Posted on 02/25/2004 8:22:15 AM PST by CFW
ANNE GEARAN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, in a new rendering on separation of church and state, voted Wednesday to let states withhold scholarships from students studying theology.
The court's 7-2 ruling held that the state of Washington was within its rights to deny a taxpayer-funded scholarship to a college student who was studying to be a minister. That holding applies even when money is available to students studying anything else.
"Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court majority. "Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit."
The case is a departure from recent church-state fights in which the Supreme Court has gradually allowed greater state sponsorship of religious activities. Rehnquist is usually a supporter of that idea.
Wednesday's case has implications for President Bush's plan to allow more church-based organizations to compete for government money, and the Bush administration argued that the state had been wrong to yank the scholarship from former student Joshua Davey.
Davey won a state Promise Scholarship, but the state rescinded the money when it learned what he planned to study.
Like 36 other states, Washington prohibits spending public funds on this kind of religious education. Bans on public funds for religious education, often known as Blaine amendments, date to the 19th century, when anti-Catholic sentiment ran high.
"It imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite," the high court majority said.
"It does not deny to ministers the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. And it does not require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit. The state has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction."
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
"Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority," Scalia wrote for the two.
"In an era when the court is so quick to come to the aid of other disfavored groups, its indifference in this case, which involves a form of discrimination to which the Constitution actually speaks, is exceptional."
Scalia said the court's majority was trying to play down the damage to Davey, who continued his education without the subsidy. He did not choose to enter the ministry after graduation, and is now in law school.
"The indignity of being singled out for special burdens on the basis of one's calling is so profound that the concrete harm produced can never be dismissed as insubstantial," wrote Scalia, the father of a Catholic priest.
Davey's lawyers argued that the state violated his constitutional right to worship freely.
A broad ruling that Davey had a constitutional right to the scholarship money could have forced a vast reordering of government spending, to ensure that government did not exclude religious programs or organizations.
The Bush administration had argued that the implications were less dramatic.
The Davey case is a follow-up to the court's major ruling two years ago that allowed parents to use public tax money to send their children to religious schools. A ruling in Davey's favor would have made it easier to use vouchers in many states, because it could overturn provisions in state constitutions like the one at issue in Washington.
The Davey case was in many ways the flip side of the voucher argument. It asked not whether governments can use tax money to underwrite religious education, as the voucher question did. Instead, the Davey case asked whether, when money is available, it must be available for religious and secular studies alike.
The case is Locke v. Davey, 02-1315.
Well, you may have been lead to believe that, but it simply isn't the case. From the article:
Like 36 other states, Washington prohibits spending public funds on this kind of religious education. Bans on public funds for religious education, often known as Blaine amendments, date to the 19th century, when anti-Catholic sentiment ran high.
This is nothing new. Its not current day leftist revisionism.
If you don't like the laws, then really the only people to blame are our prodestant ancestors who didn't particularly care for catholics back then.
Since that wasn't the issue at hand, its irrelevant. The issue is what it will used for, not who uses it. Its an entirely different issue, although I suspect some people will still say its the same.
I have to do something now I don't like to do now - I was wrong - there is NO federal law that prevents discriminatrion based on religion as it applies to this case. Furthermore, the US Constitution's only point about religion is that the government cannot establish a ferderal religion and it connot prevent the people from worshiping - neither were in violation in this case. So, you're right in this regard - let the states sort it out. I'm more comfortable with that idea anyway.
OK, so let's take it a step further. What do you think the SCOTUS would have said about this case if the State of Washington prohibited only Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim, etc.) students from receiving public scholarship money?
I think this may have had much to do with it; seems to me that this was never really the issue. The issue in my mind should have been if the state has a litmus test of worthiness when considering a student's higher education plan. Does the plan conform to the minimum standards? etc.
The state isn't prohibiting actual worship, but the state is, by default, saying that a degree in theology is not a real degree plan, and only because they are imposing a separate set of standards for what constitutes a bona-fide degree plan. I could see it going a whole different way on this point alone. On the one hand, it might be the downfall of some institutions that only pay lip service to the basic requirements, and on the other, it could energize those institutions who actually include math, English, history and other required subjects in their curriculum.
I don't really like speculating on issues, espeically ones that are highly unlikely to ever be rasied. Such a law has never been seriously proposed in modern times, and its highly unlikely that one ever would.
I can only refer back to the decision at hand:
--------------------------------------------------
"It does not deny to ministers the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. And it does not require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit. The state has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction."
----------------------------------------------------
I bolded what I feel is important. I can't read the minds of the majority, but it would stand to reason if one specific religion was single out, then the law would then be making students choose between their religion and a government benefit. Because ALL religions are treated the same, then nobody is being forced to "choose". Again, I can't read the minds of the majority, but that seems to me what they are saying.
Since you seem to be on the side of the dissent, consider this quote from Scalia:
"Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority," Scalia wrote for the two.
A religious minority? How can that be? Is Scalia claiming that "religious" people make up less than 50% of the U.S. population? That's what he is saying, and he is simply wrong. I think he is being disingenuous here, becasue I am quite sure he has refered to America as a "Moral, Christian nation" in the past.
Then:
"In an era when the court is so quick to come to the aid of other disfavored groups, its indifference in this case, which involves a form of discrimination to which the Constitution actually speaks, is exceptional."
The Constitution does not speak to this at all. The Constitution does not say how States can spend tax money, how scholarships can be offered or who they can be offered to. The Constitution simply stops government from respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excersise thereof. State laws precluding tax money going to scholarships for people to study ANY religion are completely Constitutional and within the powers granted to the States. Such laws neither establish a religion nor prohibit the free excercise of a religion. One does not need money provided by the government to practice their religion.
In deed. And what bothers me about the dissenting opinion is that Scalia is saying that States should be forced to fund religious study. Where does Scalia think the Constitution gives the federal government the power to force States to fund religious study?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.