| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2007 07:19:19 AM |
| Object: |
Are School Voucher Barriers Anti-Catholic? |
Are School Voucher Barriers Anti-Catholic?
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/6/7/14512/43963
By DonByrd Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 02:51:02 PM EST
Since the Supreme Court decision in Zelman, allowing Cleveland's
school voucher system, there has been no rush across the country to
create such programs that would send taxpayer money to private
(including religious) schools. There are 2 reasons - I believe - for
this: 1) Generally, voters don't want them. School vouchers are
routinely voted down in ballot referendums or in state legislatures.
Even just yesterday a school voucher plan for New Orleans was defeated
in committee. 2) Many state constitutions are more stringent - about
paying for public education, and about funding religion - than our
federal constitution.
In reponse to this second reason, there is a move underway to
challenge these protections by characterizing them as purely
anti-Catholic. There is no doubt that, at one point, anti-Catholic
sentiment was behind some of the arguments against funding religion.
But, heeding that notorious and simplified complaint today is a
mistake, both historically and - more importantly - for current policy
with regard to religious liberty. Read on...
The US Commission on Civil Rights met earlier this week (pdf) to
"examine whether certain state constitutional barriers to school
choice legislation - known as Blaine Amendments - discriminate against
Catholics and whether, more generally, they discriminate against
religion." So-called "Blaine Amendments" are provisions in state
constitutions that explicitly prohibit the funding of sectarian
education with taxpayer money, named for a Maine congressman whose
similar attempt on the national level failed. The text of the original
read like this:
No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money
raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or
derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted
thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor
shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between
religious sects or denominations.
Most states subsequently adopted similar constitutional language.
Despite Congressman Blaine's Catholic wife and daughter, the amendment
bearing his name has unfortunately become synomous with anti-Catholic
and anti-religious sentiment. The Becket Fund has even established a
website devoted to overturning these protections keeping state funds
from flowing to religious organizations.
In her statement to the Commission at the hearing, K. Holly Hollman,
Counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty defended
these protections.
Quotes from her prepared remarks, which she was kind enough to send
me, are below:
The effort to refer to state constitutional provisions generally
as Blaine amendments and to dredge up ugly historical episodes in an
effort to discredit these provisions and prevent their enforcement
should be viewed with skepticism. Neither the history of these
constitutional amendments, much less their effect, can accurately be
captured by reference to one set of arguments made at a particular
time in history.
....
The "no-aid to religion" principle reflected in many state
constitutions, as in the federal Constitution, developed independently
of any bias against a particular religion. Its roots and effects are
tied closely to principles embedded in the American tradition of
religious liberty.
....
For Baptists, like those the BJC serves, the principle that
citizens should not be taxed to support religion is fundamental,
deeply rooted in the struggle against established religions and in the
Biblical command to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto
God that which is God's. It goes hand in hand with the principle that
the state should not interfere in ecclesiastical affairs. Baptist
history is filled with heroes of the faith that advocated for
religious freedom and separation of church and state.
....
[E]arly religious proponents of separation of church and state
fought specifically against any religious taxation. For them, the
matter was jurisdictional: the state has no legitimate power over
religious matters. Taxation to support churches contradicted their
belief that religious commitments must be voluntary to be valid.
They did not advocate that all faiths be given tax funds equally.
They believed the government lacked legitimate power to tax citizens
for the support of religion. The reasons they cited included
protection of freedom of conscience, the corrupting effect of
establishment on religious integrity, and threats to the vitality of
state-supported religion. These arguments did not involve a rejection
of the involvement of religious people in politics but a defense of
the independence of religious institutions. While historians may note
that these heroes of the faith differed on some aspects of separation
and the means by which they advocated them, their focus was against
any tax support of religious institutions, along with the equally held
commitment that government stay out of religious affairs.
Volumes have been written about these and other contributors to
religious freedom. Most significant for purposes of this discussion,
however, is that they articulated the principle that religion should
not be supported by tax dollars. They did so long before any
discussion of a "Blaine amendment" or the anti-Catholic sentiments
prevalent in the late nineteenth century. They made a contribution to
a school of thought reflected in our laws and popular opinions that is
still valid and valued today. Thus, the idea that religious
institutions should be self-supported long predates and is tied to the
fight for religious freedom for all. It is in no way diminished by
some who supported the concept for ill motives in later years.
....
The introduction of the (Blaine) amendment arose in a historical
context that involved more than the question of whether government
would fund parochial schools. The debate surrounding the... amendment
involved whether funding of religious schools violated principles of
religious freedom and no establishment, the nature of public education
(whether it would be religious or secular), the extent to which
education should be universal, whether the national government should
mandate public education, and how best to diffuse religious strife.
Even those that have harshly criticized the application of state
constitutional amendments admit that it was a much more diverse debate
than Catholics vs. nativists and included concerns of liberal
Protestants, free-thinkers, and Jews who opposed the nonsectarian, but
religious, character of the nation's schools. Many scholars recognize
the complexity of the Blaine Amendment as transcending the issue of
anti-Catholic animus.
More importantly for today's discussion, these historical events
have little relevance to the usage of the concepts in more recent times.
....
The principled argument that government should not fund religion,
including government funding of religious education and institutions,
is the enemy of discrimination, not the product of it. It is part of
our country's strong tradition of religious liberty. While debates
will certainly continue about the interpretation of particular
constitutional and statutory provisions governing the relationship
between church and state, we would do well not to denigrate the
traditions that have served our country well.
[Cross-posted in part from the blog of the Baptist Joint Committee]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
