Funding Theology Students - Forwarded by Christine

From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 4:48 am
Subject: Funding Theology Students - Forwarded by Christine

bj: [Dreamkeeper] States can deny funds to theology students
Date: 2/26/2004 1:40:36 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Deborah Harmes, Ph.D.
To: Dreamkeeper@yahoogroups.com (DREAMKEEPER)

What???

Justices allow states to deny funds to theology students
Writing for majority, Rehnquist says such training 'essentially religious endeavor'

The Associated Press

February 25, 2004, 5:54 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- States don't have to underwrite the religious training of students planning careers in the ministry, the Supreme Court ruled today, a departure from the court's trend of allowing more government support for religion. States can deny taxpayer-funded scholarships to divinity students, even as they hand out money to students pursuing other fields, the court said.

"Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor," the court said. "Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit."

The 7-2 ruling was notable for its author: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, ordinarily a supporter of the idea that there is not a high wall between church and state.

The court majority parted company with the Bush administration, which had argued that the state of Washington engaged in religious discrimination when it yanked a scholarship from a young divinity student five years ago.

Joshua Davey won the small merit scholarship but then lost it when he told officials at Northwest College in Kirkland, Wash., he planned to use the money to pursue a theology degree. He could have kept the Promise Scholarship had he planned to major in anything else.

"That a state would deal differently with religious education for the ministry than with education for other callings," is not evidence of hostility toward religion, Rehnquist wrote for himself and all but the court's two most conservative members.

Instead, it is in keeping with the nation's long tradition of welcoming the free expression of religion while frowning on government endorsement of it, Rehnquist wrote.

Like 36 other states, Washington prohibits spending public funds on this kind of religious education. Bans on public funds for religious education, often known as Blaine amendments, date to the 19th century, when anti-Catholic sentiment ran high.

The Washington ban "does not deny to ministers the right to participate in the political affairs of the community," the court majority said. "And it does not require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit. The state has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction."

The Davey case is a follow-up to the court's major ruling two years ago that allowed parents to use public tax money to send their children to religious schools. A ruling in Davey's favor would have made it easier to use vouchers in many states, because it could have overturned provisions in state constitutions like the one at issue in Washington.

The Constitution's First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Davey case posed an unusual test of those two, potentially competing, guarantees.

Rehnquist and is now in law school.

"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," wrote Scalia, the father of a Catholic priest.

Had the court ruled the other way, it could have erased many legal or constitutional barriers to state funding of religious activities in areas far beyond education.

President Bush's faith-based initiative, which is stalled in Congress, would let more religious groups compete for government money for things like social services, so long as their services are available to anybody in need. Opponents suggest the government would wind up underwriting religious proselytizing.

The case is Locke v. Davey, 02-1315.

On the Net:

Opinion: http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/02-1315P.ZO.pdf

Scalia dissent: http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/02-1315P.ZD.pdf

Thomas dissent: http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/02-1315P.ZD1.pdf

Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press

...................................................................................................................................

From: Dan Dugan
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:25 am
Subject: Re: Funding Theology Students - Forwarded by Christine

Christine, you wrote,

What???

Justices allow states to deny funds to theology students
Writing for majority, Rehnquist says such training 'essentially religious endeavor'

The Associated Press

February 25, 2004, 5:54 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- States don't have to underwrite the religious training of students planning careers in the ministry, the Supreme Court ruled today, a departure from the court's trend of allowing more government support for religion. <snip>

Why do you find this surprising?

-Dan Dugan

...................................................................................................................................

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:26 am
Subject: Welcome Dan Dugan

Well Hello there Dan, and Welcome to the good ship Anthropop.

I much enjoyed seeing your picture in your Yahoo profile. It's nice to see a face as it helps me to not imagine horns coming out of your head ;^)

I have a brief question for you; one that Peter doesn't have the balls to tell the truth about, or maybe he is just completely clueless.

You state in your yahoo profile that "Philosophy wars" is a favorite "hobby " of yours. I see this as a primary motive for your slanderous website.

So, could you explain to me and others here what you indeed think your primary motive for your crusade against Waldorf and RS, and trying to tie them both to the Hohocaust. -- is.

Regards

Mike

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:23 pm
Subject: my balls

Hi Mike,

I think I am clueless on this one. I thought I did answer your question about why I study anthroposophy's history; I mentioned my more general historical interests and so forth. Did that not go through? Or did I miss a subsequent round? Thanks,

Peter

I have a brief question for you; one that Peter doesn't have the balls to tell the truth about, or maybe he is just completely clueless.

...................................................................................................................................

From: bryanmillermail
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:39 am
Subject: Re: my balls

Mr. Staudenmaier!
If you continue using catchy subject lines like this one I'll be forced to start reading your posts more carefully, if only to find an actual reference to the subject matter among your word webs, as I did in this one (see below).
Nice one, sir.
Bryan

Peter wrote:

Hi Mike,

I think I am clueless on this one. I thought I did answer your question about why I study anthroposophy's history; I mentioned my more general historical interests and so forth. Did that not go through? Or did I miss a subsequent round? Thanks,

Peter

! Fotos - of my balls.

...................................................................................................................................

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:16 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] my balls

I wrote to DD;

I have a brief question for you; one that Peter doesn't have the balls to tell the truth about, or maybe he is just completely clueless.

Peter responds:

Hi Mike,

I think I am clueless on this one. I thought I did answer your question about why I study anthroposophy's history; I mentioned my more general historical interests and so forth. Did that not go through? Or did I miss a subsequent round? Thanks,


Mike:

Here is the question that you did not answer:

Peter:

I consider Steiner's racial theories and their reception among early anthroposophists a prime example of several of the broader phenomena I study, namely the propensity toward left-right crossover, esoteric politics, and the profusion of racial-ethnic discourse in early 20th century German-speaking Europe.

Mike:

So, Steiners racial theories and their reception are an example of the broader phenomena that you study. OK, so why do you study this phenomena?

Mike Again:

Why do you study this Phenomena? What do you think your motives for doing so are? And what is your overall intention?

Very clear questions I think.

And if it really doesn't matter (your personal motives and intent) then you should have no problem telling the truth.

Thanks

Mike

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:27 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] my balls

Hi Mike,

sorry, looks like that one got lost in the shuffle. You wrote:

Why do you study this Phenomena? What do you think your motives for doing so are? And what is your overall intention?

I find these issues fascinating. I see a number of very interesting parallels between current cultural and political trends and the 'alternative' milieu in German-speaking Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including the three themes I mentioned: left-right crossover, esoteric politics, and the profusion of racial-ethnic discourse (whereby the third one in particular has altered significantly in the course of the last 50 years). My motives are to get people today, especially people involved in the circles I travel in (environmental movement, co-op movement, anti-globalization movement, and so forth) to take a critical look at these historical parallels and maybe even avoid some of the mistakes of the past, and to get other historians to pay more attention to these issues as well. My overall intention is to write good history and good polemic that is relevant to today's concerns and provokes discussion. If I understand you correctly, you find something suspicious about all this. May I ask what that is? Thanks,

Peter

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

February/March 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind