fayfreethinkers.com

Court sides in favor of faith-based funding

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday said ordinary taxpayers don't have the legal standing to challenge a White House initiative helping religious charities get a share of federal money.

The 5-4 decision dealt with a suit by a group of atheists and agnostics against Bush administration officials including the head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

The taxpayers' group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.

Taxpayers in the case "set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur" unless the court stopped the Bush administration initiative, wrote Justice Samuel Alito. "Of course, none of these things has happened."

The justices' decision revolved around a 1968 Supreme Court ruling that enabled taxpayers to challenge government programs that promote religion.

The 1968 case involved the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which financed teaching and instructional materials in religious schools in low-income areas.

With the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, President Bush says he wants to level the playing field. Religious charities and secular charities should compete for government money on an equal footing, says the president.

link

Somebody should have pointed out to the 5 catholics on the Supreme Court that the "faith-based" funding is NOT going to catholic churches and is thus putting their own faith, which does a whole lot more educating (among other things) than the protestant faiths, at a disadvantage here.

Here is a much better take on the same story. It's a FIRST ADMENDMENT issue which interestingly, USA Today never mentioned.

American Humanist
Court Gives Executive Branch Free Pass to Violate First Amendment


June 25, 2007

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today passed a ruling that severely curtails the ability of taxpayers to sue when government violates the separation of church and state. In Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Supreme Court found that lawsuits against the federal government's executive branch for unconstitutionally promoting religion can no longer be filed on behalf of taxpayers. A previous 1968 ruling found that taxpayers could sue when the Congress spent money on religion, a special exception that had been carved out in order to address this constitutional issue.

"The Supreme Court's decision allows the Executive Branch to steamroll over the Establishment Clause and spend our money to promote sectarian causes," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. "The faith-based initiatives office is a case in point. Our money is being funneled to religious groups, who use that money to proselytize. But no longer do taxpayers have a right to challenge such cases of unconstitutional use of their hard-earned dollars."

In Justice Souter's dissent, he wrote, "When executive agencies spend identifiable sums of tax money for religious purposes, no less than when Congress authorizes the same thing, taxpayers suffer injury."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation's original suit was challenging the constitutionality of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. "Bush's religious beliefs drive many of these initiatives," explained Speckhardt. Faith-based initiatives funding went to the Healing Place Church in Baton Rouge, LA, whose mission (according to its website) is to "assist those who are struggling with addiction [to] become free through the Power of God." This church was highlighted by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address as a model for this government program, even though they rely "solely on the foundation of the Word of God to break the bands of addiction."

American Humanist

[edited bold text and fixed link --Dar]

[edited bold text and fixed link --Dar]

THANK YOU SIR. New eyeglasses improved my driving immensely but the reading is not so lucky.
.