The good guys don’t win often at the Supreme Court anymore, so when it happens, it’s cause for celebration.
This morning, the high court announced that a state can legally limit scholarships for religious instruction. The really shocking thing is that this was a 7-2 vote and Rehnquist, whose palpable hostility for church-state separation is legendary, wrote the majority opinion.
Un…be…lievable.
The case dealt with a young man, Joshua Davey, who sought public funds to study pastoral ministries at an Assemblies of God college in Kirkland, Washington. Davey, who was represented by a legal group created by TV preacher Pat Robertson, said the state was discriminating against him by denying him funds and, in turn, Washington was required to pay for his ministerial training. The state argued that it’s unconstitutional to use public funds for religious instruction.
The court majority ruled against Davey and said tax dollars should not be used to advance a religious cause.
“Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor,” Rehnquist wrote. “Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit.”
This may not sound like a major case, but the potential consequences if the Supreme Court had ruled the other way were huge.
Right now, 37 states have constitutional provisions that explicitly bar government funding of religion. The religious right was counting on Locke v. Davey to help undermine, and perhaps wipe out, these state provisions in Washington and nationwide.
In fact, Jay Sekulow, the head of Robertson’s legal group, said last year that this case was the “most important case” of his lifetime. “This case gives us the opportunity to end, once and for all, discrimination targeted at religious faith, while removing laws that have been in place for nearly 150 years.”
Sekulow’s spin aside, these provisions protect citizens from having to sponsor religious beliefs they may disagree with. Today’s decision guarantees that contributions to religious ministries remain the voluntary choice of individuals, not the mandate of the government. Just as importantly, it protects ministries themselves from the government regulation that always comes with public funding.
For more detailed background on the case and its significance, please check Rob Boston’s brilliant article from last summer.