Will American Jewry be silent about religious discrimination?
Pulver
Will American Jewry be silent about religious
discrimination?
By Nathan J. Diament
The organized Jewish community has an opportunity to
announce whether it will continue to insist that the
U.S. Constitution demands government discrimination
against religion. The Supreme Court will address this
question head on this autumn in the case of Locke v.
Davey.
Joshua Davey graduated from high school in 1999. He was
in the top 10% of his class and came from a low-income
family. These two facts won him a Washington State
"Promise Scholarship" of $2,600 to be used toward his
expenses in attending an accredited in-state college.
In a congratulatory letter sent to Davey, Washington's
Governor Gary Locke commended him on his achievement
and noted that the purpose of the Promise Scholarship
program was the state's interest in ensuring that
"education…the great equalizer in our society" was more
available Washington's students "regardless of gender,
race, ethnicity or income…" But when Davey notified the
state's Higher Education authority that he intended to
pursue a double major in religious studies and business
administration at Northwest College - a Christian
college duly accredited by the state, his scholarship
award was revoked.
Washington, like 37 other states, has a provision in
its state constitution that is a broader ban on any
form, even the most remote and indirect, of state
support for religion than the federal constitution's
Establishment Clause. This more aggressive language is
unsurprising when one learns that these state
provisions are known as "Blaine Amendments," linked to
the late-1800s American anti-Catholic movement led by
Senator James Blaine of Maine. Ironically, the
anti-Catholic sentiment of that period arose from the
fact that the growing community of Catholics in America
objected to the Protestant doctrines that were taught
in the publicly-funded schools and sought state funds
to support the creation of Catholic schools. Hence,
these provisions typically state that "No revenue of
the state….shall be taken from the public treasury…in
aid of any…religious denomination or in aid of any
sectarian institution."
Putting aside the tainted lineage of these state
constitutional provisions, the real issue in the Davey
case is a straightforward one - whether Washington
State's explicit discrimination against this student on
the grounds that he chose to use his scholarship,
awarded on the basis of neutral criteria for the
secular purpose of promoting education, to study
religion rather than science, literature or any other
academic field, is legitimized by the dogmatic demand
of strict separation of religion and state.
Analogous questions have been raised recently by
federal regulatory reforms made pursuant to President
Bush's "faith based initiative." Until last December,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had a
policy under which it would deny federal disaster
assistance to religious institutions. Thus, when
Seattle's Jewish community day school suffered terrible
damage in an earthquake 3 years ago, it was denied the
federal funds for which it applied to repair its
building, while those same sorts of funds were being
used to repair offices, apartments and all other kinds
of structures, solely on the basis that the school is a
religious one. To its credit (?), Seattle's Jewish
community put aside the traditional dogma on the
church-state question and we worked in partnership with
them to bring this inequity to the attention of the
White House. Thankfully, President Bush ordered FEMA to
change its policy and the Seattle Hebrew Academy will
be receiving more than $1 million in aid this summer.
More recently, the federal Department of the Interior
announced it would change its policy automatically
excluding historically landmarked religious buildings
from a program which awards grants to assist in
historic preservation repairs. Despite the recognition
by most people that Newport's Touro Synagogue and
Boston's Old North Church are national treasures, as
worthy of landmarking and preservation as any secular
historic site, those who hew to the mantra of strict
separation would have congregations associated with
historic houses of worship such as these fend for
themselves to upkeep those sites, again solely because
of their religious affiliation.
In each of these instances, like Joshua Davey's case,
the fundamental question before us is whether we will
insist upon the government's neutrality toward religion
- neither unduly favoring religion nor discriminating
against it, or whether we will demand a policy of
unequal treatment, ie: discrimination by government
with regard to religion and its institutions.
The Jewish community, on the basis of its values and
interests, should stand for the principles of equality,
fairness and non-discrimination with regard to
government's interaction with religious institutions.
We cannot continue to believe that the disparate
treatment of all things religious while secularist
ideologies run rampant is consistent with our value
system and our ability to impart those values to our
children. Also, do we indeed wish to forego any public
support for our community's institutions in an era of
shrinking resources and increasing needs?
Which side is our community on?
Nathan J. Diament is the director of public policy for
the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America,
which filed a brief in support of Joshua Davey.
© 2003, Nathan J. Diament
posted by permission
Binyamin Dissen
:>Will American Jewry be silent about religious
:>discrimination?
It will be a split.
The reformed and conservatives will fight this tooth and nail.
The religious would like it to be supported.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Susan Cohen
"Pulver" <red...@gta.igs.net> wrote in message
news:3F5DC4B6...@gta.igs.net...
>
>
> Will American Jewry be silent about religious
> discrimination?
>
> By Nathan J. Diament
>
> The organized Jewish community has an opportunity to
> announce whether it will continue to insist that the
> U.S. Constitution demands government discrimination
> against religion. The Supreme Court will address this
> question head on this autumn in the case of Locke v.
> Davey.
>
> Joshua Davey graduated from high school in 1999. He was
> in the top 10% of his class and came from a low-income
> family. These two facts won him a Washington State
> "Promise Scholarship" of $2,600 to be used toward his
> expenses in attending an accredited in-state college.
> In a congratulatory letter sent to Davey, Washington's
> Governor Gary Locke commended him on his achievement
> and noted that the purpose of the Promise Scholarship
> program was the state's interest in ensuring that
> available Washington's students "regardless of gender,
> state's Higher Education authority that he intended to
> pursue a double major in religious studies and business
> administration at Northwest College - a Christian
> college duly accredited by the state, his scholarship
> award was revoked.
If there is no stipulation in the terms of the scholarship, this is
*totally* wrong.
Susan
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Putting aside the tainted lineage of these state
> constitutional provisions, the real issue in the Davey
> case is a straightforward one - whether Washington
> State's explicit discrimination against this student on
> the grounds that he chose to use his scholarship,
> awarded on the basis of neutral criteria for the
> secular purpose of promoting education, to study
> religion rather than science, literature or any other
> academic field, is legitimized by the dogmatic demand
> of strict separation of religion and state.
Good question. But what has it got to do with Jews choosing sides?
...I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...
- The Who
Bob LeChevalier
>"Pulver" <red...@gta.igs.net> wrote in message
>news:3F5DC4B6...@gta.igs.net...
>*totally* wrong.
The stipulation, per the comment about Blaine amendments, would
presumably be found in the Washington State Constitution.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Susan Cohen
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:bl3slvo394cedjbuk...@4ax.com...
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote:
> >"Pulver" <red...@gta.igs.net> wrote in message
> >news:3F5DC4B6...@gta.igs.net...
> >If there is no stipulation in the terms of the scholarship, this is
> >*totally* wrong.
>
> The stipulation, per the comment about Blaine amendments, would
> presumably be found in the Washington State Constitution.
Now I'm confused - isn't this a private scholarship?
Susan
Bob LeChevalier
From the article:
>These two facts won him a Washington State
>"Promise Scholarship" of $2,600 to be used toward his
>expenses in attending an accredited in-state college.
which sounds like a public scholarship that in some cases can be used
to attend a private school.