Scholarahip Denied Religious Student......But Birth Control Forced on Church Charity

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
[Q]The State of Washington awards handsome college and graduate scholarships to gifted students of modest means through the Promise Scholarship Program (PSP). But reminiscent of discrimination against blacks, Jews, or the Irish, a disturbing exception is celebrated. Students pursuing devotional degrees need not apply. [/Q]

The Supreme Court says this is OK. You can have the scholarship as long as you do not study Religion. What a freaking crock of dung.


http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040301-085719-3522r.htm

However Catholic Charities of California is FORCED to provide BIRTH CONTROL?

[Q]
SAN FRANCISCO - A state Supreme Court ruling that a Roman Catholic charity must provide employees with birth-control coverage despite its opposition to contraception "shows no respect" to California's religious organizations, a spokeswoman for the church's policy arm said.[/Q]


http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1110_AP_Online_Regional___National__US_/ce362103-f37f-4a6f-94bc-d606204072a7.html

Am I going crazy...What happened to Separation of Church and State?
 
Interesting comparisons. The first one shows not just a seperation of church and 'state' but a blatant disregard. Total non acceptance. Its shameful.
The second example I kinda agree with though. I know the church is opposed and has every right, but dont all employers have an obligation to provide for their staff? Anyone who needs it then only has the moral consequences to deal with.
Americans pay an obscene amount for education and health care. Depending on your views, these are simply outrageous.
 
Angela Harlem said:

Americans pay an obscene amount for education and health care. Depending on your views, these are simply outrageous.

Not obscene enough...ask Martha and Sherry!!!!:wink:
 
deep said:
The courts got these right.

I am thinking maybe on the 1st one. In the opinion on the 1st case they used some of the arguments that were used in FYM a week or two ago. That is why I love this place....

I am strongly opposed to the 2nd decision. They view Catholic Charities as a separate entity from the church. I am not sure that I agree iwth this yet.



One more thing...if I stopped reading and bringing balance to the force in here....would you stop reading the left wing stuff you post?:wink:
 
I agree with the first, I think....but does 'devotional' degrees mean studying religion or study with the goal of becoming a pastor or something like that? :confused: There are scholarships that don't apply to people studying certain subjects all the time. I don't see it as comparable to discriminating against races.

The second...I'm also not sure about, but lean towards agreement. (How's that for fence-sitting? :wink: )
 
I agree with the 2nd one 100%.

As an employee, if you are entitled to benefits like prescription drugs, they need to be all encompassing.

Years ago, I was diagnosed with a genetic defect - it is an enzymatic defect in one of the enzymes which converts a certain hormone from the inactive to the active form and back (a reversible reaction) and therefore I need to take a specific type of birth control pill essentially forever unless I want to have children.

Why should I be denied this because the pill also has other uses? The pill is multi-potent and everyone should be covered. Every woman knows that there are literally dozens of reasons why she would like to be on the pill, whether she is sexually active or not. A pill is not like a condom with one specific use and therefore, based on medical needs, I say it needs to be given to people without question.
 
Re: Scholarahip Denied Religious Student......But Birth Control Forced on Church Charity

Dreadsox said:
The Supreme Court says this is OK. You can have the scholarship as long as you do not study Religion. What a freaking crock of dung.

This is a classic example of how "no establishment" is completely ingnored and the "separation" fanatics have their field day. The individual selected the degree and institution - not the State. This is nothing more than censorship based on religion.

Sorry deep, left-wing nut-job web pages will cause you to lose your mind. The court got this one wrong.
 
meegannie said:
There are scholarships that don't apply to people studying certain subjects all the time. I don't see it as comparable to discriminating against races.

I agree.

The second one, I completely agree with. For two reason's Atriam's for one and the second being that believe it or not all employee's or services provided by these charity's are Catholic. Should every company start denying it's employee's certain rights based on their beliefs. What if my employer doesn't believe in modern medicine, or believe in celebrating holidays are we going to allow everyone to pick and choose what they want and not adhere to the state laws based on personal beliefs? This is the problem with the faith based programs Bush is trying to pass, they won't have to answer to the same standards as everyone else in the state because they are religious.

They were right.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Should every company start denying it's employee's certain rights based on their beliefs. What if my employer doesn't believe in modern medicine, or believe in celebrating holidays are we going to allow everyone to pick and choose what they want and not adhere to the state laws based on personal beliefs? This is the problem with the faith based programs Bush is trying to pass, they won't have to answer to the same standards as everyone else in the state because they are religious.

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.
 
Anitram is right, though; birth control pills can be prescribed for a lot of reasons. I disagree with the first ruling, for the record, because theology majors (like English, philosophy, or foreign language majors, just to name a few) aren't limited to pursuing the ministry. They could do lots of things. I'm assuming that the student was a theology major...?

But I think the second ruling was probably okay. Although the Catholic charity is not a business, it is an employer providing prescription drug coverage--and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts they cover Viagra.
 
From what I've now read, my understanding is that the scholarship does not exclude theology majors, but those pursuing devotional theology degrees (in preparation for ministry work).

'The student in question sought "college training for a lifetime of ministry, specifically as a church pastor." And the exclusion was mandated by the state's Constitution, which holds that "No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction. . . ."'

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/27/findlaw.analysis.hamilton.theology/

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/n...00&en=781f6d59f253a27c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
 
Last edited:
paxetaurora said:
and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts they cover Viagra.

I need to join...sign me up....I will need some after the next surgery....:applaud:
 
please, no facts

do not read the decissions


why apply ration and logic
when personal bias and a persecution complex can propel argument.
 
deep said:
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
 
here is the ruling

it will require a little effort to digest

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.
 
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)
 
Dreadsox said:
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.
 
nbcrusader said:


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.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


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 said:


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.

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.
 
Dreadsox said:
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?
 
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.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
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 said:


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.
 
anitram said:


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.
 
Back
Top Bottom