High Court: OK to Deny Aid to Divinity Students

Fox News ^ | 02/25/04 | AP

[Modernman]

WASHINGTON

[Hodar]

That is discrimination. How could it not be?

May I direct you to the 1st Admendment which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, it could be argued that by providing 'free' funding for this study, that the gov't is indeed establishing a religion; which is contrary to the 1st admendment. Secondly, if the State choses to fund religous schools, you are selectively discriminating against religions who do not require a degree in order to join the clergy; in that you are providing money to say ... Lutherns over Mormons (just an example - no disrespect to either party is intended).

It boils down to 'if you want to become a Mullah, do so on your own dime'. So, whether the religon is Luthern, Methodist, Buddist, Wiccan, Satanic (or any other); if that is your chosen pursuit, the taxpayer should not be expected to foot the bill.

Also, it has been brought up that society as a whole benefits from the educational support of engineers, medical professionals, teachers, ect. However, the only intended benefitiary of a Theology degree is the congregation to which the person belongs. Thus, as only a select group benefits, it would not be unheard of to expect that group to pay the costs.

[jwalsh07]

I know what I'm talking about, you don't. Sorry that bothers you but such is life.

Theology is NOT the study of one relgion. But don't take my word for it, take a look at any syallabus in any Universtiy in America.

And then you come back and apologise if you'd like. :-}

[Hodar]

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.

Firstly, we are not talking about everyone in the world. We are talking about students in America.

Secondly, if we fund religon 'A', we must equally fund religon 'B'. Members of all relgions are garanteed equal protection under the law. Whether you consider them 'wacko' or not. If I belong to "Billy-Bob's Church of the Eternal Possum", and you get to go to your seminary on taxpayer dollars; guess what? I get to go to mine too. Do you really want a bunch of Eternal Possum Missionaries running around on your tax dollars?

[rwfromkansas]

"So, it could be argued that by providing 'free' funding for this study, that the gov't is indeed establishing a religion; which is contrary to the 1st admendment."

Not if you read the debates on the enactment of the First Amendment and early court rulings on its meaning.

[BibChr]

You can put it in large print if that makes you happy, but I still will never have said that abortion was a religious ceremony. It's a thought that could be argued, but is nowhere near my point.

But I did suggest re-reading, and thinking. Try that one.

Dan

[MEGoody]

"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."

Ah, I see. So you are saying that a Catholic or atheist can never go to a Lutheran minister and request assistance? They cannot choose to attend services at a Lutheran church?

Just another smokescreen, trying to cover up anti-religious bias.

[Modernman]

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?

Hmmm.... It would probably be unconsitutional for a state to give aid to one sex and not the other. So, if a state decided not to give aid to people studying religion, the rule would have to be gender-neutral.

[BibChr]

OK, if that's a serious question, it's very easy to answer. If you give money to A, but refuse to give it to B simply because B is religious, that is religious discrimination.

Okey doke?

If it was a serious question, you're done now.

If you're not done, it was just a provocative cliche.

Dan

[MEGoody]

"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."

Interesting. . .so a person who objects to medical schools based on religious grounds has every right to expect that funding for medical educations can be yanked? I doubt you'd agree. And yet you think it is okay not to fund a divinity degree because of an anti-religious bias.

[Hodar]

But don't take my word for it, take a look at any syallabus in any Universtiy in America.

Wow.... you are right. I just went to a Dictionary; but you know how biased that can be. < /sarcasm>

Here's a hint click here.

As you apparently do not read the links, I'll copy it here for you.

1.) The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2.)A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3.)A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

[Modernman]

Ah, I see. So you are saying that a Catholic or atheist can never go to a Lutheran minister and request assistance? They cannot choose to attend services at a Lutheran church?

Sure they can. However, the Lutheran minister got his education to be part of the Lutheran church, which is clearly a religious organization. Any assistance he gave a Catholic or atheist would either be religious (such as trying to convert them) or completely unrelated to his Lutheran ministry (say, if a Catholic friend of his came to him for advice).

[LowOiL]

Vouchers for everyone and no government-run schools? Fine with me.

I agree fullheartedly

[Modernman]

K, if that's a serious question, it's very easy to answer. If you give money to A, but refuse to give it to B simply because B is religious, that is religious discrimination.

That wasn't my question. You asserted in a post that if a state funds abortions and you object to abortion, the state funding of abortion is therefore discriminatory.

[Hodar]

And yet you think it is okay not to fund a divinity degree because of an anti-religious bias.

And again, who benefits from a taxpayer paid eduction in divinity or Theology? Only the congregation of said Theology. Who benefits from the study of medicine? Everyone.

If I create the church of "Billy-Bob and the Eternal Possum", the only benefitiaries of this chruch will be me, and my disciples. Somehow, I doubt you'd find much meaning in the theology (especially since I haven't invented it yet). However, I could demand to be funded at the same level as your church. Equal protection under the law, free speech and all that. So, if you get yours, I get mine. Or, they simply say that part of the tax-free nature of the church is to spread the word of their religion (ie. education) and do humanitarian works.

[jwalsh07]

Do you understand the difference in the terms theology, Protestant theology, Medieval theology, Christian theology and Jewish theology?

The law in Washington bans public funds from the study of theology. One degree in theology could include studies in all of the above specialised branches of theology. The state university system in Washingtom has undergraduate and post graduate degrees in religion studying the same theologies. Presumably the public is subsidising that.

Theology is the science of religion, or God, if you prefer, not a sect nor a branch which is what you seem to be fixated on.

[BibChr]

Oh. Maybe I should have said this:

If I have to pay for this guy going into abortion, but the state says "no" to the other guy going into religion... that's religions discrimination.

Oh, wait. I did say that.

Reading skills, folks. It's a way of life.

Dan

[gdani]

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.

Religion is not a protected class under the equal protection doctrine.

[Wrigley]

(I personally don't like vouchers.)

Nor do I.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

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?

With that same logic, why should childless couples have to pay taxes for schools at all?

[expatguy]

We need that money to pay for Kenyans to study Islam

US Government wants to fund Islamic Schools