Besides, both the gathering of taxes and the distribution of state funds were simply too general and, you know… big. It was impossible to connect specific state expenses to individual taxpayer contributions in more than a theoretical way – like identifying which raindrops were responsible for a flood downriver weeks later. Besides, every act of legislation, particularly when it involves spending, potentially impacts the economy. Maybe the very act you’re opposing is actually lowering your taxes somehow – did you think of that, Little Miss Lawsuit-Pants?

What the Court has done in Carson v. Makin is a substantial step further. They’ve demanded that states providing any sort of choice or flexibility in their school systems must offer comparable support for religious indoctrination in place of some of that education. They’re requiring tax dollars designated for preparing young people to function competently in a modern, diverse, complex world, be redirected to teach homophobia, science denial, sexism, misogyny, alternative history, or whatever else might be trending that week in right-wing curriculums.

2. Bridget Mergens was a student at Westside High School in Omaha, Nebraska. In 1985, she asked her principal for permission to form a Christian club at the school. 

3. The school said no, arguing that organizations like Chess Club and Scuba Club were essentially (if not directly) curriculum-related in that they were extensions of the sorts of things the school promoted as a whole, and thus inadequate to trigger the requirements of the act. Bridget didn’t buy it.  

Eventually, the case ended up in the Supreme Court. You probably won't be surprised how it turned out. 

The school said no. That was a mistake. 

I feel obligated to open with this acknowledgement (disclaimer?) because my next several posts are going to focus on clashes between religious folks and public education which have been in the news recently, and it seems like every time you come across a story about someone asserting their Christian beliefs via legislation or the courts, they’re doing it for one of three reasons: (1) they want more government money for something without having to follow the same rules as everyone else, (2) they want the government to like their religion best and tell everyone about it more often because that’s “freedom of religion,” or (3) they want to be horrible to some group of people everyone else is supposed to be kind to.

While it was not always mentioned by name, several major decisions of the Court in the early 21st century very much involved the history and potential future of the “Blaine Amendment.” Blaine is a general label applied to various provisions in 37 different state constitutions limiting or prohibiting the use of state funds to support religious organizations or sectarian activity. The precise wording and application vary from state to state, and 13 states don’t have one at all. Most Blaine Amendments are actually sections or clauses in their respective state constitutions and not “amendments” at all, but the term has proven persistent. Plus, it’s used in the singular (collectively) or plural more or less interchangeably – so that’s kinda fun.