Tuesday, September 02, 2003

The Wall

I'm not talking about Pink Floyd. I'm talking about the Wall of Separation between Church and State, a concept which is allegedly in the First Amendment, although neither the words themselves nor the intent can be found therein.

Chuck Colson is talking about the Wall today... here's his take:

Hitting the Wall
A Damaging Metaphor

During her first two years at Ave Maria College in Michigan, Teresa Becker received nearly $4,000 in state scholarship money and was promised $2,750 for her junior year.

All that changed when she declared theology as her major. State officials wrote her saying that, according to Michigan law, "students enrolled in a course of study leading to a degree in theology, divinity, or religious education are not eligible to receive an award." Accordingly, "your award has changed from $2,750.00 to $0.00."

Becker sued the state of Michigan, and last month, a federal judge issued a preliminary ruling in her favor. Judge Steeh said that Michigan had "probably" engaged in religious discrimination and ordered state officials "to put her scholarship money in escrow."

Becker isn't the only one challenging these kinds of laws in court. Besides Michigan, ten other states, including New York and Washington, have similar prohibitions on the use of state scholarship money to study theology, once considered the queen of sciences. A challenge to Washington's law will be heard by the Supreme Court this upcoming year.

What a travesty! Litigation shouldn't be required for students of theology to be treated the same as other students. Nobody claims that theology isn't a serious academic discipline, especially in an age when students can "study" sitcoms and even pornographic films for credit. This case is entirely about anti-religious bias.

And while Becker's story may turn out to have a happy ending, the stress she's experiencing can be traced to a so-called constitutional doctrine that has no basis in the Constitution. You see, the only reason cases like Becker's are in dispute is because of a complete misunderstanding of what the founders meant by the First Amendment's "establishment" clause. The metaphor that is most often used is the "wall of separation" between church and state.

In the name of maintaining this "wall," courts work overtime to erase any hint of religion from the public square. And it's in the name of separation that laws like Michigan's were passed in the first place.

The problem is that the metaphor is a quotation that came from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Baptists in Connecticut fourteen years after the Constitution was ratified. Jefferson, who had been in Paris during the drafting of the Constitution, could claim no special insight into the meaning of the establishment clause. He wasn't there. What's more, his views were no doubt colored by the recent presidential election in which many Christians opposed his candidacy.

Despite this history, the Supreme Court, lower courts, and legislatures embraced the "wall of separation" metaphor and have been misapplying it ever since. One of the results is the kind of laws that almost cost Teresa Becker her scholarship.

The time has come to end this shocking anti-religious bias. But we have a lot of educating to do. We should be speaking out in groups. Churches should be talking about this issue. We should be educating our neighbors. After all, in a culture where you can watch cartoons for credit, you ought not to have to make a federal case to get money to study something a great deal more enduring.

Printer-Friendly Version

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries


"BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a daily commentary on news and trends from a Christian perspective. Heard on more than 1000 radio outlets nationwide, BreakPoint transcripts are also available on the Internet.

BreakPoint is a production of The Wilberforce Forum, a division of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

NOTE: Referral to websites not produced by Prison Fellowship, the Wilberforce Forum, and BreakPoint is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.

No comments: