John Bel Edwards: “I stand to speak not against the underlying bill but specifically in regard to the so-called charitable choice language…”

“I stand to speak not against the underlying bill but specifically in regard to the so-called charitable choice language in the bill. Let me make five points about that language: First what it says is Federal tax dollars can go directly to churches, synagogues and houses of worship. I believe that is clearly unconstitutional and for good reason. Federal subsidies of our churches and houses of worship is something we have not done for 200 years in our country. The second point. It mentions this language under the guise of not wanting to have discrimination against religious organizations. That might be cute marketing but it is faulty logic and it is unconstitutional logic. What that says in effect is that the Bill of Rights and the first amendment thereof discriminates against religion. The reason Mr. Madison, Mr. Jefferson and our Founding Fathers set up a distance between government and religion and church and state was to protect religion, not to discriminate against it. Their argument is that I guess the Bill of Rights is discriminating against religion. The third point is it talks about stopping discrimination. Charitable choice language in this bill actually subsidizes religious discrimination. Very clearly it says you can take my Federal tax dollars, your Federal tax dollars, and put out a government paid for sign that says ``No Catholics, no Jews, no Protestants need apply here for this federally subsidized job.'' That is wrong.”