Should the state subsidize religious training?

[From Linda (I want her job) Greenhouse in the Times]

The Supreme Court appeared troubled and deeply divided today over the prospect that the Constitution might require states to subsidize religious training if they choose to provide college scholarships for other kinds of study.
It was the further implications of the case, more than the case itself, that disturbed a clear majority of the justices as they heard arguments on the validity of the state of Washington's Promise Scholarship Program, which makes awards on the basis of academic merit and financial need but excludes students pursuing a degree in theology.

The federal appeals court had ruled that Washington State's exclusion of theology students from scholarships violated the fed constitution's right to free exercise.

The broader implications? Voucher programs.
O'Conner and Kennedy both worried aloud that a ruling upholding the appeals court would effectively force any state offering tuition vouchers as part of a "school choice" program to include religious schools.


O'Conner noted the country's tradition of not funding religious instruction with tax money.