Scholarahip Denied Religious Student......But Birth Control Forced on Church Charity - 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 03-02-2004, 11:38 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Scholarahip Denied Religious Student......But Birth Control Forced on Church Charity

[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/...5719-3522r.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...6204072a7.html

Am I going crazy...What happened to Separation of Church and State?
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 01:13 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
babyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: On an open cluster called Pleiades
Posts: 6,246
Local Time: 08:53 AM
__________________

babyman is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 01:33 AM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,598
Local Time: 10:53 PM
Quote:
Am I going crazy

No, just stay away from those right-wing nut-job web pages, and you will stop losing your mind.



The courts got these right.
deep is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 01:59 AM   #4
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 05:53 PM
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.
__________________
<a href=https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 06:12 AM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem

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!!!!
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 06:16 AM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
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?
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 06:46 AM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 06:53 AM
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? 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? )
meegannie is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 09:35 AM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,787
Local Time: 02:53 AM
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.
anitram is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 09:48 AM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:53 PM
Re: Scholarahip Denied Religious Student......But Birth Control Forced on Church Charity

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
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.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 02:36 PM   #10
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,226
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by meegannie
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.
BVS is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 03:13 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 01:53 AM
How can you compare a COMPANY to a Catholic Organization?
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 03:30 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
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.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 03:34 PM   #13
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:53 AM
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.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 04:14 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 06:53 AM
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/fi...lton.theology/

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/na...partner=GOOGLE
meegannie is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 04:34 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
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....
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 04:38 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,598
Local Time: 10:53 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, 05:20 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 01:53 AM
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, 08:26 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,598
Local Time: 10:53 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, 08:56 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Post the dissenting opinion...to be fair please.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 10:03 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,598
Local Time: 10:53 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  
 

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 01:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×