Separating church and state to excess

Paying lip service to the separation of church and state, and as a nod to states’ rights,… Paying lip service to the separation of church and state, and as a nod to states’ rights, the Supreme Court is allowing states to deny scholarships to students studying theology.

The ruling, which was handed down on Wednesday, was precipitated by the case of Joshua Davey, a former undergraduate student in Washington. Davey had won a state scholarship, but had it taken from him when the state learned that he was studying to be a minister, citing the separation of church and state. The Court ruled 7-2 that the state was within its rights to do so.

This case, however, is not one of states’ rights, and it isn’t about the separation of church and state. This case is an example of the Court allowing a state to discriminate against a student, and to make it even harder for Americans to get educations.

True separation of church and state, true adherence to the letter and spirit of the First Amendment — which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” — would mean that states be required to extend scholarship opportunities to all students. Separating church and state means not embracing one religion over another, not that the state must avoid all things relating to spirituality. Funding one student’s study of Christianity is not discrimination, so long as another student’s study of Shintoism has the same chance of being funded, and the religion or belief system in question isn’t a determining factor.

Where will states draw the line? Will a state decide not to extend scholarships to those students who would study psychology or philosophy? Sometimes those pursuits tread close to religion, and often, undergrads in those majors go on to seminary. What about women’s studies or Africana studies? States may decide not to fund subversive curricula because they could be perceived as a threat to the status quo. The potential for abuse by individual states under this ruling is tremendous.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, wrote, “…majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling.” Who is the Court to make such a call? At the undergraduate level, it’s nearly impossible to tell where a student will run with such a degree. Some English majors go on to seminary — should their chances at scholarships be eliminated?

No one illustrates this uncertainty better that Davey himself. After finishing his degree in theology — without the scholarship he’d won — he went on to law school.