Top Court Upholds Religion Scholarship Ban

[Dreamer128]

By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court upheld on Wednesday a government scholarship program that bars any money for college students who pursue a degree in theology, an important ruling reaffirming church-state separation.

By a 7-2 vote, the high court declared Washington state's program does not violate the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. The program, which gives scholarships to needy and academically gifted students, excludes vocational religious instruction.

The ruling has national significance as Washington is one of about 37 states to forbid public financing of religious instruction. It was a departure from a series of recent rulings that allowed more state involvement with religious activities.

Groups advocating church-state separation hailed the ruling for reaffirming that states cannot be forced to fund religious instruction. Those who challenged the program denounced the decision that "clearly sanctions religious discrimination."

A degree in theology means the degree would be "devotional in nature and designed to induce religious faith," training the student for the clergy, according to the ruling. The student at issue in the case wanted to become a church pastor.

"Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor," Chief Justice William Rehnquist said in the opinion. "Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit."

The ruling was a defeat for Joshua Davey, who was awarded a scholarship in 1999 under the state's Promise Scholarship Program for high school graduates.

Davey enrolled in Northwest College, a Christian school affiliated with the Assembly of God in Kirkland, Washington. He declared a double major in business and pastoral ministries.

When Davey learned students who pursue a degree in theology cannot receive any state-funded financial aid, he gave up the scholarship so he could pursue the major. Davey then sued.

STATE CHOOSES NOT TO FUND RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION

Rehnquist wrote in the 12-page opinion that the state has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of religious instruction.
He said most states around the time of the founding of the country placed formal prohibitions against using tax funds to support the ministry.
Nothing in the history of the law or the operation of the program suggested animosity toward religion, Rehnquist said.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Scalia said the program discriminated against religion.

Scalia wondered what would happen next.

"Will we deny priests and nuns their prescription drug benefits on the ground that taxpayers' freedom of conscience forbids medicating the clergy at public expense?"

The Rev. Barry Lynn of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State said, "This ruling is a huge defeat for those who want to force taxpayers to pay for religious schooling and other ministries."

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice who argued the case for Davey, said the decision "clearly sanctions religious discrimination."

He said the court "missed an important opportunity to protect the constitutional rights of all students."

Davey, who graduated from the college, changed his mind about a career as a minister. He decided he wanted to be an attorney, and is enrolled at Harvard University's law school.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

[Timber Loftis]

It's a spending issue. If the state wanted to allow the funds to apply to theological degress, I don't think they would be prohibited from doing so.

The state is generally allowed to designate how special program money gets spent. If it can earmark a scholarship for X minority group, give special loans to Y types of construction projects, etc., then it can choose to set up a scholarship that will fund studies so long as they aren't religious.

[Yorick]

I agree with you Timber

[Larry_OHF]

The courts are blind to what they are doing, in my opinion. They think that they are upholding the seperation of church and state, or they are at least pretending to be doing so...but they are actually doing the reversal. They are using the religious point of this to discredit somebody who wanted to get a job, and earn a living in something that he enjoyed. If you do not work in a field that you enjoy, you are doomed to misery. His "passion" for his education to become a teacher of religious views was a job dream for him and a way of maintaining a healthy lifestyle, and the courts are not allowing a man to become educated in the field in which he has his interest. If he does not have the money to become educated, he will never become a contributing member to an improving society. That is what the funds are for. To help those that want to achieve, yet are hindered by mere $$$.

[Yorick]

I agree with you Larry

[Chewbacca]

7-2 is a strong ruling considering this court's history concerning SC&S issues and idealogical split. Scalia's stance was so predictable, his usual grasping at straws and crying persecution. I'm so glad he is recused from the pledge "Under God" case.

Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for preacher training.

"Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor," Chief Justice William Rehnquist said in the opinion. "Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit." ************** Rehnquist wrote in the 12-page opinion that the state has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of religious instruction. He said most states around the time of the founding of the country placed formal prohibitions against using tax funds to support the ministry. Nothing in the history of the law or the operation of the program suggested animosity toward religion, Rehnquist said.

[Larry_OHF]

Take the title off of it and it can be seen for what it is...a job. If one does not care for what is being taught...one still has to agree that a job is a job.

For example, I hate salespeople...but that is their job, and they have a right to work at what they are good at...just don't sale to me unless I ask. Same with preaching...the dude will only preach to people that want to be "sold" to. In a way...a preacher is a type of salesman.

In my health book for school, it mentions that spirituality (of any type) serves to add a fifth element of health to people.
The five elements of health are:

Physical
Emotional
Cognitive
Social
Spiritual

[ 02-29-2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[Dreamer128]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: The five elements of health are: Physical Emotional Cognitive Social Spiritual

I knew it. Spirituality is the Fifth Element!

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by Dreamer128 I knew it. Spirituality is the Fifth Element!

Lol...good catch!

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Taxpayers aren't being "forced" to pay for religious training. This was the case of one individual. The student applied for a scholarship and was granted the scholarship based on his own merits.

The only reason his right to the scholarship was later questioned was because of the major he chose. If he had just taken a major in business, there would have been no controversy.

The only reason his right to the scholarship was challenged was because of his chosen major.

Yet that isn't considered discrimination. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]