2008
Topic D
August 8, 2008

CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATION
by Senator Lowen Kruse

The issue of separation of church and state is so old I became bored with it. We all agree that neither should control the other, so let's move on. Then I found what some very clever politicians are planning to do this fall and decided I have become naive.

For basics, the separation of church and state is not in our constitutional documents. Rather, our law is about control, coming off of centuries of state churches and church states in history. Our founders were clearly negative to both forms of control.

The usual chatter has been boring, and frankly silly. Every week I receive at least one forwarded email declaring that schools can not use the Pledge of Allegiance because it includes “One nation under God.” Sometimes it is an adult-written piece allegedly from a sixth grade boy, wishing he could pray in school. Such nonsense is manufactured.

The Pledge is in every school I visit, and no one I know objects to a student praying. What we should object to is school-sponsored prayer. I am so grateful that no teacher can force religion on my grand daughters. If you are a Mormon, or a Buddhist, or a Moslem, or a Baptist -- and on -- teaching a child how to pray your way is the most effective proselytizing I know. I have taught prayer. It sneaks in on a person. In prayer, you can persuasively convey that God is a God of love, or of punishment, or of control, or who takes grandmothers, or who selects which scouts shall live.

That is not a teacher's job. A high school coach in New Jersey (near my family) insisted that his prayers with the team were harmless. (Prayer is harmless?! That is another problem.) He convinced a judge that he was not teaching religion, but on appeal a three judge court was unanimous in saying, “(These actions) would lead a reasonable observer to conclude that he was endorsing religion.” One judge added that he was troubled by the student reaction to the issue. Two Jewish cheerleaders, he said, were “taunted, bullied and booed.” Blogs were hostile: “First they crucify Jesus (and now the coach) .... Jews gotta learn to stop ruining everything cool.” Another blog spoke of Damn Jews and Hitler’s reaction. The judge continues, “Given the nature of these venomous comments, counsel cannot seriously suggest that the evidence be ignored (merely because parents and students who protest the prayer would not do so in court).”

Florida gives us much more troubling news. Former Governor Jeb Bush has maneuvered a tax commission to place two items on the ballot in November simply because it is the only group that can legally do so without restraint. Objectors to the bogus process were set aside. His brother, our president, said that states should change their constitutions so that states can fund religious schools. He implied our restrictions are left over from anti-Catholic sentiment 120 years ago, so are no longer relevant. A clever spin. I have no problem with religious schools who teach their own content, as long as they pay their own bills. I personally give support to several such schools that are doing an exceptional job with troubled kids. But it is beyond reason that the rest of us should help pay those bills through taxes, especially when we do not vote on the teachings.

Amendment 7 in Florida would strike current constitutional language that forbids the use of any public funds “directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination of in aid of any sectarian institution.” In its place would be: “An individual or entity may not be barred from participating in any public program because of religion.” Hoo Boy. Imagine a court trying to give clear definition to those last words.

Amendment 9 would compromise the constitution's language which now requires, as a “paramount duty of the state,” the provision of a “uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools.” Language to be added: “this duty shall be fulfilled, as a minimum and exclusively (through public schools).”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which has fought the good fight on these issues for years, and provided the above legal copy, adds its leaders' thoughts: “Analysts said the two amendments combined would eliminate any state constitutional barriers to tax aid for religious schools and other ministries of all sorts, and some experts thought the vague wording might even require public funding of 'faith-based' social services, even if they evangelize and discriminate in hiring.”

Dobson (Focus on the Family) and many religious right leaders are cheering Florida on and also urging pastors to defy the IRS and have their congregations endorse candidates. They call it religious freedom. No freedom escapes its consequences. Religious freedom is about freedom to worship, not freedom to control elections and thereby the state.

Code language you will hear in campaigns asks to “increase funding for faith-based initiatives” and “support vouchers.” A voucher system, where parents are given tax funds to purchase their child's education at a private institution, presumably has been positive in some places. However, there are real problems. First, any good voucher system requires a standard of teaching, and tests to see if it happens. Many schools, including a few that are strictly a for-profit business venture, have failed the test. Second, they “cherry pick” the best students and do not ever have to accept all the kids in the neighborhood, which a public school always has to do. Third, recipients are not supposed to use state funds to teach doctrine but of course that is winked at continuously. How does a devoted faith-based teacher exclude religion from a lesson in history? Or family economics? Or geology? Or social studies? Or literature? Fourth, and by far the most disturbing, promoters want the requirement of quality education changed so that voucher schools can work with little supervision.

Why are they taking this radical action? Obviously, they cannot now legally do what they desire to do. So, change the constitution with words the public will not understand.

I am no longer bored. These are dangerous proposals which are subversive to traditional values and guaranteed to hurt the quality of education for ALL of our children.

Lowen Kruse