Blogcritics: Comments on Law: Establishment Clause clash reframes issue

Comment by bhw

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:35:51 EST

Whoa! There's nothing more fun than having people articulate and try to justify their racism in front of the SC, is there? [Oops, I used the "R" word! Isn't' that verboten around here now?] The Supremes were right -- there's no way those schools should be tax exempt.

Comment by Mac Diva

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:16:10 EST

The issue was whether an institution of higher education can use violate the Equal Protection Clause and still be tax exempt. Bob Jones University forbade interracial dating or marriage. (Students of color were discouraged from attending, period. Not surprising, considering the school's segregationist roots.) Breaching the rules was grounds for expulsion. When it was sued, BJU defended its discriminatory policies claiming religion required it to discriminate. You know, the old the Bible requires segregation argument. Here's a capsule.

Comment by bhw

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:54:34 EST

What happened in the Bob Jones U. case?

Comment by Mac Diva

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:53:12 EST

Good points, bhw. This decision is also interesting when considered in regard to the ruling in the Bob Jones University case. I'm going to write more about this after more people have time to read the slip opinion and form opinions. Byte Back is very interested in the topic, too. If readers here have time, do drop by his blog and let him know there are blog readers who care about more than Janet's boob. He will appreciate that.

Comment by bhw

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:44:17 EST

This story slipped by me. I think the ruling is consistent with the one that said public money could be used, in the form of school vouchers, by private citizens to send their kids to religious schools. I think part of the reasoning was that the states are obligated to provide education up to a certain age. If the state offers vouchers, then the private citizen gets to choose how to use the voucher. This more recent case deals with scholarship money that the state isn't obligated to provide. We're not talking about vouchers or obligations. The ruling doesn't prevent states from allowing scholarship money to be used for religious education. But it says they don't have to if they don't want to. Personally, I would have preferred that the SC disallow the use of voucher and scholarship money for religious schools. I don't know how that's not state-sponsored religion. It's not direct, but it's still taking money from some people to provide religious education to other people. That still doesn't sit well with me, but I can live with it.