Separation of church and state? Not in Ohio!

Here's a little secret: Ohio doesn't have separation of church and state.

I know the response to that statement is a collective gasp, but it's true, at least in practice.

Ohio hasn't had church-state separation in years. Other states aren't perfect either, but Ohio ranks near the top in taxpayer funding of religious schools.

This unconstitutional fusion of government and religion goes almost unnoticed, so some will accuse me of splitting hairs with a waterpick. But it's gone on probably my whole adult life and has only expanded.

I'm not opposing religion. But I'm hopping furious that any American jurisdiction would take the taxpayers' money and give it to religious bodies.

One of the biggest such expenditures is vouchers for religious schools. This is one of conservatives' perennial pet issues and possibly the most potentially damaging. Voucher backers claim to be "friends of the poor" by supporting it, but make no mistake about it: This is one of the most nauseating and underhanded abuses of America's poor occurring today.

I'm clearly below the poverty line, and I think vouchers are exploitative. Vouchers are marketed by right-wing think tanks and wealthy industrialists but almost never by representatives of the poor or working class. Vouchers actually weaken public schools and draw students into private schools that may be no better. In fact, some private schools are joined at the face with right-wing causes (including economic issues). I know this, because I've experienced it firsthand.

And vouchers have failed. Congress's voucher experiment in the Washington, D.C., schools did not improve academic performance or the quality of education. Furthermore, in Arizona, 76% of voucher money has gone to cover students who already attended private schools.

Is it any wonder that, in every state that's had a voter referendum on vouchers, the idea has been rejected by the widest margins in the poorest areas?

If conservatives are such "friends of the poor", why did they support the '96 federal welfare "reform" law?

Although Ohio has slashed benefits to needy families, it has become more and more generous to private schools (many of which are already swimming in dough). In Cincinnati alone, private and religious schools were set to make millions from it. This has gone on with very little media coverage.

But now many believe that budget woes may force these handouts to be slashed.

Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland wanted to eliminate this program altogether. But the legislature - which at the time was run by right-wing Republicans - stymied his efforts.

None of this should even be an issue, as the program is clearly unconstitutional. Despite the flagrant unconstitutionality of it, the U.S. Supreme Court approved a related program in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, an activist ruling in 2002 (surely one of the worst SCrOTUS decisions of recent years).

I don't have any illusions that the current Supreme Court cares what the Constitution says, but we need a tool to help knock the wind out of its sails. In 1875, the U.S. House overpoweringly approved a constitutional amendment saying in part that "no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations." The Senate rejected the amendment, but many state constitutions added a similar provision.

We need to revive this amendment and pass it.

Ohio, however, appears to be among the states that have a provision like this in its own constitution. So I wonder if the courts will even pay heed if it's a federal amendment.

(Source: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090117/NEWS0102/901170381/1058)