Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, June 25, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments

Document Supreme Court nixes suit over faith-based plan

by MSNBC

Thanks to Happy Hominid for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19414473/

The 5-4 high court decision bars taxpayers from challenging initiative

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal money.

The 5-4 decision blocks a lawsuit by a group of atheists and agnostics against eight 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 decision involved the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which financed teaching and instructional materials in religious schools in low-income areas.

"This case falls outside" the narrow exception allowing such cases to proceed, Alito wrote.

Souter writes dissent

In dissent, Justice David Souter said that the court should have allowed the taxpayer challenge to proceed.

The majority "closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury," wrote Souter. "I see no basis for this distinction."

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.

White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore called the ruling "a substantial victory for efforts by Americans to more effectively aid our neighbors in need of help."

She said the faith-based and community initiative can remain focused on "strengthening America's armies of compassion."

The White House program appears to have had a substantial impact.

In fiscal 2005, seven federal agencies awarded $2.1 billion to religious charities, according to a White House report. That was up 7 percent from the year before and represented 10.9 percent of the grants from the seven federal agencies providing money to faith-based groups.

Among the programs: Substance abuse treatment, housing for AIDS patients, community re-entry for inmates, housing for homeless veterans and emergency food assistance.

The Bush administration says taxpayers should not be allowed to challenge the government's conferences because Congress did not earmark funds for a specific program and no funds were distributed outside the government. The White House pulled money for the conferences out of general appropriations.


Also See:

http://ffrf.org/news/2007/heinvFFRF.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500540.html

Comments 1 - 23 of 23 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #51856 by montiff on June 25, 2007 at 11:56 am

 avatarThe wall between church and state is crumbling...

Other Comments by montiff

2. Comment #51857 by Fedler on June 25, 2007 at 12:03 pm

 avatar
The majority "closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury," wrote Souter. "I see no basis for this distinction."

That's it? That's the one comment from the plaintiff perspective? The rest of the article reads like a glowing endorsement of religious groups getting federal money. The Washington Post seems a bit biased. I guess the best that can be said (if anything) is that it was a close vote.

Other Comments by Fedler

3. Comment #51859 by crazy4blues on June 25, 2007 at 12:06 pm

 avatarSo, if you're unfortunate enough to be in need of charity, you can have it, as long as you are christian (the right kind of xstian, of course!). What's that? You need medicine? No, my child, all you need is the Lord!

Yup, we're there now. My tax dollars are being used to respect an establishment of religion, and there's nothing I can do about it.

I reckon I can always pray for a change . . .

Other Comments by crazy4blues

4. Comment #51861 by jonahemery on June 25, 2007 at 12:09 pm

I don't understand why general American's don't view something like this with outrage. America was founded as a great lighthouse of hope upon the fact religious authority and dogma was finally divorced from political power. Look at all the liberty, social progress, and happiness that has resulted.

Is American leading us towards a dark age? As a gay humanist... I shiver at the thought.

Other Comments by jonahemery

5. Comment #51863 by heafnerj on June 25, 2007 at 12:14 pm

 avatarThis is a sad day for America. To answer jonahemery's initial statement, I personally feel it's beause our education system is a spectacular failure at every level. It's quite difficult to be outraged over something if you are not aware that the something is actually bad in the first place. Edward Tabash's remarks have hit home today like a ton of bricks. Couple this with Dick Cheney's continuing antics and I am truly afraid for this country's future.

Other Comments by heafnerj

6. Comment #51865 by Angieruns on June 25, 2007 at 12:27 pm

We are headed down the road of the Taliban....can you spell T H E O C R A C Y ?

Our only hope is to elect a 2008 presidential candidate that cares about the first amendment!

Other Comments by Angieruns

7. Comment #51866 by Steven Mading on June 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm

One scary thing about this ruling is that to avoid having to address the actual issue they ruled that no citizen has standing to even try to sue the government over constitutional issues just for the sake of the constitutional issue itself, It must be attached to some other incident in which the citizen was wronged. So in other words, to avoid having to even hear the case about the office of faith-based initiatives, they destroyed a key means of enforcing the constitution in general, for ANY constitutional issue.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

8. Comment #51880 by CruciFiction on June 25, 2007 at 1:09 pm

The FFRF news release today.

http://ffrf.org/news/2007/heinvFFRF.php

SCOTUS decided we have no right to even complain about these blatant unconstitutional actions by the executive branch because it's only "Psychic injury". WTF!?!?!

Other Comments by CruciFiction

9. Comment #51888 by jonecc on June 25, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Ironic that their acronym is SCOTUS. Duns Scotus was a medieval theologian.

Other Comments by jonecc

10. Comment #51891 by bruce on June 25, 2007 at 1:38 pm

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.

What a completely dishonest statement. Religious charities can already compete with secular charities on an even playing field, and in fact, many already do. What certain religious charities want is to be able to discriminate against classes of people and also to push their religious views on the people they are helping all with the aid of government funding. Hence, the faith-based initiative is not meant to even the playing field but rather is meant to open the door to federally funded religious discrimination and indoctrination. It is the religious organizations who want special treatment because they don't want to have to compete on equal footing.

Other Comments by bruce

11. Comment #51892 by madpatriot on June 25, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Waitaminute....

So taxpayers opposed to their money being funnelled to religious organizations have no right to complain, says the administration.

Meanwhile, Bush vetoes increased Federal funding of stem cell research. One reason he has given for this is Christian taxpayers don't want their money used for the destruction of embryos.

So, the lesson here is that... taxpayers' opinions only count if they are Christian.

Other Comments by madpatriot

12. Comment #51934 by The Schuermannator on June 25, 2007 at 3:11 pm

 avatarI've always had this idea of a new US Civil War that'll take place in the years to come fought between scientists on one side and the religious right on the other. The more I read about issues like this article, the more I feel that it could one day be a reality.

Other Comments by The Schuermannator

13. Comment #51943 by liberalartist on June 25, 2007 at 3:37 pm

 avatarAmerica is on a downward spiral into theocracy. We lost democracy some time ago.

Schuermannator I have to say I think this "civil war" is going on now, its just not like the last one. And although I am not a scientist I fight on that side. But we are vastly outnumbered.

Just a couple weeks ago I was listening to NPR report about how each democratic candidate was talking about his/her faith. Once upon a time there was an America, founded by reasonable men who created a religious-independent country that was upheld through the 1960's when Kennedy had to assure voters that he, not the catholic church, would run the country. Now our presidents have prayer breakfasts, faith based initiatives, religious leaders at beck and call. And now we have a catholic-dominated supreme court that IS basing its decisions on religion!

I shake my head in disgust!

Other Comments by liberalartist

14. Comment #51953 by cp21yos on June 25, 2007 at 4:03 pm

 avatarThat's it... America is screwed... time to abandon ship...

Other Comments by cp21yos

15. Comment #51978 by Zaphod on June 25, 2007 at 7:08 pm

 avatarWhite House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore called the ruling "a substantial victory for efforts by Americans to more effectively aid our neighbors in need of help."

She said the faith-based and community initiative can remain focused on "strengthening America's armies of compassion."

ARE YOU FECKIN KIDDING ME? ARMIES OF COMPASSION.

Other Comments by Zaphod

16. Comment #51980 by Crazymalc on June 25, 2007 at 7:20 pm

 avatarSeperation of church and state indeed

Other Comments by Crazymalc

17. Comment #51983 by dlitt on June 25, 2007 at 7:25 pm

 avatar
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.


I guess the Freedom From Religion Foundation should apply for some of that federal pie.

Other Comments by dlitt

18. Comment #51988 by troyreynolds86 on June 25, 2007 at 7:52 pm

And so the end begins. Up until now we have only feared a theocracy. Today we stare into its glaring eyes, and shocked by its toothy grin. We American atheists have had our only recourse for protection now cut from under us. Our country, at the very core of her ideals, provided the right to challege the authority of the government, as our founders challenged the authority of the king, so that our government could never become the tyranny that our colonies had known. A tyranny is born when voices are silenced, and today we are ordered silent, not by the rifles of a militia but by the banging of a gavel. Protests within the public square can still live on, but those pleas will now be silenced by the stone walls of our hallowed halls of justice.

Although, in light of this sorry road that my nation now travels, I shall never be ashamed of my heritage because I know for what this nation truly stands. Perhaps the populace has lost sight of our origins, forgeting our ethics as they preach their morality and praise their Jesus, but I shall never forget. I believe in the United States, not defined by her borders or her people but by a simple document that to me today looks a little more yellow with age, a little more tired and a little more distant from the times in which we all live. When this nation dies, whatever that death may look like, if I still live a small peice of this great land shall live on as well because I can find no greater potential in a society that shall ever grace this earth than this one when the ideas of our founders, improved upon by the wisdom of their successor, are put into practice to the fullest.

Today, the hereditary defenders of those ideas have shamed us all. I hope the world is taking notice with horror at how so quiet a things as a court can radically reshape the future of a nation. Once the nations of the world could look to mine for inspiration from our example, albeit a decidedly sad track record in action, but within our society was the ability to build upon our mistakes, as I feel that we always have. Until today. Today we have failed ourselves, and I now can only ask that our fellow humans upon distant shores can learn from our mistakes. We, it appears, shall not.

Yesterday, I would not have thought this possible. Tomorrow I shall awake, wiser perhaps, but less hopeful of the future. Less hopeful and silenced.

Other Comments by troyreynolds86

19. Comment #51992 by Shuggy on June 25, 2007 at 8:32 pm

 avatardlitt
avatar
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.

I guess the Freedom From Religion Foundation should apply for some of that federal pie.
"Some"? Half! Didn't they just say "equal footing"?

Other Comments by Shuggy

20. Comment #51998 by Happy Hominid on June 25, 2007 at 9:22 pm

 avatar"20. Comment #51988 by troyreynolds86
And so the end begins. Up until now we have only feared a theocracy. Today we stare into its glaring eyes, and shocked by its toothy grin."

Very true, and to make the scenario even more frightening, everyone should take a half hour and watch the Edward Tabash video http://richarddawkins.net/article,1323,The-Present-Threat-of-the-Religious-Right-to-Our-Modern-Freedoms,Edward-Tabash or just click on it on the main page under latest news.

We are just an 89 year old justice from losing the majority. Hopefully he can hang in there until a new president is elected, and that the new president is not beholden to the religious right.

Of course with decision like this recent one, it looks like the majority is already lost - but it could get even worse.

Other Comments by Happy Hominid

21. Comment #52018 by macronencer on June 26, 2007 at 12:36 am

 avatarOnce the greatest nation on Earth... now slipping away. And to think I still plan to move there! :(

Other Comments by macronencer

22. Comment #52201 by Happy Hominid on June 26, 2007 at 1:10 pm

 avatarMacronencer- Please DO! We need all the clarity of thought we can get. And think of the challenge. You wouldn't get it in Sweden, Holland or France!

Other Comments by Happy Hominid

23. Comment #52496 by chapstick08 on June 27, 2007 at 6:19 am

If this case is or was in fact as simple as laid out in this article, then Justice Souter seems to have no case whatsoever. And any reader who is concerned with fidelity to written law should feel absolutely detested by his remark:

The majority opinion "closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury. I see no basis for this distinction."

I will simply quote the first few words of the First Amendment. "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting...." Now if congress is not involved whatsoever in this initiative then there can be NO First Amendment violation. Any such demonstration of blatant laxity and disregard to the words, i.e. what is actually written, what is actaully stated, of a given law by a Supreme Court Justice should be met with profound admonishment, especially a law so fundamental to a society's way of life. For this is the exact point where law breaks down and society turns to be governed by inclination and whim rather than objectified law.

Now of course I do not personally support any faith-based program by our government, but I recognize that written law transcends my own desires and aims, and if an action disagreeable to me does not expressly violate a stated law, I have no right to independently alter that law in serving my own dispositions (such as ignoring the words of the Constitution and declaring an Exectutive action can violate the First Amendment when the First Amendment only applies to Congress). I only wish Justice Souter and the rest of the Court genuinely shared this notion.

Souter would certainly have an angle if he were able to establish that Congress is at least indirectly involved in the initiative, say through power of the purse. But if he made no such attempt then his actions are as deplorable as the President's.

Other Comments by chapstick08
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: