February 26, 2004

• I saw this story yesterday and I gotta tell you, I don't agree with it in principle. I'm not a huge fan of organized religion and I think that separation of church and state is vital, but I think this is an extreme reaction. Technically though, what they did was not against the law or the Constitution so it was probably the only way the Supreme Court could rule. I still think it's short-sighted though, and that the law should probably change.
• I think it's valid. Religion is a personal affair. You can form groups, but it should stay within the group. A taxpayer wouldn't want her money to subsidize a prospective pastor who shall be serving adherents of that particular religion. By funding a student, it's a government's tacit endorsment that studying that religion(not critically, but as indoctrination) is a valid activity. For a secular government, that's a valid position to take. It has be left to those who believe in it.
• *that's not a valid position to take
• [ hit publish too soon ] The positive thing about the ruling for me though, is that if it had gone the other way it would have set a dangerous precedent. I'm against faith-based social service organizations. I don't think that religious organizations should receive government money. If I were in need of social services, I'm positive I wouldn't want the people who the government sanctioned to help me shoving their beliefs down my throat.
• The positive thing about the ruling for me though, is that if it had gone the other way it would have set a dangerous precedent I completely agree.
• I might agree with you, except that I'm not sure how allowing states to give money to religious scholarships is unconstitutional. After all, can't one go to divinity school and not be religious? It's my understanding that this affects anyone who wishes to even study religion, much less go to actual divinity school. So this DOES impact people's education. In essence, the ruling indicates that education in religion is no longer a valid academic pursuit.
• I'm not sure how allowing states to give money to religious scholarships is unconstitutional. Please to forgive my foreigner-laypersons' understanding that this was not the nub of the ruling? I thought SCOTUS merely ruled that a State does not have to support religious instruction in this manner if it so chooses. From the majority opinion [pdf]
• In essence, the ruling indicates that education in religion is no longer a valid academic pursuit. For purposes of funding by a secular govt., yes.
• quidnunc kid: link is dead. I may be wrong, but wouldn't this fall under an equal protection umbrella? By giving a scholarship to a religion student, the state is not endorsing that religion, just the study of it. Gyan: I think it's a travesty, in that case.
• My understanding is that it wasn't a degree in comparitive religious studies but a degree in divinity; that is a degree specifically to prepare a student for duties as an official of a specific religion. The former is a general education, which could be reasonably be considered part of a secular state education. The latter is simply underwriting the costs of a given religion, which isn't.
• f8x: like my career. Err, I mean, it works for me but there's always the SCOTUS in question. PDF, I says.
• I'm wondering if that's true rodgerd. I couldn't find the distinction in the article, and I'm wondering if the actual decision made that distinction. Does anyone know?
• Aha! Thanks for the link quid. From a quick reading, it looks like rodgerd was right.
• Kimberly: the ruling only affects the study of '"devotional theology" (i.e. "devotional in nature or designed to induce religious faith"), not the study of religion or theology in general. At least that is how Justice Thomas interprets it, in his dissenting opinion (another PDF file linked from the Yahoo news article).
• I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue, but I was very impressed by Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion, which argues very forcefully (and also very elegantly and wittily) that the decision is discriminatory. I think he has a point. Why should someone training to be a minister of religion be treated any differently from someone training to be a lawyer, a teacher, or a member of any other profession? And I was also very struck by Scalia's concluding remarks, which open up some wider implications: What next? Will we deny priests or nuns their prescription-drug benefits on the ground that taxpayers' freedom of conscience forbids medicating the clergy at public expense? This may seem fanciful, but recall that France has proposed banning religious attire from schools, invoking interests in secularism no less benign than those the Court embraces today.
• Thanks rodgerd for pointing that out. I think you're right. But how, as Scalia points out, is a divinity education any different than another education? The SCOTUS ruling seems inclined to believe that the scholarship money is going to endorse a particular religion. I look at it as going toward a person's EDUCATION. Whether religious or secular in nature, the money is simply supporting the education.
• Why should someone training to be a minister of religion be treated any differently from someone training to be a lawyer, a teacher, or a member of any other profession? Because none of those professions involve god, faith, or spirituality. The basis of the ruling was that the US constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion. The interpreretion of this over the years has been that the gov may not directly fund churches or other religous institutions. That's why parochial schools can recieve gov money for textbooks but not for teacher salaries. Same concept applies here; study all the religion you want we'll pay for it, but if you want to be a priest, tough titties god-boy.
• I quote a friend. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude, I just don't want boob in my football. It's like church and state. I like sports over here and my private parts in any other place.
• Please tell me why it is okay to deny a scholarship to someone wanting to study theology while the government is paying for religious education in the form of School Vouchers? From ReligiousTolerance.org Some Christians, mainly Roman Catholics and conservative Protestants, have strongly supported the transfer of government revenue to religious schools. However, direct financial support has been unconstitutional, because of the principle of separation of church and state which is part of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A recent technique has been to promote "school voucher" programs at the state or municipal level. The government gives a voucher to parents that they may use to pay for part of the fee for enrolling a child in a private school. In effect, the state would be returning money collected from parents in the form of taxes for the public school system, so that they could help finance their child's education in a private school, either religious or secular. The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found in 2000-DEC that "close to 96% of students enrolled in the program for the 1999-2000 school year attended sectarian institutions." Thus, a voucher program indirectly finances religious schools with government funding. Public voucher plans seriously entangle the government and religious groups. When evaluating government plans, courts have traditionally cited: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which has been interpreted by the courts as implying a wall of separation between church and state. Looks like six of one, half a dozen of the other, eh?
• Spooky: I take your point, but Scalia's argument is that there is a difference between (a) singling out ministers of religion to receive special funding, and (b) excluding them from generally-available funding. The first is obviously unconstitutional, but the second is not.
• Spooky: I take your point, but Scalia's argument is that there is a difference between (a) singling out ministers of religion to receive special funding, and (b) excluding them from generally-available funding. The first is obviously unconstitutional, but the second is not.
• Whoops, my last comment posted twice. Sorry, don't know how that happened.
• I found that, strangely, I am disturbed by this ruling, and I say this as a devout agnistic secularlist. Maybe it is that in the case in question, the student had woon a merit scholarship - I feel he should have been allowed to pursue the studies of his choice. It was not as if all divinity students are being supported by the government. One could also make the argument that by excluding devotional theology degrees, the government is not maintaining the appropriate distance from religion, but seeming to even promote secularism. I think that religion is compatible with public eductation. In Ontario, we have state supported seminaries that seem to get on just fine - they just have to follow the same codes of conduct as any other publically supported institution. (Of course, we also have state supported Catholic schools that the UN has complained about, but they are all tied up with the confederation of the country or something, and so not easily closed).
• I really should proof more carefully - that's what you get for posting when trying to do something else too.
• One could also make the argument that by excluding devotional theology degrees, the government is not maintaining the appropriate distance from religion, but seeming to even promote secularism. Maintaining secularism. On paper, govt. decisions must not take "religion as truth" into consideration.