Creationists in court.

shuize said:
If this case is handled as an equal protection issue, Ms. Becker should lose. A theology student is not a member of a "suspect class" warranting heightened judical scrutiny. Michigan need only come up with a rational basis for the different treatment. Any rational basis will do. Skeptic's reasoning above that Michigan may wish to limit "diploma mill" theology courses would be enough under the "any rational basis" test.
Click to expand...
The difference between a theology student and a philosophy student is one that I think probably is protected by the 1st amendment, and as such, strict scrutiny would apply. The difference is arguably nothing but religious.

I think the state might be in trouble here. I think they would be better off deciding which institutions qualify for the application of the scholarship, rather than trying to influence what course of study within a particular school a student should pursue. While I don't think the state should be sponsoring religious studies, they also shouldn't be paying attention to, or influencing what an individual wants to study. If they want to avoid sponsoring religious studies, then they should refrain from giving scholarships to students at schools that teach religion.
 
Michael Redman said:
If they want to avoid sponsoring religious studies, then they should refrain from giving scholarships to students at schools that teach religion.
Click to expand...

Then what? Thatll box the state into a corner where NO religous schools get any funding.

This seems easy. The Govt always sends money wh strings attached.

Its ok to send a church state funds to build a homeless shelter wh/o sending them funds to build a new house of worship.
 
Tmy said:


Then what? Thatll box the state into a corner where NO religous schools get any funding.

This seems easy. The Govt always sends money wh strings attached.

Its ok to send a church state funds to build a homeless shelter wh/o sending them funds to build a new house of worship.
Click to expand...

If she goes to a regular University (the ones that get tax breaks from government for being a school and not a church) then I don't see why she should not be able to get a grant from government like everyone else. Majoring in theology is no sillier than majoring in interior decorating.
 
With the wacky reasoning the Court is basing recent equal protection rulings on these days nothing will surprise me. However, a state university can and does fund different scholarship programs differently. If Michigan wanted to give all it's scholarship money to math majors, it could. If it wanted to give all it's funding to theology students, it could. And if it wanted to give it's awards to everyone except theology students it could do that too. All it would need is a rational basis for the difference in treatment and we all know damn near anything can pass that test. I just don't see how not giving her money to study theology infringes on this young woman's First Amendment right to practice her religion. And if it doesn't burden her exercise of this fundamental right, then I also don't see how strict scrutiny comes into play.
 
Tmy said:
Then what? Thatll box the state into a corner where NO religous schools get any funding.
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me. The state funds perfectly acceptable public universities. Very good ones, in fact. If you want your own separate education, pay for it.
 
shuize said:
And if it doesn't burden her exercise of this fundamental right, then I also don't see how strict scrutiny comes into play.
Click to expand...
She could argue that she is being punished by the state for exercising her religion. I'm not saying that she'll win, but I certainly can see an argument she can fight with.
 
It's an argument she can make headlines with ... which is obviously what this is all about.

But it doesn't mean she's being punished. It's not like she's even being kept out of the theology program (which Grutter v. Bollinger says, if it's for the sake of "diversity," would be fine as well). Michigan is saying "Study, believe, practice whatever religion you want but we're not going to pay for it."

She's not in a "suspect class" and the disparate funding doesn't burden her exercise of religion. No strict scrutiny as I see it. Unless America's mass sense of entitlement has progressed so far that not getting paid to go to school now somehow burdens one's free exercise of religion. But with this Court's fuzzy logic, you never know.
 
Interesting:

From Randi's Commentary:


Recently, a 21-year-old Michigan woman, Teresa Becker, was refused state aid funding for her Ave Maria College course in theology. The State Supreme Court interpreted theology to mean "instruction that resembles worship and manifests a devotion to religion and religious principles in thought, feeling, belief and conduct." Nonsense. Theology is a legitimate academic field of study that in no way requires a belief in religion, nor a belief in a deity, any more than a study of history requires that the student must accept history as proven.
Click to expand...


I tend to agree with this logic.

Because it seems ot me, if someone wanted to major in Cultural anthropology with a concentration in Roman Mythology and Religion, there would be no issues. One could say the same thing about theology and modern culture. It's just culture from a current religious perspective.
 
Malachi151 said:
How about we start taxing churches and they can have scholarships for theology.
Click to expand...

Theology is NOT sysnonomous with religion, you seem to be missing that point.

I am not required to suffer from a mental illness in order to study psychology. Likewise I can study religion and its effects on culture, politics, and social behavior, as well as its influence on modern history without being, practicing or even espousing a religion. A degree in theology is not the same as going to divinity school. What is it that people don't understand about that?
 
Andonyx said:


Theology is NOT sysnonomous with religion, you seem to be missing that point.

I am not required to suffer from a mental illness in order to study psychology. Likewise I can study religion and its effects on culture, politics, and social behavior, as well as its influence on modern history without being, practicing or even espousing a religion. A degree in theology is not the same as going to divinity school. What is it that people don't understand about that?
Click to expand...

Actually I agree with you, I was just joking around.
 
Andonyx said:
A degree in theology is not the same as going to divinity school. What is it that people don't understand about that?
Click to expand...
Mostly because people are unfamiliar with it. Plus, it doesn't help that many people who get degrees in theology later go into seminary or divinity school.
 
Upchurch said:
Mostly because people are unfamiliar with it. Plus, it doesn't help that many people who get degrees in theology later go into seminary or divinity school.
Click to expand...

That's true, but people who study chemistry might go on to build bombs. We can't legislate based on what people might do.

Malachi,

Sorry, my sense of humor was down for the moment. But Gov. Pataki tells me it should be back up in 5-6 hours.
 
Andonyx said:
I am not required to suffer from a mental illness in order to study psychology. Likewise I can study religion ... without ... espousing a religion.
Click to expand...
Nice analogy. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom