Posted on 12/03/2003 6:46:26 PM PST by jwalsh07
WASHINGTON -- All Joshua Davey, a valedictorian at his Spokane high school, wanted was to study in college to become a minister.
Instead, that simple plan four years ago turned into a church-state case embraced by religious conservatives as a vehicle for expanding their recent Supreme Court victories.
But when the Davey case was argued at the Supreme Court yesterday, it met resistance from a deeply divided court. One called the possible consequences of the case "breathtaking."
(Excerpt) Read more at seattlepi.nwsource.com ...
“It’s treating religion differently from non-religion,” he said. “Why is that not a violation of the principle of neutrality?”
Because there are at least 4 Supreme Court justices who are hostile towards religion and won't see it that way. The question is can they recruit 1 or 2 more over to the anti-Christian side.
Non-religion philosophies actually have no first amendment protection and yet they have more rights under recent court rulings than religions.
Why couldn't Washington give this kid $6000 for college? As long as he spends it on a college education, why is there a problem?
It's an exercise in futility to say that money which passes through government's hands must never go toward religious institutions. That goal cannot be reached and it is repressive to try to attain it. Scalia is right -- there is no neutrality here at all. It's anti-religious discrimination pure and simple.
And that amigo is why they are fighting this tooth and nail.
Yup.
It is a voilation of the principle of neutrality. The state is not sponsoring religion by giving out scholarships, it's sponsoring higher education.
But when the state say you can't major in theolgoical studies, but does not limit any other major, then that is religious discrimination, pure and simple, and a violation of the First Amendment. The state is blocking a person's right to practice their religion.
Once an instutution or person gives money away, that money is no longer theres. Private institutions and individuals can put any strings they want on their free gifts, because they are acting out of private interests. But public officials and public institutions (like state governments) cannot attach strings in an arbitrary manner: they are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, sex or religion.
By allowing a person to spend the state's money on any college they want, but not for a religious major, they are discriminating unfarily. There is no way anyone could possibly argue allowing a person free choice in their field of study is an establishment of religion by the state, even if all the recipiants went off to Bible school.
I have used my G.I. Bill benefits to attend seminary. Was the First Ammendment violated because I used the tax payer's dollars to learn about God?
The key here is whether a state may deny religious institutions or instruction from competing for state money that follows the student, if it so chooses. I hope and trust the result will flip if the issue is whether a may allow such to occur. I would also think the same argument would obtain if the federal government wishes to allow faith based institutions to compete for federal dollars for social welfare services, provided the criteria for choosing who gets the money does not give bonus points or demerits for an institution being faith based.
The key here is whether a state may deny religious institutions or instruction from competing for state money that follows the student, if it so chooses. I hope and trust the result will flip if the issue is whether a state may allow such to occur. I would also think the same argument would obtain if the federal government wishes to allow faith based institutions to compete for federal dollars for social welfare services, provided the criteria for choosing who gets the money does not give bonus points or demerits for an institution being faith based.
Can a state deny a black institution from competing for state money.....so it's OK to discriminate against religion but not skin color?
Hoooooo-RAY!
It's about time someone took the stand we all took back in the old
days of FR. The government is into every aspect of our lives. It
doesn't belong there; get it out and give back our money.
Thanks. We sure need more of you!
Wow. From Christ to the anti-Christ; minister to lawyer.
Exactly my thought when I read this observation,
...Different religious groups "may get into fights with each other about billions and billions of dollars," Breyer continued.
Turn off the spigot.
There are two distinctions. First, this is a state scholarship which was denied based on what I believe was some provision of the state constitution
More importantly, the issue is not whether the government can fund scholarships for religious studies; obviously, as you point out,students use government money for religious studies all the time.
Rather, the issue is whether the government must fund religious studies on the same basis that it funds secular studies.
The state denied this, and the federal court ruled this violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights.
As someone who usually thinks religion and government should be kept separate, I agree that the plaintiff should have received the scholarship and it was religious discrimination to deny it to him.
But the real issue driving the attention this case is getting is school vouchers. If the plaintiff wins, this will signal that states who have school voucher programs must provide money to students at religious schools. This has thus far been ruled unconstitutional by lower federal courts
That's why this is a big, big case. It could change the whole educational system
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.