Anyone who thinks that anti-Catholic bias is only alive and well among the Democrats in the US Congress questioning prospective Supreme Court nominees needs to think again and look no further than our own beloved state of New Hampshire, which was originally settled in large part by French-Canadian Catholics migrating Southward.
After the great Irish potato famine in the mid-1800’s, America experienced a large wave of Irish immigrants, many of whom were Catholics. Some politicians wanted to prevent any public support of Catholic institutions and thus attempted, unsuccessfully, to amend the US Constitution to prohibit any public money being sent to Catholic institutions, even though they were not specifically named. But everyone knew which group was being targeted for discrimination.
Although not all Catholics are Irish, most Irish are Catholics. And I am old enough to remember my father telling me that John Kennedy could never be elected president of the US because he was Catholic. I also remember seeing in antique shops old help wanted signs reading “Help Wanted – No Irish Need Apply” that appeared to be in fairly common use many years ago.
Well, times have certainly changed – – -or have they?
After a federal effort to discriminate against Catholic institutions by amending the US Constitution failed in 1875, many states adopted so-called “Blaine Amendments” to accomplish the same insidious purpose, named after the US Congressman who had proposed the failed federal constitutional amendment.
Two years later, in 1877, NH voters added the following language to Article 83 of Part Second of our state constitution:
“Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination.”
This is, unfortunately, New Hampshire’s version of the Blaine Amendment, and is used by many, whether or not openly anti-Catholic, to continue the insidious discrimination against Catholics and their institutions, which often do a better job of educating our children in many cases than do our public schools for which the taxpayers pay so much.
There is even another reference in Article 6 of Part First (the Bill of Rights) the New Hampshire Constitution that became effective in June of 1784: “But no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools or any sect or denomination.”
With such a large Catholic population in New Hampshire, as well as adherents to other religions in our state who believe in religious tolerance, is it not fair to ask why New Hampshire voters, as well as the NH chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, do not work together to eliminate this ugly blot on our state and many of its citizens by amending our state constitution to eliminate this discriminatory language at the earliest possible time?
*****
From Skip:
Here is the entirety of Article 83:
[Art.] 83. [Encouragement of Literature, etc.; Control of Corporations, Monopolies, etc.] Knowledge and learning, generally diffused through a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; and spreading the opportunities and advantages of education through the various parts of the country, being highly conducive to promote this end; it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, to encourage private and public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections, and generous sentiments, among the people: Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination. Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it. The size and functions of all corporations should be so limited and regulated as to prohibit fictitious capitalization and provision should be made for the supervision and government thereof. Therefore, all just power possessed by the state is hereby granted to the general court to enact laws to prevent the operations within the state of all persons and associations, and all trusts and corporations, foreign or domestic, and the officers thereof, who endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination, conspiracy, monopoly, or any other unfair means; to control and regulate the acts of all such persons, associations, corporations, trusts, and officials doing business within the state; to prevent fictitious capitalization; and to authorize civil and criminal proceedings in respect to all the wrongs herein declared against.
June 2, 1784
Amended 1877 prohibiting tax money from being applied to schools of religious denominations.
Amended 1903 permitting the general court to regulate trusts and monopolies restraining free trade.
Well, if by cherish now having been redefined by Claremont I (yes, Andru Volinsky, an anti-Christian/religious bigot, IMHO) is meaning it functionally requires the State to pay for public education, and because “cherish” IS used in terms of BOTH “all seminaries and public schools”, does that override the “Blaine Amendment” shortly thereafter? Why couldn’t somebody exploit the conflict between “cherish…and public schools” and “cherish…all seminaries”?
