Church & state: a 200-year debate continues: when Joshua Davey lost a state scholarship because he majored in theology, he took his case all the way to Supreme Court.

• Author: Vilbig, Peter
• Position: National

Joshua Davey met the requirements for Washington state's college-scholarship program: He graduated in the top 15 percent of his class at University High School in Spokane in 1999, and also came from a family with a modest income.

But there was a hitch. Davey, an evangelical Christian who planned to become a minister, enrolled in Northwest College, a Christian school near Seattle in September 2000, and declared his major as theology. In October, the state informed him that it was rescinding the $2,700 scholarship he had won the previous spring, because Washington state law forbids the use of public money for students majoring in theology.

Unfair, according to Davey. "They're giving it to everyone except those who want to study religion," says Davey, now 23. "If a student wants to study Christianity or Buddhism, it isn't up to the state to decide." Davey said he believed the state had discriminated against him because of his religion, and he decided to sue to have its decision overturned.

TO THE SUPREME COURT

After working its way through the lower courts, Davey's case, Loeke v. Davey, is expected to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court later this fall. The Court opened its 2003-04 term on October 7. (See "Also on the Courts Docket," pg. 10.)

Davey's case is one of several the Supreme Court has considered recently that deal with the ever-shifting relationship in American life between church and state. Last year the Court ruled that taxpayer money in the form of school vouchers could be used to pay for religious-school tuition. In August, the Court refused to block a lower federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state Supreme Court building in Alabama. The U.S. Supreme Court may decide later this term to hear a case that will determine whether the phrase "tinder God" in the Pledge of Allegiance can be recited in public schools.

For almost the country's entire history, the relationship between religion and government--and how to interpret the Constitution's First Amendment has been fiercely debated. The amenchnent's first part ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...") has been the basis of arguments over the government's involvement with religion, ranging from organized prayer in public institutions to tax money for churches; the second part ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...") protects the rights of individuals to worship as they please. The two parts have often been at odds.

AN OLD ARGUMENT REVISITED

"This has been the debate for 60 years," said Michael Broyde, an Emory Law School professor specializing in church-state law. Referring to the many cases in this area, he said: "They're all a balance between the free-exercise right, and society's right not to have an established religion."

In Davey's case, the state of Washington will argue that its own state constitution reflects the U.S. Constitution's ban on stablishing religion and forbids using state money for the study of religion. The state will further argue it has the right to set...