Supreme Court Rules AGAINST Scholarship for Religious

[ethics]

The Supreme Court has decided (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/national/25CND-SCOT.html), 7 to 2, that Washington State can deny students studying theology a certain scholarship. The majority opinion on the case, Locke v. Davey, was written by Rehnquist, who argued that denying divinity students the scholarship wasn’t an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of religion; dissenting justices Scalia and Thomas said that the case discriminated against the religious.

The case involved Joshua Davey, who applied for a Promise Scholarship in 1999. He was qualified for it under grade and income requirements (http://www.atg.wa.gov/davey/background.shtml). However, the fact that he had enrolled as a student of Pastoral Ministries rendered him ineligible for the aid, because of "state constitutional and statutory prohibitions on use of state money to fund religious education." In February, 200, Davey filed suit in U.S. District Court, claiming that the application of Article 1 Section 11 violates his free exercise, free speech, free association, and equal protection rights under the U.S. and state constitutions. The case raises the issue of whether the state Constitution violates the First Amendment by more strictly limiting financial support for divinity students than does the federal Constitution.



The case has enormous implications, because thirty-six other states have similar provisions limiting eligibility (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2645.html)—and the case may also impact the faith-based initiatives sponsored by President Bush who, incidentally, had weighed in on Davey’s side. Rehnquist argued the denial of the scholarship did not really impact the exercise of Davey’s religion; it just forced him to pay a little more to go to school. "The state," he wrote, "has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction."


Scalia disagreed, and wrote, "Let there be no doubt. This case is about discrimination against a religious minority…The indignity of being singled out for special burdens on the basis of one’s religious calling is so profound that the concrete harm produced can never be dismissed as insubstantial." Even though he voted with the majority, Justice Kennedy had earlier asked a question that might support Scalia’s position: during arguments, he pressed Washington state (http://www.thefalcononline.com/story/3721) to "explain what interest [their] policy served, since a student could have taken almost the same courses as long as he or she did not declare a major in theology." In other words, Davey would have been fine if he majored in religion, took almost exclusively classes in Christian doctrine, but didn’t publicly declare his allegiance to a particular faith.

[ShinyTop]

As most here know, I am not in favor of religions. But I disagree with this decision.

But, I find appalling Scalia's remarks in dissent:

What next? Will we deny priests and nuns their prescription-drug benefits on the ground that tax-payers’ freedom of conscience forbids medicating the clergy at public expense?

Sounds more like a Haywire accusation than educated dissent of the level required of a SC justice.

[Colin]

Interesting topic, thanks for posting this Leon. I live in Washington State and I remember when this issue originally came up. I am particularly interested in Kenedy's questioning:


Justice Anthony Kennedy repeatedly pressed Pierce to explain what interest Washington's policy served, since a student could have taken almost the same courses as long as he or she did not declare a major in theology.

In my past undergraduate studies, and my current graduate studies, I have attended a private Catholic (Jesuit) university. As part of the undergraduate required curriculum I took several religious studies and philosophy courses. In fact, I think I am close to being half way through a Religious Studies major. My initial, gut reaction is to be supportive of the student, but I can see how many would be wary about funding religious education. That, I believe, is the rub to this argument. What is the nature of religious education in institutions of higher education (particularly religion-sponsored institutions)?

That is why I think Kennedy’s question is so interesting. I think a lot of people would assume that religious or theology studies imply a person is studying to attain some official capacity with a church or religious group (i.e., priest, missionary, etc.). With religious studies at least (the way I have experienced it) that is often not the case. Religious Studies as an academic discipline is often just that: the study of religion. It doesn’t necessarily entail or prescribe enrollment and sponsorship of a particular faith – which is partly what I think Kennedy was trying to get at.

But those comments aside a lot of people would still say that since this person was majoring in “Pastoral Ministries” that elevated his status above an acceptable church/state separation barrier. Of course, as Leon’s post points out, this guy could have gone into a more benignly labeled program and taken pretty much the same courses without raising all this ire. It does seem kind of strange.

[joseftu]

a lot of people would still say that since this person was majoring in “Pastoral Ministries” that elevated his status above an acceptable church/state separation barrier I'm very confused about this case. On the one hand, as someone who has considered (very idly) the idea of taking courses at the Jewish Theological Seminary, I feel like I should be entitled to financial aid for those courses (if I qualified otherwise...unlikely). On the other hand, I feel a very strong separation between church and state is essential, and cfukai's point about this particular major ("Pastoral Ministries," indeed!) rising above the threshold of what we should tolerate is very convincing to me.

I think I have to weigh in with the SC majority on this one. But it's a bit of a thorny problem.

On another note...
I'm glad to see Shiny's comment here:

But, I find appalling Scalia's remarks in dissent: <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="70%" align="center"> <tbody><tr> <td> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="75" valign="bottom"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="50"> <tbody><tr> <td width="28">
</td> <td width="100%" style="background-image: url(images/css/misc/quotes/quote-bg.gif);" valign="middle">
</td> <td width="14">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td width="15" align="left" style="background-image: url(images/css/misc/quotes/quot-lr-bg.gif);" valign="bottom">
</td> <td width="100%" align="right" valign="bottom"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="100%"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="background-image: url(images/css/misc/quotes/quot-top-bg.gif);" width="100%" valign="middle">
</td> <td width="10" align="left" valign="middle">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="10" style="background-image: url(images/css/misc/quotes/quoting-left.gif);">
</td> <td width="100%" valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
</td> <td width="10" style="background-image: url(images/css/misc/quotes/quoting-right.gif);">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="10" style="background-image: url(images/css/misc/quotes/quot-left-bg.gif);">
</td> <td width="100%" valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff" class="smallfont">
</td> <td width="10" style="background-image: url(images/css/misc/quotes/quot-right-bg.gif);">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="10" valign="top">
</td> <td width="100%" style="background-image: url(images/css/misc/quotes/quot-bot-bg.gif);">
</td> <td width="10" valign="top">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Sounds more like a Haywire accusation than educated dissent of the level required of a SC justice. I remember not too long ago that I got slammed pretty hard for even suggesting that it was even a possibility that a Supreme Court justice (this same justice, I believe) just might be ineligible to engage in a civil, intelligent discussion.

[Plunge]

Speaking as one who has been fishing with, then had a nice dinner with the above discussed Justice, I found him to be one of the most engaging and intellectual people I have ever met.

[Violet1966]

As most here know, I am not in favor of religions. But I disagree with this decision.

Shiny, with all due respect, why do you think this was the wrong thing to do? I'm not challenging, just curious as I know a bit about your opinions and you truly have me perplexed with your statement above. I'm not saying you're uncaring or anything negative. I just would have thought you wouldn't want to see any tax payer monies going to religion, as I know how much you're against religion. Just curious and can't wait to hear what nudges you the wrong way in all this?

[Neo]

I was surprised by the decision. I would have picked it to go the other way, probably 5-4. I can't remember the last time I picked wrong on the SC regarding any case I was following.

Whether you agree or disagree with this decision it carries with it some of the most serious implications of any SCOTUS decision in some time.

[Stiofán]

I'm consistant Joe. I don't agree with Shiny's critisizm at all. Scalia's remark was clearly a rhetorical question, ie. :

rhetorical

adj 1: of or relating to rhetoric; "accepted two or three verbal and rhetorical changes I suggested"- W.A.White; "the rhetorical sin of the meaningless variation"- Lewis Mumford 2: concerned with effect or style of writing and speaking; "a rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an effect (especially to make an assertion) rather than to elicit a reply"

[Robert Harris]

You think Scalia was asking a rhetorical question. I think he4 has gone nuts.

[joseftu]

I'm sorry. I really shouldn't have taken the thread in a direction of bash Scalia/defend Scalia.

More important, I think, is this decision. Matrix, I wish you would tell us more. Why did you pick it to go the other way? What do you think of the majority's reasoning? What implications do you think this will have?

In reading Patrick O'Brian's (and Jane Austen's, of course) novels, we often encounter the character of the impoverished clergyman. There was, of course, no financial aid, and men (they were always men in those days) who studied theology had to find some way to support themselves--particularly when they couldn't get a parish, but sometimes even when they could.

What percentage of theology students are funded by government aid, anyway? Are most of them funded by church or religious groups?

[Violet1966]

*light bulb gone off over head*

You know I bet this is to set precedent, so that government can never issue school vouchers for enrollment in parochial schools. I wonder?

[Neo]

For what it is worth the New York Times was very cleverly offering political opinion in its article when it claimed or stated that:

As Chief Justice Rehnquist observed, two pillars of the United States Constitution — the freedom of expression and the church-state separation specified in the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — are "frequently in tension."

That isn't exactly what he said. He said something that superficiallyappears very close but actually is specifically quite different.

(Bernie, you can use the above in your next book--with my permission!)

[ShinyTop]

Rhetorical or not I don't see a difference in this and so many comparing Bush or others to Nazi's. Serious discussion should not require hyperbole such as this. If not intended as hyperbole it was just ignorant.

That discussion, Joseftu, was not about Scalia, it was about the professors and their influence on students. They are still wrong.

Violet, I believe in freedoms and not limiting people's choices due to your religion or whatever. I do not see that denying scholarships to somebody wanting to engage in religious study to be protective of anything in our nation. I am not against or for religion, I am for freedom until it harms another. I don not see where this man studying relgion crosses any barriers.

I think if you look at my posts on religious matters you will see me objecting to limiting my freedoms because of someone's religion. I find that religions cannot be satisfied with their flock, they want to impose or limit everybody's behavior.

[Neo]

*light bulb gone off over head*

You know I bet this is to set precedent, so that government can never issue school vouchers for enrollment in parochial schools. I wonder?

For your perusal:

"The Davey case is a follow-up to the court's major ruling two years ago that allowed parents to use public tax money to send their children to religious schools. A ruling in Davey's favor would have made it easier to use vouchers in many states, because it could overturn provisions in state constitutions like the one at issue in Washington.'

'The Davey case was in many ways the flip side of the voucher argument. It asked not whether governments can use tax money to underwrite religious education, as the voucher question did. Instead, the Davey case asked whether, when money is available, it must be available for religious and secular studies alike."

[Violet1966]

Violet, I believe in freedoms and not limiting people's choices due to your religion or whatever. I do not see that denying scholarships to somebody wanting to engage in religious study to be protective of anything in our nation. I am not against or for religion, I am for freedom until it harms another. I don not see where this man studying relgion crosses any barriers.

I think if you look at my posts on religious matters you will see me objecting to limiting my freedoms because of someone's religion. I find that religions cannot be satisfied with their flock, they want to impose or limit everybody's behavior.

Good point thanks for the response :)

It's true this can be taken as prejudice based on religion. I see that now...good to hear other's opinions on things like this. Gets you thinking :)

[Violet1966]

For your perusal:

"The Davey case is a follow-up to the court's major ruling two years ago that allowed parents to use public tax money to send their children to religious schools. A ruling in Davey's favor would have made it easier to use vouchers in many states, because it could overturn provisions in state constitutions like the one at issue in Washington.'

'The Davey case was in many ways the flip side of the voucher argument. It asked not whether governments can use tax money to underwrite religious education, as the voucher question did. Instead, the Davey case asked whether, when money is available, it must be available for religious and secular studies alike."

Thanks for the info. I see now :)

I knew it had to be connected in some way.

[joseftu]

I wonder if we can say there are different "types" of religious study--and if this decision really makes that distinction clearly enough.

If I'm studying specifically to be a minister, or a rabbi, isn't that different from studying theology as an academic field? Or religious history, or comparative religions?

I know anthropologists, historians, and sociologists who specialize in religion (sometimes in one specific religion). Some of them are believers, some are not, but their scholarship and teaching is just as academically and intellectually valid as that of others in their disciplines.

Actually, after reading the article more carefully, I'm more convinced that the court made the right decision. They didn't rule that no religious study could be funded, only that the state had the right to deny scholarship aid for this particular reason. The decision about what kind of study should receive scholarship aid still seems to be pretty open.

This student was attending a private, Christian, university, affiliated with the Assemblies of God. He was studying to be a minister (although he didn't end up as one). It seems to me more and more like the state of Washington was right, and the court was right to uphold the state's decision.

[ethics]

That is why I think Kennedy’s question is so interesting. I think a lot of people would assume that religious or theology studies imply a person is studying to attain some official capacity with a church or religious group (i.e., priest, missionary, etc.). With religious studies at least (the way I have experienced it) that is often not the case. Religious Studies as an academic discipline is often just that: the study of religion. It doesn’t necessarily entail or prescribe enrollment and sponsorship of a particular faith – which is partly what I think Kennedy was trying to get at.


I think this is where it got interesting for me.

The student met the grade and income bracket for this scholarship right? A shoe-in for many... BUT WAIT, DID the scholarship explicitly state that it can not be used for religious studies? If so, it's a good decision.

However, and this is where your quote above comes in to play. Would he use that scholarship for religious studies?

[joseftu]

The student met the grade and income bracket for this scholarship right? A shoe-in for many... BUT WAIT, DID the scholarship explicitly state that it can not be used for religious studies? If so, it's a good decision.Here's what the statue says:
(12) "Eligible student" means a person who:

(a) Graduates from a public or private high school located in the state of Washington; and

(b) Is in the top fifteen percent of his or her 2000 graduating class; or

(c) Attained a cumulative score of 1200 or better on the Scholastic Assessment Test I (SATI) on the first attempt; or

(d) Attained a cumulative score of 27 or better on the American College Test (ACT) on the first attempt; and

(e) Has a family income less than one hundred thirty-five percent of the state's median; and

(f) Enrolls at least half time in an eligible postsecondary institution in the state of Washington; and

(g) Is not pursuing a degree in theology.

[ethics]

Well that's my question. IS he pursuing a degree in Theology? If so, then it's an open/closed case with a good decision on the SC part.

[joseftu]

Well that's my question. IS he pursuing a degree in Theology? If so, then it's an open/closed case with a good decision on the SC part.Well, it's not that simple. He entered Northwest College as a double major in "pastoral ministries" and business administration. When he graduated, his degree was in (again a double major) religion and philosophy. He's now in his first year at Harvard Law School (which everyone agrees has <b>nothing</b> to do with theology :))

So does "pastoral ministries"=theology? In my interpretation, theology would be more worthy of government support...more neutral...than a degree specifically intended for creating ministers. Here's the official description of the pastoral ministries program at Northwest:

The Pastoral Ministries major is designed to prepare students for vocational ministry as a pastor in the local church. The core courses should enable the student to develop and express biblical concepts of the church and pastoral ministry and acquire skills needed to engage in effective pastoral ministry.

Recognizing that effective pastoral ministry depends upon competent understanding and skillful use of the Scriptures, this major requires a strong component of Bible and theology.

In addition to the general goals of the College and the School of Ministry, completing this major provides learning opportunities which should enable the student to:



Understand a biblical theology of the nature and mission of the church;
Understand the divine call and the proper function and the role of the pastor in the local church;
Acquire the skills necessary for effective pulpit/teaching ministry and the performing pastoral duties;
Develop leadership, organizational, and administrative skills for leading the local church;
Develop a philosophy of ministry that encompasses relationship with God, family, personal life, church leadership, and with one’s community and world
But what about that tricky double major issue?

In fact, Northwest College offers over fifty majors, and not one of them is specifically called "theology."

[ethics]

This is a tough one. I wonder what the SC knew that is not making this all too clear to the rest of us.

[Sierra Mike]

Speaking as one who has been fishing with, then had a nice dinner with the above discussed Justice, I found him to be one of the most engaging and intellectual people I have ever met.
Yes, but clearly, you're biased. You are also evil, and must be destroyed. :lol:

SM