|
Bush is arguing not simply that funds ought to go to theology students -- he's arguing that the voters of Washington do not have a right to promote this policy.
The voters of the state wanted to provide scholarships for students studying liberal arts, engineering, etc. Their own Constitution says that public money cannot pay for religious training. (Note: religious SCHOOLS are OK -- you can study history at a Baptist college -- you just can't have training to become a pastor paid for by the state.)
So the question isn't whether the voters ought to support pastor training. The question is, if the voters decide that they want their money to go to liberal arts students, but not pastor training, do they HAVE to pay for both?
What bothers me about this case is, Bush says, they have to pay for both. But that's hypocritical, because his usual arguments are for states' rights! Usually he's up there saying, we need more local control of education, we need the federal government to stop ordering the states around, the taxpayers should have more say about where there money goes etc. Now he turns around and argues the other side when a local government does something he doesn't like. Believe me, if this were a state saying it wanted to use state funds to pay for prescriptions -- unless the prescription is for birth control pills -- Bush would switch back and say it's wrong to force the voters to pay for things they don't support...
|