Heads
up, residents of Oklahoma: There’s a move afoot to strip your state
constitution of its strong language protecting separation of church and
state.
Rep. Jason Nelson, an Oklahoma City Republican, has proposed a ballot initiative that would ask voters to remove Article 2, Section 5, of the state constitution. This just happens to be the part of the constitution that separates religion and government.
Oklahoma, like a lot of states, has very specific church-state language currently in their constitutions. The provision in question states, “No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”
Nelson and his allies want to remove this provision to clear the way for voucher subsidies for religious and other private schools. The Rules Committee has already passed House Joint Resolution 1081 by an 11-1 vote, and now it faces a vote in the full House.
Those of you outside of Oklahoma should be concerned as well. Across the country, state constitutional church-state provisions are under attack. In Florida, the issue will appear on the ballot this November. Proponents there tried to rig the language to make the change sound benign. Church-State Separation organizations filed actions against it and succeeded in stopping the benign language and forcing it to state clearly the amendment would eliminate the separation of church and state. The measure is still scheduled for November. Hopefully the language will not be changed to something that masks what the measure would actually do.
There is legal action defend church-state provisions in Georgia, Alaska and Missouri. The problem could surface elsewhere. Many of the language is masked in a way that it looks like it is approving an education voucher program that can be used at private schools. The voter may not read the fine print that states that the separation clause will be repelled so that religion and state (government) would be able to commingle without violation of the state constitution.
To keep control on the states that are attempting to remove this separation of church and state provisions in their constitutions, most legal scholars thought that the US. Supreme Court would enforce the US constitution as the supreme law and require maintaining the separation. But in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s voucher plan aimed at the city of Cleveland. Since then, advocates of church-state separation have relied on state constitutional provisions to knock down vouchers in some states.
So now these religious zealots are hoping that by masking the language about the elimination of church and state, by making it about school vouchers and referring to that Supreme Court ruling, they hope the voter will not recognize that they are changing the their constitution to allow intertwined religion and governance.
The right wing has seen these victories and realizes that state constitutions are an important second line of defense in protecting taxpayers from mandatory support for religion. Their answer is to attack those provisions.
The irony is rich. The Religious Right, which so often claims to revere tradition, is willing to trash the basic freedoms found in state constitutions to promote its goal of taxing everyone to pay for the religious education of a few.
Rep. Jason Nelson, an Oklahoma City Republican, has proposed a ballot initiative that would ask voters to remove Article 2, Section 5, of the state constitution. This just happens to be the part of the constitution that separates religion and government.
Oklahoma, like a lot of states, has very specific church-state language currently in their constitutions. The provision in question states, “No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”
Nelson and his allies want to remove this provision to clear the way for voucher subsidies for religious and other private schools. The Rules Committee has already passed House Joint Resolution 1081 by an 11-1 vote, and now it faces a vote in the full House.
Those of you outside of Oklahoma should be concerned as well. Across the country, state constitutional church-state provisions are under attack. In Florida, the issue will appear on the ballot this November. Proponents there tried to rig the language to make the change sound benign. Church-State Separation organizations filed actions against it and succeeded in stopping the benign language and forcing it to state clearly the amendment would eliminate the separation of church and state. The measure is still scheduled for November. Hopefully the language will not be changed to something that masks what the measure would actually do.
There is legal action defend church-state provisions in Georgia, Alaska and Missouri. The problem could surface elsewhere. Many of the language is masked in a way that it looks like it is approving an education voucher program that can be used at private schools. The voter may not read the fine print that states that the separation clause will be repelled so that religion and state (government) would be able to commingle without violation of the state constitution.
To keep control on the states that are attempting to remove this separation of church and state provisions in their constitutions, most legal scholars thought that the US. Supreme Court would enforce the US constitution as the supreme law and require maintaining the separation. But in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s voucher plan aimed at the city of Cleveland. Since then, advocates of church-state separation have relied on state constitutional provisions to knock down vouchers in some states.
So now these religious zealots are hoping that by masking the language about the elimination of church and state, by making it about school vouchers and referring to that Supreme Court ruling, they hope the voter will not recognize that they are changing the their constitution to allow intertwined religion and governance.
The right wing has seen these victories and realizes that state constitutions are an important second line of defense in protecting taxpayers from mandatory support for religion. Their answer is to attack those provisions.
The irony is rich. The Religious Right, which so often claims to revere tradition, is willing to trash the basic freedoms found in state constitutions to promote its goal of taxing everyone to pay for the religious education of a few.
No comments:
Post a Comment