-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
NOEL KING, HOST:
The U.S. Supreme1 Court will hear arguments today in a case that could dramatically move the line that separates church from state. At the heart of this is a Montana state constitutional amendment2 that bars direct and indirect taxpayer3 aid to religious schools. Thirty-seven other states have similar amendments4. Conservative religious groups and advocates of school choice are challenging the Montana provision. NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg has the story.
NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE5: In 2015, the Montana Legislature passed a bill providing a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for those who donate to organizations that provide scholarship money to students in private schools. An organization called Big Sky began raising money to fund these scholarships, using the tax credit as an incentive6. Of the 13 schools that got money from Big Sky, 12 were religious schools. Indeed, 70% of the private schools in the state have religious affiliations7.
Ultimately, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the entire tax credit program for all private schools. It said the tax credit conflicted with the state constitution, which bars all state aid to religious schools, whether direct or indirect, like a tax subsidy8. Today, advocates for school choice are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to revive the scholarship program in its entirety. They're backed by the Trump9 administration, including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who, as a private citizen and a Cabinet member, has advocated for what she recently called faith-based education.
Kendra Espinoza is the lead plaintiff in today's case. Divorced, she has two daughters who attend the Stillwater Christian10 School in Kalispell, Mont. An office manager and staff accountant, she works extra jobs in order to pay for her children's tuition.
KENDRA ESPINOZA: I wanted my kids to have a really strong sense of right and wrong from a biblical perspective. And I want them to understand that our sense of ethics11 and our morals come from God's word, not just man's ideas.
TOTENBERG: Lawyers challenging the no-aid provision in the Montana Constitution argue that the amendment itself was born of bigotry12 against Catholics in the 1800s and that the only way to fix such hostility13 to religion is to reinstate the whole tax benefit program. Erica Smith is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which, for decades, has been fighting to get rid of state constitutional provisions like this one in Montana. She maintains that even though the state court invalidated the tax credit program for both religious and nonreligious schools...
ERICA SMITH: It's still religious discrimination because the only reason the court invalidated the program was because it included religious schools.
TOTENBERG: She contends that the federal Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law mandates14 that the tax credit program be revived and applied15 equally to all private schools, religious and nonreligious alike.
SMITH: Once you have these programs, you have to treat families going to religious schools equal to families going to nonreligious schools.
TOTENBERG: The state of Montana disagrees. It argues that funding public education is the state's mission and that nothing in the federal Constitution mandates that the state enact16 a tax subsidy for private religious schools. At the heart of the case are what opponents call baby Blaine Amendments, naming them after James G. Blaine, who introduced in Congress a similar amendment to the federal Constitution in 1875. While that original amendment failed to pass, variations of it were adopted in most states. Many scholars view them all as a bigoted17 reaction to the mass immigration of Catholics into the U.S. in the late 1800s. Lawyer Smith notes that these baby Blaine Amendments have never been squarely challenged in the Supreme Court before.
SMITH: And now they are. And hopefully, the court will take the opportunity to end the bigotry behind these Blaine Amendments.
TOTENBERG: The Montana constitutional amendment, however, is not some relic18 of the past. Though an earlier provision was adopted in 1889, the state constitution was revised and rewritten in 1972. All but one of the surviving and still active delegates to that convention submitted a brief in this case discussing how the no-aid provision was debated and enacted19 48 years ago. Mae Nan Ellingson, one of those delegates, disputes Smith's claim that the convention just rubber stamp the 1889 provision.
MAE NAN ELLINGSON: There was clearly some interest being expressed on behalf of the parochial schools to open up the no-aid provision.
TOTENBERG: So she says a daylong hearing was held with some 100 witnesses presenting written or oral testimony20 or both. After that, she says, the debate at the convention was extensive, and many argued that keeping the government out of religious education would protect religious liberty and prevent the state from attaching conditions to its aid.
ELLINGSON: We had a number of ministers who were in the convention who spoke21 very ardently22 in favor of public funds not going to religious education.
TOTENBERG: In the end, the 1972 constitutional redo passed by a vote of 80 to 17. During the ratification23 campaign that followed, she says, the no-aid provision was never even a threshold issue. And she notes that the amendment included a provision specifically allowing private religious schools to receive available federal funds through a state pass-through mechanism24. She sees today's Supreme Court argument in terms of powers delegated to the states by the federal Constitution, including the power to decide how to finance education. In recent years, as the Supreme Court has grown more and more conservative, it's moved with increasing vigor25 away from the notion of a strict wall of separation between church and state and towards a greater accommodation of religion. It has, for instance, allowed states to provide vouchers26 to parents for use in private schools, both religious and nonreligious. But there is a difference between allowing and requiring. This case moves the debate a huge step further, according to Daniel Mach of the ACLU.
DANIEL MACH: In the past, the court, echoing the framers of the Constitution, guarded against government-funded religion. Now the court is actually considering not only allowing but forcing taxpayers27 to subsidize religious activities.
TOTENBERG: In short, the question in today's case is not whether a state may, if it wishes, provide such aid to private religious schools but whether it must. Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.
(SOUNDBITE OF YESTALGIA'S "BACK ON TRACK")
1 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 amendment | |
n.改正,修正,改善,修正案 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 taxpayer | |
n.纳税人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 amendments | |
(法律、文件的)改动( amendment的名词复数 ); 修正案; 修改; (美国宪法的)修正案 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 byline | |
n.署名;v.署名 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 incentive | |
n.刺激;动力;鼓励;诱因;动机 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 affiliations | |
n.联系( affiliation的名词复数 );附属机构;亲和性;接纳 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 subsidy | |
n.补助金,津贴 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 ethics | |
n.伦理学;伦理观,道德标准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 bigotry | |
n.偏见,偏执,持偏见的行为[态度]等 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 hostility | |
n.敌对,敌意;抵制[pl.]交战,战争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 mandates | |
托管(mandate的第三人称单数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 enact | |
vt.制定(法律);上演,扮演 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 bigoted | |
adj.固执己见的,心胸狭窄的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 relic | |
n.神圣的遗物,遗迹,纪念物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 enacted | |
制定(法律),通过(法案)( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 spoke | |
n.(车轮的)辐条;轮辐;破坏某人的计划;阻挠某人的行动 v.讲,谈(speak的过去式);说;演说;从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 ardently | |
adv.热心地,热烈地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 ratification | |
n.批准,认可 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 mechanism | |
n.机械装置;机构,结构 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 vigor | |
n.活力,精力,元气 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 vouchers | |
n.凭证( voucher的名词复数 );证人;证件;收据 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 taxpayers | |
纳税人,纳税的机构( taxpayer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|