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
