Are School Voucher Barriers Anti-Catholic? BJC Counsel Hollman Responds
Via Religion Clause, Catholic News Service reports on the meeting of the US Civil Rights Commission I posted about last week. The meeting focused on (state) constitutional barriers to school voucher programs, inaptly named "Blaine Amendments" by some. Those provisions specifically prohibit states from funding sectarian education, with language much more directly exclusive than the US Constitution's religions clauses.
In her opening statement on the panel, Baptist Joint Committee counsel K. Hollyn Hollman sought to support these state bans on public funding of religious education, and to counter charges that such prohibitions evince an anti-Catholic bias. A few quotes from her prepared remarks are in the extended entry below.
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. ... 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.