Freedom of Religion -> Freedom from Religion
Submitted by dimmer on 24 October, 2005 - 02:10.
originally posted by dimmer on Wednesday February 25, @05:22PM
from the Supreme-Court dept.
Today (02-25-04) the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the state of Washington in the case Locke v. Davey. CNN article here. Here is the background:
Joshua Davey was a college student entering Northwest College, a private religious college in the state of Washington. He was awarded a state scholarship ($1,125) designated for high performing students from low income families. When Davey decided to study Theology as a major, the state revoked the scholarship because the state constitution forbids state-funded religious training. Davey sued on grounds of violation of his "free exercise of religion" in the USA's First Amendment of the Constitution. The case eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court, and was ruled on today.
Davey's argument: The State made its promise scholarship available to everyone on the basis of income and performance. By revoking the scholarship, the state unfairly discriminated against him on the basis of his choice to study religion alone.
The State of Washington's Argument: The state constitution explicitly forbids public funding of religious institutions and the use of public funds for religious training. Because Davey chose to pursue a degree in Theology, the state would have been supporting religious training. Therefore the state revoked the scholarship on grounds of separation of church and state.
Decision: By a wide margin (7-2), Washington State was not infringing on Davey's ability to pursue a degree in Theology - therefore his "freedom of exercise" was not being infringed upon, and therefore, the ruling was found in favor of the state. Davey could freely study as much theology as he wants, the state is not denying him that - the state simply refuses to pay for it.
This was a dicey ruling. Justice Scalia (1 of the 2 dissenters) is right in that the state is discriminating against students who wish to study religion within the religion (vs the secular study of religion). But it is the state's (and ultimately the voter's) right to decide who recieves public money and why. More specifically, it is the state's right to discriminate, so long as people's rights are not being violated. In this case, the state decided that public funding of a religious education would be a violation of everyone else's rights. Even though the state is discriminating against funding Christianity (or funding any religion), they are not inhibiting the "free exercise" of the religion. The outcome of this case will have long lasting repercussions. Had the justices swung the other way, a pandora's box would have opened up for religious funding. Therefore, IMHO, the Supreme Court has ruled responsibly in this case, and further, the State of Washington has shown itself to be a great role model in how to separate church and state.
Joshua Davey was a college student entering Northwest College, a private religious college in the state of Washington. He was awarded a state scholarship ($1,125) designated for high performing students from low income families. When Davey decided to study Theology as a major, the state revoked the scholarship because the state constitution forbids state-funded religious training. Davey sued on grounds of violation of his "free exercise of religion" in the USA's First Amendment of the Constitution. The case eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court, and was ruled on today.
Davey's argument: The State made its promise scholarship available to everyone on the basis of income and performance. By revoking the scholarship, the state unfairly discriminated against him on the basis of his choice to study religion alone.
The State of Washington's Argument: The state constitution explicitly forbids public funding of religious institutions and the use of public funds for religious training. Because Davey chose to pursue a degree in Theology, the state would have been supporting religious training. Therefore the state revoked the scholarship on grounds of separation of church and state.
Decision: By a wide margin (7-2), Washington State was not infringing on Davey's ability to pursue a degree in Theology - therefore his "freedom of exercise" was not being infringed upon, and therefore, the ruling was found in favor of the state. Davey could freely study as much theology as he wants, the state is not denying him that - the state simply refuses to pay for it.
This was a dicey ruling. Justice Scalia (1 of the 2 dissenters) is right in that the state is discriminating against students who wish to study religion within the religion (vs the secular study of religion). But it is the state's (and ultimately the voter's) right to decide who recieves public money and why. More specifically, it is the state's right to discriminate, so long as people's rights are not being violated. In this case, the state decided that public funding of a religious education would be a violation of everyone else's rights. Even though the state is discriminating against funding Christianity (or funding any religion), they are not inhibiting the "free exercise" of the religion. The outcome of this case will have long lasting repercussions. Had the justices swung the other way, a pandora's box would have opened up for religious funding. Therefore, IMHO, the Supreme Court has ruled responsibly in this case, and further, the State of Washington has shown itself to be a great role model in how to separate church and state.
Post new comment