Apparently not a bad argument
"The ruling cuts to a conundrum in the First Amendment, which prohibits the state from establishing any religion, but also prohibits religious discrimination. Religious colleges have argued their students shouldn't be deprived of a state benefit everyone else can get."
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Seems to me that the law should have been sent in the opposite direction. No student should get government aid to attend any religious college. If they want to attend such a religious college as part of the practice of their religion, the government should not be required to assist in that.
Posted on July 25, 2008 6:51 PM
Seems to me the ruling is a no-brainer. If ALL students are receiving monetary help, then there is no discimination or special support (establishment) for a particular religion. And the money is going to students, per se, and not to the institution.
For a long time we have been supporting colleges and universities who espouse and propagate Humanism, which is, in fact, a religion, whose god is Man. It has a worldview, a cadre of priests (university professors, actors and rock stars), a recognizable set of tenets, and an evangelism program devised and driven by the media and education systems;
yet we suuport these Humanist institutions with tax monies sent to the state through forced tax levies. As long as the monies are given to the students themselves, who can attend ANY college of their choosing, they should receive the financial aid.
Tax money should not go directly to religious institutions. Therefore none should go to atheistic Humanist ones which in any way inhibit the teaching of Christian courses or propagation of Christain ideas. As it stands, there is discrimination from top to bottom in the public school system. Until we stop supporting the Humanist religion exclusively we should support ALL religious schools equally.
Posted on July 27, 2008 4:10 PM