Really?
Let's play a fantasy game for a moment. In this fantasy, let's assume that by fiat, vouchers became the law in Alaska. Why then, does the Blaine Amendment need to be repealed?
It doesn't. There is no need to repeal it at all. There is nothing in Alaska law that is stopping the state from a voucher program. There is nothing to prevent the establishment of a private school in Alaska. There are supreme court cases, but those cases only apply if the school is religious. For a private secular school, there is no barrier. There is nothing to stop the state from paying for a child to attend that school over another school. Several private companies have had schools in the past, and there is no reason why one or more of these companies could not come up to Alaska and establish, or reestablish a school.
The truth of the matter is that Alaska is a leader in school choice. You can home school with or without public money. You can go to a publicly funded brick school, or use a correspondence academy, work off your tuition at a protestant school, or take a second job and pay for a Catholic school. We don't "need no stinking vouchers," Alaska has choice. The only place where there isn't choice is in Anchorage, where a few bureaucrats with a tiny bit of authority have abused their authority, or in rural areas where the population size restricts viability of options locally.
Now, the problem emerges when the school is religious; but it does not when it is secular. There are several women across the state who run "academies" in their home. A few use the virtual academy on line, have computer stations set up in their garage, and they run min-schools. They bill their services for tutoring to the correspondence program. The district pays for the login. The parents provide the transportation. It is already happening without the legislature. They are not religious in teaching but Christian in culture. It is already happening.
How can this be you might ask? Because Alaskan women just do it, that is why. Choice does not require a voucher. A voucher is simply symbolic.
The big obstacle for public funding of religious private school is Everson V. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
The sticky part is if you are a private school that accepts public funds, are you then still a private school? But that is an issue of nomenclature and semantics. In the final analysis, there is nothing to stop the legislature from a voucher program, UNLESS the only viable alternatives are religious schools.
They are not the only viable option.
What is all this noise about the Blaine Amendment, then?
How is it in all the battles that Milton Friedman fought to get voucher programs implemented, there is not one mention of the Blaine Amendment? There is talk of every other factor, but not one time is the Blaine Amendment mentioned.
Prior to his service in the political world, Blaine was a math teacher at a private academy. He held his first faculty position at the age of 18 and was a leader in mathematics education and a noted historian. He was a voracious abolitionist, and cared passionately about freedom. He helped organized the Maine militia in the Civil War, and came to political service through war efforts. He was also one of the founders of the Republican party, and is often regarded as the congressman who laid the foundation for the growth of America's naval superiority in this century. He ran for president unsuccessfully against Grover Cleveland, but later served as Sec. of State under Benjamin Harrison.
His followers were devoted and he had a considerable national following. They were often called "half-breeds." He was a deeply religious man, who believed in limited government, except for National Defense, and today would be very comfortable in the conservative movement. As Speaker of the House, he left an indelible mark on America.
Blaine lived in a "pre-Gitlow" world from before the Civil War to 1893. During the era in which he lived, the court system held that the bill of rights only applied to the Federal government; the courts had ruled that it did not apply to state government. This changed later, first with Gitlow v New York in 1925, in then in the 1940s with Cantwell v Connecticut. In that case, the state of Connecticut attempted to require Jehovah Witnesses to get a permit to go door to door to hand out Bible Tracts, and they were jailed by the state of Connecticut for that. The Supreme Court held that Free Speech and Religious liberty applied to the states.
James Blaine was a devote abolitionist. He sought to end slavery not only on U.S. soil, but on foreign shores as well, which motivated his desire to build the Navy that George Washington wrote about. Domestically, he fought for religious liberties and the application of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, particularly where freeman were being denied those rights. Efforts to paint him a bigot were lodged from at the time by those with financial interests in the slave system, peonage, and those who sought to suppress the rights of former, but they were not particularly successful in their day. Robert Ingersall, who knew Blaine from his days in the Civil War and beyond said of Blaine,
Like an armed warrior, like a plumed knight, James G. Blaine from the state of Maine marched down the halls of the American Congress and threw his shining lance full and fair against the brazen foreheads of every traitor to his country..
For Blaine was adamant that the Bill of Rights should apply to all people by both the Federal Government and the state. Imagine wanting so novel as having the Bill of Rights apply to State Government? The Blaine Amendment stated:
"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations."
The intent on the part of the Grant administration was to force state and local governments to provide free public education in their state. The Grant Administration wanted the states to take over the Freedman schools. The states in the south, under reconstruction, were not willing to do so. In that system, whites attended state funded church schools and others attended federally funded Freedman Bureau schools. The idea was for the state governments to take over the Freedman schools and provide a system of education for everyone.
Senator Edmund, who was a major defender of the Amendment, stated that generalized ideas could receive funds, but not those that were "sectarian" or unique to a particular denomination. Thus, those things that were based on sectarian (denomination unique) principles, such as a papal document or a prophecy by Ellen White, or a decree by a Mormon Elder would make something sectarian. However, relying on generally accepted religious principles of Biblical doctrine would be acceptable.
Those who opposed the Blaine Amendment might have screamed "anti-Catholic bigotry," but the larger question really did not involve Catholics to a great extent. At that time, Louisiana remained the stronghold of the Catholic Church; most of the south was of other faiths. Most of the states at which the legislation was aimed was in the south, and Catholics were not prolific there. Those in the south who opposed public education used the bigotry argument to attack Northern Republicans who had strongly Catholic urban voting blocks.
There was also the "Mormon Question" but in reality, Blaine (from Maine) was fairly far removed from that. The unexpected battle that emerged from the Blaine amendment was really from Mormons out west, where Mormon schools were funded with in a state that was overwhelmingly Mormon. One could readily argued that the principles of Mormonism were generalized in Utah and most likely would have won had the amendment succeeded just as one could have made the case in Louisiana for Catholicism.
The reality is that the anti- Blaine Amendment argument is grounded in anti-Catholic religious bigotry is propaganda that was used by the Democratic party at that time against Republicans. They were acting on the interest of former slave owners and using that rhetoric in Northern communities to fight the amendment on the ground of the northern Congressman. It wasn't an accusation lodged originally by the Catholic Church but by forces who sought to use the Catholic Church for their own political ends.
Alaska was not a state at this time, and the major forces at the time of statehood in Alaska was not the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church had a presence, as did the Brethren. The Episcopal Church was well established in the North country, and the south was primarily Presbyterian. There were other religions, but those that were heavily involved in education in the territorial era, the time the Statehood Charter was enacted, were the latter three. There would be no basis for "anti-Catholic bigotry" as such, because they were not a major player in education at that time. The system really hurt was the Episcopal system, and it had a devastating affect on the North County in particular.
But I find no evidence of religious bigotry against Catholics among Alaska's constitutional framers.
Now, I have often thought they were socialist, but hardly religious bigots. One writer of the constitution, Vic Fisher, is still alive. Every time the Democratic party is losing an argument they wheel out Vic Fisher to contribute his "framers intent" and verify some socialist program or another they are trying to shove down the throats of Alaskans are really consistent with the state Constitution's provisions and reflects the "framers' intent." It is enough to make a conservative gag at the sound of his name. I can say a lot about Vic Fischer, but this concept that he is anti-Catholic I find rather strange. There is simply no evidence of it.
Indeed, has it escaped the notice of the State legislature that Monroe Catholic Schools and Immaculate Conception have bus service in Fairbanks? And Fairhill? Has it escaped the legislature's notice that Brigham Young University's curriculum was used originally by the FNSB for correspondence education? That Son Light's CDs are available for purchase through correspondence? Machen's Greek text, which leads to the translation of the Gospel of John, can be purchased with state dollars, as can Wheelock, which is used to teach Latin and involves translating several religious texts.
Bibles can be ordered too, for classes in which the "Bible as literature" are taught. They simply aren't because the notion of a state Bible is repulsive to Christians.
I would think differently of the matter if those who were active in the mission field or those who were known religious leaders were out there advocating for the repeal of this amendment. That is not what I see. I see people who have no particular experience or reputation in the missions community out there suddenly making statements.
What church wants their data in P-20W data base?
At present, I do not see the religious leaders on this issue at all. In fact, I've seen many register concern that if they accepted state dollars, that they might be subject to state directives, tests, standards, and inspections. While the current governor has Christian values, one can never predict what views future Governors might have. The potential for abuse is enormous. Even with a friendly governor, the federal government, through the data reporting provisions of the No Child Left Behind waiver has seen fit to make the parochial schools who accept vouchers in Louisiana quite miserable. Does someone think that Alaska would be exempt from Eric Holder's inquisitive nature?
Furthermore, vouchers with the common core standards isn't much of a choice, is it? All one is really choosing is the drapes, the carpet, and the environment.
Is this really about "anti-Catholic" bigotry? Or is this about something else? In all the years I attended Catholic universities, I never ONCE heard of anti-Catholic BIGOTRY. This is a strange argument to my ears. The Bigotry Argument was always waged by Islamists at Catholics, not at Catholics toward Protestants and Anabaptist.
Howbeit that this issue emerges out of nowhere right when a Mosque is opening in Anchorage? Perhaps Mr. Gulen is lining the pockets of some...And trying to cause problems where there has been peace among the brethren.
That is how I see it. If you want real change, stop common core. I see nothing preventing the state from implementing a voucher system, except the political will. The notion that one must removed the Blaine Amendment has no foundation unless one accepts the idea that ONLY religious institutions can offer private education.
No comments:
Post a Comment