We have long held the tradition of the separation of church and state, and it was an important idea for some of our founding fathers  — especially Thomas Jefferson.
And while some of our fellow countrymen declare we are a Christian nation, that’s blatantly false. If you have any doubt, simply look at the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
To do so would be impossible. Even among Christians, there are too many sects and beliefs to ever choose one to favor.
While there have always been and undoubtedly always will be discussion about religion in America, it seems recently there might be serious changes in our traditional attitude of separation.
Within the last month, the Supreme Court passed a 5-4 vote stating religious donations could legally qualify for a tax credit in Arizona.
Naturally this is controversial. I say this a breach of the separation clause. On the other hand, there are those who argue a tax credit doesn’t equate to government spending, for which they believe the idea of separation was meant.
But it’s important to see what brought about this ruling in the first place.
For more than a decade, residents of Arizona have been allowed to donate up to $500 to a tuition scholarship for an equal amount deducted from their state income taxes. Arizona has given its residents more than $350 million in that period.
As a future teacher, I have absolutely no problem with this by itself.
With school funding and tuition costs the way they are today, any help mitigating them is okay with me.
But most of these donations are going toward religious private schools.
This is where the distinction between a tax break and government spending comes into question. As Justice Elena Kagan, one of the four who voted against the court’s ruling, says, “Appropriations and tax subsidies are readily interchangeable.”
Essentially, these tax breaks can be seen as a government expenditure — instead of paying for something directly, the state is passing up extra sources of revenue under certain circumstances. While there might be a difference, it certainly isn’t large enough to warrant a change like this.
This ruling may not be a major threat by itself, but it could eventually lead to government funding for religion. Should this occur, the current tensions between religions will only become further strained.
If this roundabout funding becomes condoned, what’s to stop other states from trying to establish a similar program to help out only Christian organizations? Or even worse, what’s to prevent funding for groups against certain religions?
While this may sound like the beginnings of a slippery slope, with people like Michele Bachmann in office, it doesn’t seem impossible.
Unfortunately, with this ruling, and the support the Obama administration has given, it seems we’re headed down that path. There’s a reason our founding Fathers wanted to keep the church and state separate.
Zachary Davis is a 20-year-old history junior from Warsaw, Poland. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_zdavis.