I may be mistaken, but I've never heard of AFDC statutes
limiting the use of the money to food, shelter, and the like; as best I
can tell, recipients are free to spend the money on anything, including
education. But since I didn't want to assume anything about the federal
AFDC scheme, I asked about a state general relief or disability plan.
So let me ask again, though with this point clarified: Say that
the Washington Legislature is bothered by reports that welfare
recipients under some state law welfare program (general relief,
disability, etc.) are spending some of their payments on Bible Study
classes. It therefore provides that welfare benefits -- which are
otherwise usable by the recipient for any other purpose -- may not be
used to pay for any theological education, whether a degree program
(such as the one Davey wanted to use) or just an informal study program.
Is this prohibition constitutional under Locke? Is it unconstitutional,
because Locke is somehow different? I'd love to hear what people think.
Thanks,
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
> Finkelman
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 8:34 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey follow-up
>
>
> The question might be how statutes are written. If the
> statutes limit
> use of money for certain things, then use of the money might be
> prohibited for *all* other things, not just religious ecucation; that
> would then be a law of general applicability.
>
> Jean Dudley wrote:
>
> > Paul Finkelman wrote:
> >
> >> are welfare payments tied to expected budget expenses -- food,
> >> housing, clothing, transportatoin, medical care, etc?
> Most welfare
> >> is AFDC, and is earmarked for helping children. If mother
> uses money
> >> for food and housing to pay the church, is that welfare fraud?
> >>
> >> Paul Finkelman
> >
> >
> > I'd argue that although (some?) welfare funds are ostensibly for the
> > child's welfare, it's up to the legal guardian/parent/s to
> decide what
> > that welfare entails. If they opt to pay membership dues
> to a church,
> > temple or coven, that is their decision. If the child is
> hungry, sick
> > and in worn-out clothes as a result, that's a matter for
> child welfare
> > services.
> > Jean Dudley
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
>
> --
> Paul Finkelman
> Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
> University of Tulsa College of Law
> 3120 East 4th Place
> Tulsa, OK 74104-3189
>
> 918-631-3706 (office)
> 918-631-2194 (fax)
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
_______________________________________________
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.
