Remembering the separation

The Supreme Court recently held up a Washington state ruling allowing states to deny theology students from receiving state-funded scholarships. Only Justices Antony Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented in the 7-2 decision. Though some may view the decision as a form of discrimination, it shows the stong support by our nation's highest court of a distinction between church and state.\nIn a time when our nation's executive branch seems to be suffering from cataracts when viewing the line drawn between government and religion, it is quite a comfort to know that our judicial branch -- well, at least seven of them -- is seeing with 20/20 vision. Given the current debate over gay marriage and the president's aim to politically define this religious institution, it is important that our Supreme Court is standing so strongly behind our forefathers' ideas and the prinicples upon which this country was founded.\n Anyone in this country has the absolute right to pursue the religion of their choice and even to pursue an education allowing them to lead others in the practice of that religion. Our constitution guarantees that choice. But it does not guarantee the money of taxpayers from diverse religious backgrounds must be used to aid that individual in his education. In fact, it reassures us that the money we must pay to support our government won't be used to further any individual religion.\nDissenters may argue, as the student involved did, that this ruling is prohibiting the free exercise of religion, also provided for in America's governing document. But the ruling does not prohibit anyone from exercising religion. It does not prohibit anyone from pursuing their beliefs. It does not prohibit anyone from expressing themselves. It simply states that taxpayers shouldn't have to provide the funding for that expression. This ruling does not send a message of religious intolerance or discrimination. Quite the opposite, in fact. It sends the message that in this country religion is the choice of the individual and is free to be pursued by the individual but not financially supported by the government.\nThe separation of church and state has always been a touchy and blurry subject in the United States. We claim to drive a hard line, but "In God We Trust" seems to pervade our culture, and the president is still sworn in on a Bible. This wavering stance on such an important issue should be a consideration for anyone concerned about religious freedom -- including the student denied his scholarship. Somehow, it seems that if "In Allah We Trust" were to suddenly appear on the back of a dollar bill, people would be much more concerned about our government's hazy view of that line.\nThis case is reassuring in an era when so many of the Court's decisions come out 5-4 and only a narrow margin determines the course of American law. With such a strong stance in one direction, it seems that the current court is going to be more than willing to refute any attempt to conflate the distinction that helps to define this country. We support the freedom of expression, religious or otherwise, but we do not support the state funding such expressions.