In 1833, the state of Massachusetts became the last state to no longer fund churches with tax money, thus bringing an end to the gradual religious disestablishment movement in America and effectively banning the state from directly funding churches and other religious organizations. The benefits of this are clear: taxpayers are not obligated to fund entities with which they do not align. From the perspective of the religious institutions in question, they are better off because state funding can quickly lead to state control over various aspects of the church, such as the content of its messages.

It is important here to remember the phrase, “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” This embodies the relationship between the state and that which it funds: if the government were responsible for funding churches, it would inevitably become responsible for more than just funding. State subsidies are ultimately state controls. They would also have to determine which institutions would be eligible for said funding and on what basis. This discrepancy is the result of the inherent lack of neutrality possessed by all religious organizations. The potential ramifications of state funding for these institutions are therefore widely recognized today.

One is likely to assume that the American public school system, subsidized by the state, is by contrast a neutral establishment that benefits greater society, thus justifying its funding by the common taxpayer as essential. However, an individual making this assumption has failed to realize the striking similarities between these two types of state subsidization. Ultimately, the issue is moral: is ethical neutrality achievable? Just as a church or other religious institution imparts certain principles of one belief or another, so does any system of education.

The state-subsidized public schooling system delegates the authority of a child’s education from the parents to the civil government. When education is funded by the state, its content is unavoidably under the control of the authoritative entity. Allow me to remind you that he who pays the piper calls the tune, after all. A specific state government will possess a series of ethical principles that will not necessarily align with those of a specific family whose children attend public school. We can see that there is no neutrality here.

What, then, is the solution to the ethical dilemma? How are parents to reclaim their authority over their children’s education? Once again, the issue leads back to funding. In order to maintain complete authority, parents must take matters into their own hands. Rather than relying upon the government’s free, subsidized school system–subjecting children to the ethical standards that are not their own, but rather that of the entity funding it–parents must themselves provide the funds for their children’s education, be it through homeschooling, private schools, or some other form of secondary education.

It is clear that state-subsidized churches and state-subsidized schools have more in common than is frequently observed. While the two differ in purpose and environment, the negative outcomes of government funding is much the same for both: taxpayers become responsible for the financing of entities that they do not necessarily agree with nor endorse, which may or may not be of any benefit or interest to them personally. The entities, too, are impacted negatively by the inherent control a funding government possesses over them and their content.🔹