The Capitol Fax Blog » Question of the day

Friday, Jul 18, 2008

* The setup…

An outspoken atheist filed papers in court yesterday to stop Illinois officials from giving money to a historic church.

Rob Sherman is known for his lawsuit that halted a moment of silence in schools. Now he wants to prevent the state from giving Pilgrim Baptist Church a million dollars to rebuild after a fire.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich has said the money is intended for a community center and administrative offices, not religious purposes.

But Sherman says that violates the constitution.

SHERMAN: What goes on in an administration building? That’s where the church operates its ministry from. So Rod cannot stick the taxpayers with the cost of a church’s ministry expenses.

* Question: In your opinion, does Sherman’s claim have merit? Explain.

- posted by Rich Miller

54 Comments

- Gas Guzzler - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 10:50 am:
That depends if he drove his gas-guzzling RV “The Sherminator Mobile” to court when he filed his papers.

- Heartless Libertarian - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 10:59 am:
Of course it has merit. I have always thought that the government should keep its nose out of religion, especially when it comes to funding it. I would say that it is unconstitutional,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

How can you say that the government is not making a law respecting an establishment of religion when they are funding the church through state funds. No matter what religion it is, it is unconstitutional to use state funds to build its church, or administration building, or whatever BS the governor is saying it will build.

- wordslinger - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:01 am:
I sympathize with the intent of restoring a historic building, but yes, I think he does.

The private sector should do it. Hit up that Millennium Park/Olympics crowd. Or perhaps Obama, Daley, Jones, et. al. could hit up their donor lists.

- trafficmatt - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:03 am:
I can’t speak to the legal merits, so I’ll just mention the overall intent.

I think it is a huge mistake to give money to one church as a private entity. If there is a Catholic Church in the suburbs that burns down, or a Methodist Church in Peoria, or a Synagogue in Springfield, etc., etc. will they get money?

What about a private hospital? A nursing home? A convention center, etc., etc..

Giving money to a private institution, no matter where or under what circumstances opens a whole can of worms.

- Speaking At Will - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:04 am:
What meets legal standards, does not meet the standards of whats right.

Give em the money, its not as if they are using the money to fund people to hand out bibles on the street.

Secondly, it is a very old historic church, if it were a historic building of a secular persausion no one would have a problem.

Maybe its just me, but I get tired of people like Mr. Sherman who make it thier lifes mission to constantly poke a stick in the eye religion and the church.

Its his right to file the lawsuit, but I hope he loses the case.

- VanillaMan - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:04 am:
Yes, his opinion has merit. He is however wrong in his opinion that religious organizations need to be separated to the extent as he seems to see it.

Our South Side churches are more than mere religious organization. A lot of churches are more than what Sherman fears them to be. But what we have been witnessing in South Chicago has been the abandonment of an entire population by most of our traditional institutions, except for it’s churches. It is not surprising that we see churches take on every facet of their community’s needs. We benefit when churches get involved in our societal problems. We all benefit whenever sincere organizations take on thankless tasks as these churches often do.

It would simply be wrong to deny these vital community organizations assistance because they are part of a church. They are doing work poorly done by state government. They are making a difference for their communities. They should be assisted in the work they do for all of us.

Sherman comes off as someone still locked into a 1950’s mentality, not a modern one. He might be comfortable pretending that churches are just for religious purposes and that religion has no place in our societies, but he is wrong.

While his claim has merit, it needs to be shot down publically and denounced publically. The time has come to demonstrate to these atheist throwbacks that we live in a new age that is requiring new solutions to societal ills. It seems that he and his band of troubled kill-joys don’t understand or appreciate the real world.

- Bluefish - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:10 am:
Hate to agree with Sherman but he is correct in this case. And trafficmatt - the answer to your question is only if Blago gets a good press pop out of it.

- Ghost - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:11 am:
“Yes, his opinion has merit. He is however wrong in his opinion that religious organizations need to be separated to the extent as he seems to see it.”

I would have to agree with that. I also think it is odd to say a non-religious out reach program should gets funds becuase it helps people, but an out reach program run by a relgious organization that helps people should be denied funds becuase its memebrs have not given up religion. technically it would be a violation to deny religious out reach programs money just because of their religion if the same funds are available to a secular grp. Also statistically religious social programs and support organizations have far greater succes then secular programs. If we want to meaningfully provide help, funding the folks who want to help others as part of their beleif system is not a bad way to go.

Short version; money for social programs should be religion neutral. The presence or absence of religion should not matter if the funds are used to provide social assitance to those in need. (assuming the assitance is offered to all regardless of religion)

- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:13 am:
Ironically, I think it would be lawful use of taxpayer dollars to restore a historic building that happens to be a church, but Sherman is absolutely correct that taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to build an administrative building for that same church.

- VanillaMan - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:16 am:
The purpose of our separation of church and state is due to historical reasons. We still see official state churches denying freedom of worship to others.

When we arrived in North America, we took a radical step in welcoming all religions. This is the wisdom behind our separation clause.

What Sherman and others of his ilk don’t get is that we celebrate diversity now. We never established a state church because of the separation clause, but the clause was never intended to drive a wedge between churches, societies and governments.

We can clearly understand the difference between taking government money to address non-religious societal problems, and when churches try to spread a religious influence. It is an easy compromise that doesn’t compromise our Constitution.

Sherman needs to numb the fear he has towards churches. He needs to be more culturally diverse and more accepting of others.

- Bill Baar - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:21 am:
Years ago I was on the board of Oak Park’s Frank Llyod Wright designed Unity Temple. We could have used a handout.

I don’t know about the constitutional issues but with all the old historic Churches in metro Chicago, this practice could easily become awfully expensive.

Best let the parishnors figure it out for themselves…

PS my advise is never join a Church with a historic structure… the figuring gets real painful.

- Greg - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:24 am:
Absolutely. Wouldn’t administrative funds free up other funds for religious purposes? I don’t know, but I assume money is fungible between the church’s various programs…

- Ghost - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:25 am:
VM more to the point, the seperation of religion and State was specifically directed at the King of England who, unable to his marriage annuled, created his own church with himself at its head. Thus the ant-establishment clause. The seperation clause was designed to prohibit government from establishing an official state/fed religioun for the country. it was never intended to divorce religion from grovernment.

- Louis G. Atsaves - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:26 am:
Yes, he opinion has merit. When you consider it further, it frees up cash the church would have used to rebuild to further their ministries including the religious aspects, so a serious argument can be made that religion is being supported by those state funds.

- wordslinger - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:28 am:
Bill Baar, Unity Temple got a million bucks in Illinois First money from Gov. Ryan in 2001. There was a big sign out in front on Lake Street forever.

- Capitol View - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:37 am:
I’ve been involved with grants to religious schools, and the emphasis has always been on handicapped accessibility, health and safety concerns, and meeting areas where groups broader than the religion of the recipient gather for community improvement projects.

My understanding is the Pilgrim Church post-fire restoration included a community center next to the church, and that this is where the public dollars were intended to go.

Sounds like a public purpose to me.

- phocion - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:42 am:
The Unity Temple argument is a bit of a red herring. State funds were used to preserve an internationally renowned historic building in that case. In the case of Pilgrim, well, I’m scratching my head. The thing burned down to the ground, right? So it couldn’t have been used for historic preservation. This is clearly a religous purpose, using government money. Of course, another embarassing aspect if Sherman wins could be that Obama’s church handouts while he was a State Senator may end up being unconstitutional all along. Not good for a constitutional law professor…

- Wumpus - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:45 am:
He could also argue that giving money for religious schools is illegal even if the film projectors say “Not to be used for Religious purposes”. It basically takes money they would have used to build the building and lets them “hand out bibles”. My bigger concern is what happened to the first $1million that they were given. perhaps Sherman should invesitagate that.
He will and should lose

- Little Egypt - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:47 am:
As much as I hate to agree with Sherman, I do believe taxpayer money should not be used to rebuild any part of this church. My own church would like to someday build a Family Life Center which would be used for a myriad of non-secular purposes. However, if the State were to pay for it, that would leave us with building money in our budget to now be used for other secular activities. The whole idea of giving this church yet another $1 million (remember the fiasco of the first $1 million) was nothing but a PR stunt for Blago in the first place. He was trying to buy more votes. If the legislature can’t stop Blago, then it looks like there will be a lot of cases before the courts to do so.

- Muskrat - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 11:53 am:
Heck yeah it has merit. Unless the money really is going for a community center that is open to all, hosts only non-religious events (or welcomes events from all religions without discrimination, including Atheists, Wiccans, etc.) and whose funds are not intermingled with the church, then the gov. is funding a church. Every Church has a social hall of some sort, but it’ usually deeply integrated into the faith community. Just calling it a “community center” because you host a nondenominational event there once a month doesn’t make it OK.

- Ghost - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 12:03 pm:
Little E your argument has tow manin flaws. First, any argument premissed on they will just use other money instead makes an assumption that they have a million laying around already. More improtantly why should we require those with religious beleife to expend their money to support secular social services all by themselves, so as to deprive them of being able to support their church? The secular services are provided to all and help all. You are ostensibly arguing that we should tax the religious with baring the burden of helping those in need as a punsihment for being religious. If the money is for secular purposes, then let our society bare the cost of helping soicety.

The help being provided by these groups is typically provided regardless of religious beliefs. We have few to no secualr alternatives, and as a society do not often provide these services on a meaningful level. There is apparently a direct connection to involvement with a religious group, and willingness to volunteer time and assist others. Since these are the folks providing help to all citizens, then all citizens can be invovled in helping to support them.

I will say again, just because the volunteers helping have a religious beleif, is no reason to keep funding from them that is being used for non-religious purposes.

- Much Merit - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 12:06 pm:
I have been wondering what took so long for Sherman - but also anyone to start making noise about this public money going to a church. Sherman’s move has great merit — and no one should be sorry to say that he is correct on this — BTW - I am a Christian that is sick and tired of the most vunerable people in our state being used as political footballs - if the Gov. wants to continue to woo the Chicago pre-dominantly black faith communities - how about he quit the game and act responsibly??

- Jake from Elwood - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 12:12 pm:
This may be the only time that I have agreed with Sherman. This is a textbook example of the expenditure of public funds for a private purpose. What’s next? Will Governor Jet-Fuel give a million dollars to the cad who turned his home into a church in Lake Bluff and was granted a property tax exemption? A stretch, admittedly, but follow the primrose path where it leads.

- Leroy - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 12:21 pm:
Where was Sherman when Obama reached into his goodie bag and pulled out $100k of state taxpayer money for St. Sabina?

In fact, where were all you when Obama started writing taxpayer checks to churches?

Oh yeah
Blago = Bad
Obama = Good

- Frustrated - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 12:50 pm:
While his position may have merit, that train has long since left the station. Where was he when Rep. Poe got Illinois First funds to put an air conditioner on a parochial school in Springfield? St. Patricks for those who are curious.

- Cogito - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 12:57 pm:
Of course it presents a problem, and I would bet a problem the Administration knew about to begin with.

Isn’t this replacing the money that DCEO originally provided to the day care center that was thought to be part of the church but wasn’t, or am I confusing my special gifts to churches?

My understanding is that the whole purpose of providing it to the day care center to begin with was to move the money thru an entity with a secular purpose so as to by-pass the problem of giving it directly to the church.

I have yet to see any story that gets to the bottom of why the money ‘incorrectly’ went to the day care rather than the church to begin with, and I seem to remember that when a GA committee questioned a representative of the Administration about it, she said that she didn’t know why (Rich, isn’t this correct?)

I can’t understand why the original story went away (I mean a $1 million error is a pretty big error, particularly when the Gov’s Office contended that the State couldn’t get the money back) or why this announcement wouldn’t bring back into the press the whole messy story of the original $1 million screw-up: a screw-up that has still not been explained to my knowledge.

Good project for the Auditor General to take on.

- Pot calling kettle - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 12:58 pm:
Churches should shy away from this money anyway.

“Whoever pays the piper gets to call the tune.” Whenever the gov’t gives money to do something, they want to step in and dictate terms. Any church should be very wary of this enticing source.

- Chicago Dem - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 1:02 pm:
Sherman filing has merit. VM and Ghost…we tolerate and celebrate our right to practice our religion of preference…this does not mean the separation clause is suspended because “diversity” is in vogue at the moment. The state has no business allocating public funds to sustain the teachings of a particular religious sect. As far as “not providing services on a meaninful level” Ghost…don’t you realize there will never be enought for some people. Some in our society have become totally dependent on government for everything…parenting (schools do this now), welfare, food stamps, public housing etc.

- Vote Quimby! - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 1:27 pm:
It certainly has merit and is an interesting case. Our city council once gave tourism (hotel-motel tax) funds to a church for a conference they were hosting, but I stuck by it since it served the purpose of the tax (putting heads in motel beds). In this case, I don’t know which fund the payment is coming from (nor do I think anyone in the administration does) so I won’t predict the outcome of the suit.

- Anon - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 1:29 pm:
Yes, his claim has merit. Article X, Section 3, of the Illinois Constitution provides:

“Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific
institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money, or other personal property ever be made by the
State, or any such public corporation, to any church, or for any sectarian purpose.”

I don’t know how the courts have interpreted this provision in Illinois or in the many other states that have the same provision (they began popping up everywhere in the 19th century as part of an anti-Catholic-school campaign spearheaded by the Know-Nothings, if my leaky memory serves), but the worst you can say is that the language can easily be interpreted in support of his claim.

- Vote Quimby! - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 1:38 pm:
Amazing how many times the Constitution comes up during this administration! Nice research anon.

- Bill Baar - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 2:01 pm:
Bill Baar, Unity Temple got a million bucks in Illinois First money from Gov. Ryan in 2001. There was a big sign out in front on Lake Street forever.

I left OP in 91 and that Church probably in 88.

The Gov out to kick some bucks over to the folks who bought the old First Universalist Church in Elgin. It’s sanctuary is shaped like a pocket watch..

- Steve - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 2:13 pm:
The lawsuit has merit.There’s supposed to be a separation of church and state in Illinois.If not,then the Illinois state legislature could get away with giving an religious organization money in the name of “doing good”.

- Ghost - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 2:27 pm:
In TheCapitalFaxBlog we trust, all others must carry cash.

- VanillaMan - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 2:59 pm:
===The state has no business allocating public funds to sustain the teachings of a particular religious sect.===

Agree. But that isn’t what’s happening and Sherman is over reacting in the hopes that other believe that this is what is happening. Rich would call it being “intellectually dishonest”, while I use the ten-cent word, “lying”.

===Some in our society have become totally dependent on government for everything…parenting (schools do this now), welfare, food stamps, public housing etc.===

Again, agree. That is why assisting churches will direct this need more efficiently and perhaps start weening those dependant on government from government towards assistance provided by their neighbors. The pendulum has swung too far towards government doing charitable work and is now correcting itself as we are seeing in communities in South Chicagoland reaching towards neighborhood relief through their churches. Take a look at the area around Hyde Park and Jackson Park. What other help do these folks have? These mega churches are the center of these communities. It is just wrong to deny them the assistance they need in the work they do so well.

- Big Mama T - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 3:18 pm:
Per - Anon - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 1:29 pm:

quoting of the constitution ( I’m not picking on anon) only mentions the general assembly. It does not say anything about the state’s chief executive officer (Blagozo). Or is he considered part of the GA?

- Former State Worker - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 3:27 pm:
I agree that it should be questioned. I was always amazed by how much state money went to subsidize private schools whether it is their Internet connections, school lunches, educational materials, etc. Most people have no idea.

- Little Egypt - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 3:38 pm:
Ghost, just because you believe my opinion to be flawed does not make my opinion wrong. I see there are many more here to disagree with you than agree.

Because of our economic times, George Bush has asked religious groups to pick up some social programs that the government should be funding. That doesn’t mean that taxpayers money should be funneled to the churches. If there was money in the first place, the churches would not be asked to help.

My opinion remains the same - no tax money to churches, period.

- Ghost - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 3:39 pm:
dang private schools and their quality education. The State needs to stop helping to fund the education of all our children. If the kids parents won’t send them to the schools run in the most inefficient manner possible, I see no need to pay for food or educational materials. We need a new political campaign, Stop the Learning Now!

- Kevin Highland - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 3:39 pm:
Constitutional arguments aside, if my house or place of business burns to the ground the government isn’t going to give me money to rebuild it.

- Ghost - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 3:46 pm:
KH, technically that is not true. If your house or place of business was a community out reach center providing meals to the hungry, counseling for dependents and victims of violence, clothing for the poor etc you probably could get money to rebuild it.

That aside the Govt has given money to rebuild the homes of private citizens built on flood plains without insurance. To rebuild home detsroyed by forest fires etc. The govt has stepped in and rebuilt private homes for people as well.

- Little Egypt - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 3:53 pm:
Ghost, both of our children have been in a private school and then transferred to our public school system. If your children are “middle of the road”, then they will survive quite well in a private school. But private schools cannot compete with the tax dollars that the public school system has and the programs they offer. If your children have special needs or are in a gifted category, they should be in public schools. Our children were in the latter category and excelled in the public school system. They had opportunities they never would have had in what is perceived to be the best private schools in this town. From personal experience, I don’t buy your argument that private schools equal quality education.

- Anon - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 4:08 pm:
===Per - Anon - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 1:29 pm:

quoting of the constitution ( I’m not picking on anon) only mentions the general assembly. It does not say anything about the state’s chief executive officer (Blagozo). Or is he considered part of the GA? ===

Sometimes I forget to connect the dots for non-lawyers:

Article VIII, Section 2(b):

“The General Assembly by law shall make
appropriations for all expenditures of public funds by the State.”

If the General Assembly can’t appropriate the funds for that purpose, the Governor can’t expend the funds for that purpose.

- VanillaMan - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 4:31 pm:
Sherman has a faith and a church. He believes that the laws we have written and the courts he worships in have a higher calling than any organized religion. He has put his faith into governments as the distributors of societal manna instead of those institutions that created societal manna. He wants his “church” to help the poor, sick and suffering, over all others.

He believes in legalese. He understands this lower societal standard crafted out of compromise. Naturally he fails to comprehend the value churches give communities, since he doesn’t partake in it. Naturally he doesn’t understand the role between religion and government, because he only appreciates one half of it. Naturally he doesn’t understand how to separate church and state.

Like a kid with his legal hammer, he now thinks he can beat into existence a new world order that favors his belief system. Using his logic, he could, you know.

His argument has legal merit only. But it is archaic thinking and prejudiced as well.

Thanks to our freedom, Sherman isn’t forced to attend a church. Of all people who need to attend and understand a church, he certainly does in order to overcome his bigotry against them. In his ignorance and misplaced faith in legal arguments, he wishes to deny church goers their rightful place in our communities through his legal manipulations.

If we care about helping others and doing what is best for one another, we must recognize the difference between legal arguments and moral ones. Both have to be considered, or we can become unmoored, using waffling legalese to justify our everyday lives. We have to rise above the Shermans of this world, prejudiced against all those who believe differently than they do, and so insecure that they make it their life’s mission to beat the rest of us into submission so they can sleep easier at night, confident in their own self righteousness.

A man whose faith is unable to explain love, life and death will grasp at a benificent government, a persuasive argument and worship a mirror.

- 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 4:34 pm:
I don’t believe in Atheists.

- Mongo - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 4:41 pm:
Of course it has merit. Every time a state grant is announced for a church I cringe. Chruches and synagogues exist for one primary purpose, and that is as a religious organization. All else is secondary. Recognize a need for day care? The church starts a daycare modeled on its religious beliefs. Same for a community center.

This money should not be given, should not have been asked for.

- Speaking At Will - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 4:42 pm:
Hey Rich

Its going to be in the mid 90’s this weekend.

Here is a suggestion for the end of the week music.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=hot%20time%20summer%20in%20the%20city&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#q=Loving%20Spoonful%2C%20summer%20in%20the%20city%20&hl=en&sitesearch=

- southern illinois river town - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 4:44 pm:
They gave Obama’s church $15 million over the last 15 years and Rev Wright gets a $2 million dollar retirement home. I say NO more! The “Church” should have had insurance like everyone else.

- Let's see, what's that now? - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 5:36 pm:
Oh, yeah. Separation of church & State?

1) Maybe the church should have had adequate insurance coverage.
2) If not, maybe the members should pick up the tab & ask the pastor why they didn’t have insurance.
3) Blago can’t pay the State’s bills now; defers more of them and cuts spending for REAL programs that help reduce violence and assist real medical issues.

AIN’T IT GREAT ??????? Let’s have ANOTHER Press Release.

- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 6:15 pm:
Vanillaman -

Public financing of one particular religious institution is de facto establishment of religion, even if no state religion is established de jure.

If the governor earmarked $1 million for construction costs for American Atheists or the World Union of Deists, all of the proponents of funding christian organizations would be howling.

In case you’re not familiar, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were all Deists.

Deism:

- Rejects all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
- Rejects reports of miracles, prophecies and religious “mysteries”.
- Rejects the Genesis account of creation and the doctrine of original sin, along with all similar beliefs.
- Rejects Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other religious beliefs.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 6:23 pm:
YDD, you forgot John Adams.

Like I tell my intern, they always forget John Adams.

- NIEVA - Friday, Jul 18, 08 @ 6:55 pm:
I have no prolbem giving tax dollars to churches,just give a equal amount to all faiths and even some to the non believers!

- Pot calling kettle - Saturday, Jul 19, 08 @ 11:16 am:
Ghost. It’s easy to run a school with high test scores when you can pick and chose the students and boot the low-performers. I don’t buy the blanket assertion that public schools are inefficient or low quality. I have no doubt that some are; however, most do an excellent job educating the majority of the population of this country, and at a relatively low cost.

As to the broader question at hand, it is hard to see why we should discuss funding the rebuilding of a church when the state cannot even afford to maintain state property. It’s not not like there is extra money in a shoebox waiting to be spent.

- Arthur Andersen - Saturday, Jul 19, 08 @ 12:23 pm:
==I was always amazed by how much state money went to subsidize private schools whether it is their Internet connections, school lunches, educational materials, etc. Most people have no idea==

Alternatively, most people have “no idea” how much state -and local- tax revenue is saved, especially in places like Springfield where there are multiple private school systems, by keeping a substantial number of children out of the public schools.

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.