contraception and explicitly invoked, "Render unto Caesar..."

there was an Op-ed column calling for churches to knuckle under the mandate to provide contraception and explicitly invoked, "Render unto Caesar..."

Yep, that definitely qualifies as "not getting it." Right in the bull's-eye of "not getting it."

It is not advocating a total pull-out from government, and certainly not a retreat from the public square. Simply, taking Uncle Sam's money is like taking a mob loan--you never know when they are going to call in a "favor".

Bingo. In fact, in order for Christian organizations to have a positive Christian influence in the public square, they have to retain their distinctive Christian character. And to do that, they have to retain their independence of action. Otherwise, the salt has lost its savor.

I've always thought that many of the "joint" ventures and operations were just a bad idea all around, with little to recommend them and much to worry about. But it is also the case that there can be a lot of gray area, and some people would like to _create_ gray areas out of what used to be considered pretty simply separated. The extreme left wing wants us to think that tax exempt status for religious organizations lies on just the same kinds of intermixing of funds as does an operation like the above where the government runs a program and within that program contracts with a church organization to carry out some activities. I don't think that's remotely the case, and I think it damages us as a nation to think "everything by which religious organizations derive any form of benefit from government decision" is involving government funds in religious affairs (or vice versa).

There has always been a fundamental injustice to paying for schools out of taxes, and then saying "public schools must not teach about God", and forcing religiously sincere people to also pay for private school costs in addition to public school costs. As a matter of justice, this doubling of costs should be remedied, such as by allowing for tax credit vouchers for private school tuition costs, (at least up to the amount the parents would have paid for public schools, perhaps). Assuming this sort of just remedy, I wonder if it would be reasonable to propose similar tax credit vouchers for contributions to a segregated fund for a specific public / charitable venture that the government thinks is a necessary public program like the above example for women. If the government thinks it is worth spending 500,000 tax dollars on a contract to have someone help these women, it cannot harm the government / public interest to instead reduce the tax revenue by (up to) 500,000 to allow individuals to directly put their contributions into that same organization's hands to do the very same activity. The advantage conceptually is that "not demanding a tax" is a vastly different way of "involving" government in an affair, it greatly reduces the government footprint.

Tony, I certainly agree that a church's having tax exempt status is conceptually a completely different thing. However, as you say, the left is getting aggressive even about that. And they are obviously getting _extremely_ aggressive about anything involving government funds or loans directly. The latter aggressiveness has been going on for a while. Look at the whole Hillsdale College kerfuffle back how many decades ago over affirmative action. But there is a new control-freakish fervor that I detect recently; in fact, it's so great that it amounts to a direct attempt just to say, "This is how you have to run every aspect of your business or school or agency, whether you receive government money or not." Direct rule. However, in this context the pressure on those who receive government money is even greater.

I would say that for that reason, and given the new hyper-aggressive secularism of both the elected government and the courts (notice that if this ruling were upheld, it would apply, with all its implications, even under a new administration), we should probably not be looking to expand voucher programs, even those with enough degrees of separation that, as you say, they _shouldn't_ subject the organizations to any sort of control and even a short time ago would not have done so.

Now, I say that subject to correction. The very distinction you note is extremely important to the HSLDA, and I consider them to be very cautious. They are adamantly opposed to any sort of virtual charter public school programs or public school funding of Christian home school co-ops and the like, because they've seen empirically that those often lead to attempts to control content. But they are completely open to tax breaks for educational expenses, including K-12 educational expenses, for parents for home schooling purchases. So perhaps those are still safe.

I do think, though, that the current trends should make us (albeit for some, reluctantly) give up the idea of direct government school vouchers, direct government money for private schooling. And I think schools probably shouldn't start taking them and basing their financial models on the expectation of receiving them.

I do think, though, that the current trends should make us (albeit for some, reluctantly) give up the idea of direct government school vouchers, direct government money for private schooling. And I think schools probably shouldn't start taking them and basing their financial models on the expectation of receiving them.

This is a good idea in general because as we've seen with college cost inflation, a guaranteed source of income warps the incentives schools have to be efficient.

It's pretty ridiculous to argue in this day and age that home schoolers don't have the resources to provide exceptionally high quality educations. With the sheer volume of free, high quality educational materials available from Stanford, MIT, Berkeley and other institutions as well as Kahn Academy, Rosetta Stone, etc. it's simply not credible to argue that our (I'm being polite) mediocre public schools have much to offer over a motivated middle class home schooling wife. Gathering lower and middle class kids together at a church and the richer parties subsidizing the purchase of materials like kindles for text books and accessing educational materials online is also far cheaper and just as viable.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term vouchers, that may have been a mistake. The idea behind a voucher is usually this: the parent selects the private school for his child, and the government sends that school a check for tuition for the child. What HSLDA and I prefer is that the parent select and pay for tuition, and through a tax credit the parent's tax is reduced dollar for dollar by the amount paid for tuition (again, up to some rational limit). Whether the credit would be a refundable credit is a political issue that can be debated endlessly.

The point is, keep the so-called "benefit" a benefit between the parent and the government, with the school an outsider, a non-party to the event. The government never pays the school a dime, so the government isn't "involved."

In these tight times a credit like this seems like a remote notion, but it is good to remind ourselves now and again what justice would look like, even if we don't have a realistic chance of achieving it near term.

Speaking of mob loans, and Lydia I think you would be likely to know about this, didn't Germany recently call for women who got degrees with government grants to give the money back because they opted to be stay-at-home moms?

Gathering lower and middle class kids together at a church and the richer parties subsidizing the purchase of materials like kindles for text books and accessing educational materials online is also far cheaper and just as viable.

In Michigan, if one is being strict about the interpretation of the law, that would probably have to be considered a private school rather than home schooling. I don't know what other legal barriers would then arise to it on the grounds that the church was running a private school. Home schooling in MI is supposed to involve the majority of the work in the "core courses" being done by a parent or guardian in the child's own home. This is not to say that this is rigorously followed by everyone. In fact, the increasing use of co-ops and tutoring services, not to mention part-time education from a local private or even public school, often blurs the line between home schooling and something-that-isn't-technically-home schooling. I just hope that doesn't come back to bite some people who don't realize that their practices are putting them over that line.

Mike T., I've definitely known people who at least _believe_ that they can't afford home schooling. I often puzzle about this, because like you I think that it isn't that expensive, especially if one re-uses materials for later children, goes to used curriculum sales, accesses on-line materials, and all the other options that exist.

Part of the issue, I think, arises from people's desire to do something more than the basics for their child. So if you have a musically gifted child you wish that you could get them cut-rate music lessons, which people assume would be available at public schools. Whether that assumption is true or false, of course private music lessons and instruments can get very expensive, and this inclines people to accept some sort of outside assistance for it. The same for other enrichment activities such as sports.

Then there are the academic subjects that some mothers feel unqualified to handle and therefore want to pay someone else to do. Again, if they can get the money for that from "somewhere," they would really like to.

And finally, of course, there is computer equipment. I actually think it's not implausible that some people scraping by on one income really do find it hard to afford to have the computer support that they could really use for their home education program.

What is happening now is that local public schools are jumping on this possibility and providing money, actual money, to pay for things like computers, music courses, co-op classes, drama involvement, and the like, if one signs one's child up as a part-time student of the local public school district or enrolls one's child in a "virtual charter school" (which is a public school). This whole area is new, legally somewhat murky, and _tremendously_ varied from location to location. In some locations it seems to work out well in practice for home schooling people. In other places it has turned into a nightmare, with ever-increased control over home school content and ever-increased demand for public school supervision of and contact with the children. I myself would not touch it with a barge pole, as the saying goes, but I do understand how parents get involved and what it seems to them to offer.

Scott W., yes, I remember that. It was a few years ago. I don't _think_ anything actually came of it, but the suggestion was definitely out there.

Then there are the academic subjects that some mothers feel unqualified to handle and therefore want to pay someone else to do. Again, if they can get the money for that from "somewhere," they would really like to.

Some subjects like math offer them many alternatives. I don't know about other states, but in Virginia I believe you can enroll any high school age student at a community college. Here that's about $400 for a decent Algebra, Geometry or Calculus class taught by a school that has not one iota of interest in your home schooling activities since they're pay to play. Plus it is instantly recognized as college credit by four year universities in the state.

Other options always include pooling resources between homeschooling families.

I think many of these mothers should be encouraged to understand that given how bad most public schools are in terms of qualifications, it's likely that if they have the motivation to teach it that that motivation will bridge the gap left by the formal qualification (especially since a significant amount of public school teachers don't have it either). My original Algebra teacher was, I believe, actually a math major in college from what she said. My mother who has a criminal justice degree taught me more about Algebra than that woman ever did and she was barely better at it than I was.

And finally, of course, there is computer equipment. I actually think it's not implausible that some people scraping by on one income really do find it hard to afford to have the computer support that they could really use for their home education program.

In the past, that would have been true. I'm not sure it applies anymore. For example, you can buy a machine that meets all of your family's needs for $300. You don't need a printer, mouse or keyboard. Just buy a bare bones laptop. Anyone willing to be resourceful can even side step the software costs by installing Linux Mint or Ubuntu on it. Half the people in my wife's office use Ubuntu and they're some of the least computer savvy people I've met in a long time.

Ah, while we're at it, up comes this story:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gvmt-minister-rebukes-bishops-on-catholic-sexual-teaching-youre-not-allowed

Notice that this appears to be linked somehow to the public funding of the Catholic schools in Ontario.

More info. on what "anti-bullying" is really all about, too. Indeed, they scarcely try to hide it.

Mike, the northern VA community college doesn't allow it "for anyone", it is a little more restrictive. I think the kid has to be 16. And there are some "dual enrollment" issues that have to be solved, though they generally are solvable. Some of my kids have taken classes at local community college: they can be good, but generally ANY course depends heavily on the quality of the teacher, and more of the time the truly gifted teachers will end up at the 4-year universities. Mileage will definitely vary, but yes you can certainly get a decent math or science course there.

Lydia, I am not sure where you are getting the Ontario public funding of Catholic schools from. Are you sure? I know that in other places such as Alberta the legislature's attempts to force the homosexual agenda have not been tied to funding, they were general mandates.

Mike, the northern VA community college doesn't allow it "for anyone", it is a little more restrictive.

Not literally anyone, but any normal homeschooling family won't have a problem. The threshold is very low, especially if you are only wanting to take a few credits here and there. I took precalculus at Blue Ridge instead of high school and it was easy getting in for 3 credits.

Tony, it's mentioned a couple of times in the article linked at Lifesite news. It's possible Lifesite is mistaken, but that's definitely what they seem to be saying. My computer chokes a bit on that web site, so I'm not going to call the article back up right now to get the specific quotes and phrases from the article, but you'll see them there.

As I said in the main post, of course the liberals are happy to write general mandates, too. But they often start with mandates tied to funding.

Here are a couple of things from the story that I took to indicate that, Tony, though they can be read otherwise:

The bill requires all schools, including the publicly-funded Catholic schools, to start clubs for homosexual students, which can be called “gay-straight alliance or another name.”
The right of Ontario’s Catholic schools to receive public funding while imparting the Catholic faith is guaranteed under Canada’s Constitution.

I will add this, too: I believe that it is easier for sweeping legislation covering all schools to be passed once the very concept of a totally private school has been erased from people's minds. If all schools are deemed part of the "school system," people more readily accept the notion that they are all governed alike. My understanding is that in the UK, for example, there _are_ no private Christian schools in the sense of fully independent Christian schools that receive no public funding. It was to combat this very attitude that the fiercely independent fundamentalist Protestant Christian schools got started in the 1970's.

Tony, this article more expressly ties it to public funding:

All of Ontario’s publicly-funded high schools, Catholic or public, must allow homosexual clubs if students want them, Premier Dalton McGuinty insisted Friday.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ontario-premier-catholic-schools-have-no-choice-but-to-accept-gay-clubs/

The history of this is pretty pathetic, and I really shd. put it in a post of its own. Ontario's bishops and Catholic school boards have been trying to compromise with the government on this, starting "respecting differences" clubs but balking on the name "gay-straight alliance." The government is refusing even to accept that compromise.

I really shd. put it in a post of its own.

Indeed. These guys are finally starting to admit that the only argument they have is a jackboot smashing in a face.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.