U.S. Supreme Court justices talk often about “the wall” that separates church and state.

REACTION

National and Tristate reaction to Thursday's Supreme Court 5-4 decision sanctioning the use of school vouchers:     “This landmark ruling is a victory for parents and children throughout America. By upholding the constitutionality of Cleveland's school choice program, the Supreme Court has offered the hope of an excellent education to parents and children throughout our country.” — President Bush     “The decision removes the constitutional cloud over whether parents are indeed allowed to drive the education of their children, and with a Supreme Court sanction, states will enact more programs.” — Jeanne Allen, president of the Center for Education Reform, a pro-voucher group     “This is just a step backwards in the support of public education for all children. It doesn't make sense that public funds can be used for private education. This situation, to be allowed to use vouchers to take money out of the public schools, certainly doesn't improve them, it abandons them.” — Courtney Frick, state president of Ohio PTA     “The court's decision is a victory not only for low-income parents and students, but for American education as well. It lays the groundwork for future progress on private school choice and moves us decisively forward in the drive for equal educational opportunity.” — Rep. John Boehner, R-West Chester     “This decision is a severe blow to public education and its already inadequate funding. It is disrespectful to the American taxpayer.” — Vincent Ferrandino, executive director of the National Association of Elementary School Principals     “Even if it was ruled constitutional, it doesn't make good public policy. We ought to be investing scarce tax money in public schools where the vast majority of kids are being educated.” — Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers union     “This is a great victory for parental choice, particularly for poor families. It should not be seen as a victory for religiously-sponsored schools or as a setback for public education. It's an escape hatch for poor families who want to send their kids to schools where they can get quality education.” — Dan Andriacco, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati     “Today's historic Supreme Court decision is one for America's children. It's one that can transform the education landscape in our country.”     — Education Secretary Rod Paige     “It would make a caste system out of our public schools. I'm afraid supportive parents would gravitate to another system. When that occurs, your public school system goes in the toilet.” — Jack Moreland, superintendent of Covington Independent Schools     “Thank you, Lord! I thought I was going to have to work a second job. Now I can afford to send her to the school.“ — Eulanda Johnson, 37, of Cleveland. Her daughter is entering sixth grade at St. Mary's Catholic school. Based on her income, she pays 25 percent of the school's $2,250 annual tuition and the voucher program pays the remainder

        After the court's school voucher ruling Thursday, that wall may be lower than at any time in the past century.

        The justices' 5-4 decision signals a fundamental shift in how the nation's highest court views one of the most important — and most controversial — issues in American society.

        “This is a departure from the past,” said Ronna Greff Schneider, a University of Cincinnati law professor. “At the very least, it has put a door in the wall.

        “At worst, it has put a hole in the wall.”

        The change in philosophy on the Supreme Court is significant, but it is not sudden. As the court has grown more conservative the past 10 years, its rulings have consistently shown a greater willingness to mix religion and government.

        The court has ruled that public school teachers may provide remedial education to religious school students, and it has allowed Bible study classes to use public schools as a meeting place.

        The court's ruling Thursday goes a step further because it allows tax-funded vouchers to be spent on private schools, the vast majority of which are Catholic.

        Critics decry the decision as a betrayal of the First Amendment, which bars the government from establishing a religion. In time, they argue, religion will unduly influence decisions on how tax dollars are spent and how citizens should behave.

        “This breaks a very fundamental bargain that was made when this country was founded,” said Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers and a former president of the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers. “You can't make me support a religion I don't believe in, and that's what they are doing.”

        The teachers' union argues that the voucher program not only diverts money from public schools, but also forces taxpayers to endorse a religious education.

        Supporters of the ruling say that's not the case. They argue that many of the Supreme Court's recent rulings in church-state cases allow citizens greater religious expression without imposing religion on society.

        There's a difference, they say, between endorsing a religious education and allowing parents to choose one.

        “The concept is that choices are made available for the benefit of people,” said Tim Luckhaupt, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Ohio. “It's the individual person who makes the final decision.”

        To Mr. Luckhaupt and others who support the voucher program, the wall that separates church and state is in no way threatened by Thursday's decision.

        The Supreme Court majority made the same argument. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that the line between church and state remains because the voucher program is “neutral” and does not favor religious schools over non-religious schools.

        The justices in the majority also argued that the program benefits a broad range of citizens — rather than a select few — and that the government does not recommend that they use the vouchers for a religious education.

        “No reasonable observer would think a neutral program of private choice... carries with it the imprimatur of government endorsement,” Justice Rehnquist wrote.

        The dissenters, however, saw the voucher decision as a clear attack on “the wall.”

        “Whenever we remove a brick from the wall that was designed to separate religion and government, we increase the risk of religious strife and weaken the foundation of our democracy,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens.

        Ms. Schneider said she expects the debate to continue, among the justices and Americans in general. The Supreme Court majority is narrow, she said, and the justices will be arguing for years about how high the wall ought to be.

35,000 braved storm at stadium
Excerpts from the Rev. Billy Graham's sermon
Graham's message to Cincinnati: Love each other, dark or light
Message on race: Love each other
Moment with Graham has inspired woman for decades
Munoz now tackling 'godly legacy'
Visitors have God, others in mind
Major insurance companies sued
Supreme Court upholds Cleveland voucher plan
Voucher possibility raises hopes
Voucher ruling narrowed church-state divide
Abducted child's father appeals to Powell for help
Budget cuts put squeeze on libraries
Project aims to beautify the Ohio
Hundreds expected to ply waters at Ohio River Run
Ind. casinos weigh new rules
Lawyer mum on missing girl
Obituary: William J. Schrimpf was doctor, artist
Tristate A.M. Report
BRONSON: Bigotry exists
SMITH AMOS: Meningitis study
Liberty Twp. woos Levee developer
Teen to be tried as adult in rape
Two boards divided on hospital site
Some wary of candid candidates
Emberton elevated to top appellate spot
Judge to rule on sealing abuse documents
Kentucky News Briefs
KSU may hire an interim chief
Newspaper workers fined in name dispute
'Vette museum, coupe mark golden jubilee