18 LIBERTY
The columnist who had so eloquently
identified this facet of the voucher debate was
none other than Pat Buchanan!
Recognizing an opportunity, Bill Press,
Buchanan's cohost and ideological adversary
on that show, punctuated the pont with a
comment of his own. I graduated from... a
great Catholic high school in Wilmington,
Delaware,” he sad. "If I were principal of that
high school today, I'd tell [voucher sup-
porters) to get lost. Because, if I may say,
right now without vou, I'm free to hire
the teachers I want, fire the teachers |
want, buy the textbooks I want, set
the curriculum | want. Why
should 1 allow you to come in
and destroy my freedom?”
[t was an embarrassing
moment that Buchanan would
probably prefer to forget. But
the issue raised in the exchange
highlights a part of the broader
voucher debate that is fre-
quently overlooked. The “poi-
soned chalice” Buchanan
warned of, and the “destruction
of freedom” Press alluded to, is
the inevitable regulation that
comes with public funds—and
that will adversely affect houses
of worship.
Once private religious
schools begin accepting public
tax dollars from the state, there
is inevitable scrutiny of the use
of those funds to ensure their
proper use. Many believe it is
only a matter of time before
these schools will lose their independence and
bow to increased government control. This of
course will undermine the rehgious mission
of such schools.
No wonder that while many supporters of
the voucher movement view public funds as a
financial boon for private schools, other lead-
ers in the religious community are increas-
ingly cautious. They wonder if the practical
risks outweigh the potential financial benefits.
Actually, the most frequently used argu-
ment against the use of private school vouch-
ers is the constitutional one, and it must be
resolved before this touted “retorm effort” can
get very far. The First Amendment guarantees
government neutrality on religious matters, a
“separation” of church and state. While it was
White many
supporters of
movement view
public funds as a
financial boon for
private schools,
in the religious
community are
increasingly
cautious.
common mn the early davs of the American
colonies to tax citizens to pav for churches and
clergy, such practices were seen to undermine
religious freedom and were eventually aban-
doned. Donating ones money to a house of
worship should be an individual choice.
Therefore our constitutional and democratic
principles mandate that such contributions be
voluntary.
When the government uses the state
treasury to write checks to be delivered
to religious schools, directv or by
action of parents who transter the
“vouchers” themselves, tavpavers
are: burdened with paving tor
rchuion, whether they agree
with the religious mission of a
particular school or not.
Naturally, supporters of
church-state separation see
the voucher vouchers in direct conflict
with the First Amendment.
Private rehgious schools
are what the Supreme Count
labels “pervasively sectarnan.”
In other words, religion per-
meates every aspect of the
school and its curriculum.
other leaders Unbike private universities,
which otten have historical ties
to a rehgious denomination,
private religious elementary
and secondary schools are aca-
demic extensions of the houses
ot worship with which thevare
affiliated.
Americans United for
Separation of Church and
State has been involved in legal challenges 1o
religious school aid tor decades. During the
course of litigation, AU has deposed dozens of
operators of religious schools. Never once has
a representative claimed to create a school in
the interest of lowering class sizes, or because
the house of worship had money leit over
from the collection plate. Just the opposite is
true. Religious school administrators are
proud ot the fact that they build and run
schools for the propagation of their faith.
While there's nothing wrong with this torn of
pedagogy, legal problems arise when taxpayers
are asked to finance it.
Indeed, these constitutional arguments
have been consistently persuasive in courts in
which the cases have been litigated. For exam