Locke v. Davey (2004)
Court Decisions on Religious Liberty
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Issue
The question before the court was: can a state withhold a general government benefit, like a merit-based scholarship, from those who would use that benefit to further religious goals? Can a state refuse to disburse a scholarship to students seeking to obtain divinity degrees for the purpose of a career in religious ministry but not refuse to give scholarships to students pursuing any other career?
Background Information
Washington State's "Promise Scholarship Program" was created to help academically gifted students with post-secondary education. The state constitution stipulates that no scholarships like this can be used in order to get a degree in theology - thus, the state is forbidden from funding a person's training to become a minister, priest, or other sort of religious leader.
The Washington Constitution reads:
"Religious Freedom. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment."
At the center of this case was Joshua Davey, a student who was awarded a Promise Scholarship, and decided to use it to attend Northwest College, a private, Christian college near Seattle which is affiliated with the Assemblies of God denomination and which is also an eligible institution for the Promise scholarships. Davey was going to pursue a double major in pastoral ministries and business management/administration. The scholarship was worth $1,125 for academic year 1999-2000 and $1,542 for 2000-2001.
Davey was told that his inclusion of a divinity degree was not permitted with the scholarship and that, if he wanted to receive the money, he would have to sign a statement certifying that he was not getting a theology degree - something that he refused to do. As a consequence he did not receive any state funds. According to John Klaeik, the associate director of the state's Higher Education Coordinating Board:
The State Constitution is clear regarding the separation of church and state. We have consistently interpreted this constitutional provision as prohibiting state financial aid funds for students who are pursuing a degree in theology.
Joshua Davey sued, arguing:
[T]he denial of his scholarship based on his decision to pursue a theology degree violated, inter alia, the Free Exercise, Establishment, and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court Decision
A district court ruled in favor of the state and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Davey. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that there was no constitutional violation committed when the state chooses not to fund a person's training to become a religious leader.
In his dissent, Justice Scalia argued that if the state funds training for any professions, it must be willing to fund training for all professions and not discriminate against religious professions. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist responds:
[T]raining for religious professions and training for secular professions are not fungible. Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor. Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit. ... And the subject of religion is one in which both the United States and state constitutions embody distinct views -i n favor of free exercise, but opposed to establishment - that find no counterpart with respect to other callings or professions. That a State would deal differently with religious education for the ministry than with education for other callings is a product of these views, not evidence of hostility toward religion.
The scholarship allows students to use the money at religious schools and it allows students to take any number of religious and divinity classes. All that is prohibited is that students obtain a degree in theology with the funds. The problem does not lie with degrees in religion generally but, rather, with degrees that lead a person to become a minister. In effect, the state law is directed at preventing the government from getting involved in the funding and training of religious leaders.
Significance
This case had the potential to dramatically reshape the relationship between church and state in America. Had the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Davey's favor been upheld, all provisions for refusing to provide taxpayer support to religious education would have been nullified - provisions which can be traced back to before the nation was created. James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance" gives what is probably the earliest expression to the opposition to such state aid, declaring that no money should be forcibly extracted from the citizenry for the purpose of religious education.
A ruling in Davey's favor would have gone much further than simply allowing state funding of religious education - it would have actually required it. A ruling in Davey's favor would have held that any time the government provides funding for anything at all, it must provide equal funding for any religious equivalent that exists - even if that religious equivalent involves religious instruction and proselytization.
Required government funding of scholarships to study theology might not, for example, be distinguishable from government funding of religious schools in general. What would happen if the state were required to provide the same level of aid to parochial and church schools that they provide to public schools?
For all of the history of the United States, religion has been supported through voluntary contributions rather than the European model of funding churches through direct government taxation. A change from the former to the latter model would have had devastating consequences for religious liberty, effectively nullifying the separation of church and state.
Fortunately, none of that happened. Muslims will continue to finance the training of imams, Jews will continue to finance the training of rabbis, and Christians will continue to finance the training of their ministers, pastors, and priests. This is exactly as it should be - the government has no authority to be involved in such training.
One of the most important consequences of this ruling against Davey and in defense of the continued separation of church and state is for President Bush's so-called "faith-based" initiatives. Although this ruling does not prohibit the government from providing funds for religious work, it does insist that there is no religious discrimination if the government refuses to fund religious work.
That, however, is precisely what supporters of faith-based initiatives try to argue. According to them, it's discrimination for the government to fund a secular soup kitchen but not a church soup kitchen where people have to listen to a sermon in order to get their soup. Now, at least on a legal level, that argument has been completely undermined. A refusal to fund religious work, religious instruction, and religious proselytization is not, as some might claim, an expression of hostility towards religion or an example of disapproval of religion.
The private support and funding of religion remains untouched - all that is happening is that the government is not using its power to tax to force all citizens to contribute to the religious agenda of a subset of citizens. There is, quite simply, no good argument for the idea all citizens should be forced to contribute to someone else's religious agenda which they do not subscribe to.
-->
