Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (31425)	2/25/2004 4:37:27 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793706

High Court Allows States to Deny Scholarships for Religious Study Ruling Is Departure From Recent Church-State Fights By Fred Barbash Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, February 25, 2004; 2:53 PM The Supreme Court ruled today that state sponsored scholarship programs may refuse to fund a student's religious education. In a 7-2 ruling on one of its major church-state cases of the year, the court rejected arguments that such a refusal infringes on the First Amendment right to practice religion. The opinion, written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, effectively supports laws in 37 states that prohibit state funding of religious education in colleges and universities. It does not mean that states must prohibit such funding, only that they may do so if they choose without offending the United States Constitution. The decision represented a defeat for the Bush administration, which urged the court to rule that exclusion of religious education from scholarship programs violates the First Amendment. The administration has been seeking legislation allowing federal funding for "faith based" social welfare programs run by religious institutions. Today's ruling did not speak directly to that sort of government assistance. Today's case, Locke v. Davey, stemmed from provisions of Washington state's constitution and law barring government funding of religious activities, including the support of any religious instruction. In 1999, the Washington state legislature created a "Promise Scholarship" program that dispensed funds for college to eligible graduates of high schools in Washington. Joshua Davey applied for one of these scholarships and was found eligible. But when he enrolled in Northwest College, officials denied him the scholarship money because he said he was pursuing a degree in theology. They cited the legal prohibition on aid to religious education. Davey appealed through the courts, winning a favorable decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that state was violating the First Amendment's "free exercise" of religion clause. The court reversed that decision today in an opinion written by Rehnquist, and joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Rehnquist said that Washington's ban is not in any way comparable with laws, previously struck down by the court, that unconstitutionally stifle religious activity. Washington state's constitution "imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite," Rehnquist wrote. "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." Nor does the prohibition appear to be motivated by some sort of "animus" towards religion, Rehnquist said. Rather, he said, "the state has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction." Scalia and Thomas disagreed. "Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority," Scalia wrote for the two. "In an era when the court is so quick to come to the aid of other disfavored groups, its indifference in this case, which involves a form of discrimination to which the Constitution actually speaks, is exceptional." Scalia said the court's majority was trying to play down the damage to Davey, who continued his education without the subsidy. He did not choose to enter the ministry after graduation, and is now in law school. "The indignity of being singled out for special burdens on the basis of one's calling is so profound that the concrete harm produced can never be dismissed as insubstantial," wrote Scalia. "What next?" asked Scalia in the dissent. "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? 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." The Supreme Court has over the years grown more permissive in allowing public funds and facilities to be used for arguably religious purposes. The court, citing free speech rights rather than religious rights, has said that student activities funds at universities cannot withhold money for student newspapers with a religious message. And it has voided restrictions on government benefits -- such as unemployment compensation -- that excluded individuals on account of their religious practices. It has also said that school systems opening their doors for various public activities in non-school hours may not exclude religious groups from those activities. Most previous rulings on direct aid to students, however, involved legal challenges to a state's decision to provide assistance rather than to a state's decision to deny it. Opponents to state aid, in those cases, contended that the constitutional provision violated was the "establishment" clause, barring state support of religion. Here, the Free Exercise clause was being invoked and court was essentially being asked to rule that a state providing financial aid for secular studies in higher education must also provide it for religious studies. © 2004 The Washington Post Company