OK, I've now read the whole opinion, and I think the court's judgment is
plainly correct under governing doctrine.
The crucial point is that CCU's education necessarily invovles inculcation of
religious truths and "spiritual transformation." "A substantial portion of the
'secular' instruction its students receive is inextricably entwined with
religious indoctrination." "CCU stipulates that its President 'informs
incoming freshmen that "Everything you learn at CCU will be framed within the
Christian worldview, integrating your faith and your learning.' ¶ 16. In an
alumni publication, the President wrote that 'Education at CCU . . . is simply
more than students could hope to find in any secular setting, because [their]
education here has been structured intentionally to foster their spiritual
transformation.' ¶ 20. . . . CCU admits that it requires all of its
undergraduate students to attend 25 of the 30 semiweekly chapel services each
semester. ¶ 37."
(The label of "pervasively sectarian" is basically being applied only as a
proxy to make this simple point about the nature of the education, i.e., that
it involves both instruction on religious "truth" and compelled religious
rituals -- something that apparently is not disputed.)
OK, so if Colorado funded this education, it would be funding prayer, religious
inculcation, and "spiritual transformation."
What follows?
1. If any of the aid programs in question is a "direct" aid program, or a
program in which the school rather than the student applies for the aid --
something that is not clear from the bare-bones listing of the aid programs in
footnote 3 -- then such state funding of religious education would violate the
*federal* Constitution, per Mitchell v. Helms and countless other cases.
2. If, on the other hand, all five of the programs are a type of Zelman-like
"indirect" aid to students, Colorado *could* fund the CCU religious inculcation
(per Zelman), but need not do so (per Locke).
Now, of course the new Court might very well overrule the entire Mitchell line
of cases *and* Locke. But until it does so, this decision strikes me as
compelled by the case law.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Doug Laycock writes:
>
> "I don't know much about this case, but certainly as Rick describes it, it
> is
> just the state disagreeing with the federal rule on denominational
> discrimination."
>
> Doug and others, the CCU case is a very interesting and (I think) very
> important case making its way up the system. Here is a link to the district
> ct
> opinion which is currently being appealed.
>
> Rick Duncan
>
>
>
>
>
> Rick Duncan
> Welpton Professor of Law
> University of Nebraska College of Law
> Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
>
>
> "It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt God's
> existence
> and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then start doubting His
> existence."
> --J. Budziszewski (The Revenge of Conscience)
>
> "Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the perversion of the
> best
> is the worst." -- Id.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
--- Begin Message ---
Doug Laycock writes:
"I don't know much about this case, but certainly as Rick describes it, it is
just the state disagreeing with the federal rule on denominational
discrimination."
Doug and others, the CCU case is a very interesting and (I think) very
important case making its way up the system. Here is a link to the district ct
opinion which is currently being appealed.
Rick Duncan
Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
"It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt God's existence
and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then start doubting His existence."
--J. Budziszewski (The Revenge of Conscience)
"Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the perversion of the best
is the worst." -- Id.
---------------------------------
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. _______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
