The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Religious group funding not ‘according to the gospel’

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Corey Sheahan:

Prognosis poor on hospital tax (November 5, 2007)
Giuliani's impact on NYC overrated (October 23, 2007)
Senators step perilously toward war (October 8, 2007)
Religious group funding not 'according to the gospel' (September 24, 2007)
UW socialist noble but wrong (September 10, 2007)

by Corey Sheahan

Monday, September 24, 2007

The debate concerning the allocation of student-segregated fees continues to rage, and I refuse to pretend that I'm going to solve all the problems concerning segregated fees in this column. That said, I've got a great solution to the issue of whether or not the university practices religious discrimination through the use of student-segregated fees — cut off religious organizations completely.

I want to make something very clear: This column is not an attack on any specific religion or set of religious beliefs. I am of the opinion that religion is a personal, private choice and government institutions should not limit anyone's religious — or nonreligious, for that matter — beliefs. However, "not limiting" also implies "not encouraging," which is exactly what the University of Wisconsin does when funding religious organizations.

The most prominent example of this practice revolves around the controversy surrounding the Roman Catholic Foundation of the University of Wisconsin. The uproar caused by the debate over whether or not to fund RCF-UW provides a perfect reason why the university — and public institutions in general — should refrain from providing funds to any religious organization that actively recruits new members into its faith.

Let us take a step back and analyze why we have segregated fees in the first place.

The official goal of segregated fees is to create a vibrant marketplace of ideas with the hope of facilitating an active culture of debate in the student body. Most religions, by their nature, are not open for debate. In a Sept. 13 news article in The Badger Herald, the Rev. Eric Nielsen of St. Paul's — where RCF-UW is based — said Catholics can entertain a certain amount of doubt, "as long as he or she doesn't enter into a 'radical stage of disbelief or rejection.'" In other words, critically analyze the Catholic faith, but stop as soon as you start to change your mind.

That doesn't exactly sound like an encouraging open exchange of ideas to me. This isn't a trait particular to the Catholic faith — most religions have specific doctrines the faithful have to adhere to that are not open for debate.

Don't get me wrong; religious organizations do a lot of good in the communities they serve. However, the evangelical, recruiting nature of most religions should prevent them from receiving funds from public institutions.

The court system has weighed in on this issue multiple times. Unfortunately, they have done so incorrectly. In Rosenberger v. the University of Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled the university's decision not to fund the printing costs of the Christian student publication "Wide Awake,"because of its message, was unconstitutional. The majority wrote that the university could not "regulate speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction." At first glance, the Court appears to have ruled correctly, but a closer examination of the publication's message reveals that the Court got it wrong.

The dissent noted that funding the publication represented a violation of the Establishment Clause because "Wide Awake," rather than openly discussing theological issues, actively encouraged its readers to accept Jesus Christ. Due to the evangelical nature of the publication, funding the printing costs represented a direct violation of the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, the majority got it wrong.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Public institutions violate this fundamental feature of the Constitution by giving money to religious organizations. I can't think of a much better way to aid the establishment of religion than to provide religious groups with public funds.

The court system has often justified public funding of religion by arguing that as long as one religion is not preferred over another, the Establishment Clause is not violated. I find this to be thoroughly unconvincing. It doesn't matter whether one or many are supported — public funding of religion is a public endorsement of religion, and therefore the Establishment Clause is violated.

The dissenting opinion in the Rosenberger decision got it right, and its opinion should be applied here at the University of Wisconsin. RCF-UW's home page is that of St. Paul's University Catholic Center, and a glance at the mission statement of St. Paul's reveals that it is an evangelical organization and should therefore be ineligible for university funds.

We're treading dangerous water here. If we allow student funds to go toward the promotion of one religion over another, campus discourse mutates into religious endorsement.

We have two options in settling this debate. The first is that we fund all religious and nonreligious groups fairly. This means that all religions, even the recently made up, satirical ones like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would have an equal claim to university fees. The second is that no religious organization is eligible for funding. The second is the simpler, more rational choice. It's about time we made it.

Corey Sheahan (csheahan@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in history and economics.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (September 24, 2007 @ 8:45am):

Have you read any of the litigation that UW has gone through on this topic? It would appear as though you haven't.

"After all, University officials guided by their legal counsel are more likely to properly understand the constitutional mandates of the First Amendment, than are undergraduate students who may wrongly believe that the First Amendment requires - as opposed to prohibits - such discrimination." Southworth v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys., 307 F.3d 566, 593-594 (7th Cir. 2002).

"[U]ntil recently, the University prohibited funding of 'activities which [were] politically partisan or religious in nature.' Thus, organizations espousing partisan political or religious viewpoints are at a funding disadvantage compared to other viewpoints." Southworth v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys., 307 F.3d 566, 593-594 (7th Cir. 2002).

Anonymous (September 24, 2007 @ 9:59am):

I eagerly await your next column urging the defunding of WISPIRG, CFACT, Sex Out Loud, Multicultural Student Coalition, LGBTCC, Campus Women's Center, MEChA, and Wunk Sheek.

Anonymous (September 24, 2007 @ 10:37am):

I agree. Not only do I want the pedophile Catholics off the campus, I want those bloodthirsty, child-murdering Muslims out of here too. I hate all religion.

Speaking of funding, when the hell are they going to start using those FEMA camps those a-hole liberals are screaming about? We taxpayers are paying for them, let's put them to good use.

Anonymous (September 24, 2007 @ 10:55am):

This is why I do not like religion. I have no problem with most religious people, but I despise the people who devise most religions' tenets.

Most of them are so designed as to have the intent to punish people who do not adhere to their tenets. I cannot, in all honesty, think well of a group of people who would punish someone else for simply having a difference of belief.

That, and punishing people for being born with different genetic makeup or different circumstances, is where my tolerance stops.

-an intensely pissed atheist

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.