The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case that raises the issue of whether state scholarship aid can be used for religious training. In the same week, White House Faith-Based Office Director Jim Towey says “fringe” religions should be ineligible for federal grants. Should state scholarships for college students be available for theology majors? Joshua Davey, a student at an accredited college affiliated with the Assemblies of God, sued the state of Washington and Governor Locke when he was denied a scholarship after declaring a double major, in business administration and pastoral ministries. Davey claims the state’s action violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by penalizing him for selecting a theology major and discriminating against religion. Washington, along with 36 other states, has its own constitutional provisions requiring stricter separation of church and state than the federal Constitution. These provisions, known as “Baby Blaine amendments,” bar transfer of state funds or property to religious institutions. They passed in states in the 1870’s after a similar national amendment failed. At that time anti-Catholic prejudice fueled much of the support for the amendments. Baby Blaine amendments may cause significant barriers for federal agencies that want to increase involvement of faith-based organizations in seeking and administering social service programs funded with federal dollars. Most federal grants are passed through states rather than sent directly to grantees. States with Baby Blaine amendments may in turn be prohibited from considering faith-based organizations for grants. If the Supreme Court decision focuses on this issue, it would impact all states currently upholding the Baby Blaine amendments. However, other issues in the case are equally or more likely to be central to a Supreme Court decision. Davey has claimed his free exercise of religion was penalized, and religious education discriminated against. The state of Washington argued that it did not penalize him, but did not offer a subsidy (the scholarship) in the particular major he chose. States may not withhold subsidies for reasons that violate civil rights, such as race or sex. The court’s ruling may depend on whether they see the scholarship as a subsidy or denial of the scholarship as a penalty for pursuing a major in theology. Davey’s religious discrimination claim could have a significant impact on religious organizations as nonprofit corporations. The central question is: can government treat religious organizations and activity differently than other activities because of its religious nature? If the answer were no, then many special privileges religious organizations currently enjoy would end. For example, religious organizations are not required to file an annual IRS Form 990, which details their financial status and is made available to the public. Exemption for zoning regulations and the obligation to pay Social Security taxes for employees are just a few of the legal benefits religious organizations would lose if the Court decides the case on a strict neutrality/non-discrimination basis. U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued in support of Davey's discrimination on behalf of the Bush administration. The Washington scholarship program, known as "Promise Scholarships," are available to first and second year college students that were high academic achievers in high school and whose families meet income eligibility requirements. To receive the scholarship, they must attend an accredited college in the state. This structure makes Promise Scholarships similar to the Cleveland school vouchers that were held constitutional by the Supreme Court last year. The theory behind the decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris is that the subsidy goes to the individual, not the institution, and the individual exercises are "free and independent choice" in selecting a school. Meanwhile, in the same week, Director of the White House’s Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives H. James Towey has been receiving streams of phone calls and letters from pagans and pagan sympathizers asking for an apology. When asked if pagan groups should be given the same consideration as any other group that applies for government funds during a White House-sponsored online chat, Towey proclaimed, “I haven’t run into a pagan faith-based group yet, much less a pagan group that cares for the poor! Once you make it clear to any applicant that public money must go to public purposes and can’t be used to promote ideology,” he continued, “the fringe groups lose interest. Helping the poor is tough work, and only those with loving hearts seem drawn to it.” Outraged by these inaccurate insults, pagan groups have been adamantly confronting the director to retract his comments. Claire Buchan, deputy White House press secretary, in returning calls for comment simply explains, “Mr. Towey did not intend to convey any ill will toward anyone.” According to some leaders of Christian organizations, an apology is not needed, Maranatha Christian News Service reported. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council said, “None of us, including public officials, should reduce Christianity to a way of charitable living equivalent to paganism. Mr. Towey was right, and all Christians should feel called to live that difference.”