Florida voters will get to decide if public money can freely go to religious institutions.

[madfloridian]

Republicans who voted for this to be on the November ballot call it the "Religious Freedom" amendment. What a misleading title. We have religious freedom. All it really means is that now taxpayer money can freely go to religious groups.

Many states, 40 last I heard, have some such Blaine amendment to insure separation of religious groups and state money. Florida's GOP has been chipping away at this firewall for some time, and now this provision in the constitution will be going up for a vote.

Here's how it reads in the Florida Constitution:

Section 3 Religious Freedom

SECTION 3. Religious freedom.—There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

Here is the wiki entry about the President Jackson's role and the Blaine Amendment:

The term Blaine Amendment refers to amendments or provisions that exist in most state constitutions in the United States that forbid direct government aid to educational institutions that have any religious affiliation.

President Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877) in a speech in 1875 to a veteran's meeting, called for a Constitutional amendment that would mandate free public schools and prohibit the use of public money for sectarian schools. Grant laid out his agenda for "good common school education." He attacked government support for "sectarian schools" run by religious organizations, and called for the defense of public education "unmixed with sectarian, pagan or atheistical dogmas." Grant declared that "Church and State" should be "forever separate." Religion, he said, should be left to families, churches, and private schools devoid of public funds.(1)

After Grant's speech Republican Congressman James G. Blaine (1830-1893) proposed the amendment to the federal Constitution. Blaine, who actively sought Catholic votes when he ran for president in 1884, believed that possibility of hurtful agitation on the school question should be ended. In 1875, the proposed amendment passed by a vote of 180 to 7 in the House of Representatives, but failed by four votes to achieve the necessary two-thirds vote in the United States Senate. It never became law.

The proposed text was:

"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 Blaine Amendment

Times have surely changed now.

Here is more from the Palm Beach Post. I am having a hard time with much of the press coverage of this issue. The Post calls it a "religious ban"...it is not that at all. It is a ban on money from public coffers going to religious groups. Our media is simple inept.

Voters to get chance to lift religious ban

A proposed constitutional amendment that would make it clear that state money can go to religious institutions was approved Friday by the Senate, putting the measure on the ballot next year.

The state constitution has a so-called “Blaine Amendment,” which prohibits tax dollars from directly or indirectly going to sectarian purposes. It’s been used to challenge faith-based programs that get government grants.

Backers say if government grant money could clearly go to sectarian institutions, it wouldn’t be used directly for religious purposes. But the provision, if approved by voters, could make it clear that state money can go to private religious schools, such as in a voucher, though the state’s main voucher program was found unconstitutional on other grounds.

If nothing else works, change the constitution. Right?

Two Republicans express concern:

Sen. Dennis Jones, R-Clearwater, noted that if it passes, state money could go to the Church of Scientology. Others have noted that it could go to the Koran-burning church in Gainesville, or it might allow for a voucher to be used by a student to attend a conservative Islamic religious school, meaning taxpayers would be paying for Islamic fundamentalist education.

“We may be very sorry we have voted for this amendment,” Sen. Evelyn Lynn, R-Ormond Beach said Friday. “This has great dangerous potential for all of us…be very careful about your vote.” The bill’s sponsors have said any religious discrimination is bad, no matter the religion.

I agree there is a great danger.

I was really surprised to see the Florida Independent website's coverage of this. The article I found called Section 3 a "historically bigoted law." That is not what it is at all.

Are we coming to the point that there is no real honesty even in independent media?

If passed, ‘Religious Freedom’ amendment would help state outsource services to faith groups

Last week the Florida Senate passed the “Religious Freedom Act” — a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would repeal language that bans using public money to fund religious organizations. Coupled with the state legislature’s efforts to privatize several state services, repeal of such a ban could lead to an increase of religious institutions providing public services — without having to follow many of the rules federal programs must adhere to.

The amendment would remove Article 1 Section 3 of Florida’s Constitution, the Blaine Amendment — a historically bigoted law dating back to the 1800s. It was originally aimed at keeping public money away from Catholics. However, despite the law’s prejudiced roots, similar amendments remain in the constitutions of about 40 other states because they have maintained a firewall between church and state. Supporters of repealing the language say that Florida’s firewall goes farther than the U.S. Constitution in restricting access to funding.

And so here are the problems beginning already, and the voters haven't had the chance to even read the amendment they are to vote on in November.

The idea that rampant anti-Catholic bigotry is endangering public dollars for Catholic services — including educational vouchers — is questionable, at best, mostly because Catholic services are numerous in Florida and they have been for years. In fact, Catholic services was recently welcomed into Florida’s Medicaid reform efforts.

Sen. Joe Negron, R-Palm City, added a provision to the Medicaid privatization bill that would let religious institutions that are part of the program’s provider service network opt out of providing family planning services on “moral or religious grounds.” The opt-out provision was added at the request of Catholic services.

“The reality of this is that this is done at the request of primarily Catholic hospitals and Catholic-based (provider service networks) that want to provide medical care as an option, but for their religiously held beliefs don’t provide family planning,” he explained during the bill’s final passage in the senate last week. “I didn’t feel it was right to penalize someone based on their religious preference and their deeply held religious belief.”

That is outrageous. Where are the media outlets on this issue? I am beginning to think that is a silly question and a useless one.

Interestingly enough, the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty is concerned over this because it might force them to compromise some of their beliefs.

Baptist Joint Committee statement

One legislator is asking a good question:

Sen. Jeremy Ring, D-Margate, wondered how the state can be sure that money given to church-affiliated groups for health, education or welfare services can't be mixed with church funds for proselytizing.

"What are we going to do to audit this?" Ring asked.

A ban on faith-based funding is the strongest, most effective way to protect taxpayers and preserve religious liberty. The government shouldn't be in the business of propping up religion, for one. But also, churches and religious organizations should be able to offer the services they are called to provide without having to worry about government audits and oversight and a prohibition on proselytization.

Why take the money and sacrifice the mission? Why offer the money and compromise government neutrality? The "no aid to religion" provision solves both problems and maintains robust religious freedom for all.

They make a good point.

The Miami Herald has a good comment from a Florida Democrat, Nan Rich. This is one of the few comments I have seen from our party here.

Opponents argued that language would open the door to state funding of questionable groups.

“This measure would write into the Florida Constitution the unfettered right of individuals to direct state dollars to religious extremists that espouse … virulently anti-Semitic, racist and other extremist views,” said Senate Democratic Leader Nan Rich of Weston.

The final vote came on a largely party line 26-10 roll call in the Senate with Republicans in favor and all except one Democrat, Sen. Gary Siplin of Orlando, against. The margin was just two votes more than the minimum needed. The amendment passed 81-35 in the House.

Read more at The Miami Herald

At least only one Democrat voted with the GOP on this.