Scholarahip Denied Religious Student......But Birth Control Forced on Church Charity - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-03-2004, 05:38 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:46 PM
please, no facts

do not read the decissions


why apply ration and logic
when personal bias and a persecution complex can propel argument.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 06:20 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
please, no facts

do not read the decissions


why apply ration and logic
when personal bias and a persecution complex can propel argument.

Wow...Now you sound like me in the other thread..LOL
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 09:26 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:46 PM
here is the ruling

it will require a little effort to digest

Quote:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

LOCKE, GOVERNOR OF WASHINGTON, et al. v. DAVEY
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

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

No. 02—1315. Argued December 2, 2003–Decided February 25, 2004

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

Washington State established its Promise Scholarship Program to assist academically gifted students with postsecondary education expenses. In accordance with the State Constitution, students may not use such a scholarship to pursue a devotional theology degree. Respondent Davey was awarded a Promise Scholarship and chose to attend Northwest College, a private, church-affiliated institution that is eligible under the program. When he enrolled, Davey chose a double major in pastoral ministries and business management/administration. It is undisputed that the pastoral ministries degree is devotional. After learning that he could not use his scholarship to pursue that degree, Davey brought this action under 42 U.S. C. §1983 for an injunction and damages, arguing that the denial of his scholarship violated, inter alia, the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. The District Court rejected Davey’s constitutional claims and granted the State summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that, because the State had singled out religion for unfavorable treatment, its exclusion of theology majors had to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest under Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520. Finding that the State’s antiestablishment concerns were not compelling, the court declared the program unconstitutional.

Held: Washington’s exclusion of the pursuit of a devotional theology degree from its otherwise-inclusive scholarship aid program does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. This case involves the “play in the joints” between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. Walz v. Tax Comm’n of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 669. That is, it concerns state action that is permitted by the former but not required by the latter. The Court rejects Davey’s contention that, under Lukumi, supra, the program is presumptively unconstitutional because it is not facially neutral with respect to religion. To accept this claim would extend the Lukumi line of cases well beyond not only their facts but their reasoning. Here, the State’s disfavor of religion (if it can be called that) is of a far milder kind than in Lukumi, where the ordinance criminalized the ritualistic animal sacrifices of the Santeria religion. Washington’s program imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite. It neither denies to ministers the right to participate in community political affairs, see McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, nor requires students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit, see, e.g., Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Fla., 480 U.S. 136. The State has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction. Even though the differently worded Washington Constitution draws a more stringent line than does the Federal Constitution, the interest it seeks to further is scarcely novel. In fact, there are few areas in which a State’s antiestablishment interests come more into play. Since this country’s founding, there have been popular uprisings against procuring taxpayer funds to support church leaders, which was one of the hallmarks of an “established” religion. Most States that sought to avoid such an establishment around the time of the founding placed in their constitutions formal prohibitions against using tax funds to support the ministry. That early state constitutions saw no problem in explicitly excluding only the ministry from receiving state dollars reinforces the conclusion that religious instruction is of a different ilk from other professions. Moreover, the entirety of the Promise Scholarship Program goes a long way toward including religion in its benefits, since it permits students to attend pervasively religious schools so long as they are accredited, and students are still eligible to take devotional theology courses under the program’s current guidelines. Nothing in the Washington Constitution’s history or text or in the program’s operation suggests animus towards religion. Given the historic and substantial state interest at issue, it cannot be concluded that the denial of funding for vocational religious instruction alone is inherently constitutionally suspect. Without a presumption of unconstitutionality, Davey’s claim must fail. The State’s interest in not funding the pursuit of devotional degrees is substantial, and the exclusion of such funding places a relatively minor burden on Promise Scholars. If any room exists between the two Religion Clauses, it must be here. Pp. 4—12.

299 F.3d 748, reversed.

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.







here is a site to the case and arguments


I follow Supreme Court rulings and read much of them to evaluate individual Justices’ performances.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 09:56 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:46 PM
Post the dissenting opinion...to be fair please.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 11:03 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:46 PM
here are all three opinions


they are in pdf files

i could not copy and paste




LOCKE V. DAVEY (02-1315)
299 F.3d 748, reversed.

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

Syllabus
Opinion (Rehnquist)

Dissent (Scalia)

Dissent (Thomas)
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 11:19 PM   #21
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,675
Local Time: 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
How can you compare a COMPANY to a Catholic Organization?
Do they only employ Catholics? Do they not supply secular services? If because they fall under the umbrella of a Catholic organiazation then more and more service providers will start hiding under similar umbrellas to avoid certain state regulations. I'm sorry but I don't want drug treatments centers or anything else to dodge state regulations because they say they believe in God.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-04-2004, 04:48 AM   #22
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


You are comparing apples and oranges. The government can dictate what a company (a legal entity created uner the auspises of the government). The government should not dictate what a church does.

They got this one wrong.
So a church should be allowed room to dictate what an individual does?
It leaves the individual with the choice of accepting the terms or not. Which is fine. I dont think exclusion in most cases is a good way to do anything though.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 03-04-2004, 06:32 AM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Do they only employ Catholics? Do they not supply secular services? If because they fall under the umbrella of a Catholic organiazation then more and more service providers will start hiding under similar umbrellas to avoid certain state regulations. I'm sorry but I don't want drug treatments centers or anything else to dodge state regulations because they say they believe in God.
Where in the Constitution is there Separation of Employer and State? I think you are taking your argument to an extreme that makes no sense under the law.

I'm sorry, but they came to work for a Church related Group. If you do not wish to follow the Church Law on this, then do not work for them.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-04-2004, 10:46 AM   #24
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,675
Local Time: 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Where in the Constitution is there Separation of Employer and State? I think you are taking your argument to an extreme that makes no sense under the law.

I'm sorry, but they came to work for a Church related Group. If you do not wish to follow the Church Law on this, then do not work for them.
Quote:
California is one of 20 states to require that all company-provided health plans must include contraception coverage if the plans have prescription drug benefits.
Dread, just like you said of the Patriot Act, it's the law of the land and should be followed.

They are not working for the Church. So are we going to start letting hospitals not follow the same state laws because they are a "Church related Group"?

I'm not seeing your argument. If this was the Church itself, I'd agree with you, but it isn't.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-04-2004, 11:33 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,289
Local Time: 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I'm sorry, but they came to work for a Church related Group. If you do not wish to follow the Church Law on this, then do not work for them.
So you feel that if I, as a Catholic woman worked for them, should endanger my health because of their rigid beliefs and because they refuse to accept that the birth control pill has multiple uses?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 03-04-2004, 11:48 AM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:46 PM
The student in this case was faced with a high hurdle to win his care. In essence, the Court required the student to show that the Washington Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.

The Court recognizes that there is a gap between actions permitted by the Establishment Clause but not required by Free Exercise Clause. Based on this ruling, it can be said that giving public funds to individual students to pursue theology degrees is permitted under the Establishment Clause, but is not required under the Free Exercise Clause. Washington's Constitution is written more narrowly than the US Constitution, and is extended by statute to prevent public funding of religious education. Since public funding of religious education is not required under the Free Exercise Clause, the Washington Constitution is not presumptively unconstitutional.

Bottom line, this is a permitted form of discrimination.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-04-2004, 11:50 AM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Dread, just like you said of the Patriot Act, it's the law of the land and should be followed.
It is not that simple. Rather than following the law of the land, the California Court simply recharacterized Catholic Charities as a business, not a church. This way, they could sidestep the Constitutional violation.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-04-2004, 12:12 PM   #28
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,675
Local Time: 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Bottom line, this is a permitted form of discrimination.
Which unfortunately most scholarships are.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-04-2004, 12:18 PM   #29
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,675
Local Time: 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


It is not that simple. Rather than following the law of the land, the California Court simply recharacterized Catholic Charities as a business, not a church. This way, they could sidestep the Constitutional violation.
It is a business, not a church.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-04-2004, 04:56 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


So you feel that if I, as a Catholic woman worked for them, should endanger my health because of their rigid beliefs and because they refuse to accept that the birth control pill has multiple uses?
Simple....no one is stopping anyone from paying for it themselves.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com