Victory for secularism

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-28 10:10pm

ATHEISTS PRAISE SUPREME COURT DECISION:
NO PUBLIC MONEY FOR DIVINITY TRAINING "SCHOLARSHIPS"
May Challenge Faith-Based Initiative

American Atheists today praised the US Supreme Court decision permitting states to ban the use of tax money for students majoring in theology and divinity training.

The 7-2 ruling in LOCKE v. DAVEY concerned a Washington State program that provided public cholarships. A student majoring in divinity studies obtained a grant; but the money was withdrawn in keeping with a state law that bars the use of public funds to aid religious groups, practices or institutions. Nearly three-dozen states have similar statutes.

The high court ruled that free exercise of religion does not mean that those studying for the ministry are entitled to public assistance.

"Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor," wrote Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. "That a state would deal differently with religious education for the ministry than with education for other callings" is not evidence of "hostility toward religion," he opined.

"We're delighted that the Supreme Court stood firm against public subsidies for religious groups and training," said Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists. "This case wasn't about legitimate freedom of religion. It was about taxing tens of millions of Americans -- including Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and other nonbelievers -- to train priests, ministers, rabbis, mullahs and other religious leaders."

Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists, said that the decision in LOCKE v. DAVEY could be a powerful legal argument against other public aid-to-religion programs, including President Bush's faith-based initiative, and voucher schemes to assist religious schools.

"We think that today's decision by a large majority of the high court will bring into question the constitutionality of much of the Bush social agenda," said Silverman "If you can't use public money to train religious leaders, you cannot be raiding the public treasury to fund social programs that incorporate religious teaching, or provide subsidies for students to attend religious schools."

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-02-28 10:17pm

This is indeed a victory, but a small one. I somehow doubt this will provide much leverage against the White House Dept. of Faith.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-28 10:21pm

Precedent is precedent. With further challenges of taith based initiatives, this case will hit like a ton of bricks.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-02-28 10:26pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Precedent is precedent. With further challenges of taith based initiatives, this case will hit like a ton of bricks.

Yeah, but the issues aren't as directly analogous as we'd like them to be. I mean essentially to impartial minds they are the same thing, but conservatives will argue the charity thing until they're blue in the face. It would take someone slashing the funding to a soup and salvation kitchen to be considered a precedent.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-28 10:44pm

Okay, I knew about this already and its a bad idea. You're right, precedent is precedent. They now have precedent for cutting scholarships for programs they don't like. Think about that. What's next, some fool deciding to cut the arts? Just because you don't happen to like a particular field of study doesn't mean that its invalid.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-02-28 10:46pm

Seperation of church and state. Lest "the arts" now consist of religious learning, indoctrination and other such issues then there is no risk that they'll be cut.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-02-28 10:49pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Okay, I knew about this already and its a bad idea. You're right, precedent is precedent. They now have precedent for cutting scholarships for programs they don't like. Think about that. What's next, some fool deciding to cut the arts? Just because you don't happen to like a particular field of study doesn't mean that its invalid.

There's more to it than just "not liking it". Like, well... I don't know... VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION PERHAPS!?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-28 11:01pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Okay, I knew about this already and its a bad idea. You're right, precedent is precedent. They now have precedent for cutting scholarships for programs they don't like. Think about that. What's next, some fool deciding to cut the arts? Just because you don't happen to like a particular field of study doesn't mean that its invalid.

Don't be an idiot. Theology is not just a sociological study of a subject (ie- religion); it is indoctrination in the tenets of one particular religion to the exclusion of all others. That makes it a clear misuse of secular taxpayers' money.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-02-28 11:22pm

The study of religion has its uses even in a secular state (it can go a long way towards explaining otherwise inexplicable human behavior), but the way theology is taught assumes that at least God exists (and in my experience, it assumes everything one particular docterine says is true, then attempts to rationalize it, along with examining other docterines and explaining why they're wrong).

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-29 01:37am

Rogue 9 wrote:Okay, I knew about this already and its a bad idea. You're right, precedent is precedent. They now have precedent for cutting scholarships for programs they don't like. Think about that. What's next, some fool deciding to cut the arts? Just because you don't happen to like a particular field of study doesn't mean that its invalid.

Slippery-slope fallacy, bub.

Since you cannot read, and in fact totally missed what they even said, this isn't about not liking a subject; it is about not using public funds to help train religious clerics.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-29 01:59am

I know next to nothing about such religious majors, so I could be totally off base. But are those majors like some in that the first couple years are completely unrelated to the major, but in fact are only general studies courses? If this is the case, is it right to restrict funding to such majors even though not a dime of the money would go to anything but secular education?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-29 02:14am

Howedar wrote:I know next to nothing about such religious majors, so I could be totally off base. But are those majors like some in that the first couple years are completely unrelated to the major, but in fact are only general studies courses? If this is the case, is it right to restrict funding to such majors even though not a dime of the money would go to anything but secular education?

I lived at a church college residence when I was in university. The theology majors all treat the Bible as true. They do not subject it to the kind of academic study which a normal historical source would receive (most likely because it would not fare too well). So these courses have no real educational value except as training for future ministers.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-29 02:21am

Okay.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-02-29 03:08pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Okay, I knew about this already and its a bad idea. You're right, precedent is precedent. They now have precedent for cutting scholarships for programs they don't like. Think about that. What's next, some fool deciding to cut the arts? Just because you don't happen to like a particular field of study doesn't mean that its invalid.

Oh Jesus, give it a rest, would you? Your knee-jerk, slippery-slope bullshit is growing tiresome.