Court orders public university to fund religion

This is one from the "huh?" department.

If you were a student at a public university, would you expect the mandatory student fees you have to pay to fund religious activities? I wouldn't. A lot of public campuses have religious organizations, but I'd expect them to be funded only by their members or by outside sources.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison had this very policy. Students there were not compelled to sponsor others' religious activities with their mandatory fees. Almost everyone agreed the policy was sensible. In fact, not having this policy would have been plumb unconstitutional.

But in BushAmerica, activist federal judges believe the exact opposite.

The Roman Catholic Foundation, a Catholic student group at UW, wanted funding from the school from the fees required of all students. The school turned down this request. So the RCF sued UW. UW caved and agreed to fund that particular organization, but the RCF agreed not to seek university funding for Mass or other events presided over by clergy.

But then the organization decided to raise the price of poker by suing UW again, this time demanding UW fund Mass as well as proselytizing activities.

The RCF does not believe in separation of church and state. If it did, it wouldn't be filing these suits. It believes the activities of the Catholic Church should be government-funded, using money paid by the people - Catholic and non-Catholic alike. If the RCF didn't think this, it wouldn't be demanding funding via student fees. The RCF is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a highly untrustworthy right-wing hate group founded by many of the most notorious dimbulbs of social conservatism.

Ironically, the RCF says it violates the First Amendment for the government to fail to fund it. In other words, they think the amendment that prohibits the government from sponsoring religion actually requires the government to sponsor religion.

It's hard to see how any judge could side with the RCF's stance. But one did. U.S. District Judge John Shabaz - a Reagan appointee - has now ruled that the University of Wisconsin-Madison must use compulsory student fees to fund the Roman Catholic Foundation. He says failing to do so violates the RCF's right to free speech.

Say what??? Talk about a ruling that makes absolutely no sense at all.

The RCF already had free speech - but they think free speech means compelling everyone else to pay for it. Can this blog claim its First Amendment rights are being violated just because the government fails to subsidize it? Can I demand that the taxpayers buy me a TV station to promote this blog's views because they'll get better coverage? That's exactly what this is like.

Now, because of this right-wing judge's ruling, there's no longer separation of church and state at UW. Although nominally still a public university, this ruling makes it in effect a Catholic university. The RCF prints Lenten booklets and conducts religious retreats - and now the entire student body is compelled to pay for these projects, along with proselytizing and Mass. While the RCF and the judge claimed it was somehow discriminatory for UW not to fund the RCF, it's actually discriminatory to force students at a public school to fund religions they're not affiliated with.

The judge's preliminary order stands at least until June when the main trial is scheduled to begin.

I remember a case in the '90s in which federal courts ruled that mandatory student fees couldn't be used for political groups. Conservatives hailed this decision, as the suit involved the funding of a liberal group. If compulsory fees can't be used for political groups - whether liberal or conservative - how can they be used for religious organizations? (The fact that the ruling on political organizations was selectively enforced so conservative groups still got funding is another matter entirely.)

If the Alliance Defense Fund can win a case that just so thoroughly fuses religion with government as the Wisconsin case has, it's just more proof we no longer have a Constitution.

(Source: http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/breaking_news/267874;
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/OSH/80117173/1128/OSHnews)