A columnist in the Miami Herald recently explained how misleading language is being used in this state to direct public money to religion. He said it quite clearly.
VerSteeg: Public education a priority in name only for Florida
The Legislature called its proposed constitutional change the "Religious Freedom" amendment. Nobody would vote against "Religious Freedom," right? But Judge Lewis correctly ruled that the Legislature's language describing the amendment was deceptive. Leave it to our lawmakers to lie in the service of religion.
The lawmakers claim that Florida's prohibition against giving state money directly to religious institutions amounts to discrimination against religion.
.."Florida already has gone too far in finding clever ways to give money to religious schools. The state allows private groups to raise money to give vouchers to low-income students. Those voucher recipients then can choose private religious schools. The corporations that contribute to those private groups then get to take a dollar-for-dollar deduction from taxes owed to Florida.
That little dodge costs the state millions of dollars. And it probably produces a crop of poorly educated kids. But if those students aren't doing as well as students in traditional public schools, Florida doesn't want to know about it. Voucher students in those religious schools don't take the FCAT.
That's right, there is no public accountability for those who have vouchers to private religious schools. However, there's plenty of accountability for public schools, their teachers, and their students.
It's truly hard to believe how far Florida has come down the road of misrepresentation. Florida lawmakers are claiming that Florida's law which prohibits giving taxpayer money to religious groups is actually discrimination against religion.
Amendment 7, also known as the "Religious Freedom" amendment will probably be on the 2012 November ballot. The state Attorney General, Pam Bondi, was able to change some language so it could go back on the ballot after a judge said it was misleading.
Here is what Howard Simon of the Florida ACLU had to say about the new terminology as compared to the old terminology.
“Today’s re-drafting of the so-called “religious freedom” amendment by the Florida Attorney General uses unconstitutional powers that were delegated by the Legislature – to produce descriptions of proposed amendments to Florida’s Constitution. In this case, she has stepped in to try to fix language that a court previously determined was misleading.
“Whether in its original form or after today’s tinkering by the Attorney General, the proposal continues to mislead voters by failing to inform them of the chief purpose and actual impact of the amendment – to virtually require taxpayer funding of religious activities of churches, mosques and synagogues.”
Statement from Howard Simon on Re-Drafting of “Religious Freedom” Amendment
This could be a real boon for religious groups who want to have the state outsource other services to them. One state senator bowed to the Catholics in adding a provision.
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
If passed, ‘Religious Freedom’ amendment would help state outsource services to faith groups
That is the title from the Florida Independent's coverage of the amendment. Quite frankly the title surprised me. The Independent went on to describe the law as "historically bigoted" with "predudiced roots."
What really annoyed me though was the title of the article that came from the Palm Beach Post in May.
Voters to get chance to lift religious ban
The Blaine Amendment is in no way a religious ban. We should not let them get away with calling it that.
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.
The bill passed the Senate 26-10.
There may be mixed emotions even among those who voted for it, but how in the world are voters to understand if there is no better coverage than that.
The Miami Herald (quote is at the link above, but Herald link has died) has a good comment from a Florida Democrat, Nan Rich. This is one of the few comments I have seen from our party here.
“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."
Let's hear more of that. We need to stop letting the religious groups control the language of an amendment that involves our tax money.