Vouchers blur lines of power

DYCKMAN E-mail: Click here Archive

By MARTIN DYCKMAN

© St. Petersburg Times, published May 28, 2000

There are more than 140 religious denominations in the United States, a fair number of which preach that those who don't believe as they do are going inexorably to hell.

But at least they don't try to hurry the heathen to that destination. Here, everyone gets along. Religious fanaticism is foreign news.

The credit belongs to that distinctly American, much misunderstood doctrine of separation of church and state. Informed by Europe's persistent bloodshed and recent colonial intolerance, the framers of the Constitution put the powers of government beyond reach of those who would misuse them to make their own faith supreme.

They understood that there could be no freedom of religion without freedom from religion. Paradoxical as it may seem, it is the singular reason why Americans profess faith and attend worship in far greater proportion than the people of countries with state religions.

That such countries tax their people for religious education is not for Americans to envy.

But that's exactly what's happening in Florida under Gov. Jeb Bush's voucher scheme.

The word came last week from Mr. Voucher himself -- Patrick Heffernan, president of Floridians for School Choice.

Announcing a surge in the number of private schools willing to accept vouchers, Heffernan attributed it to a startling interpretation of the law. Previously, he said, private schools had been unsure about whether they could teach religion to state-funded students.

"The answer from the statute is, yes, you may," Heffernan said. "What you may not do is compel children to worship, to pray or to profess the faith. Clarifying that for the schools meant a lot to them."

Does that mean a school could preach hellfire and damnation all day, at public expense, so long as it doesn't make a child say "amen"?

Can tax dollars pay to teach a child that the Jews killed Christ, or that the pope is the antichrist, or that Muslims are heathens, so long as the kid doesn't have to say, "I believe."?

As Heffernan speaks for a private group with a mission, I called the Department of Education for an official interpretation.

Heffernan apparently is speaking for the department, too. That is, the department was unwilling to speak for itself. It would say nothing to contradict him.

(Interestingly, Education Commissioner Tom Gallagher's official Web site contains a link to Heffernan's lobby but none to the groups that are contesting the voucher law.)

At the DOE, I couldn't get past a deputy communications director, Joanne Carrin, who wasn't willing to do anything more than quote the law legislators passed last year:

A participating school, says the law, must "agree not to compel any student attending the private school on an opportunity scholarship to profess a specific ideological belief, to pray, or to worship."

That obviously leaves a great deal to interpretation. What constitutes "worship"? Is a religious harangue "worship?" Is making a child sit through a group prayer any different from requiring her to pray out loud? If a student loses points on a test for not giving a doctrinaire answer, isn't that the same thing as being forced to profess a specific ideological belief?

These are questions that beg to be addressed by Gallagher or someone with the authority to speak for him.

Carrin said she'd try to round up someone who could do that.

But when she called back, it was to say that because of the pending voucher lawsuit, I was out of luck. Neither Gallagher nor his staff would talk.

"When something is a matter of litigation, we don't discuss it," she said.

With all due respect, that's hooey. Leon County Circuit Judge L. Ralph Smith Jr. didn't even have to consider the church-state question before deciding to throw out the voucher scheme on broader constitutional grounds. Nothing regarding the religious aspects of the law is presently before any court. It might become an issue later if the Supreme Court reverses Smith and sends the case back for trial, but it's not an issue now.

Should that happen, Gallagher (or his successor) could expect to have to answer under subpoena precisely those hard questions he's ducking now. By then, of course, he hopes to be safely ensconced in the United States Senate.

Here's news for Gallagher: He isn't going to be elected to the Senate without having to answer to voters and the press for the ambiguities in the law he's charged with enforcing. He can run, but he can't hide.

Critics of Bush's A+

plan charged from the outset that it was less about prompting the public schools to improve than a Trojan horse for state support to private and parochial schools. Gallagher's silence speaks no less forcefully than Heffernan's advocacy to the proposition that the critics had it right.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.