High Court: OK to Deny Aid to Divinity Students

The only way to avoid funding heresy, Janko, is to pass an amendment to the Constitution which would allow only the seminary of YOUR denomination to receive state/federal scholarship funding.

 

The Supremes

I was also surprised that Rehnquist sided with the majority in the Delma Banks death penalty decision. Of course the twins (Scalia and Thomas) dissented. Is Rehnquist forsaking his buddies ?

The prosecutors should be in jail for the way they handled that case.

http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=98978&SecID=2

And then there is Scalia and the Cheney case. It looks and smells like conflict of interest.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/27/scotus.cheney.scalia/

The Ninth Circuit gets picked on by the right wing reactionaries because its the only circuit that has a Democratic majority - the other 11 circuits and the Supreme Court have Republican majorities. They want it all !

 

I remember Bush I telling us that Thomas was the best man for the job.

 

No, it gets picked on...

They get reversed because they make rulings in controvention of the Constitution. They have even been reversed by liberal supreme court justices.

This isn't really all that amazing. The SC has been devolving power to the states for years now. What they basically said was Washington had the power to say where their scholarship money went.

 

Re: No, it gets picked on...

 

Thomas

LOL !!!!

Thanks Nos

 

The best at that time and under the guidelines of the Constitution?

Yes, he was. One of the perks of being the President is that you can nominate Supreme Court Justices, as vacancies occur.

Apparently, the left's view is that a liberal candidate to the Supreme Court (Ginsburg & Breyer as two examples) should be automatically confirmed and seated on the court. Don't ask any questions.

However, when a conservative candidate is nominated (Scalia, Thomas, Bork), there is an all-out attack on that person's credibility. Scalia made it through because he is a brilliant legal scholar with nothing even remotely negative in his background. Thomas made it because he is a brilliant legal scholar who was able to refute the charges against him by turning the tables on the liberals who wanted to sink him (remember his "modern-day lynching" speech?). Bork didn't make it because he is a brilliant legal scholar who couldn't adequately defend himself against the left's smear tactics.

 

Re: Re: Re: Religion and psyhics

I'm not sure if "psychic studies" (whatever that is) is any more inherently bogus than theology or religious studies.

Both deal in material that doesn't seem to lend itself to objective repeatable scientific test. Both deal in 'facts' that are denied by many who dismiss them as superstition or myth. But both treat beliefs that are shared in some form by millions of people.

Purported psychic phenomena, the occult, magic, alchemy, astrology and the like have the dual disadvantage that they are opposed by the dominant religious tradition and are completely out of tune with modern scientific rationalism.

Parapsychology is an attempt to treat psychic studies in a scientific manner. Personally I think that its results are dissappointing. But having had a few experiences that are at least suggestive, I'm not willing to totally dismiss these kind of phenomena either. That position is not radically different from my views of the religious supernatural, a subject that has no more scientific justification.

But even if we agree for the sake of argument that science has conclusively disproven the existence of psychic phenomena, the fact remains that millions of people do believe in these things. That makes the subject of psychic studies ripe pickings for history, for psychology and for sociology.

Personally, I believe that these kind of quasi-religious subjects have not received the academic attention that they deserve because they are still perceived as heretical, making them seem disreputable and even dangerous. I'd argue that they definitely have a place in religious studies, broadly conceived.

Even if we deny that as well, I see no reason why those with a religious-style faith in things psychic can't create a confessional college for themselves in the same manner that those with faith in things Biblical have created Dallas Theological Seminary.

As to whether psychic studies should receive state funding, I think that it depends, just as it depends in conventional religion. If somebody wants to create a university course in the the history, psychology or sociology of heterodox belief systems, I have no objection to its being funded like any other history, psychology or sociology course. But I would oppose state funding for a program intended to train practicing psychics.