Eye on the States: Florida Amendment 8
November 1, 2012 
2 Comments
Amendment 8, which will appear on the ballot in November, would eliminate the Florida Constitution’s No-Aid Provision (sometimes called the Blaine Amendment), which prevents public funds from being used “directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.” The goal of the Amendment is to strip church-state safeguards currently present when the government partners with religiously affiliated organizations and to open the door to private school vouchers.
The RAC strongly supports the Clergy Against 8 campaign, which speaks out on behalf of the faith community for religious freedom by voting against Amendment 8.
The Reform Movement’s own Rabbi Jack Romberg co-authored the following piece:
“One would hope that, in discussing an issue pertaining to religion, truth and honesty would prevail. After all, those of us who are the clergy for congregations try to stand for honesty if nothing else.
Does not God demand that we be truthful, that we present ourselves in a forthright and honest manner? As it states in Leviticus 19:11, “You shall not steal, you shall not deal falsely, you shall not lie to one another.” We wish the proponents of Amendment 8 would have paid a bit more attention to Leviticus.
The amendment is titled “Religious Freedom.” The accurate title should be “Religious Funding.”
Amendment 8 would remove from the Florida constitution this sentence: “No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasure directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.” Repealing this clause, which has been in the Florida constitution for 127 years, opens the doors for government support of sectarian religious agendas at the expense of the taxpayer. In short, citizens would be funding particular religious beliefs and perspectives — clearly a violation of the letter and spirit of the constitution of the United States.
Supporters of this amendment assert that it is necessary in order to preserve funding for religiously operated programs that provide secular benefits for all. A typical example is a hospital operated by the Roman Catholic church.
They cite a recent court challenge to some programs receiving state dollars, particularly a prison ministry program. It must be noted, however, that the court case is focused on a situation in which Christian evangelism is an explicit part of the program. At issue is not providing guidance for prisoners, but whether a program that espouses a particular religious perspective is appropriate to fund with state money.
Our state has a long history of providing funds for programs that are of general benefit to the community, including those offered by religious organizations. We think it is inappropriate, however, for the government to endorse the religious dogma of a particular faith tradition.
Removing this restriction would open the door to implicit government endorsement of those religious sects receiving government funds. The constitution’s current wording leaves room for funding beneficial programs operated by religious organizations, provided they do not promote a particular religion.
We do not want to impute ill motives to the proponents of this amendment. Yet its title and the primary reason given for its necessity would seem to violate another Levitical commandment — not to “put a stumbling block before the blind.” (19:14) We believe a “no” vote on Amendment 8 is most appropriate.”
For more information, contact Eisendrath Legislative Assistant Raechel Banks.
Raechel’s blog is right on point regarding the criticisms of Amendment 8. The comment above by Jim Frakowiak, the Campaign Manager for “Say Yes on 8,” in contrast, misses the mark in several regards.
First, Mr. Frakowiak states that Title of Amendment 8 is not misleading because a trial court judge ruled otherwise. We don’t agree with the trial court’s ruling here. But, it must also be noted that the judge ruled that the title “Religious Liberty” wasn’t misleading because the constitutional provision that is being amended is already titled “Religious Liberty” not because passage of the amendment would lead to religious liberty. By the time that voters get down to the bottom of the ballot, understanding the legalize that makes up the Amendment 8 description might not be easy. And, the real life consequences certainly won’t be evident. That is why it is important to learn about the real consequences of the amendment—it will strip away your religious freedom protections.
Second, Mr. Frakowiak says that passage of Amendment 8 won’t permit state funding of religious activities. Not true. There are two ways the state can fund private organizations. One is through a grant or contract and the other is through a “voucher.” Unfortunately, in many situations taxpayer-funded vouchers go to programs that include indoctrination, religious activities, and proselytizing. And, with the new language that Amendment 8 would insert into your Constitution (“No individual or entity may be discriminated against or barred from receiving funding on the basis of religious identity or belief”) the state may be prohibited from limiting these voucherized programs to secular programs only. Denying a group a voucher because they require conversion could be ruled to be discrimination. In the end, the taxpayers could be forced to pay for indoctrinating programs. And, a person in need who can only access such a program will be forced to face unwanted proselytizing.
Mr. Frakowiak’s third point, that current partnerships between the government and religious organizations for secular services are threatened, is also not true. Proponents of Amendment 8 like to point to the case Council for Secular Humanism v. McNeil to try to support this claim. But, in reality, the case says exactly the opposite. Indeed, the Florida Appellate Court in that case plainly stated that the current Florida provision does not bar the state from contracting with religiously affiliated organizations to perform secular social services: “The no-aid provision does not constitute a per se bar to state or local government contracting with religious entities for the provision of goods and services.” (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7429131294801032599&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)
Finally, Mr. Frakowiak claims that “few disagree” that the amendment has roots in anti-Catholism. But, history experts know that this claim isn’t true either. Even Nathan A. Adams IV, the former Deputy General Counsel in the Executive Office of the Governor under Jeb Bush (a strong voucher proponent), agrees that an examination of the Florida history proves that its no-aid provision was not born of religious bigotry, but instead of “equality and pluralism” (Nathan A. Adams, IV, Pedigree of an Unusual Blaine Amendment: Article I, section 3 Interpreted and Implemented in Florida Education, 30 Nova L. Rev. 1 (2005)).
We commend the Religious Action Center for taking a strong position against Amendment 8. We too are concerned that passage will weaken religious liberty and open the door to school vouchers.
Rabbi Romberg hopes for truth and honesty to prevail in issues pertaining to religion, specifically Amendment 8, titled “Religious Freedom.” Those in favor of Amendment 8I wholeheartedly agree.
He calls into question the title of Amendment 8, but fails to mention that the court has already considered this claim that the title is misleading and found this not to be the case. Judge Terry Lewis noted the “law requires that a proposed amendment be given a ballot title by which the measure is commonly referred to or spoken of. … The Section of the Constitution sought to be amended is, in fact, titled ‘Religious Freedom.’ The subject matter of the proposed amendment clearly deals with this subject. It is a non-political, non-emotional title.”
He also asserts that Amendment 8 “opens the door for government support of sectarian religious agendas” and that “citizens would be funding particular religious beliefs and perspectives.” Both of these claims are untrue. In fact, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits the direct and indirect aid that may be given to individuals and entities. Individuals cannot be required to participate in religious activities, and no funding received by religious entities may be used for religious purposes.
Lastly, the claim that “the Constitution’s current wording leaves room for funding beneficial programs” overlooks the fact that the current language has been the basis of claims against programs, leaving all of these programs vulnerable to legal challenge. Even the 1st District Court of Appeals in its Bush v. Holmes decision, striking the Opportunity Scholarship Program, said it would leave for another court on another day to decide how the no-aid clause could be applied to other programs.
Few disagree that the current language has its roots in anti-Catholicism and racism. Florida must not favor some religious groups over others, but neither should our Constitution require discrimination against faith-based institutions. Amendment 8 will remedy this, and Floridians deserve an opportunity to benefit from secular services offered by faith-based entities.