- The Washington Times - Wednesday, February 25, 2004

ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Supreme Court voted yesterday 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.”

The case is a departure from recent church-state fights in which the Supreme Court gradually has allowed greater state sponsorship of religious activities. Chief Justice Rehnquist is usually a supporter of that trend.

Yesterday’s case has implications for President Bush’s plan to allow more church-based organizations to compete for government money. The Bush administration had argued that the state had been wrong to yank the scholarship from former student Joshua Davey.

Mr. Davey won a state Promise Scholarship, but the state rescinded the money when it learned what he planned to study.

As in 36 other states, Washington state prohibits spending public funds on this kind of religious education. Bans on public funds for religious education, often known as Blaine amendments, date to the 19th century, when anti-Catholic sentiment ran high.

“It imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite,” the high court majority said.

“It does not deny to ministers the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. And it does not require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit. The state has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction.”

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

“Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority,” Justice 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.”

Justice Scalia said the court’s majority was trying to play down the damage to Mr. Davey, who continued his education without the subsidy. He did not choose to enter the ministry after graduation and now is 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 Justice Scalia, the father of a Catholic priest.

Mr. Davey’s attorneys argued that the state violated his constitutional right to worship freely.

A broad ruling that Mr. Davey had a constitutional right to the scholarship money could have forced a vast reordering of government spending to ensure that government did not exclude religious programs or organizations.

The Bush administration had argued that the implications were less dramatic.

The Davey case is a follow-up to the court’s major ruling two years ago that allowed parents to use public tax money to send their children to religious schools. A ruling in Mr. Davey’s favor would have made it easier to use vouchers in many states, because it could overturn provisions in state constitutions such as the one at issue in Washington.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide