Replies

Justice Antonin Scalia's question to the defendant and my question to FR:

“It’s treating religion differently from non-religion,” he said. “Why is that not a violation of the principle of neutrality?”

"... embraced by religious conservatives as a vehicle
for expanding their recent Supreme Court victories..."
- - -
What are the recent Supreme Court Victories
being embraced by religious conservatives
that this article is talking about?

“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.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Marxism is no less a religion than any other. In fact, most religions have faith in things that cannot be known. Marxism has faith in things that have been proven false.

Non-religion philosophies actually have no first amendment protection and yet they have more rights under recent court rulings than religions.

There are little old ladies on fixed-incomes who basically subsist on their social security payments. Tax money is sent to them. And what do they do? They drop a buck or two in the church collection plate! Hey, it's their money, right? They can choose to spend it that way, right?

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.

As Lee Corso says, "Not so fast my friend."

A ruling like this might work in the favor of Christians and conservatives alike. If it's illegal for the government to sponsor a scholarship for a student to study theology at a state school due to separation of church and state issues...

...what about the very existence of the theology department at this state school? Surely it would be a violation of church/state for a state school to have a theology department to begin with, and pay the professors in those departments with public tax dollars.

So shut them all down! Fire all the professors.

This helps Christians because theology departments at public universities are usually centers of the most liberal anti-christian trash scholarship that you'll find. It helps Conservatives because it eliminates one department at state schools, cuts the educratic bureaucracy, and cuts spending.

This one might work in our favor......

“It’s treating religion differently from non-religion,” he said. “Why is that not a violation of the principle of neutrality?”

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?

This one is going down. Sandra Day and Kennedy are not on board.

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.

Re:
"..Davey has since abandoned his ambition for the ministry in favor of Harvard Law School..."

Wow. From Christ to the anti-Christ; minister to lawyer.

INTREP