PRAYING WE DON'T REPEAT A MISTAKE

Do you agree that you have the right to practice your religion no matter what the majority of your neighbors' religious beliefs are? Do you think the state has the right to promote religious beliefs with which you might not agree – how about those with which you agree? The history of our constitutional thought has led us to at least voice the opinion that there should be a separation between church and state. Not all of us seem to agree with this, but generally, if asked, Americans think the best policy for government is is to stay away from attacking or promoting any religious belief or activity. This tradition began way back and is a product of a history of violence between religious zealots and their political spokespersons, including kings, dukes, and powerful noblemen. In the western world, the Treaty of Westphalia began a long string of compromises that finally led to our more modern view. A lot of blood bought us our more accommodating and tolerant view of others' religions. Should we hold vigilance against any back-tracking and/or look the other way when those who want to push their views about the supernatural among not only their fellow believers but the rest of us seem to be getting their way?

In Florida – a recurring site for so many of our current troubling news – we have a program that tests our commitment to this modern view. The governmental program provides vouchers to families so that they can send their children to private schools. The glitch is that these public funds, for over 80% of the 60,000 youngsters involved, go to religious schools. The goal is not subtle; it's to promote religious morals among the impressionable students. The reason this is a current issue is that the state legislature is considering expanding the $300 million program. Under the control of conservative Republicans, the bill will probably successfully make its way through the Legislature and be signed by Governor Rick Scott.

Given our constitution's First Amendment with its sanction against the establishment of religion by the state, how can such a program be legal? There are two cases that seem to give such a program the green light. The first is Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris in which the Supreme Court found such a program – one existing in Cleveland – to be constitutional. In doing so, the Court established a five element test for such programs. They ruled the Cleveland program okay because it met the following requirements: (1) program has to have a legitimate secular purpose, (2) needs to provide assistance to parents, with no funds going directly to schools, (3) must have a “broad class” of beneficiaries – as opposed to a specific group(s), (4) the vouchers must not be reserved for a particular religion and, therefore, favor any one faith, and (5) the program must be offered where there are sufficient non-religious options. A second case, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization vs. Winn, limits who can bring suits against such programs. This case was thrown out because it was brought by taxpayers, per se, and they did not have standing – any one taxpayer does not have enough skin in the game to claim enough harm. In the case of Cleveland, the program was initially geared to help low income parents get their kids into schools other than the low preforming public schools and, therefore, judged to be secular in its intent.

But in Florida, we see the proponents tip their hands with the new proposal before the Legislature. They want the expansion of the state's program to include parents with incomes over $60,000 a year. The median household income in Florida in 2012 was $47,000. So one can question this expansion's “valid secular” purpose. As Pasco County pastor, Alfred Johnson, proclaimed, “[t]hese programs are bringing an angle that the public schools cannot …”.¹ A delegation of parents, students, and teachers appeared at a legislative hearing that discussed the proposed expansion. They are reported to have “praised the existing program as a lifeline for families seeking an alternative to public schools, either to escape crowded schools or to attend a school that emphasizes religious values.”²

Individually, I am offended by this program. But that's me. I can't claim that it sends us back to those days when believers of different faiths fought over religious disagreements. It does, though, begin a process that could potentially lead to more virulent relations among the faithful. It also spends tax money of those who do not believe in any religion; I can't see where these people would not see the program as promoting religion – the program simply does that no matter how secular the original purpose of such a program is. This can be questioned in terms of justice. It serves to undermine and corrupt a governance based on equal protection. Atheists are not being equally protected by such a program especially when the law is intended to “bringing an angle that the public schools cannot.” In short, the program is dangerous and we all, including the religious, should be wary of its effect on our level of tolerance for those who do or don't agree with us when it comes to other worldly beliefs.

1Fineout, G. (2014). Private school voucher bill moves ahead. The Tallahassee Democrat, March 9, p. 15A. The facts of the Florida program reported in this posting are derived from this Associated Press article. Emphasis added.

2Ibid.