Does providing grants to students training at officially credentialled seminaries (of any tradition) violate the separation of church and state?
Or, for that matter, if we deny grants to seminary students, should we not also deny them to people studying- say philosophy or sociology, since those studies espouse particular beliefs? Or, if seminarians are denied state funding, should not students (of any background) attending a Christian (or Jewish, or fill in your religion) college also be denied funding? Read the article and then chime in with your response.
Here is the article and link from the NY Times on the topic:
Quote:
The Supreme Court hears arguments today in an important church-state case, one that will decide how much leeway states have in declining to finance religion. Washington, whose State Constitution is emphatic on separating government from religion, does not let its college scholarship funds be used for theology degrees. A student who was training to become a Christian cleric has charged that his First Amendment rights were violated. His claim should be rejected.
Washington's State Constitution goes beyond the First Amendment's general language prohibiting the "establishment of religion" and expressly bars public money from being "appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction." To conform with this constitutional mandate, the state prohibited the use of funds for theology degrees when it established its Promise Scholarship program for low- and middle-income college students in 1999.
The student in this case was enrolled in precisely the sort of program the Washington Constitution prohibits the state from financing. He was pursuing a degree in pastoral ministries. The college he enrolled at requires students to indicate "a personal commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior" and teaches courses from a Biblical perspective.
Washington State is not depriving anyone of the free exercise of religion. It is merely drawing a line, which the Supreme Court has recognized, between religious and secular education, and directing its funds to secular education. There is no right to taxpayer financing for religious studies. To hold otherwise, the court would have to contradict its own abortion-financing cases, which say that a "legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right."
Many conservatives have lined up behind the student in this case, who won, 2 to 1, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That stance is odd, given that the two great conservative rallying cries today are opposition to "activist" judges and support for "federalism," or a greater respect for states' autonomy. These concerns both favor Washington State, given that a federal appeals court has used the federal Constitution to overrule a state law backed by the State Constitution. It will be interesting to see whether Chief Justice William Rehnquist's court, which invoked "federalism" to protect states from suits for age and disability discrimination, will protect a state that limits its support for religion.
Today's case is part of an ongoing effort to lower the wall between church and state. In a time of great sectarian conflict worldwide, moving further in that direction would be a serious mistake. Redirecting tax dollars from secular education to religious schools that may preach intolerance for other faiths would — as Washington has long believed — move the nation in precisely the wrong direction.
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/op...02TUE2.html?th
Peace,
John
12-02-2003, 11:34 AM
educ grants for relig study & sep. of church & state
Similar Threads
