When James Blaine introduced his ill-fated constitutional amendment in 1875, he probably never would have imagined the impact it would have 129 years later. Blaine wanted to prohibit the use of state funds at "sectarian" schools (a code word for Catholic parochial schools) in order to inhibit immigration. Since the public schools instilled a Protestant Christian view upon its students, public education was viewed as a way to stem the tide of Catholic influence.
While The amendment passed by a large majority (180-7) in the House, it failed by a tiny margin (4 votes) in the Senate. Supporters of the amendment, however, pressed the issue at the state level, often making it a prerequisite for statehood. The measure finally found its way into 37 state constitutions, including Washington State.
Fast-forward to 1999, where a Washington high school student Joshua Davey applies for the state sponsored “Promise Scholarships”:
Davey qualified, and in October of 1999 he received an award certificate for a a $1,125 grant and a letter from Governor Gary Locke congratulating him. But Davey, who had enrolled at Northwest College, a "Christian community of faith and learning" in Kirkland, Washington, declared a double major in Pastoral Ministries and Business Management. Within weeks, the state's Higher Education Coordinating Board ("HECB") sent a memorandum to Northwest announcing that the scholarship was being withdrawn because state law provides that "students who are pursuing degrees in theology are not eligible to receive any state-funded student financial aid, including the new Washington Promise Scholarship."
Davey contested the policy on grounds that it “violates the Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and federal and state constitutional rights to equal protection under the law.” The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court where, in a surprisingly bizarre decision, the court upheld the ruling that generally available scholarship benefits could be denied to students who want to study theology.
The student who wanted to study Protestant theology was prevented from keeping the scholarship because of a law intended to discriminate against Catholics. He was denied by a Court which used a precedent based on religious discrimination to justify further religious discrimination. Notre Dame law professor Rick Garnett believes, “[the Court] has authorized discrimination by state actors against those who take their religious faith seriously.”
Ironically, the decision is handed down on the very day when a film released by a traditionalist Catholic is being praised by thousands of conservative Protestants. While anti-Catholic sentiment has been all but purged from Protestantism, the vestiges of this religious bias remain in the dusty tomes of our nation’s law books. What a strange legacy this former congressman from Maine has left us. As Blaine biographer Charles Russell said, "No man in our annals has filled so large a space and left it so empty."
(For more on the Supreme Court's ruling, see the posts of Professor Bainbridge, Eugene Volokh, and Southern Appeal)
1
Proponents of this student's case continually harp on the fact that the scholarships are "generally available" to other students, as if this one person was being singled out for punishment. In fact, the scholarship is available to him, too - he simply can't use it to fund an explicitly religious, sectarian education which the government is rightly prohibited from funding. That prohibition applies to everyone else as well, and, like everyone else, this student is free to study - on the government's money - any subject that the government is not prohibited from funding. He singled himself out be being (apparently) the only person who attempted to use his government-funded scholarship to promote his personal religious inclinations.
There are good reasons for not funding religious activities - include religious education and ministry training - through the government. The debate is an old and familiar one. No doubt it makes the pursuit of private, sectarian religious inclinations more difficult than if the taxpayers were picking up the freight, but it obviates a multitude of disasters of much greater magnitude. The idea that this case is some unique or particularly egregious denial strikes me as reaching. The only thing bizarre about the Court's decision is that it carried a solid majority (7-2, the two being the obvious suspects - who are, interestingly, both Catholic). I expected much worse from them, but am glad to be pleasantly surprised on occasion.
As for the history of the (state-level) Amendment, its motivations are no doubt as you describe, but you seem to think that what was wrong with it was that it barred Catholics (and what is ironic now is that it is used to bar a Protestant). In fact, the Amendment seems just right to me (and unnecessary - I would have thought the First Amendment had already covered that ground). What was wrong was the - as you describe - open promotion of one chosen religious tradition in publicly-funded schools, not the failure to promote two such traditions simultaneously. If we needed an Amendment at all, then we needed one that covered both Catholics and Protestants (plus all the rest as well). And now we have it.
posted on 02.25.2004 6:29 PM2
This is a very odd case. The court did not hold that a student cannot take theology courses. (Perhaps that is next.) Rather, they have found that a student may not receive the scholarship money if they have declared their major as theology. In other words, if the same student remains undecided, or chooses some other major, they can still take the exact same courses as the theology student. It is not until the major is declared that this somehow becomes unlawful. I am very disappointed with the decision of the court.
posted on 02.25.2004 8:16 PM3
Kevin,
In fact, the Amendment seems just right to me (and unnecessary - I would have thought the First Amendment had already covered that ground).
That is because the idea that the 1st Amendment puts a wall between church and state is a rather modern one. Present day liberals usually wonder how every judge in history (until the Warren Court) missed that obvious fact.
posted on 02.25.2004 8:20 PM4
Benjamin:
This is a very odd case. The court did not hold that a student cannot take theology courses. (Perhaps that is next.) Rather, they have found that a student may not receive the scholarship money if they have declared their major as theology.
This grossly misstates what the ruling says. It wasn't even that the student wanted to be a theology major. The problem was that he wanted to use the money to attend a religious college and study pastoral ministries. Teaching about religion would have been okay. Teaching someone to lead a church is quite another thing. That's what Davey wanted to do, and that's where it crossed the line. I really don't even think it's that fine a line.
When even Rehnquist (not exactly a friend of church/state separation) rules with the majority on this, you have to take a long, hard look at the merits of the case.
Joe:
That is because the idea that the 1st Amendment puts a wall between church and state is a rather modern one.
Yeah, it's so modern that it took all the way until the second president (and, by the way, one of the guys who wrote the amendment) to be expressed as such.
But never mind that. I would have expected you to see the shallowness of attacking the state's Amendment with an ad hominem attack on Blaine. Whatever his motives may have been, they're irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not such amendments stand on their own merits. And these amendments protect both the chruch and the State. I would have expected you to support this.
Another thing: I want you to do some honest self-searching on this. Would you still support the student's case if he had wanted to usae the money to become an Imam?
posted on 02.25.2004 11:12 PM5
By the way, this amuses me: Conservatives defending the "ultra-liberal" 9th Circuit, which they routinely dismiss as the most frequently-overturned circuit in the nation. (I guess they're proven right again...)
Unless you'd be perfectly okay with your tax dollars being used to fund a Christian organization, a Wiccan organization, a Muslim organization, or a Hindu organization, you should be happy with this ruling.
posted on 02.25.2004 11:16 PM6
But, I take it, that Wymyn's Studies and Marxist studies, and various other group-identity-ideology majors will still be allowed the scholarships?
This is an incredibly unjust and unConstitutional ruling.
President Jefferson used taxpayer funds to print Bibles for missions to the indigenes, for crying out loud.
posted on 02.26.2004 12:09 AM7
Unless you'd be perfectly okay with your tax dollars being used to fund a Christian organization, a Wiccan organization, a Muslim organization, or a Hindu organization, you should be happy with this ruling.
We're talking about an individual not an organization. And yes, my tax dollars, already do fund such organizations. We have Muslim and Hindu chaplains in the military. I can also use my G.I. Bill benefits (that are paid by the tax payer) for seminary if I chose to do so. There are already plenty of ways that religion is funded by the State. Why single out this particular method?
posted on 02.26.2004 12:49 AM8
Joe:
We have Muslim and Hindu chaplains in the military.
And the Washington State Constitution makes specific exemptions for chaplains.
I can also use my G.I. Bill benefits (that are paid by the tax payer) for seminary if I chose to do so.
G.I. Bill benefits are a little different. It's money you earned, not money that was given to you. And anyway, if you lived in Washington State, and Washington State taxpayer monies supported the G.I. Bill payout, then no, you could not.
There are already plenty of ways that religion is funded by the State. Why single out this particular method?
Because this particular method is specifically prohibited, in plain English. Apart from chaplains, what other ways is religion funded by the State? Vouchers, now, thanks to a bad ruling. And currently, religious charities can qualify for federal grants, but only if those monies are used in a secular fashion (I believe this has been abused, but that's another argument for another day). What else is there?
posted on 02.26.2004 12:18 PM9
Joe:
One more thing I thought of:
There are already plenty of ways that religion is funded by the State. Why single out this particular method?
This sort of reasoning is a perfect example of why the State should NEVER fund religion IN ANY WAY. Because it opens the door to that sort of reasoning, and next thing you know, a significant portion of your tax dollars are being spent to finance a religion you don't even support (in fact, it may be directly contrary to YOUR religion).
posted on 02.26.2004 5:30 PM10
The First Admendment was originally to separate the ideology of any religion to have governmental support. Also, it was to give the right of ALL citizens to speak out on any subject to the government without persecution. The church/state issue was,by Founding Fathers(including the second president)to stop the setting up of a theocracy(read,Catholicism) that was prevalent in Europe and the Ottoman Empire at the time. They did not want any religion to be installed as THE State religion(read Catholicism.)
The distortion of this part of the admendment is ,I agree, not a new one. The modern distortion came when the Scopes came around,touting the secular vs. Christian issue to the forefront of American society.