There are plenty of good reasons to oppose Gov. Bobby Jindal’s voucher-based education reform. You may not believe there is enough evidence to suggest vouchers produce more successful students, especially when compared across socioeconomic backgrounds. You may not support defunding public institutions and teachers in order to support private schools around the state. Or you might just be wary of the process used to approve which schools are eligible to receive vouchers. But, for me, the number one reason to oppose Jindal’s voucher program is because it contradicts one of the pillars of American governance: the separation of church and state. Jindal’s program allows low-income families to send their children to private schools, including religious schools, with government funds by applying for vouchers. Don’t get me wrong. I have no problems with religious schools. Private institutions are free to crop up and teach whatever curriculum they like. However, there is a problem when these private institutions are being funded on the taxpayer’s dime. A couple of issues with this policy have made their way into headlines in recent weeks. Firstly, some of the schools eligible to receive vouchers would not provide their students with a proper education. On June 25, Claire Mckin of the Scotsman reported that at least one private religious school in Louisiana, Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, follows a Christian fundamentalist curriculum called the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) program. Here are some of the ACE program’s teachings: The Loch Ness monster exists and its existence disproves evolution by demonstrating that humans and dinosaurs can live side by side. Also, Japanese whalers once caught a dinosaur, further disproving evolution. Listing all the reasons why denying evolution is intellectually dishonest would waste most of my readers’ time, so I’ll keep things simple. Evolution is a true, observed phenomenon in nature that is backed by empirical research and study, and teaching children otherwise because reality contradicts religious teachings puts these children at a tremendous disadvantage compared to their peers. Would you support using taxpayer dollars to fund a school which teaches history from a Holocaust denier’s perspective? The New Living Word School near Ruston is another example. It was reportedly approved to receive more vouchers than any other school although it lacks a library and the core of its teachings revolve around Biblically-themed DVDs. Secondly, the passing of such a law reveals the hypocrisy of some of our legislators. Rep. Valarie Hodges, R – Watson, initially backed Jindal’s plan until it was revealed that an Islamic school could potentially receive funds. “I do not support using public funds for teaching Islam anywhere here in Louisiana,” Hodges told the Livingston Parish News. Rep. Kenneth Harvard, R – Jackson, expressed similar concerns when an Islamic school in the New Orleans area applied for vouchers, saying he would not support any policy that “will fund Islamic teaching.” Both statements seem to imply that either Christianity is the only religion worthy of funding or that Islam is an exception that should not receive support, seemingly because of its supposed correlation with violent acts. The first reason is intellectual dishonesty. No religion has a monopoly on truth, and, in fact, almost every religion is backed by the same kind of evidence, namely the words men wrote in holy texts. The second is confirmation bias. You cannot point to violence done in the name of Islam without also accepting violence done in the name of Christianity. We are all familiar with al-Qaida, but let’s not forget the Klu Klux Klan or the Crusades. The problem is that if you want to fund one religious institution, then you must fund them all. Thus, the only way to really appease everyone is to commit to funding only secular education. Secularism often gets a bad rap from the religious right, but secularism is merely an attempt to allow different beliefs to coexist. While the 2002 Supreme Court case, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, ruled that school vouchers did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment, I can’t help but view things differently even if the funds are allocated indirectly. Taxpayer money will always be used to fund religious teachings in these programs and will always lead to disputes among those who do not want their money funding different beliefs. Meanwhile, two plus two will always equal four.
David Scheuermann is a 20-year-old mass communication and computer science junior from Kenner. Follow him on Twitter at @TDR_dscheu.  
 
____ Contact David Scheuermann at dscheuermann at lsureveille.com