The U. S. Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments (on December 2) in a new church-state case. At issue this time is the Washington law that bans paying state financial aid to students pursuing degrees in theology (study of the nature of God and religious truth). The state’s contention: using public money for religious purposes violates the U. S. Constitution’s First Amendment doctrine of church and state separation.
Standing in opposition to this argument is another aspect of the same amendment which guarantees all individuals freedom of religion.
The case involves a young man named Joshua Davey, a devout Christian from Spokane, Washington who qualified in 1999 for a Promise Scholarship–a state-funded program for high-achieving students of modest means. When he enrolled in the pastoral ministries curriculum at Northwest College (Kirkland), he was declared ineligible for the scholarship based on the Washington law.
Davey sued in federal court (2000), arguing the statute violated his rights under the U. S. Constitution to practice his religion freely. In 2002 the Ninth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. State officials are challenging that finding, asking the Supreme Court to reverse it.
Even with the $3,000 scholarship money on hold pending the high court’s ruling, Davey went on to graduate with honors from Northwest College in 2003 with a degree in religion and philosophy. He now plans to pursue a law degree at Harvard University.
The Bush administration is backing Davey’s case because it has implications for their "faith-based initiative" plan to let more church organizations compete for government money. Their spokesman before the Court, Solicitor General Theodore Olson, maintained " ... the Promise Scholarship program practices the plainest form of religious discrimination .. . (sending a ) clear and unmistakable message ... religion and preparation for a career in the ministry is disfavored ..."
Justice Stephen Breyer believes the court could force a " ... vast reordering of government spending ... the implications of this case are breathtaking ..." Justice Antonin Scalia stated that " ... it’s like treating religion different from non-religion ..."
Judge John Paul Stephens asked how losing the money prevented Davey from practicing his religion since he went on with his schooling minus any financial aid. Olson replied, "He practices it at a price." Stephens’ comeback: "He practices it without a subsidy."
It will be several months before the Court announces its decision.