In the latest installment in the long-running legal saga between the University of Wisconsin and the Badger Catholics, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the university is to fund overtly religious activities in the same way they fund secular activities.

Clouded in our obsession these days with political correctness, this seems to be a victory for free speech. Muslims should be allowed to built a mosque anywhere as long the law is respected; the government shouldn’t encourage racial profiling toward immigrants; the University of Wisconsin should be funding religious activities as they fund secular ones.

Except that this isn’t about free speech.

I fail to understand how the university is supposedly ‘censoring’ or ‘persecuting’ the Catholic viewpoint – especially when they are being awarded over $100,000 each year to keep their organization going. But before we get to that, let us go back and review the First Amendment.

Here’s what the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Let us first look at the free speech clause of the amendment. Now, I think it should be obvious that the university has not been “prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging their freedom of speech.” The Badger Catholics are free to gather, set up booths and even proselytize around campus. There is no infringement of free speech here.

That leaves us with the other clause: the separation of church and state. The government-by which public universities are funded-is not allowed to have “laws that respect an establishment of religion.” If anything, funding prayer and worship definitely is a form of respecting an establishment of religion.

It has been argued that prayer does have a non-religious effect, i.e. comforting those who pray, which means that it should, after all, be funded. But the purpose of prayer is not to ‘comfort’ those who do; it is to communicate with god(s) who supposedly care about individual people’s lives. Prayer may give comfort; a side effect is not, however, a purpose.

I find that it would often be difficult to draw the line between ‘religious’ and ‘non-religious’ activity. Even non-religious activities held by religious groups are difficult to separate from their beliefs. How many mentions of ‘God’ and ‘sin’ do there have to be before an otherwise secular gathering is considered religious? How much comfort should a prayer provide for it to be considered ‘non-religious’? How inclusive should a religious group be for their activities to be considered secular? Should they have to abandon their creeds to be more inclusive?

Speaking about inclusivity, the Badger Catholics claim to welcome people of all backgrounds, regardless of race, language or religion. However, the official Catholic Church dogma states that homosexual activities are a sin. Sure, they welcome gay people – they are sinners, but they’re welcome anyway. I’m not sure how pleasant that would be for people who identify with the LGBT crowd.

I understand that religion and its creed are important to many people. However, the fact that they are sometimes divisive and even condescending makes it an issue too contentious and problematic for the government to fund, especially seeing how it does not help those who do not identify with the particular religion being discussed.

The ideal solution for the university would be to abolish the segregated fees altogether, freeing students from obligatory fees which they may or may not use. That would be fair to students who prefer not to be involved with student organizations, and would free the university administration from the mess that is sifting through which activities to fund or not to fund.

Seeing how that probably wouldn’t happen any time soon though, those who are not involved in religious groups should be contented with UW not funding such groups’ overtly religious activities.

The government is not obliged to fund any religious activities. All the Founding Fathers wanted the government to do was respect their freedom. Let religions be free from victimization; but also let the government be free from funding them.

Albert Budhipramono ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in biology.