High Court rules states can deny scholarships to divinity students

Jewish World Review ^ | Feb. 26, 2004 | Frank James

[SJackson]

Justice Scalia: "What next? Will we deny priests and nuns their prescription-drug benefits on the ground that taxpayers' freedom of conscience forbids medicating the clergy at public expense?"

(KRT) In a major victory for advocates of a strict constitutional separation of church and state, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Washington state ban on taxpayer-funded college aid being given to students pursuing theology degrees.

The 7-2 ruling buoyed opponents of school-voucher programs who said it might bolster their case that public money shouldn't be used to assist parochial-school students.

But advocates of such programs took solace in the narrowness of the high court's decision, saying the justices hadn't dealt a mortal blow to their position.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist spurned the argument of Joshua Davey, who as a college student sued Washington state. Davey said a state law that forbid publicly funded scholarships from going to students taking courses that prepare individuals for the ministry violated his 1st Amendment right to freely exercise religion.

"We reject his claim of presumptive unconstitutionality," Rehnquist said. "In the present case, the state's disfavor of religion (if it can be called that) is of a far milder kind" than another case cited by the student where the high court had ruled a state had indeed infringed on religious freedom.

The Washington law "imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite," the chief justice said. "It does not deny to ministers the right to participate in the political affairs of the community

"And it does not require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit," Rehnquist wrote. "The state has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction."

Writing in dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the different treatment Washington showed to religious studies was unconstitutional on its face.

"When the state makes a public benefit generally available, that benefit becomes part of the baseline against which burdens on religion are measured," he wrote. "And when the state withholds that benefit from some individuals solely on the basis of religion, it violates the free exercise clause no less than if it had imposed a special tax.

"What next? Will we deny priests and nuns their prescription-drug benefits on the ground that taxpayers' freedom of conscience forbids medicating the clergy at public expense?" Scalia asked. Justice Clarence Thomas joined him in dissent.

The Bush administration said it believed its efforts to make it easier to give federal funds to faith-based groups were not affected by the ruling.

[longtermmemmory]

So the divinity degree will include an accounting class and be off just enough to pass this new system game.

[Cicero]

Stealth divinity schools pretending to teach programming?

[xzins]

When the state makes a public benefit generally available, that benefit becomes part of the baseline against which burdens on religion are measured," he wrote. "And when the state withholds that benefit from some individuals solely on the basis of religion, it violates the free exercise clause no less than if it had imposed a special tax.

Scalia is SOOOOO Right on this one.

If they collect my tax money and give it to all kinds of people for education, then the government's interest is distributing it for education....not in deciding which subjects within education they consider worthy. Once the decision is made that a particular avenue of education is unworthy, then they've discriminated. And to single out religion courses is to descriminate against religion.

Patently anti-religion.

[longtermmemmory]

Perhaps we should dust off that FDR court packing idea. Scalia needs HELP.

[xzins]

Scalia and Thomas. I'm really surprised that Rehnquist disagreed with Scalia on this one.

Court-packing would be a good thing. But how do you clone Scalia?

[Plumrodimus]

Here's the part I don't get. A Theology degree is only a course of study isn't it, much like a History degree? It's not a religeous license to minister in a church.

What about people with college degrees who change fields, enter the priesthood, end up working at Taco Bell or become stay at home parents? Should they pay back their Pell Grants after not following the profession that the government paid them to learn?