High Court: OK to Deny Aid to Divinity Students

Fox News ^ | 02/25/04 | AP

[Hodar]

So can I refuse to fund those degrees?

Absolutely. For example, if there are taxpayer paid courses on Islamic Studies; feel free to have the taxpayer support yanked. For if you support one religion, you must support them all equally.

[jwalsh07]

I try.

[mrsmith]

Moore's monument imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite," the high court majority said. "It does not deny to anyone the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. And it does not require anyone to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit.

But you want a different standard for acts that are "for" religion even if they meet all of the standard above.

Amazing.

[jwalsh07]

Absolutely. For example, if there are taxpayer paid courses on Islamic Studies; feel free to have the taxpayer support yanked. For if you support one religion, you must support them all equally.

Do you have some sort of gene anomaly that prevents you from understanding the difference between "support one religion" and the study of Theology?

[AmishDude]

By your standards, a philosophy degree serves no purpose whatsoever. Which isn't far from the truth, but I digress.

Theology is no less an appropriate course of study than any other degree in the humanities. It's still a university course of study with general education requirements, etc. It is not a seminary education.

[rwfromkansas]

This is a very puzzling ruling.

Did Rehnquist drink a dozen beers before court???

[MEGoody]

"Again, if I am required to fund YOUR religous training, then as the taxpayer I will demand that you follow MY rules as to what, who and how you teach. For example, now women MUST be able to be Pope (in the case of Catholics), and you must use EEO guidelines in assigning your church hierarchy. I don't think anyone wants that, do you?"

Accredited schools already have requirements they must meet. So how is this going to be different? If you are implying they would put 'rules' on religious training that they would not put on other types of education, then we go back to the constitional guarantee of equal treatment under the law.

"And this statement is patently false."

You think it is patently false that I fund degrees that will never help me in any way? Hmmm. . .so tell me, how does a person with a degree in "Women's Studies" help me? How about the person who has a degree in "Elizabethan Literature"?

[Modernman]

But they are limited none the less. So why should I have to fund their education?

You're either missing or ignoring my point. An engineering degree might be useful in only certain, secular areas. However, there is no religious limitation as to whom an engineer can be helpful to. The benefits of a theology degree are clearly intended to only be applicable to members of a certain congregation.

[jwalsh07]

Kind of pathetic, isn't it? You can't argue a point, but eagerly jump to the personal attack. Please grow up. I can certainly find a more intellectual argument from one of my grandchildren than you have proven so far. Have a nice day.

Oh well debates over, Hodar declares victory and states that my intellectual capacity is that of a child.

Who I am to argue?

[rwfromkansas]

Too bad you support religious discrimination.

Scholarships are given to help people pay for college. To say that since you are a Christian you can't get the money is discrimination by the govt. and wrong.

[jwalsh07]

Did Rehnquist drink a dozen beers before court???

LOL, nah, this one is actually defensible. I don't agre with it because the court has been screaming for years about "neutrality" and this fails that test miserably but remember Justice Rehnquist is BIG on states rights.

[rwfromkansas]

It says that religious people need not apply for scholarships.

The ruling is rather stunning......extremely unexpected.

[Hodar]

You would do well to actually learn what you are talking about. You obviously have no idea what the 1st Admendment is, and is not. You also apparently do not know what Theology is and is not either. This is not a personal attack, but a statement of demonstratable fact. You seem to love personal attacks, as your posts to several people have been returned with posts about your lack of reasoning capabilities, your immaturity, and complete lack of forethought.

I would suggest that you read the links that have been generously given you, and then think about what they actually mean. You obviously do not know what you are talking about.

[Modernman]

Moore's monument imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite," the high court majority said. "It does not deny to anyone the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. And it does not require anyone to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit.

The two cases are quite similar: they deal with the obligation of a state to pay for religious matters. Here, SCOTUS is saying that a state is not obligated to pay for religious schooling. The student suing here wanted the court to rule that states are obligated to spend tax dollars for religious teaching. In Moore's case, Moore was claiming that the state is required to allow a government official to spend government money and use government property for his own religious expression.

In both cases, the parties who lost were trying to force the government to spend money on religion.

[rwfromkansas]

This man was given the scholarship becuase he deserved it, and then because thte state did not like that he happens to be a believer, they took it away.

That is discrimination. How could it not be?

It would be different if this was a private group's scholarship, but it was money from the state of Oregon, a state that serves everybody who lives there, not just people seeking secular vocations. The state has no right to put some people as second class citizens not worthy of funding that would be available to EVERY OTHER VOCATION BUT ONE.

[rwfromkansas]

Nonsense. They are paying for the person to be educated so he can serve people in a congregation (likely many many over the course of his career). This is no different from paying for somebody to get trained so they can go work at Boeing for their entire life. They get the scholarship, but not the religious guy. That is NOT EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW.

[mrsmith]

One standard to allow the state to descriminate against religion, and another standard to allow the state to descriminate for religion.

Your position is very simple and clouding it with mischaracterizations of Moore's case won't help.

[rwfromkansas]

The schools put standards on who may study subjects.

Your argument that allowing a divinity student to have the same scholarship offered to EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON IN THE WORLD somehow opens the door to paying for wacko religions is nonsense.

[rwfromkansas]

there is something called the equal protection clause...you know, that thing that helped us in Bush v. Gore and is violated by Rehnquist going loopy on this one.

[VermiciousKnid]

I am a Catholic woman. There is NO WAY I will ever be able to become a priest of the Holy Catholic Church.

If I wanted to attend the Yale School of Divinity to study for a degree, does this mean I would be ineligible for "taxpayer" (read, "MY") tuition assistance?

Regards,