Is Lamontagne Serious?

Reading the Aug. 25, Concord Monitor's interview with , his comments regarding public funding for religious schools sounds a lot like he his advocating for a religious theocracy. 

“What makes a government a theocracy is when lawmakers actually believe that leaders are governed by the will of God, and write laws predicated on this belief.” http://civilliberty.about.com/od/religiousliberty/g/Theocracy-Definition.htm

Ovide is clear that he has no problem using your tax dollars to fund religion based education. Or should I say, funding for politically correct religious schools.

This from the Monitor's article:

Lamontagne attended Catholic schools in Manchester during his childhood and graduated from the Catholic University of America. He argues the 1877 amendment was passed during a time of anti-Catholic sentiment and should be repealed as part of the state's movement toward a voucher system that provides scholarship funding for students to attend private schools.

Asked if he would be open to public funding of madrasahs and schools that teach Creationism if the 1877 Blaine amendment were repealed, Lamontagne said "I think that it should be a political decision."

"In other words, the policymakers at the time who are looking at, for example, creating a voucher system should consider whether or not and to what extent that voucher would allow maximum utilization by the people, but currently that's a limited area that we can study," he said.

Lamontagne was asked why a taxpayer who wasn't Catholic should be made to support a school like Bishop Brady High School in Concord.

"Government should give the ability of parents to make a choice as to where they send their children," he said. "If you believe that every child learns differently, then it's really the choice of the parents to decide how that child should be educated, where the interest of the state is making sure that you have children educated and reaching the educational standards you would hope for."

So public funding for religious schools should be a political decision?  Are you kidding me? 

Having the government pick which religions are appropriate to receive government funding is clearly not what our constitution has in mind. The fact that an amendment to our state constitution was written to discriminate against Catholics doesn't give us permission to replace Catholics with Muslims or Sikhs. Having our State Legislature pick the religion they feel isn't a real religion or the religion that is the real one, scary thought.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That’s the first amendment of our constitution. Using public funding for religious institution's schools sure sounds a lot like the government is not only picking winners and losers, but endorsing one religion over another.

Separation of church and state: “...the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.  ”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

And while our forefathers weren't perfect in practicing what they wrote (remember that thing called slavery), in the preamble to our constitution is the phrase "...in order to form a more perfect union..." And while some define this as the phrase that gives our federal government power over the states in replacing the Articles of Confederation, I think we can also look at this phrase as our forefathers striving to improve how we govern ourselves. So I don't think it is much of a stretch to interpret this phrase as also meaning that we should 'continue' to improve on our imperfections and human foibles. Partuclarly when it relates to using governmental edicts.

Extremism on the left or the right is not what will move our country forward. Balance, common sense and using principals that are based in fact will allow us to expand our global influence. Kowtowing to the know nothings in either party will further split our country and lead us on a road to nowhere. 

Our country was founded on some great principles. Many running for public office claim to be scholars of our country’s history and constitution. So when I see a comment like Ovide’s, I have to wonder how an educated, practicing attorney can come to a conclusion so diversely opposed to the principals of our founding fathers and the documents our laws are predicated on.