Charles Foster Johnson is a Baptist minister in Texas and founder of Pastors for Texas Children.
He wrote an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle about the threats that vouchers pose to religious liberty, and his specific concern that Brett Kavanaugh endangers religious liberty because of his hostility to the wall of separation, which protects the church from the intrusions of the state.
He writes, in part:
For nearly 150 years, our state Constitution has included a “no-aid” clause that protects the religious freedom of all Texans by ensuring that public funds are not used to support any private religious school or religious denomination. In fact, the Texas Constitution’s ironclad, explicit requirement for the Texas State Legislature to “make suitable provision for the operation and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools” was in direct reaction against Texas settlers’ taxes having to underwrite religious schools at the founding of our state.
Our message and movement to protect and preserve religious liberty by opposing private-school vouchers has now spread to Oklahoma, Tennessee and Kentucky and will soon launch in a number of other southern and midwestern states, where voluntary religious faith is so central. Simply put, we want the government to stay out of this intensely personal arena of our lives.
If Kavanaugh joins the Supreme Court, I fear it will strike down this “no-aid” clause and similar clauses that exist in 37 other state constitutions. This reversal would allow state money to flow to religious schools. A flurry of state-funded voucher programs would soon follow, putting both religious freedom and our children in peril.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
A flurry of state-funded voucher programs would soon follow, putting both religious freedom and our children in peril.
Catch 22: Likely the deed will be done under the banner of protecting religious freedom.
LikeLike
Its called “weaponizing the First Amendment.”
Meaning using the First Amendment to protect the “right” of a person to discriminate against others, the “right” of religious schools that teach myths-as-science to receive public funding. Etc.
LikeLike
I read the article. I found a number of factual flaws in it. One glaring example:
Q Vouchers specifically fail students with disabilities END Q
That is not correct. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously, in the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, that the public school was unable to provide adequate instruction/counseling to a disabled student. The court mandated that the child be enrolled in a private school, that had the staff and facilities to meet the disabled student’s needs.
see
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/how-a-new-supreme-court-ruling-could-affect-special-education/520662/
LikeLike
So now you know more about religion than a highly educated Baptist minister?
LikeLike
I am an engineer, not a theologian. I do not claim to be an expert on any religion. Nevertheless, I can read Supreme Court dicta, and get the meaning.
The establishment question, with respect to school choice, has been settled constitutional law for 16 years. Parents are sending children to schools operated by religious organizations (with public money and/or ESAs) in over thirty states.
As they say in Texas: “That dog won’t hunt”
LikeLike
And you are thrilled to see public money subsidizing religious indoctrination. You have advocated that position here since you first commented.
What “dog doesn’t hunt?” The idea of a wall separating church and state? The idea that tax money should not pay tuition at religious schools?
The wall of separation served our nation well for many years.
How sick to force taxpayers to subsidize yeshivas, madrassas, and creationism schools, where children are not educated to be scientifically literate or learn the principles of citizenship.
LikeLike
I have corresponded with this man several times. I suggested that he read the Supreme Court case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002). Sixteen years ago, the Court determined that a school choice program, which enables parents to have true school choice, does NOT violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris
LikeLike
Charles,
We know you devoutly hope and pray that public funds subsidize religious schools that teach myth-as-science. Enough already. You claim to be an engineer. Why do you want millions of children taught in schools that teach Biblical myth as “science?” Do you believe the earth was created in 7 Days? Do you believe that pairs of animals were saved on Noah’s Ark?
LikeLike
We ALL know that Charles doesn’t want to pay for other people’s children to go to school. It’s all about taxes and keeping his own money. Why should he work hard and have to pay for other people? He’s a Libertarian to the core. He doesn’t believe in community. I don’t think Charles spouts his nonsense because of any religious beliefs at all because Charles’ God is the God of money and greed.
LikeLike
Not exactly. I support the right of parents to have control over the educational expenditures for their children. If parents choose to send their children to schools operated by religious organizations, I have no objection.
I trust parents to make the right decision. If parents send their children to Roman Catholic schools, or Islamic schools, and get a rebate on their tax payments, then that is fine with me.
The Supreme Court ruled in the Pierce decision (1925), that the government does not have “dibs” on children’s minds. Parents can send their children to religious schools (without public expenditures). Providing school vouchers to parents who make this choice, is merely an expansion of this right.
I have stated previously, that I am not a biologist nor a paleontologist. I do not believe in any religious description of creation. Not in Hinduism, nor in the Genesis story. (That is what it is, a STORY).
I do not believe in a world-wide flood. Not in the epic of Gilgamesh. (The Noah STORY is a plagiarism of Gilgamesh).
LikeLike
You are a hypocrite.
It is wrong to force unwilling taxpayers to subsidize religious schools that teach nonsense.
LikeLike
@LisaM: You are mistaken. I want to live in an educated society. Providing education to young people, is not only a clear moral imperative, it is remarkably cost-effective. Better to pay for education, than to have young people, wind up in prison or on welfare. Stop beating that dead horse. It is not going to run.
I attended public schools, and I was educated at a public university. How can I refuse to support the institutions that enabled my education? Just let that die.
I certainly believe in “community”. My definition may be somewhat different from yours.
I support freedom of religion. My personal religious beliefs, are exactly that. Personal.
LikeLike
You despise public schools. You despise teachers. You prefer religious schools. Give up the lies. Enough.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, research has shown that vouchers have a minus educational value. The schools are often of questionable quality, and most of them are unaccredited. Vouchers are often given to affluent families that would have sent their children to a private school anyway. I don’t believe that public schools which, today serve about 50% poverty, should lose money to help affluent families out. Schools that serve the poor need every penny and more to be fair and equitable.
LikeLike
@Retired Teacher: What is the source of your claim that “voucher schools” have a negative impact? There are all kinds of non-public schools, and there is home schooling. When parents elect to withdraw their children from public schools (for any reason) , there are many resources to assist them in their choice. Here is one:
https://www.fatherly.com/educational-and-development-toys-for-babies-and-kids/private-school-vs-public-school-facts-benefits-statistics/
Many families who are not affluent, scrimp and save, and make sacrifices to send their children to non-public schools. Over a million families home-school their children.
I ask you, if non-public schools are so terrible, and public schools are so fantastic (as well as “free”). then why do less-affluent families make the sacrifices to send their children to terrible schools?
And what is your source, that causes you to claim, that the public schools serve children, 50% of whom are in poverty? Around 90% of American children attend public schools. I believe your estimate of the poverty rate is inaccurate.
Of course, sometimes vouchers/support is provided to families who would have sent their children to non-public schools anyway. So what? Most states bring in vouchers/support first to help families on the lower end of the income scale. States have the option to set an income limit, and decline to provide economic support to higher-income families.
LikeLike
There have been multiple studies of vouchers in Ohio, Indiana, Louisiana, and DC in the past few years. All negative. You won’t read about these studies in the far-right libertarian press that you read.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/on-negative-effects-of-vouchers/
Dismal Voucher Results Surprise Researchers as DeVos Era Begins
Charles, give it up. You are woefully uninformed to the point of ignorance.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/more-findings-about-school-vouchers-and-test-scores-and-they-are-still-negative/
LikeLike
As it stands, parents do have the choice to send their kids to public, charter, private, home school or religious schools. In my opinion, public tax money should be reserved only for the REAL public schools, not charters, nor private/religious schools.
Finland has only public schools, no private schools; thus the rich have a vested interest in the public schools whereas in the US we have these super elite private schools for the very rich folks. So US rich folks have no vested interest in the actual public schools.
LikeLike
Joe, not much point comparing us to Finland on this symptom of inequality. Of 32 OECD countries we are #31 on income inequality, #30 on wealth inequality. Finland ranks #4 and #6.
LikeLike
Home schooling is illegal in Germany, incredibly rare in Finland, highly restricted in Sweden and virtually illegal in Spain.
If a US parent wants to home school, then they should not expect public tax dollars when there are public schools available. It’s their free choice and they have to live with it and fund it on their own. They are certainly able to utilize the free public libraries.
LikeLike
@Joe: You say Q As it stands, parents do have the choice to send their kids to public, charter, private, home school or religious schools END Q
Is that what you really think? While true, that wealthy people can afford many school choices, people with less income cannot.
How can people who are just barely surviving paycheck to paycheck, supposed to pay for alternate schooling?
LikeLike
No choice program will enable poor kids to choose the schools where the rich kids go. Typically, vouchers are $5,000 or less. The rich kids go to schools where tuition ranges from $25,000-$50,000.
You have been told this fact many times, Charles, and you ignore it.
LikeLike
Before this post was hijacked, I believe it was about protecting religious freedom and autonomy from government interference. The Chron op-ed makes an important point.
LikeLike
The majority of private schools of a religious public face in my part of the country were created for one of two reasons. Convinced that public schools should be teaching children to pray their type of prayer, they created a school in their own religious image of what schools should teach. Others, reacting to the bussing issue in the 1970s, created what was generally termed “segregation academies” by competing old, traditional private schools and public schools.
Public schools were afflicted by this as well, and parents who could move into white flight neighborhoods sent property values in those areas soaring. Afraid of the rough poor kids, they took to the suburbs. Claiming his was not racism, they complained instead that the schools lacked “discipline” and their children were in danger.
Thus there was a re-segregation not just of races but of classes. I do not fault parents for trying to get their children a good education. I do wonder why they define a good education in terms of getting their children away from children different from their own.
There are good reason for sending a child to a good private school. Particular children thrive in that environment. A majority of parental choices, however, are made for the reasons that created new schools I described above. Latent racism and classism, narrow religiosity, and xenophobia motivate more people than are willing to admit it.
Funding this attitude with my tax dollars is abhorrent in every way I can think. Oddly enough, these same people will vote for the candidates who mouth about the “entitled classes”, who feel the world owes them something. When it comes to accepting government money for their own children, they are just being shrewd. Hypocrites!
LikeLike
You make some very interesting points. There is a “flip side” as well. The establishment of public schools, in the big cities, where immigrants from primarily Roman Catholic countries, served several purposes.
One of them was to “protestantize” the immigrant children. In the public schools, only the King James bible was used. Prayers were conducted by publicly-paid school teachers, until 1963.
see
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/twelve-year-sentence-historical-origins-compulsory-schooling
LikeLike