quote:WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states can withhold college scholarships from students who plan to major in religion.
The justices, in their 7-2 decision, balanced the Constitution's prohibition on state endorsement of religion and its mandate that states allow residents to exercise their faiths. Washington state, by denying scholarship money to theology majors, is expressing neutrality on the issue of religion, the court said. Meanwhile, the state permits scholarship recipients to practice their faiths and take theology courses, so long as that is not their major field of study.
The ruling was a defeat for Joshua Davey, a winner of Washington's merit-based Promise Scholarship, whose $1,125 award was withdrawn by the state after he declared a major in pastoral ministries at Northwest College, a Christian school in Kirkland, Wash. Davey had challenged the withdrawal as a violation of his constitutional right to free religious exercise...
I'm all for separation of church and state, but this is ridiculous.
He earned the scholarship through hard work, but can only keep it if he declares a major other than Religion? Even at a Christian school, I presume that a degree in theology requires more than a study of a single religion, no? He'll become educated in theology as a whole, not just Christianity, I hope.
posted
I agree, Frisco, this is insane. I might hear the argument against allowing the scholarship to be used at a college that ONLY gave theology degrees. But this!?
What's next, a maximum number of religion-related classes allowed to be taken per semester by recipients of this scholarship?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see what's wrong with this decision. By paying for this student's education, the state is giving money to a religious organization to further it's prosletysing, why should it be held to do that?
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Scalia and Thomas being the lone voices of dissent makes this an even more open and shut case. Rehnquist wrote the decision, fer crissakes.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the states have a right to decide what kind of education they want to fund. I don't think the state needs to be giving money to people who want to use it to religious ends. I think if the people of washington feel the same way, the court has no business intervening.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, would you want to pay for someone's religious education? Personally, I'd prefer if my putative secular state stuck to funding secular educations.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't say it won't pay for religious education, only that it won't pay for a major.
If the student's earned it, I could care less what the money's for. At least for these kids, it won't be going to frat parties and binge drinking. And, in the meantime, he might learn something about other religions.
[edit: will we soon bar scholarships from any student wishing to learn anything about religion in any school? This might be a slippery slope argument, but seeing as we're already on the slope...]
posted
In an attempt to maintain the separation of church and state, they've actually put the government into someone's religious studies.
The separation of church and state is not a mandate for the government's judicial branch to try and pry religion away from the citizens of this country, no matter what some would think. And here, that's exactly what they have done.
Theology degrees are available from all major universities, whether private, public or denomination-based institutions. A degree in theology is as standard as a degree in physics or philosophy, and probably a great sight more useful than many other ones offered.
Theology is the study of religion and takes in all religious beliefs, the philosophies and psychologies behind them, the study of history and the application of religions in the societies they are found in. It is anthropology, history, psychology and philosophy all rolled into one, with a practical place in this world, something that many degrees cannot hold on their own merits.
To deny a scholarship to someone for their pursuit of a degree in theology is discrimination in its purest form, just couched in the disguise of separation of church and state.
So often, conservatives (of which I am not) are accused of toying at the borders of facism. Strangely, on the liberal side, there is a slightly better case for the beginnings of a facist movement -- one that uses the idea of political correctness, judicial dictates and public opinion to move thought processes to their way of thinking and to repress those who believe differently.
It's not a pretty thought that both sides of the conservative/liberal debate are working toward control of lives and thoughts.
Why can't we just be Americans who can think how they want to, believe what they wish and pursue happiness as best they can? Do we always have to have some Percy Pecksniff watching over us to tsk tsk tsk every time we try to live our own lives?
I don't want someone telling me: Here is what you HAVE to believe. I also don't want someone telling me: You CAN'T believe.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caveat: Now, I am unclear whether the ruling applies only to students who are studying at private/theological seminaries or would also apply to those studying at state run institutions that have religious studies departments.
The [article of this] ruling makes no sense to me, especially in the context of my own university experience. I went to ASU (on a state-funded, academic scholarship) and decided to major in Religious Studies (note: it is not called Theology). ASU has one of the premier Departments for Religious Studies, featuring (and, in fact, requiring for the major) courses on a wide range of religions and religious topics. In my mind, if the state is going to have a "religious studies" department at their own public school, they have no right to dictate that money they award in scholarships cannot be used to get a degree from the said department.
posted
A note: there is a big difference between a major in Religious Studies (or a major in Theology, at schools which offer it) and a major in Pastoral Ministry, which is what this guy is studying. The one is a purely academic discipline, the other is academic plus practical. (Think Vo-Tech for pastors ).
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I thought I'd heard that this guy was basically in seminary versus studying religion from a purely academic standpoint.
So...dkw, did you get a state scholarship for seminary???
posted
But, dkw, they've ruled that any student who plans on a religion major can't receive a state scholarship.
His was just the test case.
I think scholarships should be given to the student to prepare for whatever education they decide on.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
some interesting links that have the full opinion, dissents and the syllabus.
From how I read it, it looks as if the ruling affects those who are studying to become a minister (or equivalent). This doesn't look like it would affect someone who was declaring a general religion major.
quote: The State of Washington established the Promise Scholarship Program to assist academically gifted students with postsecondary education expenses. In accordance with the State Constitution, students may not use the scholarship at an institution where they are pursuing a degree in devotional theology. We hold that such an exclusion from an otherwise inclusive aid program does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Also, the school will decide if the major falls under the "devotional theology" category.
quote: A student who applies for the scholarship and meets the academic and income requirements is notified that he is eligible for the scholarship if he meets the enrollment requirements. E.g., App. 95. Once the student enrolls at an eligible institution, the institution must certify that the student is enrolled at least half time and that the student is not pursuing a degree in devotional theology. The institution, rather than the State, determines whether the student’s major is devotional
Seminary (at an accredited school) is actually pretty academic. To start with, it’s graduate school, so it assumes a previous bachelors’ degree. Most seminaries offer a two –year Master of Theology or Master of Religious Studies degree, which is purely academic. To get the Master of Divinity degree, which is the professional requirement for ordination in the major denominations, requires an extra year (plus internship), to get in all the practical classes.
So he ain’t in seminary.
However, assuming that Northwestern University is an accredited school and has General Education Requirements for their bachelor’s degrees, I think he should have been able to keep the scholarship.
Edit: Read the court’s opinion and changed my mind. The law lets the school decided where the division is between “devotional theology” majors and academic theology or religious studies. That is an appropriate distinction. I agree with the ruling.
posted
Yeah, surprisingly, I really have no problem with people studying religion on the public nickel at the college level.
Even at the K-12 level, I don't have a problem with kids taking religion classes or having them offered in the schools.
As long as it IS an academic pursuit.
My biggest problem with the voucher system in Florida is that they lied about it. They said that there would be no forcing of students to participate in religious services or education at religious schools. Of course, the schools didn't agree to that restriction (they would've had to set up parallel tracks for kids that didn't want to go to services during the school day, for example). And in fact there haven't been any ways for kids to opt out of the religious curriculum at a religious school.
And the difference seems pretty clear to me. In studying religion(s) academically, there is no aspect of indoctrination. You study the doctrine, but aren't initiated into it. When you are studying in a religious school, the attempt is to prosyletize or promote one particular religion.
But how do we clarify that in laws?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, they ruled that anyone going to school for such a reason can be refused a state scholarship, but not that they must.
This wasn't about the federal government preventing religious education, this was about the options a state government has in such a situation, according to the relevant laws and the Constitution.
Which is why you find Rehnquist on the concurring side.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I was missing something. I'm glad it doesn't prevent all religion majors from receiving funding.
But I still think a scholarship is more of a reward for performing in high school and for attempting to become a productive member of society. I think that as long as the state doesn't give preference to a specific religion, it shouldn't be construed as promoting one.
Even as an atheist, there are things I'd like to see endorsed less than religious study.
Then again, this ruling might steer students away from concentrated studies and go for a broad Religious Studies degree. But while that may be a good side effect, I don't like that we're telling students where to spend the money they've earned.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, having had an opportunity to actually read the ruling (I don't trust the media distillations, since they don't often know what they're talking about - as evidenced in this case by the interchangable use of "theology" major and "religion" major), I agree totally with the ruling. I do not think that the governement should pay for attendance at any seminary or religious school (or even for any private school, for that matter, but that's a different can of worms). In this case, Davey either didn't understand the rules (since it was previously stated that such a scholarship cannot be used for a devotional theology major) or deliberately violated them and then got upset when caught.
I would hope that the application of this ruling does not affect the academic study of religion at public institutions (since the application of Supreme Court rulings sometimes goes far beyond the scope of the original ruling).
posted
Given that more than 50% of theology majors go on to become ministers I don't see how you can attempt to argue that religion isn't the main use of a theology major.
posted
There is a huge difference in majoring in religion and majoring in theology. I majored in religion in college and when I tell people that they ask me if I'm going to be a minister. It gets frustrating. The classes were mostly of a purely academic nature (the exception being being David Shatz and Robert Thurman's classes, which were very, very biased). Almost no religion majors from Columbia go on to seminaries.
I think the ruling is a good one - I don't think that the state should pay for people to go to seminaries or to go to religious schools where they will train for seminaries. But then, I've always favored the anti-establishment clause over the free exercise clause.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
