February 25, 2004
GOOD BIGOTRY:
Supreme Court allows states to deny taxpayer-funded scholarships to divinity students (ANNE GEARAN, 2/25/04, Associated Press)
The Supreme Court, in a new rendering on separation of church and state, voted Wednesday to let states withhold scholarships from students studying theology.The court's 7-2 ruling held that the state of Washington was within its rights to deny a taxpayer-funded scholarship to a college student who was studying to be a minister. That holding applies even when money is available to students studying anything else.
"Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court majority.
"Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit." [...]
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
"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, the father of a Catholic priest.
We eagerly await the NY Times editorial denouncing this form of bigotry. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 25, 2004 11:28 AM
Davey's going to law school to make law.
Posted by: Sandy P. at February 25, 2004 12:27 PMWill any taxpayer sue if a state (particularly WA) turns around and supports a student who wants to study Bhuddism or Santerea (?) or any other "essentially religious endeavor"? There would be editorials then, I'll bet.
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 25, 2004 1:15 PMThis is going to be particularly bad for Arizona's tax-credit school choice program. The Arizona Supreme Court had previously turned aside a challenge to the program on the grounds that the U.S. Constitution trumped the Arizona Constitution's Blaine language. Now that decision looks questionable. I'm sure that the ACLU and its ilk will immediately file new lawsuits challenging the measure.
Posted by: "Edward" at February 25, 2004 1:46 PMWell, get rid of the Blaine Amendment, then! It's a prejudicial relic of another century, expressly intended to discourage parochial schools, and as such can be interpreted as a violation of the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment.
The only reason I can see for preserving the Blaine laws is a dishonest one: to give legal ammunition to public-school advocates, using the law for a different purpose than for what it was intended. It's not much different than the 1995 efforts to block sales of TV stations to Rupert Murdoch, citing a 1954 "no foreign ownership" law enacted to prevent Russian-owned propaganda networks. Normally Democrats would ridicule such a law, but here they supported it because they thought it would hurt Murdoch. Same here - why else would anybody come to the DEFENSE of the Blaine Amendment?
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at February 25, 2004 2:24 PMI can't begin to tell you how despondent this leaves me.
Posted by: William P. Sulik at February 25, 2004 5:33 PMIs there any word on when the decision on the Pledge case might be announced?
Also, is it really conceivable to the New York Times, Washington Post, etc, that religious conservatives will stay home rather than vote in force for President Bush in November?
"Seperation of church and state has been in some form part of the constitution since 1787 -- as a more benign form up until the 1960s, and more invasively since the 1962 ruling on school prayer. "
More invasive to who? Certainly not to the people forced to pray against their will prior to that ruling.
How are the traditional Jews and Christians denigrated by the State of Connecticut leaving the Boy Scouts off of the preferred charities list? The state is not basing it's decision on any religious basis, but on a criteria of anti-discrimination. The fact that conservative religious groups are opposed to homosexuality does not mean that the state is denigrating their religious beliefs. Is the state required to represent every religious and philosophical view on this list?
Private organizations like the Boy Scouts are free to discriminate on who they allow as members, but they are not guaranteed the right to have state sponsorship of their organization.
It seems like the Rabbi wants the Supreme Court to engage in judicial activism in this case by overruling the decision of the elected representatives of Connecticut. He's playing the victimhood card.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at February 25, 2004 10:10 PMI am a bit unsure what "forced to pray against their will prior" means. "Forced to listen while others pray" I do understand.
I read an amusing anecdote where a lawyer recalled how after the 9th Circuit Pledge decision, a teacher asked him if this meant they were no longer allowed to pray in school either. The last direct evidence I have is that in the mid-90s in San Antonio there were still prayers said in public schools before assemblies, award ceremonies, football games, etc.
Regardless of how one feels about all this, having the court system and broad swaths of public opinion so diametrically opposed cannot be a good thing.
Posted by: brian at February 25, 2004 11:19 PMAfter carefully reading the Supreme Court's decision and rereading the 1999 Arizona Supreme Court decision, I'm confident in saying that Davey v. Locke shouldn't jeapordize the Arizona Scholarship tax credit. Please consider my earlier comments nothing more than cautious overreach.
By the way, how anyone could read my comments as defending Blaine amendments is beyond me.
Posted by: "Edward" at February 26, 2004 1:32 AMI didn't say you were defending the Blaine Amendments. I was trying to say that citing the Blaine Amendment as a defense of public schools is disingenuous, and you weren't saying anything like that. I apologize if my post was unclear.
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at February 26, 2004 2:43 AM