One of the strangest laws on the books in Texas has been a statute forbidding any person or organization from operating an educational institution referring to itself as a seminary or awarding theological degrees without licensure and supervision by the State of Texas. It seemed out of place, for the teaching of theology and the determination of the qualifications of those who have a theological education for a degree has always seemed to be decidedly a matter for churches, not the state.

Today, the Texas Supreme Court agreed.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions today and ruled that state restrictions on what unaccredited religious institutions can call themselves and their education training violate the First Amendment.

The court said banning an institution like the Tyndale Theological Seminary in Fort Worth from using the term "seminary" in its name violates the Constitution.

Three religious organizations waged the legal fight. Tyndale, one of the schools, was cited in 1998 for violating a law that requires seminaries to be accredited and prevents unaccredited institutions from awarding degrees. It was fined $173,000 by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

Plano-based Liberty Legal Institute represented the schools and argued before the court in 2005 that the state has no business regulating how pastors are trained.

State law requires institutions to meet certain standards if they call themselves a college, university or seminary. The court ruled that the law as it pertains to seminaries intrudes upon religious freedom.

"This decision is a huge victory for all seminaries not only in Texas but nationwide," said Kelly Shackelford, the institute chief counsel. "Seminaries are going to now be free to be seminaries ... The shackles are off."

The case is not about secular teaching and degrees, but about purely theological education, he said. Shackelford said the ruling means the plaintiffs can try to recover attorneys' fees incurred in the case.

Ultimately, the statute had the state (either directly or through a private organization) determining the qualifications of teachers of theology and the structure and content of that education if a school wished to award academic degrees. Indeed, there was potential here for the state to deny a religious body the ability to credential its own clergy -- especially given the fact that the state recognized only one body for accrediting schools of religion, meaning that a group with unorthodox beliefs might be denied due to doctrinal and ecclesiastical governance issues. with which it was at odds with the organization granted a monopoly on recognizing such programs by the state.

Freedom of religion means nothing if the teaching of religion by religious organizations can be regulated and restricted by the state.

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.