FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Vouchers for Jesus

by KIMBERLY BLAKER

This month, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) filed suit over a recently approved Denver County voucher program in violation of Colorado’s constitution, the first voucher program to pass since the Supreme Court ruling one-year ago that vouchers are constitutional.

Despite the flawed decision of the conservative high court, most Americans consistently oppose school voucher programs, not because we don’t want to improve educational opportunities for all children, but because of ample arguments against them; the ultimate destruction posed by vouchers hardly warrants their implementation. But regardless of their devastating effects, it doesn’t prevent those who would erode the Separation Clause of the First Amendment and undermine the education of public school children from repeated attempts at legislating such programs.

Of particular concern is a reintroduced federally funded voucher proposal for Washington D.C. that would cover students’ tuition up to $11,000 each. Similar legislation for Washington was approved during the Clinton years, but vetoed by the President during his term. With President Bush now in office, the threat of conservatives realizing this vision is real, thus, the need for mainstream Americans to voice their concerns, crucial.

It’s common knowledge that the majority of private schools in the U.S. are parochial. What isn’t readily recognized is that, amazingly enough, many of these religious schools don’t exist to meet children’s academic needs. In stark contrast, a growing proportion has developed to protect children from learning. Fundamentalists are particularly threatened by history and science that’s in conflict with their beliefs. Equally alarming to them is public education’s new emphasis on the development of critical thinking skills.

Unlike the reasons many of us support school of choice, such as for varied learning environments, few religious schools operate with such needs in mind. Many have fewer offerings than public schools for learning disabled or gifted students. And unlike private secular schools established to offer alternative approaches to learning, many conservative religious schools go to the opposite extreme, requiring even more rote learning than public schools.

For Christian fundamentalist schools, religious indoctrination is typically the primary purpose; education is secondary. A substantial part of each day is devoted to recitation and memorization of scriptures and prayers, teaching children how to proselytize, and preparing them for a future of evangelizing.

Likewise, the parents of these children (those enrolling their children in fundamentalist Christian schools), are generally well-aware of the nature of the religious teachings and often send their children solely for such purposes.

In 1947, the Supreme Court ruled in Everson v. Board of Education that,

“Neither [the Federal Government or the state] can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. . . . No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. . . .”

There’s no question that a substantial number of vouchers would fall squarely into those areas that this Supreme Court ruling prohibits.

The fact that private and parochial schools are not obligated to meet the same criteria as public schools for assuring a full and satisfactory education and to assure children’s physical and emotional well-being is an even greater blow to the idea of siphoning tax dollars from public institutions.

Of course, where there’s a will, there’s a way. In recent years, fundamentalists have found ways around the voucher system. Although many charter schools have originated for valid reasons, many more have been underhandedly formed by Christian conservatives to institute their religious teachings through government subsidies.

Not all parents who support vouchers do so for religious purposes. Many are truly seeking better opportunities for their children, especially those in poor districts where private schools do sometimes outperform the public. School choice and better educational opportunities is a serious issue that needs addressing. But vouchers only partially band-aid the problem at the expense of other students while violating our Constitution in so doing.

Because many proponents of vouchers are minorities, the long-term effects could be monumental, even to those most in need of vouchers, as an uncompromised Constitution and Bill of Rights is what ultimately protects their civil rights on a broad range of issues.

KIMBERLY BLAKER is editor and coauthor of The Fundamentals of Extremism: the Christian Right in America. Send your comments to KIMBERLY BLAKER C/O [enter your newspaper here], or to: kblaker@TheWall-OnChurchAndState.com

© 2003, KIMBERLY BLAKER

 

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

August 30, 2016
Russell Mokhiber
Matt Funiciello and the Giant Sucking Sound Coming Off Lake Champlain
Mike Whitney
Three Cheers for Kaepernick: Is Sitting During the National Anthem an Acceptable Form of Protest?
Alice Bach
Sorrow and Grace in Palestine
Sam Husseini
Why We Should All Remain Seated: the Anti-Muslim Origins of “The Star-Spangled Banner”
Richard Moser
Transformative Movement Culture and the Inside/Outside Strategy: Do We Want to Win the Argument or Build the Movement?
Nozomi Hayase
Pathology, Incorporated: the Facade of American Democracy
David Swanson
Fredric Jameson’s War Machine
Jan Oberg
How Did the West Survive a Much Stronger Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact?
Linda Gunter
The Racism of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima Bombings
Dmitry Kovalevich
In Ukraine: Independence From the People
Omar Kassem
Turkey Breaks Out in Jarablus as Fear and Loathing Grip Europe
George Wuerthner
A Birthday Gift to the National Parks: the Maine Woods National Monument
Logan Glitterbomb
Indigenous Property Rights and the Dakota Access Pipeline
National Lawyers Guild
Solidarity with Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against Dakota Access Pipeline
Paul Messersmith-Glavin
100 in Anarchist Years
August 29, 2016
Eric Draitser
Hillary and the Clinton Foundation: Exemplars of America’s Political Rot
Patrick Timmons
Dildos on Campus, Gun in the Library: the New York Times and the Texas Gun War
Jack Rasmus
Bernie Sanders ‘OR’ Revolution: a Statement or a Question?
Richard Moser
Strategic Choreography and Inside/Outside Organizers
Nigel Clarke
President Obama’s “Now Watch This Drive” Moment
Robert Fisk
Iraq’s Willing Executioners
Wahid Azal
The Banality of Evil and the Ivory Tower Masterminds of the 1953 Coup d’Etat in Iran
Farzana Versey
Romancing the Activist
Frances Madeson
Meet the Geronimos: Apache Leader’s Descendants Talk About Living With the Legacy
Nauman Sadiq
The War on Terror and the Carter Doctrine
Lawrence Wittner
Does the Democratic Party Have a Progressive Platform–and Does It Matter?
Marjorie Cohn
Death to the Death Penalty in California
Winslow Myers
Asking the Right Questions
Rivera Sun
The Sane Candidate: Which Representatives Will End the Endless Wars?
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia District Attorney Hammered for Hypocrisy
Binoy Kampmark
Banning Burkinis: the Politics of Beachwear
Weekend Edition
August 26, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Louisa Willcox
The Unbearable Killing of Yellowstone’s Grizzlies: 2015 Shatters Records for Bear Deaths
Paul Buhle
In the Shadow of the CIA: Liberalism’s Big Embarrassing Moment
Rob Urie
Crisis and Opportunity
Charles Pierson
Wedding Crashers Who Kill
Richard Moser
What is the Inside/Outside Strategy?
Dirk Bezemer – Michael Hudson
Finance is Not the Economy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Bernie’s Used Cars
Margaret Kimberley
Hillary and Colin: the War Criminal Charade
Patrick Cockburn
Turkey’s Foray into Syria: a Gamble in a Very Dangerous Game
Ishmael Reed
Birther Tries to Flim Flam Blacks  
Brian Terrell
What Makes a Hate Group?
Andrew Levine
How Donald Trump Can Still be a Hero: Force the Guardians of the Duopoly to Open Up the Debates
Howard Lisnoff
Trouble in Political Paradise
Terry Tempest Williams
Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail