A U.S. Supreme Court ruling forces the University of Virginia to make what some call the first chip in the wall between church and state advocated by the school's founder, Thomas Jefferson.
In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled Thursday that the university wrongly denied funding to a student-run Christian magazine. It was the first time the court had allowed public funding of a private religious activity.Hailed by some as a victory for religious freedom that could foreshadow tax-funded vouchers for children attending religious schools, the ruling drew harsh criticism from others who believed it would set a dangerous precedent.
"Now religious groups on public campuses around the country can pick the pockets of all the students," said Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The University of Virginia's refusal to fund Wide Awake magazine was based on the publication's viewpoint and thus "was a denial of the right of free speech and would risk fostering a pervasive bias or hostility to religion," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.
At the college founded by Jefferson in 1819, the ruling will mean a revision in the guidelines for funding student activities. University President John T. Casteen III said he is concerned there could be a huge increase in the number of student groups seeking money.
"The same logic the court used could be applied to partisan political groups," Casteen said. He said public universities could be faced with cutting the funds they give to student groups or raising student fees.
Christian conservatives praised the decision.
"We have crossed a critical threshold in the battle for religious liberty," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which supported the magazine.
The First Amendment bans government "establishment of religion." But it also guarantees the right to free speech.
Financing the magazine does not violate the doctrine of church-state separation, Kennedy wrote, because the aid program is neutral and the magazine is not a religious institution. Tax subsidies for churches would be a different matter, Kennedy said.
Justice David H. Souter wrote in dissent that the magazine went beyond academic discourse to preaching of religion.