COALITION TO PROTECT
GEORGIA'S BILL OF RIGHTS
WHAT WOULD SR 345 REALLY DO?
Q- DOES THIS PROVISION OPEN THE DOOR TO SCHOOL VOUCHERS?
YES! This provision would open the door to vouchers. Our current constitutional provision prohibits the state from giving funds to religious schools. With such a provision, no voucher scheme could practically be put in place. About 85% of private schools are religious and the vast majority of schools who receive vouchers in states with voucher programs are religious schools. For example, in the Cleveland program, 97% of vouchers went to religious schools. The current provision, therefore, is a barrier to public school vouchers.
That is why voucher proponents advocate repealing these provisions. For example, one pro-voucher group has said “Now that the Supreme Court has cleared the last remaining federal obstacle to school choice programs . . . supporters are finding that their states 'Blaine Amendments may prohibit such programs. But, a way to open the door to school choice is campaigns to repeal the [Blaine Amendments.]” Indeed, in August 2002, a report by the Religion News Service revealed that “vouchers supporters are considering mounting challenges to Blaine Amendments in several states including . . . Georgia . . . .”
When asked whether this was about vouchers, the Governor's spokesperson, Derrick Dickey said: Vouchers were A not currently the focus of our efforts, but that the governor's office was A not going to take anything off the table -- and that means that vouchers are a nice arrow to have in our quiver, so to speak.
Q- WHAT IS WRONG WITH VOUCHERS?
Vouchers give an illusion of choice to students, while taking money away from the public schools. In reality, vouchers give choice to private schools, who can exclude students for one reason or another. Plus, vouchers are only for small amounts of money, so kids who cannot afford private schools are unlikely to be able to afford it with a voucher. This explains why, in states where voucher programs exist, most kids who use vouchers already attended private schools.
Q - AREN'T RELIGIOUSLY-AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS ALREADY GETTING STATE MONEY FOR SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS?
YES! Religiously-affiliated organizations can and do get money from the state under the current provision. To receive the money, all these organizations have to do is agree not to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring and providing services, and agree not to proselytize with state money. This is in keeping with the most recent Georgia Supreme Court opinion on the subject. In its January 17, 2006 decision, Taetle vs. Atlanta Independent School System, the Georgia Supreme Court said that the state may not fund religious activities, but “that is not to say that a political subdivision of the state cannot enter into an arms-length, commercial agreement with a sectarian institution to accomplish a non-sectarian purpose.” Now, all social service providers - religious and non-religious - live by the same rules.
Q - IS THERE REALLY A THREAT OF LAWSUITS?
NO! In the last 80 years, there has been 1 lawsuit in Georgia. That lawsuit was settled by the state and the religiously-affiliated group still gets state funding today! There will be a greater threat of lawsuits if the Governor passes this amendment and implements the faith-based plan he envisions. The envisioned plan goes much further than giving money to religiously-affiliated organizations. Under a similar plan by the President, there are already about half-a-dozen lawsuits around the country.
Q - HOW DO RELIGIOUS LEADERS FEEL ABOUT THIS?
MANY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AND RELIGIOUS LEADERS IN GEORGIA OPPOSE SR 345. The Baptist Joint Committee, Concerned Black Clergy, the Georgia Interfaith Alliance, American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Equal Partners in Faith, and the National Council of Jewish Women are just a few of the religious organization opposed to this bill. In fact, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that “Religious groups were adamant Monday [at the Senate Rules Committee hearing] in their opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment that would let the state send public money to faith-based organizations that provide social services.” It also noted that “Representatives of teacher groups, Jewish organizations, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians and Presbyterians said they oppose the change.”
On the National Level, groups such as the American Baptist Churches, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Justice and Witness Ministries, United Church of Christ, the Rabbinical Assembly, Religious Action Center Of Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association, and Women Of Reform Judaism oppose Bush's faith-based plan.
Q - WHY DO RELIGIOUS GROUPS OPPOSE THE CHANGE?
The Governor's plan threatens the voluntariness and autonomy of religious institutions. The plan would convert religious organizations into subcontractors of the government, subject to regulations, restrictions, and government oversight. They would have to report on individuals getting services and turn their books over to the government. Government money will also make religious organizations, which are often the conscience of the community, less likely to speak out on issues that may ruffle government feathers for fear of losing those funds. The plan also pits religions against each other in a fight over government money and gives legislators the role of judging which religions are worthy and which are not worthy of government funding. We do not want such government and religious entanglement.
The Governor's plan also violates on the main principle set out by Jefferson and Madison, that A to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness . . . .
Q - WILL THE GOVERNOR'S PLAN REALLY ALLOW TAXPAYER MONEY TO FUND DISCRIMINATION?
Religious organizations are exempt from civil rights laws that prohibit religious discrimination in hiring. This is appropriate, and even constitutionally required when they are using their own money. Some in government want to allow religious organizations to receive taxpayer money and maintain this exemption. This would mean that the organizations would discriminate on the basis of religion using taxpayer money. At the national level, the Bush administration has taken the position that religious organizations can engage in discriminatory hiring for the very positions being filled with taxpayer dollars, and that such a practice does not violate the Federal Constitution. We vehemently disagree with the Bush administration's legal reasoning. However, we need specific protections in our constitution to prevent similar attempts to discriminate at the state level. On the state level, Governor "Perdue's plan for increasing the involvement of faith-based groups in government-funded programs closely resembles what President Bush is pushing." We cannot risk allowing state money to go towards discrimination. Our constitution must provide protections against discrimination.
Q- HOW WILL LEGISLATORS DECIDE WHICH RELIGIONS TO FUND AND WHICH NOT TO FUND?
One of the reasons why we have our current constitutional provision is to avoid this very problem! There are over 2,000 different religions in the United States. These include Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Christian-Scientists, Pagans, Scientologists, and many more. We cannot imagine how they can perform this task. If they exclude some groups because they disagree with their religious beliefs, they will be opening up the door to lawsuits based on religious discrimination. As explained by one scholar, provisions like our current provision function to “depoliticize religion” and “help defuse a potentially explosive situation.” The legislators are setting themselves up for fighting among and within religions.
Q - WHAT CAN BE WRONG WITH SIMPLY ABDICATING TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?
What the Governor is proposing is not just an Amendment but a REPEAL of our constitutional provision. The State would be abdicating ALL of its power in defining religious liberty to the FEDERAL COURTS. The state courts and the state legislature would have to defer to the federal courts in order to understand their own state protections. Although that may seem just fine to you today, what happens if the courts 'interpretations change? Isn't it better to have our own language for the State of Georgia?
Also, almost 200 years ago, the citizens of Georgia set out certain protections in our constitution to protect religious freedom. Like in the majority of states, our State provision provides stronger religious liberty protections in its constitution than there are in the federal constitution. It is because of that provision that religion has flourished in the State of Georgia. There is no reason to strip away those protections. Such freedoms are easy to strip away, but difficult to reinstate after they are gone.
Q- IS OUR CURRENT PROVISION A PRODUCT OF ANTI-CATHOLICISM?
The real history of our amendment begins almost 100 years before Governor Blaine. In fact, our constitution had a provision similar to the one we have today as early as 1777. The current provision was adopted as part of an entirely new constitution and does not contain the same language as the so-called Blaine amendments. Furthermore, as explained by Steven K. Green, who is currently a law professor at Willamette College of Law in Salem, Oregon, "The origins of the no-aid rule predate by about 10 years the first drive by the Catholic Church to receive funding for its schools. That does not deny the fact that the concept was sometimes used against Catholics, but the constitutional principle against funding religious institutions developed apart from anti-Catholic animus." He also explained “part of the drive for Blaine amendments came from Republicans, who wanted to ensure that there would be universal, free and non-sectarian public education," Green said. "To try to tar the Blaine amendment solely as anti-Catholic is short-sighted. To be sure, there was some of that in the debate, but that was not the only factor."
Q- DO WE NEED TO PASS THIS RIGHT AWAY?
NO! This is a constitutional amendment and it is should be carefully considered. There is no current threat of litigation, and the amendment cannot reach the ballot before the end of the session regardless of how fast it is acted upon. The citizens of Georgia rely on their representatives to pass responsible and legally sound legislation. Although the proposed amendment may be only 12 words long, understanding the amendment requires an understanding of over 50 years of federal court jurisprudence in one of the most challenging areas of constitutional law. Citizens who do not have the resources of legislators cannot be expected to be able to that research before the initiative would get on the ballot and so their representatives must do it for them. But legislators cannot be expected to that within just a few days.