Posted on 02/25/2004 9:48:32 AM PST by Modernman
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:39:04 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
My taxes fund degrees for people who will never 'help' me in any way, yet I am required to fund them none the less. So what's the difference? Because one is religion and one is secular? Does that mean I can refuse to fund any secular degree that I object to on a religious basis? No, of course not. I still do not see a reason to single out divinity degrees.
"On the flip side; if you take taxpayer money to fund your religion, then it would only be fair for the taxpayers to approve what you are teaching."
No one is being asked to fund religion. They are being asked to fund education.
Hardly but no more or less than a degree in Theology depedning on the individuals capacity to make good use of it.
True, but the classes they took in engineering school were geared towards turning them into engineers. They may have ended up doing something else, but the classes they took were aimed at making them engineers.
Similarly, people with divinity degrees may or may not end up working in the area of their degrees. However, the goal of a degree in divinity for, say, a Lutheran is to become a Lutheran priest. So, the goal of said degree is to provide an education that will be used to benefit only a particular religious denomination. Now, if a Lutheran student was only studying religion or religious history in general, the goal of that degree would not be to provide a benefit to a specific religious denomination, though that might end up being the case.
And people who obtain specialized engineering degrees are limited on where they can work. Does that mean I don't have to fund them? What about someone who is getting a degree in a subject I object to from a religious perspective. Do I have to fund their education?
There seems to be a double standard going on.
Not my description, it is the definition of Theology.
If a philosophy major received this scholarship, and then went on to take additional courses to receive a divinity degree (dual major or graduate work) or just became a minister in some other fashion (a seminary, for example) would the state then expect him/her to repay the original schlarship for the philosophy degree?
Of course not, the anti Catholic bigots who adopted the Blaine Amendment in Oregon were not directing their animus at Philospohy.
By the nature of the Theology degree, the recipient will only benefit the members of his congregation. Where as a medical, humanities, engineering, software, arts and other degrees benefit everyone; regardless of religous affiliation.
No one is saying that you may not pursue this field of study, but the Supreme Court did say that it is up to the individual state to determine what fields of study will be supported. In this case, if you feel that you need to pursue a Theology degree, you are free to do so. You just cannot stick the taxpayers with the bill.
Sure, but the benefits of their engineering degrees are not limited to, say, Presbyterians.
What about someone who is getting a degree in a subject I object to from a religious perspective. Do I have to fund their education?
You're not free to break the law, but you are free to petition for a change in the law. The state could cut off funding for, say, Women' Studies, if it wanted to.
Actually, the states can fund Divinity degrees if they want. Nothing in this opinion would stop them from doing so.
How so? All this decision does is allow individual states to decide which areas of study they choose to fund. Nothing more.
Let's be intellectually honest, ok? Your statement should have read "They are being asked to fund religous education."
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?
My taxes fund degrees for people who will never 'help' me in any way, yet I am required to fund them none the less.
And this statement is patently false. Who do you think wrote the software that you are presently using? Who do you think designed the hardware you own? The roads, your health, your home, clothes, heating and AC all came from your educational tax dollars. These things didn't just magically 'happen'.
A point a lot of people seem to be missing. SCOTUS is not making Oregon do anything here. In fact, states are free to fund all degrees, including divinity degrees, if they so choose.
The reason religious studies are "singled out" is because they are different. If the Catholic Church required priests to have bachelors' degrees in Biological Sciences, there would be no reason to withhold government money for those students.
Another false assertion. Neither you nor the state has any idea what the recipient of a degree in Theology will do with it. Do you mean to tell me that only clergy study Theology? What a sad commentary on a public school system.
Where as a medical, humanities, engineering, software, arts and other degrees benefit everyone; regardless of religous affiliation.
You can't back up your assertion at all. Theology graduates pay taxes just like anybody else. I don't know what your degree is in but whatever it is in you have not benefited me an iota. The Constitution is not concerned with cost/benefit at any rate, it is concerned with equal protection under the law and the First Amendment explicitly acknowledges that religion is to be exercised freely.
No one is saying that you may not pursue this field of study, but the Supreme Court did say that it is up to the individual state to determine what fields of study will be supported. In this case, if you feel that you need to pursue a Theology degree, you are free to do so. You just cannot stick the taxpayers with the bill.
LOL, I am and always have been a net contributor. I paid my bills at college as well as my kids bills and I will pay for my grandkids bills as well, God willing.
I feel no need to pursue a Theology degree but I certainly feel the need to defend those who adhere to a religion from the secularists.
Neutrality would require them to honor the scholarship for all fields of study, including religion, or simply eliminating the scholarship program altogether. Either way would be OK by me.
A point a lot of people seem to be missing.
Yes, it's amusing how many people - myself included - become wishy-washy on states' rights when it involves an issue they may not support.
Examples: medical marijuana, gay marriage, gun control, assisted suicide, gambling, etc, etc
Get real, the same court decided Lawrence v Texas in opposition to states rights. Sodomy isn't specifically protected in the Constitution but religion is. States rights? Come on.
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.