Do voucher payments give an appearance of “endorsement” of religion or “symbolic union” between government and religion?
A second significant issue is presented by the question whether a voucher program gives the appearance of state “endorsement” of religion or creates a “symbolic union” between government and religion. In Ball, for example, the Court struck down the Grand Rapids School District s “shared time” program, in which public-school teachers taught certain supplemental classes for students in nonpublic schools, because “[t]he symbolic union of church and state inherent in the provision of secular, state-provided instruction in the religious school buildings threatens to convey a message of state support for religion to student and to the general public.” 473 U.S. at 397. The Court was of the view that a “core purpose” of the Establishment Clause was to prevent the government from “convey[ing] a message of government approval or disapproval of religion.” 473 U.S. at 389. Whether the “no endorsement” principle is or is not historically accurate, it remains a theme in the Court s Establishment Cla
