February 26, 2004
Supreme Court Rules Against Theology Students
The Supreme Court, with a decision written by Rehnquist, has ruled that states are not obligated to fund the education of theology students. Bloomberg has a fairly thorough rundown of the implications. I'm quite unfamiliar with theology as a discipline, and I guess I have for a while operated under the assumption that it is a legitimate academic field concerned with the study of religion as a part of the human experience. I figured that, while most theologists were probably religious, they consisted of some noble mix of hard-nosed Jesuits, aspirational Muslims, questioning, vaguely bitter Catholics, and humorously disillusioned Jews. But the SCOTUS is clearly operating from the belief that theology programs are specifically intended to train clergy - probably much more accurate than my heathenish presumption of evenhandedness.
I'm sure there are theology programs like the one you describe, but the vast majority of them are meant to train people to be preachers. There is some scholarship involved, but it's generally not on the level of other advanced degrees. My brother-in-law has a Masters of Theology from the Seminary in Fort Worth and he is certainly not an academic.
I read the opinion this morning (Scalia's dissent is pretty funny; at one point he says: "What's next? Will we deny priests and nuns their prescription-drug benefits on the ground that taxpayers' freedom of conscience forbids medicating the clergy at public expense?"). The 7-2 decision puts liberals in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with either Scalia or Rhenquist. (Most liberals, I presume, would agree with the majority opinion, especially since some say this puts another nail in the coffin of school vouchers.)
Btw, SNW, the Bloomberg link doesn't work and I couldn't find this mythical "roundup" of which you speak. Help please?
fixed it. I'm a dummass.