When the Covenant School bond issue surfaced, I didn't expect to become involved in a legal conflict over the matter. Yet when the American Civil Liberties Union decided to challenge the $14 million bonds, I agreed to join two other County taxpayers named as defendants."

"With no connection to the school or the Industrial Authority, why would I care how Covenant financed its new building?"

"Some might assume we litigants feel personal animosity towards Covenant. Not so. I got involved because my philosophy of church-state relations agrees with Supreme Court Justice Black's: '[A] union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion.'"

"Exhibits and testimony at the February validation informed the Court that Covenant 'prepare[s] students to live as obedient Christians.' A faculty self-study lauded the integration of Christian principles into every aspect of Covenants curriculum. All students take Bible study and attend chapel services. Christian prayers are routinely offered in class, faculty gatherings, and parent conferences. All these activities will continue in the new building."

"These practices are healthy examples of the school's exercise of religious liberty, and I would never suggest that Covenant abandon a single one. I would, however, suggest that they reveal Covenant School as a pervasively sectarian institution ineligible for government benefits."

"Holding a different view, Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled in favor of the bonds. An appeal is now before the Supreme Court of Virginia."

"The Observer ('Do the Covenant School's bonds have a prayer?' May 10) criticized the ACLU and its clients, calling the suit "frivolous.' I disagree. The claim that bonds are not subsidized by taxpayers is simplistic. True, only private investors buy the bonds, which are repaid entirely by the financed institution; however, both receive significant incentives."

"Purchasers of the bonds pay no federal or state taxes on the interest collected. The borrower benefits twofold: the tax exemption and a below-market interest rate lure more investors and substantially lessen the repayment burden (by $300,000, in Covenant's case)."

"But at the heart of my objection to Covenant's participation is a deeper issue: the purpose of revenue bonds."

"They're meant to encourage economic growth. We forego interest taxes 'to invest in our community's economic future.' If we've invested wisely, the tax revenues we have sacrificed today - funds that could be improving schools, roads, and other services right now - win grow into greater returns down the road."

"To the extent that we all give up a little something when these services are funded at a lower level than would otherwise be possible - or to the extent that we all chip in to make up the shortfall - we all support revenue bonds."

"Covenant's economic impact on our community is primarily jobs; yet, its hiring process excludes applicants on the basis of religious belief. Regardless of professional credentials or moral character, non-Christians are simply not interviewed. Most of us would vehemently oppose government bonds issued to an institution that discriminated on the basis of race or ethnicity. I believe it is equally wrong, unconstitutional, and contrary to the intent of the bonds to issue them to a business whose major economic return to the community leaves behind those with theological differences."

"Private investors, including Christian churches that benefit from Covenant's mission, can make cash donations or low interest loans to the school without government assistance. Covenant should explore these alternatives, and the Industrial Authority should save revenue bonds for those businesses with a more pluralistic mission."

(Mary Ellen Sikes, on behalf of the litigants, Op Ed, The Observer, may 24-May 30, 2000)