Every time we turn around these days issues surrounding religiosity and the First Amendment are staring us in the face. Questions of whether monuments to the Ten Commandments should stand or go and whether the Pledge of Allegiance should contain the phrase “under God,” continue to test the tenor of the First Amendment.
One of the most serious matters, however, concerning the First Amendment is found in many state constitutions. About three dozen states across our nation currently have what are called “Blaine Amendments” incorporated into their respective state constitutions. These amendments, named after James Blaine, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1875, are rooted in anti-Catholic bigotry.
As the House speaker, Blaine proposed a national constitutional amendment which would have made unconstitutional the appropriation of state or federal funds to support religious schools. The amendment was aimed directly at the Roman Catholic Church and parochial schools which were required by canon law.
In the mid-nineteenth century, Catholics were immigrating into America in large numbers and were increasingly concerned about public schools, which were in effect nondenominational Protestant schools. Public schools at the time taught Protestant theology and employed readings of the King James Bible. Catholics objected and sought public assistance for parochial schools. Blaine moved swiftly and to thwart the Catholic proposition by introducing his amendment.
Ultimately, Blaine failed in securing a national constitutional amendment, but many states adopted Blaine-like amendments which are still with us today. The future of Blaine, however, is in question as the Supreme Court prepares to decide the Davey Case, having heard oral arguments on December 2, 2003.
Davey, a college student in the state of Washington, won a state-funded scholarship that could be used at any public or private accredited college within the state. However, when Davey enrolled at an accredited Bible college (Northwest College) and declared a double major in Pastoral Ministries and Business Management the state said that he must forfeit his scholarship in view of Washington State Constitution’s “Blaine Amendment.”
It is worth noting that the Blaine Amendments of many states reach far beyond “educational scholarships” and go farther than the Constitution of the United States. Specifically, Blaine Amendments pose a serious threat to faith-based social service providers, and some states have begun to take action.
Recently, Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia announced that he is submitting legislation during the 2004 session of the General Assembly that will level the playing field and allow faith-based social service providers to compete for state funds without facing discrimination. His proposal would simply align Georgia’s Constitution with the United States Constitution.
Currently, many state constitutions unfairly prohibit the state from funding the best, most qualified social service providers because of the controversial Blaine Amendments. For example, Georgia’s Blaine Amendment provides that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, cult, or religious denomination or of any sectarian institution.” In this manner, Blaine presents an even higher barrier to faith-based initiatives than the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Blaine is wrong because it sets up a system whereby many programs capable of delivering social service could be discriminated against and prohibited from receiving state support based solely on the tangential matter of faith. Blaine can single out religious groups for disfavor, yet the First Amendment to the United States Constitution commands that government should not discriminate on the basis of religion.
The Constitution of the United States in no way requires 100% secularism. Rather, it requires neutrality and equal opportunity. Simply put, the faith-based movement not only is permitted by the United States Constitution, it is required by it. Amending Blaine is the right thing to do because doing so will foster increased competition among all groups, sectarian and religious, for government dollars. Increased competition in a free marketplace system ultimately benefits the consumer and those in need of social services.
It should be noted that proposed faith-based amendments to state constitutions, like Perdue’s in Georgia, do not give faith-based providers a leg up on the competition. Rather, they level the playing field, permitting the state to fund the best human services providers. It must also be pointed out that should a faith-based social service provider be awarded state funding, none of those dollars can be used by the faith-based organization for “inherently religious” activities, including religious worship, instruction, or proselytizing.
States ought to be asking agencies who deliver social services not “Who are you?” but rather, “What can you do and how effectively can you do it?” Amending Blaine is not a matter of advancing religiosity; it is a matter in many cases of advancing care by qualified social service providers. Whether through action by the Supreme Court or constitutional amendments to state constitutions, one thing is clear it is time for the Blaine Amendments to go.
© Copyright 2003 Catholic Exchange
Charlie Douglas is a financial advisor at Strategic Stewardship in Atlanta, Georgia and author of the book, Awaken the American Dream (www.awakenthedream.com)