Supreme Court Decision on Church-State Issue

[Brown]

From the Star Tribune and AP (http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4628803.html):The Supreme Court, in a new rendering on separation of church and state, voted Wednesday to let states withhold scholarships from students studying theology, 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 [7-2] majority. "Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit.''This opinion is not yet posted at the Supreme Court's official web site.

[Zero]

YAY!!!


*Does a little dance*

Woohoo!! You know what this means, don't you? Every decision like this seems to increase the chances of Michael Newdow winning his case...:D

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Brown
From the Star Tribune and AP (http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4628803.html):This opinion is not yet posted at the Supreme Court's official web site.
A glimmer of hope?
Sometimes, as you probably know, they give a roadmap for how to do it right the next time.
I shall await your usual expert analysis after you have read the decision.

[Brown]

No surprise, but Justices Rosencrantz and Guildenstern -- I mean, Justices Scalia and Thomas -- dissented.

I'm not sure that this decision (which I have not yet read) will have much impact on the Pledge case. It might have some effect upon government funding of "faith-based" organizations.

[Brown]

Cross-reference! (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36090)

[Zero]

Originally posted by Brown
No surprise, but Justices Rosencrantz and Guildenstern -- I mean, Justices Scalia and Thomas -- dissented.

I'm not sure that this decision (which I have not yet read) will have much impact on the Pledge case. It might have some effect upon government funding of "faith-based" organizations. Well, it does seem to be indicative of a general trend...I'm not saying it guarantees a slam-dunk in the Pledge case, but it couldn't hurt.:p

[Brown]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, it does seem to be indicative of a general trend...I'm not saying it guarantees a slam-dunk in the Pledge case, but it couldn't hurt.And don't forget, Justice Scalia will not take part in the decision of the Pledge case. As a result, instead of having his usual two votes, Justice Scalia will have only one vote in the Pledge case: Justice Thomas's.

(Lest anyone think I'm serious about Justice Scalia having two votes, or that Justice Thomas is Justice Scalia's puppet, be assured that I am joshing.)

[Zero]

Originally posted by Brown
And don't forget, Justice Scalia will not take part in the decision of the Pledge case. As a result, instead of having his usual two votes, Justice Scalia will have only one vote in the Pledge case: Justice Thomas's.

(Lest anyone think I'm serious about Justice Scalia having two votes, or that Justice Thomas is Justice Scalia's puppet, be assured that I am joshing.) :D You are doing what Al Franken called "joking on the square"...you are kidding, but you mean it too.

It is just a shame that Scalia will not simply step down, since he is rather too compromised to hold onto his current position.

[Brown]

Read the opinions (majority and dissent) here (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1315.pdf). (This is a pdf document.)

One of the things that really surprised me was Justice Thomas's opinion:I write separately to note that, in my view, the study of theology does not necessarily implicate religious devotion or faith.... And the usual definition of the term “theology ” is not limited to devotional studies....Justice Thomas quotes dictionaries that say “theology” is "the study of the nature of God and religious truth” and the “rational inquiry into religious questions.”

In Justice Thomas's view, it is possible to study the nature of God "from a secular perspective." I wonder how the hell one would go about doing that. I also wonder whether the college in question would be willing to train a student to be a pastor who wanted to study theology from a secular, and not from a devotional, perspective.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Brown

In Justice Thomas's view, it is possible to study the nature of God "from a secular perspective." I wonder how the hell one would go about doing that. I also wonder whether the college in question would be willing to train a student to be a pastor who wanted to study theology from a secular, and not from a devotional, perspective.

It is possible to study the Bible, the underlying hebrew, the historical influences, the different time periods it was written, and how it was put together all without being a christian.

It is even possible to speculate on the nature of the christain deity by reading passages from that book.

Since we know that people in divinity schools are really womanizers or pedophiles, it should be obvious that it is mostly a secular study.

[Zero]

What I wonder is how people can claim to be Christian, and then lie about what their religious belief means. Somehow, whenever religion is encroaching on government, it magically becomes non-religious for the sake of that discussion. The hypocracy is staggering.

[Zero]

Originally posted by corplinx


It is possible to study the Bible, the underlying hebrew, the historical influences, the different time periods it was written, and how it was put together all without being a christian.

It is even possible to speculate on the nature of the christain deity by reading passages from that book.

Since we know that people in divinity schools are really womanizers or pedophiles, it should be obvious that it is mostly a secular study. I can agree that theological study can be secular. In this specific case, the student could have used the scholarship to take elective courses in theology and been within the law. He could possibly even chosen to minor in a theological field and used the scholarship. His chosen major, however, was "Pastoral Ministries", which the court ruled to be sectarian religious training, which falls outside of the legal realm of what the government can fund.

If he had been smart, he would have majored in Business, and taken a large number of theological classes, and after completing his business degree, secured other funding to complete the Pastoral Ministries degree.

[Samus]

This was an interesting Court decision, and shows again the conflict between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the first amendment.

Does the state, in awarding scholarships for studying theology, recognize the establishment of religion, specifically, whatever religion is being studied? Does the state, in denying said funding, restrict the free exercise of religion?

One could argue that denial of funding prevents the defendant from pursuing his studies, which would consummate in his becoming a parish leader. Hence, it is indirectly restricting his ability to practice his religion.

However, becoming a parish leader is not necessary for the practice of religion, and indeed, there are other funding options available for those that wish to pursue theology and eventual service to the church.

Is it fair that by studying theology, one is essentially waiving the opportunities for public funding, because they are pursuing a religious career? Surely, the study of theology is not inherently religious; reading the KJ Bible as a piece of literature, cultural history and mythology falls under the banner of theology, but is not sectarian in nature. Should people be allowed to receive public money if they are studying theology with no intent to become religious?

Consider also the individual that chooses a secular field as his major, but takes theology classes to broaden his education. Should he also be denied public funds, because some of what he is studying may be sectarian in nature? Or should the state only restrict the funds if the purpose of the education is to pursue a religious career? How is that determination made?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Commander Cool


Consider also the individual that chooses a secular field as his major, but takes theology classes to broaden his education. Should he also be denied public funds, because some of what he is studying may be sectarian in nature? Or should the state only restrict the funds if the purpose of the education is to pursue a religious career? How is that determination made? The specific wording of the scholarship allows for theological instruction that is not overtly leading to a career. The student in question was approved to use the money at a self-proclaimed Christian University, which requires minimum theological instruction. So, there is no sense that all religious instruction is a violation of the law.

[Brown]

Just a quick overview about the case. Davey was awarded a Promise Scholarship by the State of Washington. He chose a double major in pastoral ministries and business management/administration, and was then told he could not use his scholarship because of state statutes pertaining to the scholarship, which said that the student must not pursue a degree in theology.

Justice Thomas's remarks aside, there was no question that Davey planned a devotional course of study.

The majority opinion, written by the Chief Justice, said "there are some state actions permitted by the Establishment Clause but not required by the Free Exercise Clause." (The Court called this "play in the joints," a term which Justice Scalia mocked in his dissent.) "The question before us, however," said the Court, "is whether Washington, pursuant to its own constitution, which has been authoritatively interpreted as prohibiting even indirectly funding religious instruction that will prepare students for the ministry..., can deny them such funding without violating the Free Exercise Clause." Basically, the Court ruled that denial of funding for the study of theology is permitted by the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause does not require the state to provide funds for the study of theology.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Zero
The specific wording of the scholarship allows for theological instruction that is not overtly leading to a career. I do not see this in the Court's opinion. The provisions quoted by the Court say "the student .... may not pursue a degree in theology at that institution while receiving the scholarship" and "No aid shall be awarded to any student who is pursuing a degree in theology."

[Zero]

You've got to love Scalia's whining little ending to his dissent, where he cries about poor persecuted Christians in America today...:v:

[corplinx]

The issue isn't whether government scholaships should be freely used by their students to study what they choose.

The issue I have is that the first amendment is only in danger when it is not applied evenly in this case.

-Letting a student use his scholaship to study wicca does not equal the congress passing laws that establish a particular religion

-Restricting a muslim from using a government scholarship to study muslim clerical studies while allowing a mormon to study theology at Brigham Young however would be a case of goverment favoring one religion over another. This is obviously a first amendment violation.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Brown
I do not see this in the Court's opinion. The provisions quoted by the Court say "the student .... may not pursue a degree in theology at that institution while receiving the scholarship" and "No aid shall be awarded to any student who is pursuing a degree in theology." It is quoted in the decision, somewhere or other...don't make me read it again!!!! Actually, it is in the syllabus, about halfway down page 2.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
You've got to love Scalia's whining little ending to his dissent, where he cries about poor persecuted Christians in America today...:v:


Would show as flippant of an attitude at the prospect of muslims being persecuted? I think not.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony



Would show as flippant of an attitude at the prospect of muslims being persecuted? I think not. Show me a case of Muslims being persecuted...I haven't seen any of that in America either, but I would be interested in whatever specific case you had in mind.

[Checkmite]

Really good stuff coming out of the USSC lately.

[Samus]

Zero: It is quoted in the decision, somewhere or other...don't make me read it again!!!! Actually, it is in the syllabus, about halfway down page 2. Ah, I only skimmed the syllabus (shame on me). Here is the relevant snippet, ellipses are mine.

Moreover, the entirety of the Promise Scholarship Program goes a long way toward including religion in its benefits, since it permits students to attend pervasively religious schools so long as they are accredited, and students are still eligible to take devotional theology courses under the program’s current guidelines...Given the historic and substantial state interest at issue, it cannot be concluded that the denial of funding for vocational religious instruction alone is inherently constitutionally suspect...The State’s interest in not funding the pursuit of devotional degrees is substantial, and the exclusion of such funding places a relatively minor burden on Promise Scholars.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Ah, I only skimmed the syllabus (shame on me). Here is the relevant snippet, ellipses are mine.

Moreover, the entirety of the Promise Scholarship Program goes a long way toward including religion in its benefits, since it permits students to attend pervasively religious schools so long as they are accredited, and students are still eligible to take devotional theology courses under the program’s current guidelines...Given the historic and substantial state interest at issue, it cannot be concluded that the denial of funding for vocational religious instruction alone is inherently constitutionally suspect...The State’s interest in not funding the pursuit of devotional degrees is substantial, and the exclusion of such funding places a relatively minor burden on Promise Scholars. So, like I said, it isn't a huge issue for someone to take all the electives they want of a theological nature, so long as they get a degree in something else. How much of a burden would it be for someone to do exactly that, and then to find other funding to complete the specifically religious degree?

[Luke T.]

I guess this is as good a place as any to mention this:

Pope John Paul II Calls for Adequate Separation of Church and State (http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml%3Fsid%3D49503+%22John+Paul+II+Cal ls+for+Adequate+Separation+of+Church+and+State%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8[/url)

I hope that link works. I saw the story elsewhere a couple days ago and trying to find it today and recover it from the religious web sites out there has been a bizarre experience.

Anyway:

John Paul II advocated an adequate separation of church and state so that citizens, regardless of their religion, can make their contribution to society.

The Pope explained this on Saturday in his address to Osman Durak, Turkey's new ambassador to the Holy See, when the envoy presented his credentials.

The Holy Father began by saying that "the rule of law and equality of rights are essential traits for any modern society that truly seeks to safeguard and promote the common good."

"In fulfilling this task, the clear distinction between the civil and religious spheres allows each of these sectors to exercise its proper responsibilities effectively, with mutual respect and in complete freedom of conscience," he explained.

"In a pluralistic society the secularity of the state allows for communication between the different spiritual dimensions and the nation," the Pope added. "The church and the state, therefore, are not rivals but partners: In healthy dialogue with each other they can encourage integral human development and social harmony."

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Show me a case of Muslims being persecuted...I haven't seen any of that in America either, but I would be interested in whatever specific case you had in mind.

Why should I, I never said muslims were being persecuted.

I asked if you would show as flippant as an attitude at the prospect of muslims being perseucted. Does your racism only extend to christians?

[Samus]

The man in the big hat said:
"In fulfilling this task, the clear distinction between the civil and religious spheres allows each of these sectors to exercise its proper responsibilities effectively, with mutual respect and in complete freedom of conscience," he explained.

"In a pluralistic society the secularity of the state allows for communication between the different spiritual dimensions and the nation," the Pope added. "The church and the state, therefore, are not rivals but partners: In healthy dialogue with each other they can encourage integral human development and social harmony." Wow, go pope! If only he could explain this to the folks that believe the U.S. is a Christian nation.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Zero
It is quoted in the decision, somewhere or other...don't make me read it again!!!! Actually, it is in the syllabus, about halfway down page 2. Actually, the statute applies to students who want to get a "degree in theology." You are right, a student might still be permitted to take theology courses, but if the student wants to get a theology degree, he can forget the scholarship.

There are a few unsettled questions in this regard, one of which is acknowledged and hidden in footnote number 9.

Lest anyone think this decision is a landmark in church-state separation, I submit that it is not. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion, and although he ruled against the student here, he seemed to leave a lot of "wiggle room" for himself for other church-state issues.

[Brown]

In connection with the Pope's statement:

Isn't it interesting that everybody thinks that church-state separation is a peachy thing for people with religions that are different from their own?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Brown
In connection with the Pope's statement:

Isn't it interesting that everybody thinks that church-state separation is a peachy thing for people with religions that are different from their own?

Its also great when the tax man comes by. "cant tax us Church/state separtation!". Then they turn around with the "gimme gimme" tax funds crap.

I havent gone to church in years. Why? cause I cant stand the phoney douches that run the show. All they care about is money and judging people. I find the hard core religious to be the worst human beings.

[Samus]

Brown: There are a few unsettled questions in this regard, one of which is acknowledged and hidden in footnote number 9. Of course, it was explicitly mentioned in the syllabus that students are allowed to take devotional theology courses under the current guidelines, and made no indication that this caused harm (after all, the Court did rule in favor of the state). The footnote mentions that the state is uncertain whether such a policy defies their state constitution, but the Court doesn't seem to mind it.

You and I agree that this is hardly a momumental case, but rather, it points to a consistency in church-state separation reasoning by the Court. Handy for those that insist there is no such separation dictated by the first amendment (and yes, I have had that argument before!)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Brown
In connection with the Pope's statement:

Isn't it interesting that everybody thinks that church-state separation is a peachy thing for people with religions that are different from their own?

Not so. The popes remarks have an eerie resemblance to de Tocqueville's comments made over 170 years ago:

I have remarked that the American clergy in general, without even excepting those who do not admit religious liberty, are all in favor of civil freedom; but they do not support any particular political system. They keep aloof from parties and from public affairs. In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion; but it directs the customs of the community, and, by regulating domestic life, it regulates the state.

About American Catholic priests, he said:


The Catholic priests in America have divided the intellectual world into two parts: in the one they place the doctrines of revealed religion, which they assent to without discussion, in the other they leave those political truths which they believe the Deity has left open to free inquiry.

[jj]

Actually, it bothers me that the person is treated any differently than in any other course of study. I.e. the question should not be that the courses are religious, but rather if the fellow is qualified, etc. I can imagine that someone, including the state, can specify what kinds of courses of study they will fund, based on social needs, etc, though, so if that's involved, the issue is quite complex.

You may find that a funny position coming from me, but so it goes.

Ditto for churches not paying tax. They shouldn't for their charitable work, just like the Red Cross doesn't, but for some of the palaces I've seen? That's not charity, and giving them a different tax rate (zero) than anyone else is exactly recognizing that religion.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by jj


You may find that a funny position coming from me, but so it goes.



Naah. You're just being orthagonal. Quite appropriate and commendable for an engineer.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


Why should I, I never said muslims were being persecuted.

I asked if you would show as flippant as an attitude at the prospect of muslims being perseucted. Does your racism only extend to christians? I didn't realize Christians were a "race". LOL, dude, you are a joke, and out of line, and not making any sense to boot. Before I can judge a case of persecution, there must actually BE a case of persecution, don't you think? I snigger at the idea of Christian persecution in America for a reason: most Americans call themselves Christian, and generally speaking people don't persecute themselves. Further, I doubt a Jew or Muslim would face actual persecution in America...harrassment and descrimination is probably as far as it would go.

If you want to talk about REAL Christian persecution, I'm familiar with some cases outside the US, that include imprisonment, burning down people's houses, and sometimes death. For American Christians to cry like little bitches over percieved "persecution" in the face of the real persecution that people worldwide actually deal with is certainly worth mocking loudly and often.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony
Does your racism only extend to christians?

Christians are a race now? Your religious belief depends entirely on accidents of birth? Really?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I guess this is as good a place as any to mention this:

Pope John Paul II Calls for Adequate Separation of Church and State (http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml%3Fsid%3D49503+%22John+Paul+II+Cal ls+for+Adequate+Separation+of+Church+and+State%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8[/url)

I hope that link works. I saw the story elsewhere a couple days ago and trying to find it today and recover it from the religious web sites out there has been a bizarre experience.

Anyway:


Fantastic contribution to the topic. What a wonderful thing for a religious leader to recognize the importance to people of faith of the seperation.
Remember the Pilgrims? They were people of faith being persecuted by other faiths. And thus, America.
None are so blind as those that will not see.
As my beloved father used to say, "It all depends on who's ox is being gored."

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Brown
From the Star Tribune and AP (http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4628803.html):This opinion is not yet posted at the Supreme Court's official web site.


Gee... can I guess who the two dissenters were.

Reading down... WOW, I see I was right.

I must be psychic.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Of course, it was explicitly mentioned in the syllabus that students are allowed to take devotional theology courses under the current guidelines....Tip for those entering or considering law school. NEVER mention a syllabus or a headnote to a law professor, unless you really, really like being ridiculed in front of the rest of the class. The syllabus and headnotes are not a part of the opinion and carry no legal weight at all. It's okay to read them, but never tell a law professor that you've read 'em.

Footnotes on the other hand, ahhh! You can find lots of law professors that LOVE footnotes! Footnotes are a part of the opinion, and sometimes that's were some of the really good stuff is hiding.

Some law professors love dissenting opinions, because they are so entertaining. Even though these opinions are "written by the losers," they usually do carry some legal weight.

[Ed]

Originally posted by corplinx


It is possible to study the Bible, the underlying hebrew, the historical influences, the different time periods it was written, and how it was put together all without being a christian.



Moishe here agrees with you.
http://www.idg.hu/expo/hosok_tere/vem/kepek3/kk395.jpg

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Brown
(Lest anyone think I'm serious about Justice Scalia having two votes, or that Justice Thomas is Justice Scalia's puppet, be assured that I am joshing.)

No you're not.

Thomas is his butt boy. Do you (or anyone) know if Thomas has ever voted differently than Scalia?

Also, IIRC, for his first 2 years on the court, he never even asked a question!!! Has he since? The guy is in over his head.

[Brown]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Do you (or anyone) know if Thomas has ever voted differently than Scalia?

Also, IIRC, for his first 2 years on the court, he never even asked a question!!! Has he since? The guy is in over his head. The Pledge case is to be argued on Wednesday. Here's a story from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/22/national/22SCOT.html?hp) (registration required). It's interesting that some religious groups find the Pledge's use of "under God" to be objectionable.

Trivia: I observed the United States Supreme Court oral arguments on the day that Justice Thomas first asked a question from the bench.

Comment: Justice Thomas has publicly said that he does not feel any need to ask questions from the bench. Personally, I find it difficult to understand how he could possibly do his job well by choosing to remain silent.

As for whether Justices Thomas and Scalia have ever voted differently, the short answer is yes, they have. I don't have any statistics on this matter, but I can say that I have seen a few cases where they vote opposte ways, or where they vote the same way but refuse to join in each other's opinions.