Nevada Lawmakers Betray Trusts

  Edd Doerr fins a column titled “What part of ‘no’ don’t Nevada Republicans understand?”, by Allan Powell, interesting.  It was published in the Hagerstown (MD) Herald-Mail on June 12. Powell is professor emeritus of philosophy at Hagerstown Community College and writes a regular weekly column for the paper. He is the author is a number of books on Maryland history and is a member of the ARL advisory board. Powell, a crewman on a Catalina in the Pacific during WW II ( by the way), is a Humanist.

  Nevada Lawmakers Betray Trusts

          Lawmakers in Nevada join a growing number of state legislatures that take pride in breaking two trusts; the pledge to support public schools and pledge to abide by their constitution. According to the Washington Post (6/14/15), a law that "any parent in Nevada can pull a child from the state's public schools and take tax dollars with them, giving families the option to use this money to pay for private or parochial school, or even for home schooling". This is choice, out of control.

          Edd Doerr, President of Americans for Religious Liberty, a lifetime defender of the principle of separation of church and state, was prompt and clear in charging the writers of "utter contempt for the religious freedom of all tax payers who will be forced to support religious institutions they would not support voluntarily". He is also correct in pointing out that they violated the demands of the constitution of their own state. Article XI, sections 9 and 10 read as follows: "No sectarian instruction shall be imparted or tolerated in any school or university that may be established under this constitution" and "No public funds of any kind or character whatever, state, county or municipal, shall be used for sectarian purposes". What part of no, don't they understand?

          For those that might be curious about what the Maryland constitution has in print, I have a book that includes every state's requirement. In a portion of Article 36, we find "Nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship, or any ministry, nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror on account of his religious belief ...."

          Author Doerr points out that in 28 statewide referenda held between 1966 and 2014, support for vouchers is down by "landslide margins". Voucher plans have been rejected as recently as 2012 in Florida and 2014 in Hawaii. Doerr also notes that voucher attempts are by Republican political leaders. This was the case in Nevada where Republicans of both houses supported the vote.

          According to the account of the Nevada law, its supporters got help from the same education foundation started by Florida Governor, Jeb Bush. This must be seen as a national effort with the goal of privatizing public school systems. In addition, this law was praised as a "... huge victory for the children of Nevada" by Robert Enlow, the leading executive of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice which promotes the philosophy of Milton Friedman. He, it will be recalled, is known for teaching the economics of a free market.

          What could the chief executive of a for-profit organization mean about "A huge victory" for a school system that changes from a clearly public school outlook to a business model? Education grounded on a business outlook will be cost centered rather than a service centered institution. Success will be judged by higher test scores in competition with other countries. Love of knowledge for the sake of knowing would seem odd. Development of character and quest for noble values would be secondary to market interests. Community service would give way to personal enrichment.

          Citizens must realize that every dollar transferred to vouchers is a drain from what could be used to improve the public schools. Further, public schools expect to serve all classes and races of students.

          Those who study the movement to offer vouchers, do not fail to point out that it is primarily a Republican enterprise. The vote in Nevada followed party lines. One Republican leader who worked for passage averred that "This is the wave of the future". This lack of support of our public schools seems so unreal to those of us who grew up long ago and remember how close we were to the schools in our neighborhood.

          We well remember how patient our teachers were. During the Depression era, most of us tried to find ways to earn small change. We were not model students and teachers were well aware of our struggle to get food and clothing. We did not blame teacher for shortcomings in time and preparation for class. We looked up to those who were in public education and there was little tension in the community about the need to get into constitutional debates about the job of educators. One of our great gifts in life is our public schools - they deserve our thanks and support.

Allan Powell, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy, HCC

Separation Of Church & State: A Challenged Principle

by

Allan Powell, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy, HCC

Separation Of Church & State: A Challenged Principle

          American political values rest on several fundamental principles clearly stated by the founders of our republic. We do not debate the separation of powers or the supremacy of civilian dominance of military forces. Strangely however, there is an open and active resistance to the concept of a separation of church and state. Yet, this idea should be a most natural policy when it is remembered that most European settlers came here to escape tyrannies where church and state were combined. They were keenly aware of the abuse of power when two of the most conservative social forces conjoin.

          Separation is imperative because of the potential for religion to sanctify evil and claim divine approval for misdeeds. However, while it is important and necessary to keep a constant vigil to block the collusion of church and state, the task is difficult because of public apathy and a shortage of funds.

          There are, nonetheless, a number of religious denominations which are active in supporting the separation principle. They support organizations that monitor the many attempts to breach the wall of separation. It is costly to hire lawyers to bring the cases into court, support the publication of journals and maintain a speaker’s bureau to hold meetings for public education.

          The most durable and powerful source of support are the words of those who wrote the original documents such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Also useful, are the opinions given in Supreme Court decisions. Former President, James Madison declared that, “The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State”. This should carry special weight since Madison was regarded as “the Father of the Constitution”.

          Thomas Jefferson made a direct connection between the principle of separation and the Constitution (1^st Amendment) in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in 1802. Jefferson writes, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state”.

          A recent issue of one of these journals gives a list of the kinds of actions they expect from the new members of Congress. It will be evident that there will be no rest for those who struggle to keep a “wall of separation” between church and state. First will be a new effort to advance “voucher schemes” that John Boehner (House) and Mitch McConnell (Senate) call “school choice expansion”. They are actually referring to charter schools. Others (e.g. Ted Cruz), have vouchers in mind. These “schemes” are a way to funnel taxpayer money to sectarian schools.

          Analysts are expecting an increase in what is called “religious freedom exemptions” made possible as a consequence of the Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. It will be recalled, that in this case certain employers could now, on the grounds of religious freedom, make medical decisions effecting employees. It is supposed that the door has been opened for more extensions of religious liberty. It is likely that there will be attempts to expand the teaching of creationism and to restore prayer in public schools.

          There is some concern about the increase in the practice of some churches to abuse their tax exempt status by becoming involved in partisan elections. A study of voting turnout of the 2014 election shows that the religious right had a much larger voter turnout while there was a notable decline in other voter categories. Ralph Reed is reported to have openly stated that his group distributed 20 million voter guides in 117,000 churches. These guides were claimed to have been given to Republican voters.

          On my desk are two journals that I have supported for 30 and 40 years respectively. Both have been reporters of the whole range of issues involving the separation of church and state. It is saddening to conclude that there is little improvement in maintaining the “wall of separation” from abuse. Our efforts appear to be somewhat like those who fight forest fires. After you have struggled painfully and get out that fire, you get word that there are two more up the road.

Allan Powell, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy, HCC