Court opposes discrimination
State was breaking federal law

   Thanks to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the state of Colorado will no longer violate the United States Constitution. It will stop blatantly establishing some religions as valid, dismissing others as unworthy, and discriminating against students on the basis of religion.

   It's shocking that state oficials needed a federal court to tell them not to discriminate on the basis of religion. What part of the First Amendment do they not understand? It says government "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What part of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, do they fail to understand? What part of "separation of church and state," the pop culture interpretation of the First Amendment, do they fail to understand?

   For years, the state has blocked taxpayer-funded scholarships to students who choose to attend colleges or universities labeled as "pervasively sectarian" by the state. Some schools, started, funded and staffed by religious organizations, were deemed "pervasively sectarian" while others were not. Denver's Regis University, for example, is owned, operated and staffed by the Society of Jesus - better known as the Jesuits, a Catholic order of priests. That great school was not considered "pervasively sectarian" - despite the priests with white collars. Students at the University of Denver, a Methodist school, were also allowed to receive tax-funded scholarships.

   But the state decided that Colorado Christian University was "pervasively sectarian," and no student attending the school could receive state scholarship funds. It made the same decision about Boulder's Naropa Univeristy, a reputable Buddhist institution with a rigorous curriculum.

   State discrimination against specific religions - and favoritism of others - doesn't get more blatant than this. They decided to fund students at Catholic and Methodist colleges, but not at Buddhist and evangelical schools. This was a violation of the free exercise clause, the establishment clause, and the equal protection clause in one bold snub of constitutional law.

   Colorado Solicitor General Dan Domenico, who argued the state's case before the circuit court's three-judge panel, said the state was trying to maintain separation of church and state, and to protect taxpayers from paying for programs they may not agree with. Huh? So the state should separate itself from Buddhists, but not Methodists? And the state should avoid funding programs that some taxpayers may not agree with?

   Yet the state helps fund Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion business in the country. The state funds all kinds of controversial public works projects that offend taxpaying environmentalists. It funds sex education in schools, which some find offensive.

   The phrase "separation of church and state" - never appearing in the Constitution - has become the sloppy argument for discrimination against religion. Yet to maintain separation, avoid establishment, and allow free exercise, we must allow all religions to compete freely in the marketplace of ideas. Freedom is what our Constitution protects, and religious freedom results only in a society where anyone may practice any religion, including Satanism, paganism, atheism or tree worship. Helping students attend a Catholic school but not a Buddhist school curtails the theological free-for-all that's essential to maintaining religious freedom. By approving the Methodist school, and not the evangelical school, the state moved in the direction of establishment. It said this religious school is valid by our measure and that one is not. The state picked financial winners and losers, and it did so on a basis of religious content.

   Radical atheists and secularists likely won't applaud this ruling, favoring some religious discrimination over none at all. They'll argue for a ban on scholarships to students at any institution with any religious affiliation at all.

   That can't be achieved lawfully, however, because "religion" has a fuzzy definition. A federal court, in an effort to help atheists, ruled in 2005 that atheism is a form of religion that deserves the same protections as beliefs more commonly recognized as religion (Kaufman v. McCaughtry). The Supreme Court of the United States has treated secular humanism as a religion, granting the Fellowship of Humanity religious tax exemption because it's philosophy is analogous to religion (Torcaso v. Watkins). Religion at its root is belief, which means it has everything in common with atheism and secular humanism. No theological position - "there is a god," "there isn't a god," or "it doesn't matter" - serves as common ground upon which the state can reside in order to avoid establishment and prohibition of free exercise. The only way to maintain religious freedom - avoiding de facto establishment, while providing equal protection and protecting free exercise - is to allow religious chaos.

   If the state gives scholarships to students, the students should be able to spend them at any accredited schools they choose. The religious afiliations and beliefs of the school's founders, faculty and benefactors should not come into play. And that, apparently, is how the 10th Circuit Court panel saw it. The ruling says the state "expressly discriminates among religions without constitutional justification," and "its criteria for doing so involve unconstitutionally intrusive scrutiny of religious belief and practice."

   The United States Constitution has won another round, inspiring a ruling that will enhance religious freedom, restrict the establishment of state religions, and guarantee equal protection for all.

More choice for women

   A new nonprofit center for pregnant mothers will open in August, a short distance from a Planned Parenthood clinic on West Colorado Avenue in Old Colorado City.

   Both centers will offer an array of medical services and information that pregnant mothers need. The new center, called Old Colorado City Pregnancy Center, will give mothers in the Pikes Peak region another good choice for pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, educational materials and support. Planned Parenthood, which also offers those services, will continue offering contraceptives and abortion referrals; Old Colorado City Pregnancy Center will not.

   Greater Colorado Springs should welcome and support this new center, which is going into business during perilous economic times when contributions to charitable organizations are down. Potential donors should consider society's dependence upon mothers and children, and the needs mothers and children have for community support. More pregnancy centers mean more health care choices for women and that can only make for a more peaceful and prosperous world.

Clarification

   Letters in the July 24 Gazette, which detailed a double-billing controversy involving district attorney candidate Dan May and public funds, mischaracterized amount of media attention given to the subject. The Gazette reported the double billing in the May 14 edition.