Quote:
Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
IvySpice, my initial intention was not arge the in's and out's or the merit of this case, but moreso discuss the possibility of this type of restriction happening on a large scale, whether or not it is right to do that, and to see what everyone thought.
Looking at it in general terms (using this as an example) at the fact that should these types of clauses (whether it be a state or maybe even the fed. gov't at some future point) be allowed to exist - those that specifically prohibit "public money" to pay for religious training.
Isn't that person apart of the public (paying taxes, etc.).
|
Hmmm...many (if not all states) have particular scholarships that are designated for the study of particular fields (Maryland has scholarships specific to teaching, to nursing, to medicine, to law, to business etc.) They do not cover every possible major. There are people who may not be eligible for a scholarship based on their chosen field of study. Should the state have to offer a scholarship regardless of the major? To say that they state of Washington and its residents cannot choose what types of scholarships to offer seems rather extreme to me.
Now if they will cover study for any other degree than divinity/theology....I don't think it is right. Do I think they should have to even though I don't think it right....no. If they would not fund degrees for people of a particular faith it would be discrimination, but this is focused on the course of study not the individual. And whole some may call it a veiled attempt to get at the person based on religion, they would pay for the individual to study anything else they wanted. It may be discrimination against the program but they are not a protected class under discrimination law. (race, religion, creed, national origin, and to a lesser extent gender, age and disability)
I do think that Bush's stance is hypocritical from a state's rights context.