HIGH COURT ENDS TERM : Court Calls for ‘Neutral’ Approach to Religion Issues : Judiciary: In two cases, justices reject bias against expressions of faith as a double-standard. Advocates of church-state separation decry rulings.

The Supreme Court gave religious-rights activists two important victories Thursday, ruling that the government may not deny funding or free-speech protections to groups simply because of their religious beliefs.

Instead, the justices insisted that officials follow a “neutral” and “evenhanded” approach to matters of religion so that students or church groups are not put at a disadvantage because of their faith.

The opinions in the two cases echo the views of religious-rights activists, who have complained in recent years that public officials frequently discriminate against those whose message is religious.

For example, some school officials have believed that they must tolerate displays of offensive messages on T-shirts worn by students in observance of free-speech protections, while banning the display of references to Jesus on the theory that these references would violate the separation-of-church-and-state rule.

Similarly, some city officials have believed that they cannot ban burning of the American flag in a public park because the action is a free-speech exercise but they must prohibit the display of a cross or creche because it is explicitly religious.

In the two rulings, the court’s conservative justices sought to knock down the apparent double standard affecting religion.

In an Ohio case, the court upheld the display of a 10-foot cross in a public park near the state capital. Because other groups had rallied and displayed banners there, the cross could not be excluded simply because it is a religious symbol, the court said in a 7-2 vote.

“Private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the free-speech clause as secular private expression,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the court in the case (Capitol Square vs. Pinette, 94-780).

In the second case, the court ruled, 5 to 4, that the University of Virginia wrongly denied subsidies to a Christian students’ magazine. The ruling marked the first time that the court has clearly upheld the use of public money to subsidize the espousal of religious views, lawyers said.

Religious-rights activists hailed the two rulings and said that they indicate the court would uphold publicly funded “vouchers” for students to attend religious schools. The decisions also settle a long-running battle over Christmas displays by making clear that private groups may erect a creche in a public square so long as other displays are permitted there as well.

“The Supreme Court has sent a message loud and clear that it is unconstitutional to treat religious students as second-class citizens or religious speech as second-class speech,” said Ronald Rosenberger, a former University of Virginia student who founded “Wide Awake,” a campus magazine espousing “a Christian perspective” on contemporary issues.

In 1991, the university subsidized the costs of other student publications, including those sponsored by Muslim and Jewish students. But campus officials turned down Rosenberger’s request for funds because his magazine “manifests a particular belief in or about a deity.”

A federal appeals court in Richmond sided with the university’s decision, concluding that the First Amendment’s ban on an “establishment of religion” prohibited the use of public money to support a religious publication.

Disagreeing in the case (Rosenberger vs. University of Virginia, 94-329), the high court said that state officials cannot discriminate against religious groups strictly because of their beliefs.

“The neutrality commanded of the state by the First Amendment was compromised by the university’s course of action,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the 5-4 majority. It is “a denial of the right of free speech and would risk fostering pervasive bias or hostility to religion” if the university could deny subsidies to the Christian students, he said.

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice David H. Souter said that the majority “for the first time, approves direct funding of core religious activities by an arm of the state.” He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven G. Breyer.

The court majority, however, noted three important limits on its ruling.

First, the university itself was not promoting Christianity. Rather, it was funding all student publications on a neutral basis.

*

Second, the money was not going to a church but rather to a student group.

And third, the funds were not supporting an explicitly religious activity, such as a worship service or a retreat.

Nonetheless, before Thursday, the court had taken the view in various opinions that public money could not be used to promote religious beliefs.

Advocates of church-state separation faulted the court for knocking down a once-solid barrier.

“This is a miserable decision,” said Barry W. Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Christians at a university have every right to evangelize through publications but they shouldn’t be allowed to pick other students’ pockets to pay for it.”

A leader of People for the American Way, a civil-liberties group that had supported the university’s position, saw a silver lining in the high court’s action.

“Both rulings should knock the wind out of the sails of the right-wing forces pursuing a so-called religious equality amendment to the Constitution,” said Elliot Mincberg, legal director for the group.

On Capitol Hill, religious rights advocates have been pressing for an amendment to protect religious liberty and student-led prayer in schools.

But Mincberg said that the amendment is not needed since the court “makes absolutely clear that the First Amendment is not hostile to religion.”