LifeSiteNews.com

Wednesday February 25, 2004



US Supreme Court Ruling Seen as Blow to Religious Freedom


SHARE: E-mail E-MAIL  Print PRINT     

Washington, DC, Feb. 25 (CWNews.com/LifeSitenews.com) - The US Supreme Court expanded on the current judicial precedents on the separation of church and state on Wednesday, by ruling that states can withhold scholarships and grants from students who study theology.

The court decided 7-2 that the state of Washington had acted properly in revoking a taxpayer-funded scholarship from a college student who majoring in religious studies. "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 ruling is being seen as a step back for the Supreme Court, which recently had been loosening the definition of separation. It could also impact President George W. Bush's plan to allow faith-based organizations to compete in federal social service programs on an equal level with secular groups without compromising on their religious identity. It is also seen as a blow to school voucher programs. Two years ago, the Supreme Court allowed parents to use taxpayer-funded vouchers to send their children to private schools, even religious ones. However, the court's new ruling means that such voucher programs likely will not spread to states with Blaine amendment laws.

About 36 states have so-called Blaine amendments, laws dating from the 19th century imposed under anti-Catholic pressure to prevent taxpayer funds from being spent on religious education.

The dissenting justices were Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

"Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority," Scalia wrote in the minority opinion. "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." He added, "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."

Back to Top Back to Top

SHARE: E-mail E-MAIL  Print PRINT     



MORE NEWS: LifeSiteNews.com Home Page  Last 10 Days   Archives   Special Reports

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.