Related articles and links |  1 of 4

The Washington state scholarship had Joshua Davey's name all over it: class valedictorian, perfect grades, attending a Washington school. But when, in 1999, Davey decided to double-major in business administration and theology at the Assemblies of God-affiliated Northwest College, Washington pulled the scholarship.

"It was simply a matter of his choice of degree that excluded him from eligibility for state financial aid," Carolyn Busch, executive policy adviser to Washington Gov. Gary Locke, told The Washington Times in a June 2000 article (not available online anymore, but discussed in an old Weblog). "We try to be as open as we can on our policies, but when a student chooses a theology degree, then they are not eligible for state financial aid."

That's because of Washington's constitution, which has something called a Blaine Amendment forbidding the use of public funds for religious purposes. Such amendments appear in 36 other state constitutions, which were created in the late 1800s to fight Roman Catholicism (they're named for James Blaine, who tried to get such an amendment in the U.S. Constitution). At least 14 states specifically prohibit theology majors from receiving state scholarships.

Last July, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Blaine Amendment, saying it discriminated "in such a way as to suppress a religious point of view."

Yesterday, the Supreme Court promised to take up the case in its next term, and many observers are saying it could be a landmark decision for religious liberty issues. And the bets are that the Supreme Court will agree with the 9th circuit on this one, since last year's Zelman v. Simmons-Harris decision allowing religious schools to receive state-funded tuition vouchers treaded on similar ground.

Not everyone agrees, however. UC-Berkeley law professor Jesse H. Choper tells the Los Angeles Times says "it would be a big step" for the justices to interpreted the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion as a guarantee of public support for religion. (But the court wouldn't have to take that step: it would only have to reiterate earlier decisions that if a government offers public support, it can't deny it on the basis of religion.)

"Should the Washington case lead to a clear new rule prohibiting discrimination based on religion, it could conceivably affect the entire dispute over educational vouchers," says a Denver Post editorial, which doesn't give an opinion on the case other than to say it "is of obvious importance."

"The Supreme Court has the potential to strip away the last legal defense school choice opponents have," Clark Neily, senior attorney for the pro-voucher Institute for Justice, says in a press release.

But it's not just about furthering vouchers. A ruling against the Blaine Amendment would be a huge boost for President Bush's faith-based initiative, notes the Times's David G. Savage.

If the Supreme Court decides that the First Amendment's ban on religious discrimination takes precedence over state constitutions' explicit discrimination against religion (as the justices should), there will be few church-state debates unaffected.

Also yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court said it wouldn't hear an appeal of lower court rulings against the town of Burbank, which began its City Council meetings with "sectarian" prayers. The ruling means that all California legislative bodies can open with invocations, but they cannot invoke anything that identifies the prayer with a particular set of beliefs. Buddhists, Hindus, and Zoroastrians must get as much out of the prayer as Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

next page... |  1 of 4

share this page

May (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47