Should tax money be used for a devotional theology scholarship, or should it be excluded from public funding? The United States Constitution has a long history with keeping the state and the church as two separate entities. Before the Declaration of Independence of the United States in 1776, the Anglican church in the southern states and the Puritans in New England had established religious taxes. However, in the formation of the Constitution there was a consensus that no national church should be established. This is because the early Americans had a large variety of religious beliefs, and no one wanted their beliefs to be overruled by another religion. It is for this reason that the Establishment clause of the first amendment was drafted. Nowadays it is largely agreed that the states should not interfere with the religious establishments. However, it is heavily contested whether state funding should be used for religious organizations.
The case of Locke v. Davey is focused on the Promise Scholarship Program that was established by Washington state. The scholarship´s aim is to assist gifted students with their post-secondary expenses, but this financial aid cannot be used for a devotional theology degree according to the Washington State law. The respondent Davey was awarded with the scholarship and chose to attend a private church-affiliated university, Northwest College, that was eligible under the scholarship program. However, the major that Davey opted for was pastoral ministries, which is undeniably considered to be a devotional program and as such, does not meet the requirements. Therefore, the student did not qualify for the grant of the scholarship. Davey brought his claim to the court, asserting that by withdrawing his scholarship, the state had violated the Free Exercise Clause. In this case, the Supreme Court held that Washington’s exclusion of the devotional theology degree from its scholarship program does not violate the United States Constitution.
The Court motivated its decision firstly by stating that there is no precept in the Washington Constitution that seems to be indicating animus towards religion. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Interpreting the meaning of this amendment, the Court declares that while some states’ actions can be permitted under this clause, they do not necessarily have to be required. The Court motivated its argument by stating that some early State Constitutions explicitly excluded just the Ministry from receiving funding from the state. Because Davey motivated his claim with the precedent of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, the court also took this precedent in the front. The Court stated thatfollowing this precedent in the case at hand would be a stretch. In the present case, no criminal or civil sanctions are granted as was done in the Lukumi-case. In addition, the Court also underlines that a student is not required to choose between their religious benefit or receiving the scholarship.
Although prevailing, this was not the only opinion stated in the Supreme Court. Two of its members left a dissenting opinion, claiming that the Washington policy was discriminatory and as such, unconstitutional. These two justices claimed that the Court did not succeed in motivating its decision due to the fact that no animus towards religion was found in the Washington Constitution. Justice Scalia claims that according to its own precedent an intention of the state should not be considered. The only thing that should be considered is whether someone’s constitutional rights have been violated. As an example, Justice highlights how a racially unjust state policy does not need to have hostility for it to violate the Constitution. While I appreciate Justice Scalia’s position, I cannot really consider racist segregation and the exclusion of a devotional theology program from a public scholarship as comparable in any possible way. Since they are however being compared in Justices writing it is important to point out that when examining the Washington Constitution, the Court never seeks the original intention of the state, but instead studies the writing and afterwards concludes that the text does not include any hostility towards religion from an objective standpoint. I doubt that the same could be statedwhen objectively examining the articles that promoted racial segregation.
However, I tend to agree with Justice Scalia in some sense. When talking about the individual liberties, the only thing to be considered should be if someone´s rights have de facto been violated. If that is the case, no excuse can be made, and the policy should be deemed as unconstitutional. However, specifically excluding a devotional degree from a public scholarship can also be seen to guarantee freedom of conscience; a way in which no one is forced to fund a system of beliefs they don’t agree with. I would be curious to know if the people pushing for the scholarship to be extended would feel differently if that tax money would be used for pagan practices or Islamic teaching. Freedom of religion and conscience is a priceless right and should be protected in every way possible. The best way to do it, in my opinion, is to keep the funding of any religious activity private and by doing that to assure that anyones freedom of religion is not being violated.
By Double S – PKAK