Mississippi is adding the words “In God We Trust” to its license plate, and that has sparked some interesting debate. Much of that debate focused on an idea we have come to accept as gospel: that we have an American tradition of separating religion and politics. We do not. We have been misinformed and misled by generations of public policy, education, and media leaders on the so-called “separation of church and state.” The concept has been so pervasive that we generally accept the idea that it is inappropriate to bring any faith-based ideas to the public square. The idea that we should separate religion — of any faith or denomination — from politics is not only false, it is virtually impossible.

The arguments in favor of this separation arise from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, in which he used the phrase. However, that letter, and the metaphor, have been granted meaning that Jefferson never intended. With proper historical context and examination, it is clear that Jefferson, a major proponent of religious liberty, never envisioned anything like today’s interpretation. If anything, Jefferson’s metaphorical wall was meant to keep the state from violating the individual liberty of religious conscience. Washington and Lee University’s Sam Calhoun, Professor of Law and Associate Dean, put it this way: “[Jefferson’s] wall was meant to insulate religious belief and practices from legislative interference, not to separate religion from politics.”

In the 1947 case Everson vs. Board of Education, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote, “The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” The late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed with Justice Black. Rehnquist believed the Establishment Clause was only meant to prevent the establishment of a national church and the state giving preference to one religious group over another. It was not intended to exclude faith-based ideas from political discourse.  In America, these ideas can be informed by any faith and any denomination, or by no faith at all. What we must reject is the Faustian idea that any public policy ideas that come from a faith-based perspective are invalid.

If we think about the public policy arguments that have made the biggest difference in improving our society and promoting individual liberty, freedom, and opportunity, we find religion and faith-based reasoning. Jefferson, Hamilton, Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and many others who opposed slavery made faith-based appeals on that issue. It is absurd to think that we should restrict our views of what is right and wrong to the private sphere only. In fact, we should question the motives of anyone who wants to dismiss another’s public policy ideas simply because those ideas are informed by a faith.

Yes, I’m a conservative. Well, actually, I’m a “conservatarian,” but more on that at a later date. Yes, I’m a Christian. No, I don’t want the government to endorse my ideas simply because some of them may be informed by faith. My argument is not that government should support a religion. In fact, it is the opposite. We need a more limited government. We need a government that is less intrusive in all matters. We should stop petitioning the government to solve most of our problems — including ones better solved by private institutions and free markets. The more we ask of government, the less freedom we have.

What I seek is government more in line with what Jefferson intended when he wrote about the wall of separation. He was intending to protect us from the state’s involvement in religion. He was not trying to prevent us from expressing religious views in public policy. In America, and in Mississippi, we must be open to diverse points of view, even to views with which we disagree. In that great tradition, we therefore must not dismiss views influenced by religion under the false notion that we are committed to a separation of church and state. We are not, at least not the way you think.

Jon L. Pritchett is president and CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, the state’s non-partisan, free-market think tank.

Arizona is the closest model to a free market education setting in the United States. Today they have five private school choice programs serving nearly 70,000 students. That number is likely to increase in the coming years after the legislature expanded the state’s ESA to universal (but capped) eligibility over a several year phase-in period. They also have more than 15 percent of public school students attending a charter school.

Arizona has over 600 charter schools with more than 200 charters opening since 2010 alone. Yet at the same time 100 charter schools were also closed.30 Remarkably, most of these failing schools have not being closed by the state, but rather by parents. If parents believe their child is not getting a great educa- tion, they are voting with their feet. Those schools that closed lasted, on average, just four years and had an average of 62 students their final year. Parents in Arizona enjoy school choice, and they are able to make immediate decisions about their child’s future. If a school is not performing at a level they believe it should, they do not have to wait for it to improve. They can simply move on.

And the charter schools in Arizona, with light regulations, are now competing with the most highly regarded district schools in the country. The 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores show charter students in Arizona are nearly even with Massachusetts and ahead of New Hampshire, Minnesota, and New Jersey, which are states that spend among the most in the country per student.

At the same time, students in traditional district schools have experienced similar gains. In fact, Arizona led the nation in growth on the NAEP science test from 2009 to 2015. While Arizona has spent two decades providing families access to public and pri-vate school choice, all students have seen a benefit.

It turns out, when parents are given the opportunity to choose the best school for their children, children in both schools of choice and traditional district schools do better.

In a small way, Mississippi has seen the market effects of a school choice program. The 3-D School in Petal, MS is a specialty school that provides comprehensive dyslexia therapy services for students. Many of the families receive either the Dyslexia Scholarship or Special Needs ESA to help cover the cost of tu- ition. Because very few schools offer the services they provide, some families travel up to four hours per day roundtrip for their children to attend the school. The school has now opened a second location on the Gulf Coast due to this demand created by the school offering a high quality product and the scholarship programs that make the school more affordable for families.

Jon Pritchett talks with Jim Thorn of WYAB on May 2, 2018

Listen to the Segment

"Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." It's easy in a political campaign or a legislative session to focus on issues of the moment. But a statesman — one who is worthy of being lauded by future generations — will guard the foundation of freedom we inherited from those before us. He will not succumb to emotion or pressure to compromise that foundation in the name of short-term political gain. He will take seriously his responsibility as a steward of the foundation, carefully monitoring its stability and measuring its vulnerability to the proposals that come before him.

Such a statesman will lead, not follow. He will listen to his constituents, to be sure, but when they ask for something that would compromise the foundation, he will vote according to his responsibility as a steward, and he will explain to his constituents the long-term negative effect of their request. Similarly, a statesman will listen to the chosen leaders within his own political body (a committee chairman, presiding officer, etc.), but if they ask or pressure him to compromise the foundation, he will resist them as well. To do otherwise is to be a follower who is blown and tossed by the political winds, whichever direction they may blow.

Mississippi is in desperate need of leaders who will govern by principle. We need them now, and we need to cultivate more of them for our future. That's not to say there are none currently in office; but those who are already in office need allies who will fight the good fight alongside them, encourage them, and infuse them with a renewed passion for freedom. Together, they can explore principled ways to improve our state and serve their constituents—and do so in a manner that preserves the integrity of the foundation.

Our nation's Founders knew that the only way to form and maintain a stable nation was to build it on principles of freedom and to entrust it to men and women who would protect those principles from eroding over time. In 1776, when Thomas Jefferson, John Witherspoon, and others set their pen to the parchment that declared America's independence from Great Britain, they stood on principles about the nature of man, civil society, and government passed down from such minds as John Locke and Edmund Burke, and influenced by the precepts of the Bible. The result was a Declaration of Independence that is unrivaled in its timeless ability to inspire those who yearn for freedom.

Unfortunately, in recent generations, the ideas conveyed in that document have been largely forgotten or ignored—or, in some cases, treacherously abandoned. The freedom for which our Founders pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" is endangered by a growing misunderstanding of the proper role of government in the lives of its citizens—and the proper role of citizens in the exercise of governing. This loss of grounding in the citizenry is not only reflected in many of its elected officials, but in many cases, drives those officials to ignore timeless principles and follow the impulse to "do something—anything!" to solve a temporal problem. The result is further erosion of the freedom and the type of government our Founders sought for us.

It doesn't have to be this way. By returning to the principles that guided our Founders, we can restore their vision, even as we apply it in modern ways to our generation. That can happen only if we have leaders in our homes, communities, and elective offices who understand the principles and live by them. The goal of this primer is two-fold: first, to inspire leaders to govern by principle with integrity, honor, humility, and restraint; and second, to equip citizens with the tools they need to hold their elected officials accountable to these timeless principles.

This is an excerpt from Governing By Principle, MCPP's ten principles to guide public policy. 

View the article

Many free-market think tanks believe it is counter-productive for think tanks to engage in the culture wars. They think our time should be focused exclusively on policy research, legislative outreach, and legal action. And while those activities are important for limiting government and encouraging individual flourishing, we should also be engaged in the war taking place in our culture.

The reason culture wars are important is, while policy, political, and legal actions tend to be lagging indicators of what is happening in our society, culture is a leading indicator. Culture signals what people believe and what they value. Want to know where our world is headed? Don't look to the halls of Congress or the Mississippi Legislature. Politicians follow the lead of the masses. Instead, look to the most popular TV shows, movies, and sports stars. They are shaping how people think about what is morally right and fair.

Presently, the progressives (opponents of free markets and limited government) dominate discussion in the culture wars. If conservatives and libertarians fail to engage on culture, we will lose when it comes to policymaking and litigation down the road. The fight begins in the culture.

Fighting progressives in the culture wars is akin to weeding your garden. If you want to grow a beautiful flower, you need to feed it sun, water, and nutrients, but you also need to remove weeds. If left unattended, invasive weeds can grow stronger. If not pulled early, they can take root in the soil and begin to compete with your flower. Over time, weeds can steal the water, sunlight, and nutrients. They can become bigger, taller, and stronger than your precious flower. While we focus on nurturing the fragile flower of liberty, we also must fight the weeds of collectivism, liberalism, and progressivism.

I'm encouraged by the culture debate that took place in NFL stadiums about national anthems last year. While progressives have infected the arts, higher education, Hollywood, and news, we still have a chance to keep sports inoculated from the disease. Until recently, sports have maintained their status as a great unifier of people from different backgrounds. No matter our race, color, sex, age, country of origin, or political interests, we share a love for our teams. As NFL owners, players, ESPN, and ESPN's parent company, Disney, learned the hard way, sports consumers want their sports delivered free of social commentary and political opinion. If a consumer wants political analysis, there are plenty of other channels.

The NFL controversy was just a small skirmish in the larger culture war. There will continue to be social justice warriors who are constantly in search of a victim to protect. There will still be virtue signalers who want to show how compassionate they are but ignore the broader consequences of their actions. Folks will continue to do things like sit for a national anthem, for instance, even if it erodes a unifying, patriotic gesture that should be used to bring us together. But the NFL skirmish showed those with traditional values could win. There is a time and a place for rigorous debate about social policies. That time is not during the national anthem of our nation's sporting events. If nothing else, perhaps we preserved the joy of watching live sports delivered to our devices without political interruption. It remains to be seen how long the defense will hold, though. We must keep fighting.

(JACKSON) – The Board of Directors of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy (MCPP) has named Jon L. Pritchett as its new President and CEO. Pritchett is a native of North Carolina and comes to MCPP from the Tar Heel state’s John Locke Foundation, one of the nation’s oldest and most respected free-market, public policy think tanks, where he was Senior Vice President. Pritchett replaces MCPP's longtime president, Forest Thigpen. Before working in public policy, Pritchett spent nearly three decades in the private sector in a variety of leadership positions. Among other executive roles, which included investment banking, public relations, and sports marketing, Pritchett was CEO of AstroTurf USA. MCPP Board Chairman, Mike Dawkins said, “Jon Pritchett understands that the purpose of a free-market think tank is to guide policy, not based on political party affiliation, but based on principle. Jon will have a broad appeal to Mississippians across ideological lines. He communicates well with people with whom he may not agree because he respects their perspectives, while still holding to principles that will create a better place for all Mississippians. He challenges the mindset that a 'conservative' lacks compassion for the economically disadvantaged. Jon has succeeded as a business person and as an emerging leader in the free-market movement. Our board believes we have found an outstanding leader to guide MCPP.” “Jon Pritchett is the consummate professional,” remarked John Locke Foundation Board Member, Theodore Hicks. “He loves liberty and is willing to fight for her, but always as a well-articulated, gentleman. Our loss is Mississippi’s gain. With Jon at the helm of MCPP, there’s no doubt that freedom in Mississippi will expand,” added Hicks. When asked why she thought Pritchett was the right person to lead MCPP, MCPP Board Member, Gloria Walker responded, “We are beyond delighted that Jon and his family are moving to Jackson. We welcome the experience, passion, and energy that he brings to the position of President and CEO, because these skills are necessary for us to be successful in our mission to increase transparency at all levels of government. We look forward to working with Jon and are confident that he will bring a respect for traditional values that many Mississippians hold so dear. MCPP is very much alive and ready to start a new chapter.” Pritchett will join the organization at the beginning of April. According to Pritchett, his immediate goals are focused on communications and fundraising. “The excellent work of MCPP and its talented staff is not as well-known across the state of Mississippi as it should be. Mississippians need to know about the vital work MCPP and the Mississippi Justice Institute do to fight the enemies of liberty, to enhance freedom, to limit government, to ensure choice and competition, and to promote the foundational principles of a thriving society, including individual responsibility and strong traditional families. And this work cannot be done in a robust and meaningful way without raising funds from individuals, foundations, and businesses,” said Pritchett. Unlike most 501(c)3 non-profit organizations, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy takes no money from government sources at the local, state or federal level. Pritchett continued, “I’m honored to have the opportunity to work with our staff and board to build onto the substantial foundation developed over 25 years by Forest Thigpen." Jon is no stranger to Mississippi. When Jon was CEO of AstroTurf USA, Mississippi native Archie Manning served as AstroTurf''s spokesperson. Manning remarked, “I’ve known Jon since 2007, when I became involved with AstroTurf. He’s a strong leader, and I’m excited for Mississippi and for Jon.” In addition to his role as a leader, manager, and fundraiser, Pritchett also writes op-eds on a variety of public policy issues, including corporate social activism, business regulations, culture wars, the business of sports, and leadership. His work has been published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Federalist, and Washington Examiner, among others. He has appeared on the Fox Business Network, the YES Network, and on the BBC. Pritchett also co-hosts a weekly podcast called Head Locke, which is a unique look at current news, culture, sports, business, and public policy. Read Jon Pritchett's Bio HERE Download Jon Pritchett's Head shot HERE #### The Mississippi Center for Public Policy (MCPP) is an independent, non-profit, public policy organization based in Jackson, MS. MCPP works to promote and protect the concepts of free markets, limited government, and strong traditional families.

Ron Matis, Gov. Phil Bryant and MCPP VP for Policy Dr. Jameson Taylor