"our state constitution requires a far stricter separation of church and state than the federal constitution
How later courts described this case
- "our state constitution requires a far stricter separation of church and state than the federal constitution
- "It is not the role of the State to pay for the religious education of future ministers"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Rosellini, J.
(concurring) — I agree with the majority. The separation of church and state, mandated by Const. art. 1, § 11 and Const. art. 9, § 4, would be violated by financing appellant's vocational instruction as a minister.
The dissent asserts, however, that the majority's decision is rendered "without sufficient facts or justification." This contention is without merit. We need look no farther than the plain language of our constitutional provisions, which state, in part:
No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: . . .
(Italics mine.) Const, art. 1, § 11.
§ 4 Sectarian control or influence prohibited. All schools maintained or supported wholly or in part by the public funds shall be forever free from sectarian control or influence.
Const, art. 9, § 4.
Moreover, our interpretation of these provisions has consistently rejected any inroads on the absolute prohibition contemplated by our forefathers. Thus, in Weiss v. Bruno, *633 82 Wn.2d 199, 206 , 509 P.2d 973 (1973), we observed:
In deciding these questions we recognize that the proscription of article 9, section 4 is far stricter than the more generalized prohibition of the first amendment to the United States Constitution. While the establishment clause broadly condemns any law "respecting an establishment of religion," our constitution specifically demands that no public funds be used to maintain or support any school which is under sectarian control or influence. There is no such thing as a "de minimis" violation of article 9, section 4. Nor is a violation of this provision determined by means of a balancing process. The words of article 9, section 4 mean precisely what they say; the prohibition is absolute.
It is indisputable that this more restrictive clause was the deliberate design of the framers of our constitution.
(Footnote omitted.)
To finance appellant's career goal of becoming a minister would violate this absolute prohibition. This we cannot do.