[ EDITORIAL ]

The Ledger Recommends - Constitutional Amendment: No on 8

Published: Monday, October 15, 2012 at 12:01 a.m.

Last Modified: Monday, October 15, 2012 at 12:00 a.m.

One of the enabling features of U.S. progress during the 20th century and on to today has been compulsory education.

The movement gained momentum in the early 1900s. By 1910, 72 percent of American children attended school. In 1918, every state required children to attend school — elementary school at a minimum.

Today, Florida's public-education system effectively requires students to attend high school. The Florida College System and the State University System make the step to higher education possible for some 1.1 million students annually.

State governments took on the responsibility for ensuring that generation after generation of students became educated. As a result, industry, agriculture, commerce and nearly all fields of business became more advanced, more technical and more capable — benefitting the whole nation.

Now, with a poor economy and excessive unemployment recovering slowly in the shadow of the Great Recession, public education has been squeezed by reduced state revenue and a hostile conservative supermajority in Tallahassee. The conservatives too often equate public schools and teachers — and thus public education — with liberalism and teacher unions, which they strongly oppose.

On top of that gloom, the Republican Legislature has proposed Amendment 8, which would further stress educational funding in Florida if passed by the necessary 60 percent of voters. It would do so by making it legal for the Legislature to fund religious schools as well as public schools. Funding could be provided as vouchers for students.

KEY CONSTITUTIONAL SENTENCE

The Religious Freedom amendment would remove from Article I, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution a sentence that enforces church-state separation by prohibiting governmental funds in Florida from going "in aid" of religious organizations: "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."

Leaving in the no-aid sentence would still permit the state to fund church-, religious- and sectarian-based groups for social and health care services, as is the case today.

Indeed, it is this aspect that the amendment's sponsors cite as a concern. A lawsuit, Council for Secular Humanism Inc. vs. McNeil in the Florida 1st District Court of Appeal, challenges the state funding for faith-based substance-abuse transitional-housing programs of Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God Ministries. Amendment supporters cite concern over ramifications if the state loses the case.

Removing the no-aid sentence would allow the Legislature to fund religious groups for a spectrum of reasons, with the greatest potential expenditure being for church-school and religious-based education. That would stretch — perhaps to the breaking point — funding for public schools, which could result in school districts struggling or unable to sustain operations.

DIVERSITY, DISCRIMINATION

An unintended — and underdiscussed — consequence of opening up state-government funding of religious organizations would be demands by religious groups that fall outside the Judeo-Christian churches and synagogues that the amendment's backers would be most likely to support. Religious freedom means exactly that, and religious organizations that are mainstream in parts of the world beyond the U.S. and Europe, or that are simply fringe religions, could rightly insist on their share of state funding.

Such diversity — and expected resistance to it — would bring the controversy over the no-aid provision full circle.

The no-aid approach came into being with the shameful rise of the Blaine Amendment in 1875. That proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution was made by U.S. Rep. James A. Blaine, R-Maine. The anti-Catholic effort was aimed at keeping government tax-based funding from Catholic schools, particularly those of Irish Catholics.

The proposed amendment passed the House of Representatives 180-7 but fell four votes short of meeting the required two-thirds vote in the Senate, and thus died in Congress. However, many states took up the discriminatory cause and passed their own Blaine amendments, including Florida in 1885.

Despite their contemptible original purpose, no-aid provisions were transformed into beneficial protections of funding for public education as the 20th century — and the nation — progressed. The Ledger recommends a NO vote on Amendment 8.

<p>One of the enabling features of U.S. progress during the 20th century and on to today has been compulsory education.</p><p>The movement gained momentum in the early 1900s. By 1910, 72 percent of American children attended school. In 1918, every state required children to attend school — elementary school at a minimum.</p><p>Today, Florida's public-education system effectively requires students to attend high school. The Florida College System and the State University System make the step to higher education possible for some 1.1 million students annually.</p><p>State governments took on the responsibility for ensuring that generation after generation of students became educated. As a result, industry, agriculture, commerce and nearly all fields of business became more advanced, more technical and more capable — benefitting the whole nation.</p><p>Now, with a poor economy and excessive unemployment recovering slowly in the shadow of the Great Recession, public education has been squeezed by reduced state revenue and a hostile conservative supermajority in Tallahassee. The conservatives too often equate public schools and teachers — and thus public education — with liberalism and teacher unions, which they strongly oppose.</p><p>On top of that gloom, the Republican Legislature has proposed Amendment 8, which would further stress educational funding in Florida if passed by the necessary 60 percent of voters. It would do so by making it legal for the Legislature to fund religious schools as well as public schools. Funding could be provided as vouchers for students.</p><p><b>KEY CONSTITUTIONAL SENTENCE</b></p><p>The Religious Freedom amendment would remove from Article I, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution a sentence that enforces church-state separation by prohibiting governmental funds in Florida from going "in aid" of religious organizations: "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."</p><p>Leaving in the no-aid sentence would still permit the state to fund church-, religious- and sectarian-based groups for social and health care services, as is the case today.</p><p>Indeed, it is this aspect that the amendment's sponsors cite as a concern. A lawsuit, Council for Secular Humanism Inc. vs. McNeil in the Florida 1st District Court of Appeal, challenges the state funding for faith-based substance-abuse transitional-housing programs of Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God Ministries. Amendment supporters cite concern over ramifications if the state loses the case.</p><p>Removing the no-aid sentence would allow the Legislature to fund religious groups for a spectrum of reasons, with the greatest potential expenditure being for church-school and religious-based education. That would stretch — perhaps to the breaking point — funding for public schools, which could result in school districts struggling or unable to sustain operations.</p><p><b>DIVERSITY, DISCRIMINATION</b></p><p>An unintended — and underdiscussed — consequence of opening up state-government funding of religious organizations would be demands by religious groups that fall outside the Judeo-Christian churches and synagogues that the amendment's backers would be most likely to support. Religious freedom means exactly that, and religious organizations that are mainstream in parts of the world beyond the U.S. and Europe, or that are simply fringe religions, could rightly insist on their share of state funding.</p><p>Such diversity — and expected resistance to it — would bring the controversy over the no-aid provision full circle.</p><p>The no-aid approach came into being with the shameful rise of the Blaine Amendment in 1875. That proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution was made by U.S. Rep. James A. Blaine, R-Maine. The anti-Catholic effort was aimed at keeping government tax-based funding from Catholic schools, particularly those of Irish Catholics.</p><p>The proposed amendment passed the House of Representatives 180-7 but fell four votes short of meeting the required two-thirds vote in the Senate, and thus died in Congress. However, many states took up the discriminatory cause and passed their own Blaine amendments, including Florida in 1885.</p><p>Despite their contemptible original purpose, no-aid provisions were transformed into beneficial protections of funding for public education as the 20th century — and the nation — progressed. The Ledger recommends a NO vote on Amendment 8.</p>