Creationists in court.

[fishbob]

Paraphrasing some background information: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/10/national/10SCHO.html?th (http://)

Teresa Becker chose, in her sophomore year, to major in theology . She had received $1,200 in state scholarship money for her freshman year at Ave Maria College in Ypsilanti, Mich., in 2000. The next year she received $2,750 in state aid. Last June, she was promised that amount for her junior year, too. When word of her choice of a major reached state officials, they wrote her:
"Students enrolled in a course of study leading to a degree in theology, divinity or religious education are not eligible to receive an award," it said, paraphrasing a state law. "Your award has changed from $2,750.00 to $0.00." Ms. Becker sued.

Ms. Becker's lawyers at the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative public interest law firm in Ann Arbor, Mich., emphasized what they called the unfairness of the distinction the Michigan law draws.

"An atheist committed to scientific materialism may study the Big Bang, the laws governing the subsequent organization of matter and, ultimately, the amphibian from which man is said to have evolved — all without forfeiting his scholarship," they wrote in court papers. "But Teresa must forfeit her scholarship if she wishes to discuss the Uncaused Cause that created the stuff of the Big Bang, and the notion that the laws that govern creation are not merely statistically improbable but so irreducibly complex that the heavens proclaim the glory of the Lord."

How will the legal system deal with "irreducible complexity" as a legal argument? The way this case appears to be shaping up - a potentially small claim, fairness in scholarships is the main issue - will refutation of the creationist argument even be challenged?

[Skeptic]

This isn't discrimination--merely a case of unintended consequences.

The reason behind this state law, no doubt, is the fact that theology degrees are easily obtainable from diploma mill "churches" and "theological seminaries". The idea is to prevent people from getting thousands of dollars of "scholarships" for nothing.

Perhaps the law should be amended... but it certainly wasn't put there to opressing religion, merely to fight fraud.

[CFLarsen]

Easy solution:

You wanna argue that evolution isn't true? Prove it, scientifically! Invoke one single paranormal phenomenon (or anything you cannot account for) of any kind, at any time, and yer out!

Sorry, kiddo, but that's the harsh way of science. Believe what you want, but if you wanna play science, deal with reality.

[Upchurch]

huh. that's an interesting situation. How could a state scholorship of a theology student not be seen as supporting a religion? Unless, maybe, it was theological history...

[Tony]

The state was wrong in revoking the scholarship, she will win the case.

[Hexxenhammer]

Whatever happens, it won't be good for science. Either the state wins and there's public outcry about religious discrimination, or they lose with the obvious consequences.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony
The state was wrong in revoking the scholarship, she will win the case. Why do you think that?

[fishbob]

The case is not about the validity of evolution, it is about the fairness of the scholarship programs. Her choice of major caused her to lose a scholarship, perhaps unfairly. If she was treated unfairly, she deserves to win. If she knew the restrictions before she applied, she deserves to lose.

My question is whether the "irrefutable complexity" argument will be presented and accepted without discussion.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Why do you think that?

She has as much as a right to that money as anyone else.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony


She has as much as a right to that money as anyone else. State money going to further her education in her personal religion?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch
State money going to further her education in her personal religion?


Yes.

[Upchurch]

Hey, fishbob. The link is a subscription article. Can you provide more details? Specifically about the law used to revoke the scholarship? Is it a First Amendment deal?

[American]

State money is better spent on engineers, scientists, and business majors than on people who write endless crap about nonsense that contributes nothing back to the state's investment. It's that simple.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by American
State money is better spent on engineers, scientists, and business majors than on people who write endless crap about nonsense that contributes nothing back to the state's investment. It's that simple.

What about art, music and sports?

[fishbob]

More excerpts from the article:

Eleven states prohibit aid for the study of theology. In addition to Michigan and Washington, they are New York, New Jersey, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wisconsin, according to a supporting brief filed in the Supreme Court by five state attorneys general.

The Washington case is in some ways the narrower one. The State Supreme Court interpreted theology to mean "instruction that resembles worship and manifests a devotion to religion and religious principles in thought, feeling, belief and conduct."

In Washington, then, teaching about religion as an academic subject, as opposed to religious teaching meant to inspire devotion, is fine.

The Michigan law is seemingly broader, and its original purpose is not well understood. In an e-mail message to an Ave Maria College official in January, the director of the state's scholarship office, Diana Todd Sprague, wrote: "I am not clear on why this was part of the statute since it was established in the 60's. It has been described to me as having to do with the separation of church and state, but I am not certain."

Jason Allen, a Republican state senator from here, called the history of the law murky. Senator Allen has introduced legislation to allow state aid for students studying theology.

It appears to be a first amendment deal in some states, others just don't know. Win or lose, I think that this particular case is a fair treatment issue, to be decided by looking at the details that were not reported in the NY Times.

Does anyone have any input related to what happens when an unrefuted creationist argument pops up in a court case? Specifically, could it be cited as a precedent in future court cases?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


What about art, music and sports?

Oh, Gawd, don't get him started...


No, wait, they all contribute to tourism! And that means tourims dollars! WE'RE SAVED!!!

[shuize]

If this case is handled as an equal protection issue, Ms. Becker should lose. A theology student is not a member of a "suspect class" warranting heightened judical scrutiny. Michigan need only come up with a rational basis for the different treatment. Any rational basis will do. Skeptic's reasoning above that Michigan may wish to limit "diploma mill" theology courses would be enough under the "any rational basis" test.

Then again, the Supreme Court has been playing havoc with the equal protection tests of late, especially in Michigan (see Grutter v. Bollinger, for example, in which the traditional strict scrutiny test applied to racial and ethnic classifications was watered down beyond recognition).


edited for case citation

[Zep]

Reading the first post again, the following words stand out for me:

...Thomas More Law Center, a conservative public interest law firm in Ann Arbor, Mich...[said that] "But Teresa must forfeit her scholarship if she wishes to discuss the Uncaused Cause that created the stuff of the Big Bang, and the notion that the laws that govern creation are not merely statistically improbable but so irreducibly complex that the heavens proclaim the glory of the Lord."

What is the situation in law where a legal representative has a clearly and publicly stated political/religious interest in the outcome of a client's case? And I question the situation where a religious statement is being made as a claim before the law.

On another point, the original idea of scholarships per se is to financially assist students in their studies. They were actually monies TO THE MAXIMUM OF some value. So if it can be shown that there are actually no costs involved in the girl's study program (i.e. it's a degree-mill) then the scholarship should be awarded to cover those costs, i.e. nil value.

Just a left-field idea.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony


Originally posted by Upchurch---
State money going to further her education in her personal religion?
---

Yes.

Then you advocate overthrowing the constitution? Are you a revolutionary who espouses deliberate violations of the constitution of the United States?

[Tmy]

The reason these schools get the state aid is because of their teaching of their acredited secular courses.

Otherwise any kook can open a witchcraft school and force the state pay for the tuition of Voo Doo Doll-ology Dept.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by shuize
If this case is handled as an equal protection issue, Ms. Becker should lose. A theology student is not a member of a "suspect class" warranting heightened judical scrutiny. Michigan need only come up with a rational basis for the different treatment. Any rational basis will do. Skeptic's reasoning above that Michigan may wish to limit "diploma mill" theology courses would be enough under the "any rational basis" test.The difference between a theology student and a philosophy student is one that I think probably is protected by the 1st amendment, and as such, strict scrutiny would apply. The difference is arguably nothing but religious.

I think the state might be in trouble here. I think they would be better off deciding which institutions qualify for the application of the scholarship, rather than trying to influence what course of study within a particular school a student should pursue. While I don't think the state should be sponsoring religious studies, they also shouldn't be paying attention to, or influencing what an individual wants to study. If they want to avoid sponsoring religious studies, then they should refrain from giving scholarships to students at schools that teach religion.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
If they want to avoid sponsoring religious studies, then they should refrain from giving scholarships to students at schools that teach religion.

Then what? Thatll box the state into a corner where NO religous schools get any funding.

This seems easy. The Govt always sends money wh strings attached.

Its ok to send a church state funds to build a homeless shelter wh/o sending them funds to build a new house of worship.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy


Then what? Thatll box the state into a corner where NO religous schools get any funding.

This seems easy. The Govt always sends money wh strings attached.

Its ok to send a church state funds to build a homeless shelter wh/o sending them funds to build a new house of worship.

If she goes to a regular University (the ones that get tax breaks from government for being a school and not a church) then I don't see why she should not be able to get a grant from government like everyone else. Majoring in theology is no sillier than majoring in interior decorating.

[shuize]

With the wacky reasoning the Court is basing recent equal protection rulings on these days nothing will surprise me. However, a state university can and does fund different scholarship programs differently. If Michigan wanted to give all it's scholarship money to math majors, it could. If it wanted to give all it's funding to theology students, it could. And if it wanted to give it's awards to everyone except theology students it could do that too. All it would need is a rational basis for the difference in treatment and we all know damn near anything can pass that test. I just don't see how not giving her money to study theology infringes on this young woman's First Amendment right to practice her religion. And if it doesn't burden her exercise of this fundamental right, then I also don't see how strict scrutiny comes into play.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Tmy
Then what? Thatll box the state into a corner where NO religous schools get any funding. Sounds good to me. The state funds perfectly acceptable public universities. Very good ones, in fact. If you want your own separate education, pay for it.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by shuize
And if it doesn't burden her exercise of this fundamental right, then I also don't see how strict scrutiny comes into play. She could argue that she is being punished by the state for exercising her religion. I'm not saying that she'll win, but I certainly can see an argument she can fight with.

[shuize]

It's an argument she can make headlines with ... which is obviously what this is all about.

But it doesn't mean she's being punished. It's not like she's even being kept out of the theology program (which Grutter v. Bollinger says, if it's for the sake of "diversity," would be fine as well). Michigan is saying "Study, believe, practice whatever religion you want but we're not going to pay for it."

She's not in a "suspect class" and the disparate funding doesn't burden her exercise of religion. No strict scrutiny as I see it. Unless America's mass sense of entitlement has progressed so far that not getting paid to go to school now somehow burdens one's free exercise of religion. But with this Court's fuzzy logic, you never know.

[Andonyx]

Interesting:

From Randi's Commentary:


Recently, a 21-year-old Michigan woman, Teresa Becker, was refused state aid funding for her Ave Maria College course in theology. The State Supreme Court interpreted theology to mean "instruction that resembles worship and manifests a devotion to religion and religious principles in thought, feeling, belief and conduct." Nonsense. Theology is a legitimate academic field of study that in no way requires a belief in religion, nor a belief in a deity, any more than a study of history requires that the student must accept history as proven.

I tend to agree with this logic.

Because it seems ot me, if someone wanted to major in Cultural anthropology with a concentration in Roman Mythology and Religion, there would be no issues. One could say the same thing about theology and modern culture. It's just culture from a current religious perspective.

[Malachi151]

How about we start taxing churches and they can have scholarships for theology.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Malachi151
How about we start taxing churches and they can have scholarships for theology.

Theology is NOT sysnonomous with religion, you seem to be missing that point.

I am not required to suffer from a mental illness in order to study psychology. Likewise I can study religion and its effects on culture, politics, and social behavior, as well as its influence on modern history without being, practicing or even espousing a religion. A degree in theology is not the same as going to divinity school. What is it that people don't understand about that?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Theology is NOT sysnonomous with religion, you seem to be missing that point.

I am not required to suffer from a mental illness in order to study psychology. Likewise I can study religion and its effects on culture, politics, and social behavior, as well as its influence on modern history without being, practicing or even espousing a religion. A degree in theology is not the same as going to divinity school. What is it that people don't understand about that?

Actually I agree with you, I was just joking around.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Andonyx
A degree in theology is not the same as going to divinity school. What is it that people don't understand about that? Mostly because people are unfamiliar with it. Plus, it doesn't help that many people who get degrees in theology later go into seminary or divinity school.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Mostly because people are unfamiliar with it. Plus, it doesn't help that many people who get degrees in theology later go into seminary or divinity school.

That's true, but people who study chemistry might go on to build bombs. We can't legislate based on what people might do.

Malachi,

Sorry, my sense of humor was down for the moment. But Gov. Pataki tells me it should be back up in 5-6 hours.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Andonyx
I am not required to suffer from a mental illness in order to study psychology. Likewise I can study religion ... without ... espousing a religion.Nice analogy. :D