Posted on 12/08/2003 4:36:04 AM PST by Holly_P
Advocates of separating church and state frequently - and correctly - recite the first phrase of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .," to support arguments against state-sponsored activities and expressions of faith. But the second half of that Establishment clause, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is less frequently pondered.
It is that "free exercise" language, however, around which entwines the case of Joshua Davey, now before the Supreme Court. The ruling could greatly expand the choices of those being educated with government dollars and, in the process, help erase vestiges of 19th-century anti-Catholic bigotry.
Davey was a bright 1999 high school graduate from Seattle whose academic record, class standing and family circumstances made him eligible for a Washington state Promise Scholarship. But when he said he wanted to invest the fruits of his academic labors to study for the ministry, the state yanked its $1,125 check from his hands.
Washington is one of more than 30 states that prohibit the use of public money for religious instruction. The language in its Constitution mimics that of the anti-Catholic "Blaine amendment," an 1876 attempt to change the U.S. Constitution to skew funding toward Protestant-dominated public education.
That amendment never got out of Congress, but its intent became law in those states before the high court's First and 14th amendment rulings extended federal constitutional protections to the states.
But Davey argued successfully - through the notably liberal Ninth District Court of Appeals, no less - that the scholarship had been awarded to him on the merits of his academic achievements and circumstances. And, once the state had decided to give money to him on such a basis, his plan for a course of study was none of Washington's business.
When they heard the arguments last week, the justices plainly were aware of the impact their ruling will have. "The implications of this case are breathtaking," said Justice Stephen Breyer. Indeed, they are.
But recent rulings, including the court's approval of vouchers to pay for parochial education in Cleveland, appear to have set the course for an affirmative Davey decision.
States need not pay for any higher education, public or private. But if they choose to offer scholarships to individuals attending both classes of institutions, they forfeit the privilege of regulating what the recipients may study.
If you're referring to the Spanish Inquisition, the known number of those put to death for "heresy" was probably far less than 10,000 over a 100 year period. These executions were performed by secular Spain, under order of the King and Queen, NOT "in the name of the Roman Catholic Church".
In fact, it was the Catholic Church which introduced a trial by jury and a lawyer for the accused, and who convinced the King and Queen of Spain to nearly abolish torture by limiting it to 20 minutes or less and by banning all forms of torture that caused death or permanent body injury. In fact, when you study the Spanish Inquisition, you will discover that the Popes repeatedly tried to disuade the King of Spain from harsh tactics, but to no avail, and that very often even Catholic priests and bishops were put on trial by the King.
Facts about the Spanish Inquisition have been so warped and distorted by anti-Catholics over the centuries that the truth lies burried under an almost insurmountable pile of revisionist cow dung. Modern history books should remind the reader that the Spanish Inquistion was instituted only after 400 years of conquest and control by Islam, and that when Spain finally threw off the yoke of Islamic oppression they found that many of the enemy had infiltrated the Church and Spanish society as laymen, clerics and heirarchy, and they were in no mood have spies hanging around under the guise of "converts". Ridding themselves of the confusion and dangers of Islamic infiltrators, (and sometimes of the Jews who had fought alongside Islam agaisnt Spain), was the underlying reason for the hunt for "heretics", or false converts. So it is important to know that those put on trial in the Spanish Inquisition were professed Catholics who failed to confess to certain basic tenets of the Christian faith, and the Inquistion trials had no interest in anyone who publicly acknowledged they were not Christians. And all one had to do to exonerate themselves at trial was to confess a belief in the full Christian faith.
We now see today, in America, how dangerous it is for our own society to be so wide open to any and all foreignors, especially those from Islam who hate our Christian faith and seek to destroy our society and culture.
Yes, but again there is a huge misrepresentation of the fact with Galileo's case. Because the Church considered his age, Galileo's "sentence" was to remain under house arrest at the Cardinal's mansion, how cruel. Before his trial he was given the opportuntiy to publish his very same theory of heliocentricity, (which he actually 'borrowed' from Copernicus), but within the context of the Christian faith and with the understanding that it was but theory, --which he refused.
But the biggest lie of all from Galileo's case was that the Catholic Church was somehow against science. It seems the anti-Catholics out there forget that Galileo was educated by Catholic scientists, mathematicians and doctors at the University of Pisa.
It's also interesting to note that modern Navigators still use geocentricity, (which the Galileo/Copernicus theory condemned); and even NASA still uses geocentricity in planning their space flights.
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.