Church, State, and Education

http://nytimes.com/2003/12/02/opinion/02TUE2.html

December 2, 2003
Church, State and Education

The Supreme Court hears arguments today in an important church-state case,
one that will decide how much leeway states have in declining to finance
religion. Washington, whose State Constitution is emphatic on separating
government from religion, does not let its college scholarship funds be used
for theology degrees. A student who was training to become a Christian
cleric has charged that his First Amendment rights were violated. His claim
should be rejected.

Washington's State Constitution goes beyond the First Amendment's general
language prohibiting the "establishment of religion" and expressly bars
public money from being "appropriated for or applied to any religious
worship, exercise or instruction." To conform with this constitutional
mandate, the state prohibited the use of funds for theology degrees when it
established its Promise Scholarship program for low- and middle-income
college students in 1999.

The student in this case was enrolled in precisely the sort of program the
Washington Constitution prohibits the state from financing. He was pursuing
a degree in pastoral ministries. The college he enrolled at requires
students to indicate "a personal commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord and
Savior" and teaches courses from a Biblical perspective.

Washington State is not depriving anyone of the free exercise of religion.
It is merely drawing a line, which the Supreme Court has recognized, between
religious and secular education, and directing its funds to secular
education. There is no right to taxpayer financing for religious studies. To
hold otherwise, the court would have to contradict its own
abortion-financing cases, which say that a "legislature's decision not to
subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right."

Many conservatives have lined up behind the student in this case, who won, 2
to 1, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That stan
ce is odd, given that the two great conservative rallying cries today are
opposition to "activist" judges and support for "federalism," or a greater
respect for states' autonomy. These concerns both favor Washington State,
given that a federal appeals court has used the federal Constitution to
overrule a state law backed by the State Constitution. It will be
interesting to see whether Chief Justice William Rehnquist's court, which
invoked "federalism" to protect states from suits for age and disability
discrimination, will protect a state that limits its support for religion.

Today's case is part of an ongoing effort to lower the wall between church
and state. In a time of great sectarian conflict worldwide, moving further
in that direction would be a serious mistake. Redirecting tax dollars from
secular education to religious schools that may preach intolerance for other
faiths would - as Washington has long believed - move the nation in
precisely the wrong direction.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
---Theodore Roosevelt

"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of
Iraq."
-- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz,