Re: “Supreme Court will take up Maine religious liberty case” (July 3, Page A1):
I am unclear as to why the Press Herald headlined the article about the case brought on behalf of the Carson, Gillis and Nelson families, which is on its way to the Supreme Court, as a “religious liberty” case. Contrary to their attorney’s statement that “…the state … bans parents from choosing schools that offer religious instruction,” it does not. It just bans taxpayer money from funding those choices, instead of other, non-religious choices. That sounds like an issue of money, not belief.
I attended religious school from kindergarten through 12th grade and am grateful to my parents for making that choice. But never would I have expected taxpayers of any, every or no faith to foot the bill for me to attend high school classes that included “Our Fundamental Beliefs” and “Evangelism.”
The purpose of religious schools is indoctrination into a specific religion, and parents in Maine are free to make that choice for their children. I know from experience that they struggle to afford such education, and that may be an issue for their church, but how is it an issue for the taxpayer?
R. Aileen Yingst
Brunswick
Send questions/comments to the editors.
