Everything you wanted to know about the "Blaine Amendment" but were afraid to ask. - A wolf in sheep's clothing, Part II.

Perdue's unspoken agenda

By Phil Dodson
The Macon Telegraph
February 3, 2005

What is most troubling about Gov. Sonny Perdue's way of doing business is the less-than-candid approach he takes in telling Georgians why something should be done. A good example is why he wants the Legislature and the state's voters to approve a faith-based amendment to the state Constitution, nullifying a section which mandates separation of church and state.

As he sought to do last year but failed, the governor again says he wants to amend the Constitution to permit state funding of faith-based charities that provide services not covered by the state.

But what Mr. Perdue is hoping people won't notice is that it is readily apparent that such an amendment isn't necessary for these organizations to receive funding from the state; they are doing so right now with the stipulation that they not proselytize while providing social services.

He's correct when he points out Georgia has a specifically worded separation of church and state clause, something the U.S. Constitution does not. What is loosely referred to as a "Blaine Amendment" in the Georgia Constitution prohibits tax funds from being disbursed to organizations that provide religious instruction.

But the state addresses this prohibition by requiring religious organizations receiving tax funds to sign a pledge that they will not proselytize those under their care.

This means, for example, that the Methodist Children's Home in Macon can - and does, by the way - receive tax money to fund social services for its wards as long as the home doesn't force residents to attend religious services. The children can, of course, attend religious services if they so wish, but they can't be required to undergo religious indoctrination.

Could this funding be challenged legally? Perdue says yes, but in reality it doesn't appear likely that such a challenge will materialize as long as the state requires the non-proselytizion pledges.

And, this is a good thing, because services provided by faith-based organizations are important and necessary to many communities, filling a gap left between private and public social services.

But the governor has a less obvious agenda. As newspapers noted in 2004, if the state Legislature and the voters approve Perdue's amendment, it would open wide the doors to taxpayer funding of private and religious school vouchers, long a goal of the Republican leadership but securely blocked by the Georgia Constitution.

A little background. Since there is no federal prohibition to funding private or parochial school vouchers - the Supreme Court has ruled that vouchers are not in violation of the U.S. Constitution - all legal opposition to school vouchers in Georgia would evaporate if Perdue's amendment to change the state Constitution wins approval.

This would be a heavy financial blow to the public school system, an institution which needs all the help it can get right now.

And equally important, if the prohibition is dropped, then religious organizations would be free to accept our tax money while giving religious instruction to their hearts content. This would not sit well with those who feel that parents and religious institutions - not the government - should be in the business of religious instruction.

It was 128 years ago that Georgia's lawmakers, in a move directed specifically at Catholic parochial schools, adopted language which says, "No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, cult or any religious denomination or of any secretarian institution."

This language was once intended by then-U.S. Rep. James G. Blaine as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but the ratification effort failed.

Later, however, similar language was adopted by 37 states in their constitutions.

Perdue's intent to use an amendment as a vehicle for vouchers is clear: Last year, Democrats offered a modified version of the amendment which would have permitted faith-based tax support except that it would not have permitted funding for private or religious school vouchers. Even though this would have accomplished Perdue's stated goals, Republicans said they couldn't live with that wording.

Our lawmakers are aware of the intended consequences of this effort, and the public should be aware too, that what Perdue says and what Perdue wants are two different things.