Dredging up ugliness in the name of vouchers

By K. Hollyn Hollman

Church-State Intersection
September 11, 2002

Energized by their Supreme Court victory in June, advocates of school vouchers have set their sights on a new target. They are now trying to discredit, and eventually dismantle, state constitutional provisions that present a larger obstacle to government funding of religious institutions than the First Amendment.

In "Retrograde on School Choice" [op-ed, Aug. 22], Nathan J. Diament depicts these provisions as nothing more than "remnants of religious bigotry," tainted by the times in which they were passed.

Undoubtedly some supporters of the "Blaine amendments," named for the Republican senator who lobbied unsuccessfully for an amendment at the federal level in 1875, were motivated by anti-Catholic bias. But the relevance of this ugly episode in our country's history to the current school voucher debate is highly suspect for several reasons.

First, the concept of church-state separation, including the notion that religious institutions should be self-supported and self-governing, predates and is in no way diminished by the anti-Catholic sentiments of some who supported the concept during the 1870s. It was Roger Williams, the 17th-century founder of Rhode Island, who first advocated a "wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." The legal provisions that promote church-state separation, which were championed by Founders such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, have been good for both government and religion.

Many Baptists and other people of faith cling to these laws as the best way to protect the religious liberty that has allowed so many diverse communities of believers to flourish in America. They share a sincere conviction that tax dollars should not be used to finance the teaching of any religion — including their own — because they believe that autonomy from the state is good for all religions. This principled stance is the enemy of discrimination, not the product of it.

Second, it is well known that politics makes strange bedfellows. If laws and institutions are to be evaluated in the present based on who supported them in the past, other targets could be next in line. Should we dismantle the public schools because some early proponents of universal public education were anti-Catholic? Should we repeal Title VII's ban on sex discrimination because it was originally proposed by segregationists seeking to defeat civil rights legislation? While we're at it, maybe we should close any private schools — whatever their racial composition today — that were initially established as "segregation academies" when public schools began to integrate.

The principal test of an institution's viability should be its contribution to society, not its historical origins, and church-state separation has long served our nation well.

Finally, it is ironic that voucher proponents would attack the Blaine amendments as "remnants of bigotry" when the primary effect of church-state separation over time has been to reduce sectarian strife. After all, what is more likely to produce animus toward and among religious institutions than making the government a collection agency for religious schools?

The campaign to emphasize an anomalous period of religious conflict threatens to mislead Americans about the historical origins and contemporary importance of church-state separation — an ideal that promises religious liberty for all, not for some.

This column is reprinted as it appeared in the Aug. 31 edition of The Washington Post.