The Cleveland program allows students to attend private schools, including religious schools, using a government stipend. Opponents of the voucher program argue that it violates the Constitution, but the court ruled there is no violation as long as parents can choose between secular and religious schools. Currently, more than 95 percent of the Cleveland vouchers are used at religious schools.
And on Wednesday, a federal appeals court in California ruled that it is unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it contains the words "under God."
". . . one nation, under God . . ."
Reaction to the court's decision was swift. Members of Congress gathered on the Capitol steps to recite the pledge in full, and the Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning the court's action. On Thursday, the ruling was put on hold for further review.
Joining me to discuss the implications of these court rulings are Hollyn Hollman, General Counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, who is in Dallas, Texas, and Kevin Hasson, President of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Welcome to you both.
Mr. Hasson, where do we go now? What's next?
KEVIN HASSON (President, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty): Well, we go back to the states. We've learned that as a federal matter, vouchers are constitutional. Now it's a question whether states want them, whether their constitutions permit it, and indeed if their constitutions don't, whether those constitutions are themselves constitutional under the federal Constitution. ABERNETHY: So, battles at the state level. Ms. Hollman, is that the way you see it?
HOLLYN HOLLMAN (General Counsel, Baptist Joint Committee): I agree, the battle is at the state level. And I think we are going to be hearing even more about vouchers and about the wisdom about voucher programs such as the one in Cleveland. I think there will be a greater understanding of the kind of risks of voucher programs now that one hurdle has been passed for the voucher proponents.
ABERNETHY: Ms. Hollman, what about the federal aid to social service organizations that are based in churches -- faith-based organizations. What about that argument now?
Ms. HOLLMAN: Well, this decision will have clearly some kind of implication for those kinds of initiatives, but only to the extent that they are voucherized. And of course, when you are looking at social services, you may not have the same kind of choice and options that were available, as the court found significant in the Cleveland program when they looked at all of the educational choices available. And so that is going to limit the effect of the decision in that area.ABERNETHY: Mr. Hasson, what about the faith-based initiatives?
Ms. HOLLMAN: I think it will be. I think there's obviously been a strong reaction to that case because we are so emotionally attached to such political symbols such as the pledge and the flag. And it's an unfortunate decision, because it could have easily been avoided, because the Supreme Court has said that certain references to God in our government discourse -- our official discourse -- and our civil traditions don't rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
ABERNETHY: Mr. Hasson, what do you think?
