Two answers, Eugene: 1. Welfare payments, like wages to government employees, are unrestricted transfers (here's the money --use it as you wish), and the state has no continuing interest in how it is spent that distinguishes that money from money that originates elsewhere.
2. That said, what legitimate purpose could possibly be served by the welfare payment restriction? If it's the pure interest in not spending on religion any money that "originates" with the state, why doesn't the restriction attach to wage payments to state employees? There is nothing in welfare status that justifies the state in singling out religious books or classes as contraband for this group only. And if the restriction serves no legitimate purpose, it violates the 14th A, does it not? (By contrast, the state in Locke had plausible arguments, sounding in history AND in theories of church-state relations concerning state disconnection from the clergy, about the proper use of state-funded scholarships). On 3 May 2005 at 9:26, Volokh, Eugene wrote: > I'm not sure I quite understand why restrictions on people's > spending of general aid funds for religious studies is a "far cry" > from restrictions on people's spending of education aid funds for > religious studies. > > Both programs are, in their main thrust, programs that aid a > wide range of activities. > Both programs, without the limit on religious uses, would end up > giving only a small portion of their aid to religious uses. > Nonetheless, for both programs, the state decides to > discriminatorily exclude religious education. > For both programs, the state argues that it doesn't want tax > money to flow to religious education. > For both programs, the state can argue that it may not regulate > the speech (whether clergy preparation or Bible study), so it may > choose not to pay for it. > > Where's the "far cry" between these? > > Eugene > > Chip Lupu writes: > > > All that said, Mark Scarberry and Doug Laycock are exactly right > > that the state has no legitimate purpose in singling out Bible > > classes as distinguished from other classes once it makes this > kind of cash > > transfer. Such singling out would violate the constitution in a > > number of ways, including infringement of right to acquire > > information as well as free exercise of religion (and perhaps right > > to direct education of children, if the ban included children as > well). > > > > By contrast, Locke involves expenditures targeted at higher > > education. The state may exclude those studies that it deems > > unproductive (astrology), or those that it does not want to > > subsidize for reasons of respect for autonomy of clergy preparation > > (the state may not regulate such preparation, so it may choose not > > to pay for it). But that sort of policy is a far cry from a > > discriminatory > restriction > > on what is otherwise an unrestricted cash transfer, either in wages > > to a state employee or in payment of Temporary Assistance to Needy > > Families. > _______________________________________________ > 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 archive Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law The George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington D.C 20052 (202) 994-7053 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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.
