High Court: OK to Deny Aid to Divinity Students

Fox News ^ | 02/25/04 | AP

[Modernman]

hmmm.... 7-2. Even Kennedy and Rehnquist were in the majority.

[Chris Talk]

Impeach all supreme court and start over!

[LizardQueen]

On the bright side, it keeps us from having to fund training for mullahs.

LQ

[Hodar]

So, if I'm athiestic, agnostic, or belong to a church that does not require a Divinity degree in order to be a minister; I'm required to sponsor the education of a member of the clergy for someone else's religion?

Or, in other words .... If people should have their taxdollars used to fund the education of clergy for Christians, then the same amount of funds should be made available for Muslum, Buddist, Wiccan, Satanic and any other religous schools across the board.

I have to agree with the majority on this one.

[Modernman]

On the bright side, it keeps us from having to fund training for mullahs.

Hadn't even thought of that. Good point.

[Joshh86]

make that impeach all courts (and "restrain" 99.8% of lawyers)




"When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty." -Norm Crosby

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Davey's lawyers argued that the state violated his constitutional right to worship freely***


Preposterous! He can worship as freely as he desires - he just can't insist the government pick up the tab.

This ruling is as it should be. We don't need the government subsidizing Christ's kingdom.

What they fund they eventually seek to control.

[per loin]

To complete this separation of church and state, religious people must be exempted from all taxation.

[af_vet_1981]

Impeach all supreme court and start over!

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Impeachment is one of the answers to the problem.

[Modernman]

Some stories on this case seemed to imply that Oregon was trying to ban money from going to any type of religious studies. That doesn't seem to be the case- if this guy had wanted a degree in religious history or whatnot, I think he would have been fine.

I agree with the majority, too. This ruling seems to be very limited in how much effect it has on students wanting to study religion in universities.

[af_vet_1981]

To complete this separation of church and state, religious people must be exempted from all taxation.

ROFL

Sadly, I think they have cast us in the role of the victims.

[Modernman]

To complete this separation of church and state, religious people must be exempted from all taxation.

Fine, but you don't get to drive on any roads, receive any protection from the police or the courts or get the benefits of any of this country's laws.

That's just silly.

[babyface00]

I was raised Catholic, and I believe the "priest-track" is likely a bit different than the "minister-track".

Does getting a Divinity Degree make you a minister? Does everyone who gets such a degree become one?

I had plenty of friends who went to seminary college and didn't become priests, but I don't know if the comparison is an accurate one.

Another thing I'm curious about is whether or not the university granting the divinity degree was publicly funded, and offered other degrees (which likely shared many, if not all of the same classes) or was a single-purpose institution.

[per loin]

Fine, but you don't get to...

It's silly to jump to conclusions. I am not a religious person.

[BibChr]

Bad ruling. "RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION OK -- SUPREMES"

[Modernman]

It's silly to jump to conclusions. I am not a religious person.

It was more of a generic "you."

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - Where is the "equal protection" now?

[tom h]

Before everyone overreacts ... I think the Supreme Court is right on this one. They did not prohibit Wash State from providing the scholarship but they said it was constitutional for the state to determine what it would and would not fund.

This decision is consistent with the voucher decision. the SCOTUS did not order vouchers, or forbid them, but made the state and legislatures free to decide what to do with their education money.

They basically said that this was a state's right issue. No one has the "right" to free state money for college education. The state can frame the rules.

If the SCOTUS forced the state to provide the money, then all sorts of wierdos (Wiccans, Christian Scientists) and even potential enemies (radical Muslims) could be demanding state money to be "trained" at their "institutions of higher learning."

Let off your steam but I'm with the SCOTUS on this one.

[CMAC51]

Or, in other words .... If people should have their taxdollars used to fund the education of clergy for Christians, then the same amount of funds should be made available for Muslum, Buddist, Wiccan, Satanic and any other religous schools across the board.

The money was available and the person qualified for it apart from any religious considerations. He was subsequently denied access to it solely on the basis of religion. Had he not been denied the funds, it would not place any further requirement to provide funds for any other religious activity because religion had nothing to do with qualifying for the funds in the first place.

[HamiltonJay]

Hmmm so we can't use tax money to have someone study Theology, but if they wish to study homosexual and deviant erotica....we have to fund that? Go freaking figure...