Oklahoma to reconsider state bias against religion

Oklahoma voters have the opportunity tomorrow to repeal a century-old, anti-Catholic amendment embedded in the state’s constitution. But confusing rhetoric from opponents of the ballot initiative has muddied the debate and threatens to keep the law in place.

Ensconced in the Oklahoma Constitution for about 100 years, the Blaine Amendment forbids the use of state funds for “sectarian” purposes. In March, the Oklahoma Legislature overwhelmingly voted to put repeal of the amendment on the Oklahoma ballot. The measure, known as State Question 790, would free the state from litigation threats when it partners with faith-based organizations, which it often does for community welfare programs.

Opponents of the resolution, including some church leaders and the American Civil Liberties Union, say the amendment is the cornerstone of the wall of separation between church and state.

“It’s absurd,” U.S. Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. told me. “Why would the states have a bias against faith-based groups?”

Bruce Prescott, a retired minister and former ACLU of Oklahoma and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State board member, argued the Blaine Amendment is crucial to maintaining the separation of church and state and ensuring, “no Oklahoman has to support, directly or indirectly, a religion to which they do not adhere.”

In 2015, Prescott filed a lawsuit calling for the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from the Oklahoma Capitol grounds. During litigation, self-proclaimed Satanists called for a monument of their own. Citing the Blaine Amendment in its decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered the monument’s removal.

“I rejoiced at the court’s decision. For me, as a Christian, the Ten Commandments represent a covenant between God and people of faith—a sacred religious document” that doesn’t belong on capitol grounds, Prescott wrote in an Oct. 29 Tulsa World op-ed opposing the ballot measure.

Oklahoma Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb, shot back in his own Tulsa World op-ed: “Removing the Blaine Amendment from our state constitution would in no way permit the use of government funds for religious proselytization.” Lamb said repealing the provision would clear a legal path for productive collaborations between the state and faith-based ministries already at work in their communities. It would also halt costly lawsuits used to disqualify state contractors with religious affiliations.

Lankford warned the ACLU is using Blaine Amendments and similarly worded laws against states in a nationwide campaign to quash state-sectarian partnerships. According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, 37 states have such amendments.

“It has laid there like a virus until now,” Lankford said.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in a 2000 decision, cited the bigoted roots of the Blaine Amendment. In 1875, Rep. James Blaine, R-Maine, sought to limit Catholic influence in public education by authoring an amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating no “money raised by taxation in any state for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect.”

Thomas noted the term “sectarian” has long been understood as anti-Catholic rhetoric. The U.S. amendment failed, but states incorporated its language into their constitutions over the next 50 years.

In Oklahoma, use of a state-funded scholarship for students with special needs was challenged when Curtis and Jane Johnson enrolled their son, Wyatt, in Metro Christian Academy using the Oklahoma scholarship. Bullied and languishing in public school, Wyatt flourished at the Christian school, but his parents feared they would lose the scholarship. In Nevada, the Supreme Court heard arguments in July from the ACLU, which is contesting the state’s educational savings accounts for families to fund private schools and homeschooling. In Missouri, a Lutheran preschool that qualified for a state-funded program to resurface its playground was denied the service because it was a “sectarian” school. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear that case this session.

Lankford said a strict interpretation of the amendment and the threat of litigation could end state-sectarian partnerships that aid the homeless, foster and adoptive children, the mentally ill, hospitals, and students.

Convincing faith leaders of that scenario amidst religious liberty cries from both sides has complicated what Lankford believes should be an easy sell.

“Many people think this is about the Ten Commandments monument,” he told me. “That was the test case of what’s ahead.”