I have to side with fmrjvlres regarding Jefferson's writings on separation of Church and State. The Founders were not of one mind on any of these issues and this one, I'm sure, was no exception. What they ended up with is the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, no more no less.

Former Jvl:

"so I think as long as the allocation process is the same for all student groups, the groups should be allowed to use the money they receive to promote whatever ideas they wish"

I agree, the courts also agree. UW can fun all sorts of fringe groups, but cannot discriminate based on religious content. I hardly doubt that funding of the catholic group constituent the establishment of a state (or national) religion.

if it was wiccans or muslims they would have payed without ever going to court,,,it went to court because it was a Christian group!!!

I agree with most of what Bubs said, especially regarding "In God We Trust," but I do wonder about this: "People are likely so accepting of this since it is a Christian group. If this was a group of Wiccans or Muslims, people would be up in arms about this."

I hear this a lot from people. Is it true? (I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just asking.)

In this case they are talking about student fees, not taxes, right? The University exists so that students can explore ideas and express themselves, so I think as long as the allocation process is the same for all student groups, the groups should be allowed to use the money they receive to promote whatever ideas they wish. Even 9/11 conspiracy theories!

Also, a letter that one of the founders wrote is simply not authoritative in this matter regardless of which side of the Church/State debate it is on. All we have to work with is the free exercise clause and the non-establishment clause. This would seem to a pretty clear cut case of free exercise because saying that funding a student organization is establishment is a stretch.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre....

Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists calls for a wall between church and state. He and others who wrote the Constitution obviously strove to not include any references to God or religion. I find it bizarre that people are able to misconstrue that as support for religion. Our money is marked "In God We Trust" because of religious sentiments during the Civil War, not due to the founding fathers. Our government dropped the ball by allowing it to go on our currency and now people without proper respect for our Constitution would be overly critical of an attempt to restore our separation of church and state.

Not paying to pass out leaflets or train Evangelicals or hosting spiritual retreats is not unconstitutional. These kids are welcome to speak their mind about their religion, but that doesn't mean that our tax money needs to subsidize their activities.

People are likely so accepting of this since it is a Christian group. If this was a group of Wiccans or Muslims, people would be up in arms about this. It's one thing to promote an unpopular social or political stance and an entirely different thing to proselytize. Hopefully, a higher court will realize the error in this judge's reasoning and overturn the verdict.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech... US Constitution, 1st Ammendment.

Zombies?

I get so tired of this saying "Seperation of church and state". If that was true...Our money would not say in god we trust. Government offices would have religious passages and the 10 commandments.And I'm sick of those who say that the letter written by Thomas Jefferson says there is a separation of church and state. It says nothing like that. It states that when this country was founded that the government wouldn't support 1 single religion as was done in Europe. That is not separation of church and state.It's people that believe like this that are destroying what this country was founded on. I'll bet Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin are rolling in their graves!!

Turtlecreek, you are correct in assessing that this is a complex issue. Currently, these are some of the groups that UWs regents fund (with mandatory student fees-the students dont have a choice but to pay for these activities): No extremists here are there? Do a majoity of students support these groups?

Plaintiffs presented evidence of
eighteen organizations which both receive student fees and engage in political and ideological activities: WISPIRG; the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Campus Center; the Campus Women's Center; the UWGreens; the Madison AIDS Support Network; the International Socialist Organization; the Ten Percent Society; the Progressive Student Network;Amnesty International; United States Student Association; Community Action on Latin America; LaColectiva Cultural de Aztlan; the Militant Student Union of the University of Wisconsin; the Student Labor Action Coalition; Student Solidarity; Students of National Organization for Women; MADPAC; and Madison Treaty Rights Support Group.

Free speech and expression are central to the purpose of the university. Research, scholarship, and education are impossible without open discourse and robust debate. We aspire to be a community marked by compassion and mutual respect, in which we never lose sight of the potential effects, both beneficial and harmful, of our words and our expressive conduct. Ultimately, by remaining open to a broad range of ideas and opinions—even those that may appear to some detestable, uncomfortable, or false—we foster mutual understanding, test our beliefs, and create the best conditions for seeking knowledge. Unless of course if that university is the University of Wisconsin Madison. At the end of the day, if the Regents gave up control on allocation of funding and allowed students to opt-out of funding groups that the students deemed extremist, many of the fringe groups that survive due to the student activity fund would cease to exists.

http://www.nacua.org/documents/southwort...

Complicated issue, to be sure. The Constitution does guarantee free speech but does not stipulate that the government has to fund it. In this case, the UW wasn't prohibiting free speech, it just wasn't paying for it.

On the other hand . . . The wording in the Constitution prohibits Congress from creating law which recognizes the establishment of religion. In putting funds out there for a religious student group to use, is the government recognizing the establishment of a religion or simply permitting its free expression? Then what about exempting churches from paying property taxes? Isn't that basically fostering religious expression by giving churches an advantage that others don't have?

Guess that's why we have a judicial system to sort out these issues.

Marquette, 1957.

You see they cannot discriminate between those students wanting funds for a prayer booklet and those who want to promote something else, say living a "green" lifestyle or even promoting a seperation of church and state for that matter. The first amendment covers them all. Thats the beauty of it.

Wow...where was this judge educated... this would seem a direct seperation of church and state... whats next in this society of litigation!