Tax Support for Schools

[Jim Maule]

Robert Destro <destro at LAW.EDU> writes

> Jim Maule asks:
>      Suggestion: By removing their children from public schools for any
>      reason, including RELIGIOUS ones (which may be the most predominant),
>      parents are relieving the citizenry of a financial (and
>      administrative) burden. Is that, in effect, saying, "if you want to
>      educate your children in a manner consistent with your religious
>      beliefs you must pay to do so?" If so, isn't this a disguised
>      financial impediment ("tax") on free exercise? Has this argument been
>      made? Rejected? Why?
>
>
>  Unfortunately, the argument has been rejected repeatedly, both directly
>  and indirectly. While I agree with Jim that the argument is a cogent one,

Being very unversed in the school funding cases and coming at this
from another direction, I get to what appears to be a cogent
argument. Then Bob's analysis suggests that judicial prejudice
(institutional and personal) against various denominations is a
significant contributor to what seems to be a straight forward
problem. I wonder if following through on the "disguised tax
infringes on free exercise" argument would get things to a more
sensible place?

Jim Maule
Professor of Law
Villanova University School of Law
Villanova, PA 19085
maule at law.vill.edu
http://www.cilp.org/~maule
(610) 519 - 7135