State Education System Inconsistent With State Constitution

By Roxanne Sitler

Food for thought concerning Washington's government education system and the Constitution.

Let the real debate begin here!

FACT: Article 9, Sec. 4 of the State Constitution reads:

Sectarian control or influence prohibited. All schools maintained or supported wholly or in part by the public funds shall be forever free from sectarian control or influence.

In order for Washington to enter the Union our state had to agree to certain irrevocable ordinances – one being, Article 26 (4)…

Provision shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of systems of public schools free from sectarian control (influence was added to this mandate in Article 9) which shall be open to all the children of said state.

As the word sectarian is interpreted and applied today, it means essentially that God is removed and separated from education (control or influence). No matter how you understand separation of church and state, our schools have in fact, and by law, eliminated God from their propagation of opinions concerning the origin of the universe, the nature of man, of history, of morality and even government. But, God being eliminated from schools does not mean that schools are, in reality, religiously neutral. If God is out, then something must take His place, and that "something" is man. The religion of man is indeed Humanism. Humanism has been declared a religion by the US Supreme Court.

If the above conclusion is justified, then the following quotes and their implications must be seriously considered.....

To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinions, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty… (Thomas Jefferson)

What Jefferson is saying is that government has no business intruding its power in the field of opinions; and further, it destroys all religious liberty when government has the power to restrain the profession or propagation of certain principles … maybe even biblical principles?? Is not Washington state restraining the profession or propagation of certain principles (biblical) in favor of (humanistic) principles?

Jefferson also stated,

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

What is education if it is not the propagation of opinions? How many disbelieve and abhor evolution, how many disbelieve and abhor how history is taught – simply as a collection of man's accomplishments, rather than the story of how God has moved men and nations to bring about His Providential plan? How many disbelieve and abhor situational ethics – which says there are no moral absolutes based on God's revealed Word. Humanism states,

as non-theists, we begin with humans, not God, nature, not deity…No deity will save us; we must save ourselves. (Humanist Manifesto)

That is the opinion which now undergirds our system of education, and the one which I am compelled to support with the fruit of my labor. This is the so-called religiously neutral, or secular system – the one I personally disbelieve and abhor! So, is our state sinful and tyrannical as Jefferson purported?

Now, if the civil magistrate (the state) is allowed to intrude its powers into the field of opinion, then compel us to support those opinions—which are, indeed, religious in nature—how can that be consistent with our Washington State Constitution which states,

Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion…

This says, "all matters of religious sentiment and belief", and it further states that we are not to be molested or disturbed in person or property. As stated above, education is, at its heart, religious – some worldview informs its philosophy – there is no neutrality.

James Madison declared,

…a man's land, merchandise, or money is called his property…He (also) has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions and in the profession and practice dictated by them…Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…Conscience is the most sacred of all property.

Here Madison is saying that your religious opinions are your property, they are your most sacred property, your conscience. To be consistent with these Founders, it must be said that it is not within government's jurisdiction to force a violation of conscience by being compelled to support a state education system which openly declares that it must remove God, a system forever free from sectarian (religious) control or influence. A substitution of man for God violates the principles of religious freedom – which our constitution vows to protect.

State education systems propagate a certain worldview and the worldview it propagates will necessarily violate the conscience of the one or the many. God in his wisdom gave the responsibility and authority for educating children to the family sphere – He did not give it to the civil sphere. When biblical jurisdictions/spheres are violated, chaos will be the end result. Therefore, separation of school and state, not a return to "christianized and academic" schools, seems to be the only principled answer we can come to. The real question is—can we begin to enter the arena of debate considering the validity of that premise or presupposition?

In order to maintain the religious freedom our State Constitution guarantees to us, the Freedom of Conscience in Education bills, HB2030 and SB5774, are a good starting place. At this point we have to deal with the irrevocable ordinance contained in our Constitution (which I believe, at its foundation, is inconsistent with freedom of religion and conscience; but it is there, nonetheless).

Freedom of Conscience in Education would allow all of us to practice the full scope of religious freedom – our person and property would no longer be molested or disturbed…it is a remedy which could and should begin the debate…

© February 1999

╪