Welfare Subsidizes Religion

John Schmidt

8/03/02

“Local editor charges welfare is unconstitutional because recipients contribute to churches.” I can just see the heading over the editorial.

Really, that is not exactly what he said, but the Palm Beach Post editor was crusading against state funded school vouchers going to religious schools. His head line was “Judge right on vouchers; state wrong on appeal.” There is a connection between the two topics.

In Florida, vouchers are made available to some parents to send their children to schools of their choice. And some turn out to be religious schools. So a Leon county circuit court judge ruled that such vouchers violate the state constitution. Article I reads in part: “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.”

According to judge Kevin Davey, parents’ actions amount to a “pass through,” of state money, so they are a violation of the constitution.

The state of Florida’s defense was based on the fact that the parents receive the money, not the schools. Some parents choose to send their children to religious schools, but it is their choice, not the state’s. That reasoning did not prevail.

To drive the point home all the more forcibly, the judge ruled that choosing a non-religious school is no problem. Only schools tainted by religion are off limits for ‘state’ money.

The state’s position on the issue is absolutely correct, and the judge is completely wrong. The legislature voted for vouchers intending to give parents a choice in their kids’ education. To deny some parents that choice subverts the heart of the legislation.

Historically, public monies have been given to students (or parents) to pursue legitimate educational purposes for a long time in this country. The GI bill after world war two sent many young men and women to technical, business and yes, theological schools with no protests arising over how the dollars were used. To hear the howls over grade school and high school vouchers going to religious schools, one would think this was a novel thing. History shows it is not.

Actually, some protests spring out of well-entrenched teacher’s and administrator’s unions seeking to retain control of huge sums of money tied to public school enrollment. In other words, it’s about money.

Other venom is directed against the Judeo-Christian religion itself. The “People for the American Way”, ACLU and others usually flock together in their opposition to religious expression. In other words, its about prejudice.

It might not even be so bad if these ‘defenders of the constitution’ were consistent, but their opposition to public money going to religious coffers is really quite selective.

This selectivity is exposed in the judges’ ruling. He may have proved too much in playing the ‘constitution card.’

Suppose we were audit the money granted to welfare recipients. We already know it is used for drugs, booze, cigarettes, Twinkies, sex, groceries, housing, clothing, transportation, and oh yes, contributions to churches.

If no state money can go to religious institutions, then what about welfare money being dropped in Sunday morning collection plates? Isn’t that a ‘pass through? Doesn’t the state constitution require that “NO revenue” may be used in aid of a church, sect or religious denomination…?”

Do we really expect to see Liberals and other opponents of religious vouchers do an about-face and reject the welfare system because it violates the same constitutional strictures the judge supposed he found? Never!

Nor will we see Judges and editorial writers willing to be bound by the logic of their rulings or writings either. Like it says in the banned Book: ‘They call for a waiter when there is a gnat in the soup, but will swallow a camel with hardly a hiccup.’

There are no camels, but there is an elephant lurking in the voucher tent. Judges and editors appear to be oblivious to its presence.

If the opponents of religious vouchers wish to continue the path they have chosen, so be it. But we ought to apply the logic of their own rulings and opinions to some of their precious icons. The brouhaha would be wondrous.

I can see one title now: “Welfare subsidizes Religion.”