Locke v. Davey Question

This is a factual question about Washington's denial of Promise Scholarship funding to students, like Josh Davey, who are pursuing a degree in "devotional theology."Does anyone know whether Promise Scholars at Catholic universities in Washington are denied funding if they major in theology or

RE: Locke v. Davey Question

To particularize the question, what do they do with Gonzaga? Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Wednesday,

RE: Locke v. Davey Question

In the amicus brief that Doug Laycock, Greg Baylor, and I filed in Davey, we argued that this kind of determination (whats objective enough and whats too devotional) would entangle the state in discretionary, theologically sensitive questions and constituted another strike against the

RE: Locke v. Davey Question

Tom raises a good point. It reminds me of a question I had about Scalias opinion in McCreary. How does a court decide whether a religion (or a religious display or message) is sufficiently monotheistic to permit the state to symbolically endorse it. Is this to be treated as a question of

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

I'm not sure it's quite as complicated as all that. The confusion arises because the Washington legislature decided to use "majoring in theology" as a rough statutory proxy for implementing its state constitutional prohibition on the use of public funds for religious instruction. But

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

Marty's post is a very interesting and helpful one. But Washington claimed its law was designed to withhold state funding from persons training to become clergyman. But it used "majoring in devotional theology" as a proxy for training to become a clergman.In my hypothetical, A, B C were all

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

Thanks, Marty. This is helpful. But one problem with the Washington program was that it did allow funds to be used for religious instruction. Josh Davey could have dropped his major, taken exactly the same religious studies courses, and kept his scholarship.Washingtonprohibited the funding

Encyclopedia entry on Intelligent Design

The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties, which will be published by Routledge in 2006, is looking for someone to quickly write an entry on Intelligent Design. It would include a discussion of the recent case in Pa. and the way intelligent design impacts civil liberties and the establishment

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

Well, I think I see where the confusion lies. Rehnquist does indeed write the opinion as though Washington's interest were, in your words, to "protect citizens from being taxed to train the education of religious ministers." But that's not, in fact, Washington's interest. Washington did

RE: Locke v. Davey Question

This is a statute that was written for convenient administration; it is much easier (and less entangling) to evaluate a major than to evaluate every course. But the cost of convenience was very high. Theology majors forfeit the scholarship for their secular courses, including not just a

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

I agree 100% with Doug's first paragraph-- the program comes perilously close to being an unconstitutional condition because the exclusion is not at all tailored to the religious courses, and thus Davey is put to the ridiculous choice of not majoring in theology or simultaneously studying

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

For what it's worth in this conversation, the Supreme Court's opinion in Locke includes this: Once the student enrolls at an eligible institution, the institution must certify . . . that the student is not pursuing a degree in devotional theology. The institution, rather than the State,

RE: Locke v. Davey Question

Marty may be right about the Washington constitution. But the statute seems to enact a bright-line rule that was far more visible. I obviously have not done any empirical investigation, but my sense from the record and the briefs in Davey was the state was notpreventing students in secular

RE: Locke v. Davey Question

How close a fit is necessary? Practicalities count for something even in constitutional law ,and the fact that this rule is less entangling than alternatives-ie inquiry into each course or a students career plans-as if most college students have such plans till the last minutealso ought to

Did Jesus exist? Italian court to decide

Assuming there is anything to this story, it kind of makes me glad that the case-or-controversy requirement has some content. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) Did Jesus exist? Italian court

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

I would like to inject my situation in North Carolina into the picture. The North Carolina statute looks at the institution, not what the student is studying. Originally, "pervasively sectarian" institutions were prohibited from participating by court decree. Accounting majors at sectarian