Title on Ballot: Religious Freedom
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature
Note: This proposal was known as Amendment 7 until a legal challenge by opponents led to the rewriting of some of the ballot language and its reinstatement on the ballot as Amendment 8. This is the reason there is no Amendment 7 on the 2012 ballot.
What it would do:
This amendment would remove the prohibition in Florida’s Constitution that prevents religious institutions from receiving taxpayer funding.
If You Vote Yes:
A “yes” vote means you want to remove from the Florida Constitution a prohibition against the state funding religious institutions and replace it with a provision that prohibits the state from denying funding to institutions based on religious affiliations.
If You Vote No:
A “no” vote means you want to retain the provision in the Florida Constitution that prohibits the state from funding religious institutions.
Click here to visit the Florida Division of Elections Background on Amendment 8 (including full text of the amendment):
Summary of Amendment (from Division of Elections site):
Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, governmental benefits, funding or other support, except as required by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.
Arguments for:
Supporters say the amendment would allow the state to fund programs that provide a valuable public service but are currently denied that funding because they are affiliated with religious organizations. They also say the current law that denies funding to religious groups was passed in 1885 and is rooted in anti-Catholic bias and should be removed from the state’s constitution.
Arguments against:
Opponents say the amendment would eliminate a long-established component of the separation of church and state that prevents the government from funding groups that espouse religious beliefs. They also say the anti-Catholic bias cited by supporters of the amendment was not a motivation for the law’s passage in 1885 and, even if it were, that bias no longer exists and should not be a reason for eliminating the ban on funding religious groups.
Should the state’s ban on funding religious activities be repealed?
Amendment 8 revives longstanding debates over the separation of church and state. If passed, it would repeal a 126-year-old provision in the state constitution that prohibits taxpayer funding of religious institutions. The provision – commonly known as the “no aid” provision – states more unequivocally than the U.S. Constitution that state funds not be spent “directly or indirectly” in support of any entity that promotes religion. If passed, the amendment would remove that prohibition.
An important subplot within Amendment 8 concerns its impact on future school voucher programs. Past programs that included religiously affiliated schools have been deemed unconstitutional partly due to the “no aid” provision. Passage of Amendment 8 would remove that obstacle to restarting voucher programs.
Supporters say the proposed amendment eliminates a stain on the state’s Constitution that discriminates against religious institutions. They also argue that it offers support to groups with religious affiliations that provide valuable community services, like prison ministries or church-run after-school programs. “This primarily will help our state to help the most vulnerable in our state by working with those organizations that are not providing religious services but providing human services,” state Sen. Thad Altman, R-Viera, told the Associated Press after the ballot proposal passed the Legislature.
Opponents say Amendment 8 will divert money from public schools and other public funding recipients and lead the state down a slippery slope by blurring the separation of church and state. They argue the amendment tramples on constitutional protections against the government promoting religion, and is a veiled attempt to reinstitute school voucher programs. Opponents point out that many religious programs, such as Catholic Charities, receive public funding under the current law provided they do not promote their religion.
Amendment 8 passed the Legislature largely along party lines, with Republicans in support and Democrats in opposition. As with all amendments, passage requires the approval of 60 percent or more of the voters. If passed, it takes effect on Jan. 8, 2013.
History
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The first part of the amendment is known as the Establishment Clause; the second part the Free Exercise Clause. Interpretations vary over the meaning and scope of the First Amendment. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 that he believed it built a “wall of separation” between church and state that is necessary to prevent the government from suppressing, or advocating, one religion over another. Others interpret it to mean only that the government is prohibited from establishing an official religion.
In 1875, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, John Blaine (R-Maine), proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the funding of religious education. Although the amendment failed, it inspired several dozen state legislatures to pass constitutional amendments prohibiting their states from funding religious organizations. Those state amendments became known collectively as “Blaine Amendments.” Not all are alike. Some prohibit the funding of religious schools only, while others prohibit the funding of all religious institutions. In 1885, Florida lawmakers passed Article 1 Section 3 of the Florida Constitution, a Blaine Amendment that includes the “no aid” provision and is among the most restrictive in the nation. Altered only slightly over the years, it reads:
“There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.”
The motivation for passing Blaine Amendments is considered by some scholars to be the influx of Catholic immigrants to the United States in the late 1800s. “Public schools at this time led students in reciting the Protestant but not Catholic prayers and reading from the Protestant but not the Catholic version of the bible,” George Washing University law professor Ira Lupu said in a 2008 interview with the nonprofit Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. That led Catholics to begin their own schools, Lupus said, arousing fears among Protestants that the state would fund those schools. “The Blaine Amendments arose from this concern about the Catholicization of American education,” he said.
That’s where the “Religious Freedom” title for Amendment 8 is derived. It is also the basis for including language in the joint legislative resolution proposing the amendment that talks about restoring “religious liberty and freedom” and eradicating the “remnants of anti-religious bigotry from the State Constitution.” The resolution goes on to say, “Florida’s Blaine Amendment language was borne in an atmosphere of, and exists as a result of, anti-Catholic bigotry and animus.” State Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, said passage of the amendment will remedy a centuries-old wrong. “This is the last vestige of the know-nothing, anti-Catholic movement of the 1800’s,” he said in an Associated Press article published after the amendment’s passage.
However, this belief is challenged in a 2011 report by the American Civil Liberties Union that says the effort to repeal the “no aid” provision is “based on historical myth.” Citing legal cases and historical records, the report finds no evidence of anti-Catholic bias when Florida lawmakers approved the Blaine Amendment in 1885, 10 years after the failed federal effort. “Scholars on all sides of the political spectrum agree that nothing in the legislative record demonstrates an anti-Catholic slant by any of the framers who have revised the Florida Constitution since the Civil War,” the ACLU says. “And the Florida First District Court of Appeal has explicitly considered and rejected the argument that Florida’s no-funding clause was rooted in religious intolerance, holding that ‘nothing in the history or text of the Florida no-aid provision suggests animus towards religion.’ ”
As further evidence, the report says no Catholic Church official spoke in opposition to the “no aid” language during the debate in 1885, and that the state Constitution has been re-ratified three times between 1968 and 1997 without objection to the “no aid” rule. It suggests the motivation for passing Amendment 8 is rooted in a school voucher program rejected by the Florida Supreme Court in 2006. “Aware that, across the country, voters have consistently rejected plans to use taxpayer funds to subsidize private religious education, supporters of the repeal have instead raised a red herring, claiming that Florida’s no aid provision arose out of anti-Catholic bigotry and continues to promote such prejudice today,” the report says. “This contention is, simply put, false.” Rather than infringing upon religious freedom, the ACLU report says, the “no aid” provision has actually “protected the religious-freedom rights of all Floridians by barring taxpayer-funded aid to religious institutions.” That’s why the framers adopted it and why it has been ratified three times since, the ACLU says.
Current Law
The state’s provision that no aid be given “directly or indirectly” to religious institutions makes its Blaine Amendment more restrictive than Blaine Amendments in other states. According to Professor Lupu, “…the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Ohio voucher program that gave state funding to low-income parents, allowing them to send their children to any private school participating in the program. Even though the vast majority of the participating private schools were religious, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause permitted the program because parents could choose feely among participating religious schools, participating private secular schools and public schools. But…a lower court in Florida decided that a very similar program in that state violated the Florida Blaine Amendment. The Florida court explained that although the program was allowed under the Establishment Clause, it violated the state’s Blaine Amendment, which forbids Florida from directly or indirectly funding schools.”
Vouchers
Wisconsin passed the nation’s first school voucher program in 1990 and in 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school voucher programs are not prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Since then, more than a dozen states have passed voucher laws. In many cases the parents are eligible for a voucher that is equivalent to the yearly cost of educating a child in the public school system in the district where the student lives. Proponents say vouchers give students a way out of failing schools and improve the overall performance of public schools by putting them in competition with private schools. Opponents say they drain revenue from public schools in need of every tax dollar.
Gov. Jeb Bush campaigned for governor in 1998 on education reform and after his election the Legislature passed the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Among other things, the program offered vouchers to the parents of students in failing public schools (those schools graded “F” by the state two times over a four-year period). The money was put in a voucher fund and given to parents who chose to pull their children from a failing school. Parents could enroll their student in any private school, whether church-run or not, and use the state voucher money to help with tuition.
Legal challenges resulted in two significant rulings: a 2004 appellate court ruling that found the voucher program violated the state constitution’s “no aid” provision by supporting religious schools; and a 2006 Florida Supreme Court ruling that found the program violated an education clause in the state constitution that requires the state keep a “uniform system of public schools.” As it now stands, the Florida Supreme Court prohibits the Bush school voucher program because it violates the constitutional requirement that the state maintain a “uniform system of public schools,” not because of the “no aid” provision. Therefore, passage of Amendment 8, while removing the “no aid” provision from the constitution, would not have the immediate effect of opening the door to re-instituting the school voucher program. It would, however, eliminate the “no aid” barrier if future attempts are made to pass a school voucher program.
Amendment 8
The “no aid” language in the Blaine Amendment that currently reads:
“…No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.”
Amendment 8 proposes to change that language to read:
“…Except to the extent required by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, neither the government nor any agent of the government may deny to any individual or entity the benefits of any program, funding, or other support on the basis of religious identity or belief.”
That change eliminates the “no aid” language considered by supporters of Amendment 8 to be a constitutional impediment to religious entities receiving state funding.
IF YOU VOTE YES:
A “yes” vote means you want to remove from the Florida Constitution a prohibition against the state funding religious institutions and replace it with a provision that prohibits the state from denying funding to institutions based on religious affiliations.
IF YOU VOTE NO:
A “no” vote means you want to retain the provision in the Florida Constitution that prohibits the state from funding religious institutions.
___________________________________________
I am in total disagreement with ANY public funding of ANY entity of ANY religious organization for a couple of reasons. 1) While I know the work they do is a positive influence in our society I do not feel thet tax dollars should be used by any religious organization or any other organization that does not pay taxes. It appears to me to be rather like having you cake and eating it too. 2) I have lived and observed countries that do no have separation of church and state and don’t care to bring it to the United States on any level. I realize it may be an extreme scenerio, but look at Iran. Or is it extreme? Every little chipping away of separation is a step closer to that.
The whole separation of church (read: religion) and state was brought up way back when because of the need for the church to not be influenced by the government, not the other way around. That’s why so many came to this country in the first place: oppressive governments forcing beliefs on to their people. If you think about it, if government doesn’t influence the church, then the church can’t exactly influence the government since it’s a two way road. Sure, religion influences individuals, but in a governmental system that can’t interact with religion, there should be little to no effect of religion on government. Certain religious elements do indeed exist in government, but the impact of those things is actually very minimal if it even has any real impact. Additionally, the impact it does have does not interfere with anyone else’s religion. Also, being “insulting” just for existing is not having an impact. That’s simply fools being fools. For example: “In God We Trust.” How does that REALLY impact anyone and how does it impair the ability for any individual to believe (or not believe) in whatever they want? The answer is: It doesn’t.
Religious freedom is freedom to worship without anyone else’s interference. If the government were able to give public funds to religious organizations or causes, that would be a form of influence. The government never gives out of the goodness of its heart since the government has NO heart. Therefore, there will always be strings attached. Churches should always be funded by the individuals who participate in it. Since government can’t and shouldn’t participate in any religious function, they should stay the heck out. I will be voting NO very vehemently.
Catherine, you had me at point 1 – having their cake and eating it too.
I see this as another way for our elected officials to skirt making actual changes in our education system which would bring them up to the levels we see in private schools. Our education system needs some strong voices to decrease the level of authority of the unions on teachers, to provide teachers who are actually qualified and are not just looking for a govt. job, to cut out all the mandated, unfunded , programs and let the teachers actually teach and replace funding that was garnered from us tax payers to go to the schools where it should go.
Oh, because government jobs are so cushy, especially for teachers… give me a break
Private schools can decide who they will have as students. You cannot compare private to public. Most private schools are not that great either, and they do not take the same test as public school kids to measure performance, so I’m not sure which “level” of private school you are referring to in your post.
I, too, oppose funding religious institutions with taxpayer dollars. My particular religious beliefs preclude me from supporting any others, so the thought that my tax money would go to fund the teaching of what my religion teaches is heresy — well, that’s simply unacceptable. Or, in the words of Thomas Jefferson: “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Thomas Jefferson, while president of the United States, granted federal money to religious institutions of higher learning. Princeton, as an eample. Also, just for your edification, there is NO provision in the US Constitution addressing “separation of church and state.” It aint there. There are a lot of people who wish it were there and who have used the expression so many times that people think it is, but it isn’t.
I’m with you on this one Babs. Thomas Jefferson, my, in the top 5 presidents. Simply brilliant. The clowns in office today are not worthy to lace his boots. If he only knew what has become of us. I weep for the future. Good day!
I see People With no thought of how we can make better schools in Florida .because not wanting to help out all people with God given rights ,that we are found by the Church and Our Sighners of laws and Justice,I think that all should have free rights to ask for help from Church and State Florida .don’t forget the writeing on our great seal of the flag of Florida ,
In GOD WE TRUST ,Think befor you vote ask and you shall get Information from this web site in Lake County,FL.
As a Christian man are you aware that this also extends to Mosques (Muslim), Oshrams (Hindu), Buddhist temples, Catholic churches, Protestant, Seventh Day Adventists, The Satanic Church, Wiccan covens, Shamanism, Voodoo, etc.?
It says “regardless of religious beliefs” so the state would not be able to fund a Christian school without funding a school across town that is teaching witchcraft.
As a Christian, you must remember that your religion is not the only religion in the state of Florida and you must be comfortable with state funding being given to those who practice religions with which your religion is in conflict.
argeed, but the secular huminist schools are already teaching that “religion” to our kids at taxpayer expense, and have been doing so for years.
You summed it up right there this is why we have to understand clearly what this amendment will do to our state.
Said perfectly Katherine, putting it in perspective.
Katherine, agree with your sound statement. Everyone or no one. No on this ill conceived Constitutional amendment.
Why in the world would we want to fund religious organizations that do not pay taxes? I agree that our schools need to get better, but this is NOT the way to accomplish that goal.
Churches are already tax exempt and now our tax dollars will be shoveled through their doors? The only purpose of this amendment is to defund our public schools. The governors buddies will open up private for-profit “religious” schools because they want to profit from our tax dollars.
I hope you will read the post Katherine shared, that is why we should vote NO
When religious groups (churches, etc.) pay their fair share of taxes, I will gladly vote in favor of this. Until then, it’s best to keep the church and state as far away from each other as humanly possible. Sounds like a bunch of do gooders want all the benefits of tax revenue, but none of the responsibilites. The ends do not justify the means. To say the programs are good for society and therefore worthy of funds is no different than saying the ends justify the means. This one gets a NO vote.
Churches all over america spend millions of dollars annually on charity works. They give freely to all kinds of needs in america without publicity or state recognition. If they spend so much money on the needy, then the stere should help out so they can expand their services and take a load of the state.
Why? If the state is giving them money, then the taxpayer’s money is still being spent and there is no “load” being taken off of the state. What is being done is teaching kids religious beliefs with taxpayer dollars. Uh-uh.
Which is why they are non-profit, tax exempt charitable organizations! They already get the public benefit of being tax-exempt. This isn’t so much about helping out (religious) organizations to do more good work as it is about getting on that slippery slope of mixing religion and government. And government giving school vouchers for private religious schools only siphons funds away from public schools that badly need them. If public schools fail, our entire society fails our children, and many of them will then fail us. A solid quality education for ALL children benefits us ALL. WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER, PEOPLE.
Daniel, yes they do spend much money on helping others and that is why religious organizations are tax-exempt to begin with, and why you donations entitle you to a tax deduction. Katherine states it clearly, that having the cake precludes eating it too. Unless its red velvet cake, then I’m all in!
No public funding for churches and also tax the churches, the property owned by and the businesses run by the churches.
I am absolutely with you Stan. I think a way out of our economic mess is to tax the churches. They own unbelievable amounts of property that is not taxed and in my opinion should be. No public funding for churches.
My TAX dollars going to a Church I do NOT attend!
Absolutely NOT!!!!!!
I’ve never understood how churches were exempt….some take in grandios sums and spend it build glass castles…..when the funds could be used more wisely. If they have $$ to do this they do not need funding….
Why are our schools not being supported by the lottery, as it was sold to us many moons ago… That was the whole purpose of the lottery….
Whatever happened to funds deposited as good faith money to allow Seminoles to bring more gambling to Fla???? Was a huge deal way back trying to decide if Charlie Crist had the authority to accept funds on behalf of the state and then suddenly nothing.
There is no explanation short of the most flagrant of bi-partisan ethical, political and moral corruption that the state legislature that proposed both Amendment 1 and Amendment 8 could be one and the same.
Church and state should be separate with NO public funds coming from the public. Perhaps the churches should start paying their share of taxes?
Babette, so your church precludes you from supporting other faiths. You have been taught what others believe is heresy. I commend you for standing up for what you believe. Jefferson was right we should not have to support ideas we do not believe in with our taxes. Unfortunately we are probably all doing that to one extent or another. Think about the federal programs and ideas you are forced to support with your tax dollars. You may feel that supporting gay marriage, contraception, abortion or giving millions to countries who hate us like Egypt, Libya and Pakistan goes against your belief. It does not matter because unless you want to do time for not paying your taxes you will have to support these concepts unless you can get the ear of a Congressman. I don’t know whether I want to support this amendment or not. I am a Christian and will be asking God for advice on not only this amendment but all of them. If Amendment 8 is passed, my advice to religious groups is be careful about taking funds. If you take their money, there are liable to be strings attached. Be Careful.
You know what I want to see? A charitable organization that does not try to get you to accept their religion in order to receive their charity.
We have got to be losing our minds up there in the Florida Legislature.
If you want to get your charity sponsored by tax dollars then you’ll have to start a non-profit charity, which are tax exempt anyhow, and leave God, Satan, Bast, Baphomet, Ganesh and Buddha out of it!
Anti-Catholic… Psshhhaaawwww!
Reciting any prayers in public forum is anti-atheist.
With government money always comes government control. This amendment will have the (perhaps) unintended result of REDUCING religious freedom for those institutions so short-sighted as to accept government support. If a religious organization is doing GOD’s will, He will provide the resources needed to carry on the work. I will vote no.
Amen!
By voting yes to this amendment, although on the surface it looks good, it will only open Pandora’s Box.
At the time the Constitution was written, England used church membership to prohibit the Irish from voting or holding public
office. this was a recoginzed affront to the framers of the Constitution and the basis of its inclusion in the Constitution. The rate
payers are required to fund the schools, but the transfer of their taxis to church schools would lead to the opening of storefront
schools throughout the country. Every storefront selfproclaimed preacher would have opportunity to open a school at the tax-
payer expense for some wild religion. I would oppose opening the door for this opportunity.
I am so upset about this I can’t find enough spit to talk about it. To even suggest something of this nature is absurd. Our forfathers are already turning over in the grave as we throw America under the bus with absurdities. My suggestion: Find the person, (s), who instigated this bs. How much longer are we gonna lay down and allow this to happen. And if you look at the ballot, it’s put to us, the voter, as Religous Freedom. Find the scoundrel (s) who deceptively put this out there and get him/her out of office. Stand UP!
The most dangerous part of this amendment is the two words used in BOLD on the ballot: Religious Freedom. How many voters we actually read and understand the text that proceeds this? Look at it from this perspective – Religious Freedom? Yes/No.
Betcha this gets passed…. ugh.
When the churches start paying taxes on all the money they take in, then maybe I’ll think about giving them some of our tax money. But until then, no wsy!!!
I’m so glad to see so much opposition to this amendment. It’s bad for both sides as Dick said above. Tax dollars should go to tax payers. There are plenty of non-religious institutions, providing the same services as those referred to in the arguments for this amendment, which could better use that taxpayer money.
Dick- right on! I could not agree more!
Interesting comments on both sides of the issue! One point I am still not understanding….maybe someone can help me with this. Although Florida’s appellate court back in 2004 struck down “voucher” programs for religious schools under the current Blaine ammendment “no aid” clause, why is it that other programs are essentially doing the same thing???? Case in point, the Step Up for Students corporate tax scholarship is currently given to low income parents who qualify, and can be used to attend ANY private school (religious or secular) which participates in the program through the FL School Choice office. The same case exists for the McKay scholarships for children with special needs. Am I missing something here? Are not these programs also funded with tax dollars? What makes these programs acceptable, and not the older school voucher program which was struck down??? Can anyone shed any light here?
I will vote no on this amendment, not because I think it’s a terrible idea, but because we won’t always have a Governor who is friendly to religion. If a religious organization or church receives state funds, then the state has the right to dictate to the church, organization, etc., what they can and cannot do, teach, yada yada…
This would definitely violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause.
1. As an ex-Duval County teacher and a tax payer I prefer my tax dollars go to the best school for a child – be it religious or not.
2. What about other non-profits? Do you know that the YWCA in Jacksonvillle changed it’s name to get public funding? Couldn’t keep Christian in the name and get funding even though it has programs supporting 100′s of local kids after school
3. And some non-profits like the Donna Hicken Foundation utilize churches to manage their funds – (Catholic Charities in this case.)
Stop being so anti-religious people. Is it all good? No. But neither is ANY group of imperfect humans. So why discriminate against these groups?
My grandmother taught me something that I think applies very appropiately here to the question being raised whether to change this meaning of what some of our fore fathers thought would be good for generations to come.
“if it ain’t broke don’t try and fixit”. As a Baptist preacher the one thing I know that do not want is for any government intervention into any aspect of Church Business.
Having been raised in Utah, the home base of the LDS church (Mormans), I can tell yah that absolute seperation of church and state isn’t possible. That being said, the folks in Utah do a pretty good job of keeping the two apart. In high school, if one wanted to take the seminary class (as an ellective), you had to walk off school property to the “seminary building” across the street. “The Church” paid for everything associated with the class, to include insurance for off-campus activities. The Mormans also run their own “welfare” program (for church members) and take no tax dollars to do either activity. The Catholics also run a school and somehow find the tuition for each student; no aid from the state. And it seems to me that missionaries get “points in heaven” for doing gods work as a “calling”, not as an extension of Ceasar. I’m a firm believer in the seperation thing and will be voting No.
I think this amendment just eliminates religion as a criterion for receiving taxpayer funding (or not receiving it). If the state government considers some activity worth subsidizing, it should not be against the law to subsidize it through a religious institution, in my opinion. It is NOT taxpayer subsidizing of religion, it is taxpayer subsidizing of the public support or help the religious entity is providing. I think school vouchers are necessary to give parents a choice to remove their kid from a failing public school.
OMG. My God will take care of his churches – that means all churches – not just the one the “so-called” Christians talk about. They don’t need the State’s help. Our GOOD public schools need the help. Stop taking their funding away and they will thrive. Those that want their children in the private religious schools should pay for their education. They knew the deal when they put them in a private school!
I am devout Christian and I am voting NO on this amendment. State funding of any religious institution is extremely dangerous. It is not about “separation of Church and State” which appears NO WHERE in our constitution. It is about not having tax payer dollars go to fund something tax payers may disagree with. I am not about to force my atheist neighbor pay for funding of Christian program. We need to stop looking to the government as our provider. By defaulting to the government for aid these religious institutions are not going to demand charity from their adherents. I am sorry, but like it or not Christ demanded that individuals, not the government or the collective, take care of one another. We need to stop defaulting to the government, this is not its role. I am voting NO because public funding of religious institutions means that I am using mob rule to force those who would disagree with the religion being funded to fund anyway. This is wrong.
I agree with Kathryn and Dick. I am a Christian and I don’t want my tax dollars going to a religious entity or organization that teaches any and all beliefs that would harm the good that most churches do. Also, I don’t want government influence or control in my church. Dick is right. It would eventually lead to taking away our religious freedom. I also agree that if a church or religious organization is doing God’s will, then God’s people will supply the resources to carry on the work.
Why this amendent is even being brought up is beyond me. The separation of church and state were working just fine. How a family wanting to better educate their children and getting them out of a failing school and into a better school became a religious issue is absurd. A voucher given to an individual to assist in the education of their child is a private matter. The voucher plan was not to fund any religious program. The state was not telling an individual where to use the voucher, but there are lots of people who want to tell the individual where they CANNOT use the voucher. Where are all the pro-choice voices here? This is a personal choice, secular or non-secular. Lets take the state supported religion aspect out of the education issue and concentrate on Education separately.
The problem is that the State and Federal governments already tax us for the “politically correct” religion of the day–Evolution (neo-Darwinism) and Humanism. We all have to pay for it, even though it means being forced to pay for something that is an abhorance to some of us. Also, depending on the choices of individual teachers, many public students are taught that witchcraft, homosexuality, globalism, Islam, yoga ideals, and many other religious are normal and good, even though they defy the Blaine Ammendment. Probably, we should keep the Blaine Ammendment and take public institutions to court for breaking it.
Simply read Thomas Jefferson. He was the main author of the idea of the separation of church and state. We as Americans have this uninformed idea that America is a Christian nation. We are not. The idea that we accept all people exempts us, in fact, denies us the ability to be subjected to one group of people We are a secular nation. We should be proud of that. Jefferson was fanatic about the principle of a wall between church and state. The first amendment does not establish the U.S. as a religious state. It protects religion from government. All religions should be the first to stand for the separation of church and state. It prevents the religions from being questioned. If our government should include religion as part of its doctrine then the religions should be subjected to taxation and questioning. Would you still support your church financially if you actually knew where your money went? If it was taxed? If government told the church how to spend or collect it’s revenue? Think people! I personally am an atheist and think all religion is a fascinating testimony to the weakness of the common man. But I do support the right for you to worship and will, as a staunch supporter of the Constitution, defend that right under the first amendment. Any religious American should be extremely objective to any law that allows for the mingling of church and state. Again, wake up and inform yourself. Do not allow any one to subject your rights. For GOD’S SAKE read the CONSTITUTION!!! Practice your religion under the protection of the Constitution. Do not disrespect or degrade it by claiming your religion is superior!
Why is it that Americans are so short sighted that they can not see the reason for separation of church and state? Ed has a point that no one should ignore. The government came out with public Act 194-42 in the 8Os. It was a much sought after bill to help special needs children. It had all the right intentions and seemed invaluable at the time. It certainly helped the children and other people for whom it was intended, but, in doing so the private schools were told how they would handle these children in order to accomplish the laws intent. The religiously based programs initially refused the funding, until the law was modified to ultimately make the public sector responsible for this bill’s mandates and thus the children and people involved were thrown back on the public system. This will ultimately end up severely weakening the public portion of our school systems as they will end up with all of the children that the religious groups are unwilling to accept in their system. They presently have waiting lists to get into their schools, so it won’t do anything for the children who are failing in the public system they have the right of exclusion, for now! If this bill passes the private schools should be held to the standards that all public schools are required to adhere to. Particularly, that no child shall be turned away and regardless of behavior or parental support they be required to deal with all comers. If this does not happen you will see an even bigger rift between the classes than we presently have. It is not about race, it is about classes in our society. Government just wants you to believe it is about race and they get all kinds of support for this concept from people who can’t see the big picture. Either the private schools are held accountable for the “equal educational opportunity” laws that the public schools are held to or you will see what is really going to happen in this country. As a middle class person I can not sit idly and watch this happen to the country I feel is one of the greatest ever. Please remember the french revolution, remember the holocaust, look at the countries that do not have separation of church and state. Please pull your head out of the sand long enough to realize this is only a way of keeping the well to do from having their children go to the same schools as your child. “IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CLASS ISSUE THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO CREATE. By the way, how many people do you think actually take the time to read this page and or read the comments that are put here?
It was actually P.A. 94-142. My bad!
Intra-Christian discussions are not paying attention to the possibility of Muhammadin Schools use of public funds. Though I find govt school woefully lacking, the high risk is being ignored. It will pass nevertheless.
I oppose. 1- Separation of church and state, 2- Religions are already tax exempt and 3- Religious organizations could use tax moneys to fund terrorists groups.
Anybody else seriously concerned that uninformed voters will see the title of this amendment (Religious Freedom) and just vote ‘yes’?