While there is much in yesterday's various Van Orden opnions from the Supreme Court that is worthy of note, I would like to focus on one excerpt from Justice Stevens dissent because of its implications for the future in battles over "charitable choice". (See prior post for discussion of the McCreary County opinion.) In discussing the history of the monuments erected by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, Stevens says (pp. 9-10):
"The desire to combat juvenile delinquency by providing guidance to youths is both admirable and unquestionably secular. But achieving that goal through biblical teachings injects a religious purpose into an otherwise secular endeavor. By spreading the word of God and converting heathens to Christianity, missionaries expect to enlighten their converts, enhance their satisfaction with life, and improve their behavior. Similarly, by disseminating the"law of God"—directing fidelity to God and proscribing murder, theft, and adultery—the Eagles hope that this divine guidance will help wayward youths conform their behavior and improve their lives. In my judgment, the significant secular by-products that are intended consequences of religious instruction—indeed, of the establishment of most religions—are not the type of "secular" purposes that justify government promulgation of sacred religious messages."
"Though the State of Texas may genuinely wish to combat juvenile delinquency, and may rightly want to honor the Eagles for their efforts, it cannot effectuate these admirable purposes through an explicitly religious medium. "
Isn't the argument that Justice Stevens is rejecting exactly the argument made by many proponents of "charitable choice" today?
