AP: Faith-Based Charities to Be Reviewed (by Supreme Court)

[Eugene]

Faith-Based Charities to Be Reviewed

By PETE YOST
The Associated Press
Friday, December 1, 2006; 2:30 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to step into a dispute
over the Bush administration's promotion of federal financing for faith-based
charities.

The program has been a staple of President Bush's political agenda since 2001,
when he created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

The case under review grew out of a lawsuit filed by a group called the Freedom
from Religion Foundation. The group claims the Bush administration violates a
constitutional ban on state-supported religions by singling out particular
faith-based organizations as worthy of federal funding.

The government tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, but a federal appeals court
ruled that the foundation's members are taxpayers who are entitled to sue over a
program funded by Congress.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120100923.html

[valerief]

1. I want faithless-based charity initiatives. I have no faith in the

faith-based ones.

[MADem]

3. I'm with you. There should be a solid wall between church and state.

If faith-based charities wanna help people, FINE. Go raise your money and run your private programs the way you see fit, without gubmint oversight or interference. Don't go leaning on the government or lining up with your hand out for the dough--I get the sense that for every charity doing genuine good works with gubmint money, there are three others who are rubbing their hands together with glee at the happy windfall they got from the cash cow.

It's a shitty thing BushCo did blurring that line...it needs to be STOPPED. I do NOT appreciate my tax dollars going towards that kind of stuff. If I wanted to contribute to religious charities, I'd do it myself--not have Uncle Sam hand out my contribution for me.

[valerief]

4. Yeah, we saw what the faith-based charities didn't do for Katrina

victims.

[NOLADEM]

11. Before you go there, be careful with the facts

I live here in NOLA.

I HATE organized religion. It is a total fucking waste of resources 9 out of 10 times.

That said, the Faith based organizations are still here gutting houses, handing out cleaning kits, giving rides, feeding animals, building new homes, renovating churches, cleaning streets and neighborhoods, lobbying their congregations to stop the violence and report shootings. In short, they have done A LOT.

Now, should they get a penny of state/fed/city bucks to do their work? NO. NEVER. EVER.

Separation of church and state is essential. So are facts.

[valerief]

20. I stand corrected. Not all of them are deadbeats. But the big money

guys? I don't see Pat Robertson and James Dobson and Jerry Falwell all over the MSM talking up how Katrina victims have been helped by their fortunes. And I wouldn't expect them to assist without national gloating.

[LiberalFighter]

25. I don't have a problem with them doing good works either

As long as it is solely funded by their members or contributions by private individuals or organizations.

I will not support the Salvation Army but will support Food Pantries run by religious organizations. I will support the Postal Workers when they have their annual canned food drive that goes to the local food pantry.

If religious organizations don't have the resources to do specific resources then they need to concentrate on those that they have with their own time and money.

[Megahurtz]

13. Yup.

Even though I find it hard to even trust the faithless-based ones too.

[More Than A Feeling]

2. This case could be the start of something big for a different reason...

The government tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, but a federal appeals court ruled that the foundation's members are taxpayers who are entitled to sue over a program funded by Congress.

In written arguments filed with the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Paul Clement said the appeals court had transformed a narrow exception in law into a "roving license" for citizens to challenge any action of the executive branch of government.

The solicitor general's office says the Supreme Court should reaffirm "fundamental limits" on taxpayer challenges.

If average citizens had a court-sanctioned direct check on the executive in 2002, might the Second Iraq War have been prevented?

[mrdmk]

7. This is one major problem with the Bush Jr. Administration

And it all goes back to many statements made by Mr. Bush Jr. which is, "I'm the decider", as if his opinion is the only one that matters.

This all goes back to what I have been saying all long, this is the most destructive administration in American History and President George W. Bush Jr. is number 1. This is just fact.

edit: hit wrong button!

[EST]

10. Isn't that just the very thing to do-if one is enmeshed in the

attempt to disenfranchise the entire voting public?

The solicitor general's office says the Supreme Court should reaffirm "fundamental limits" on taxpayer challenges."

Such utterly contemptible arrogance.

Their transparent battle to turn this country into a dictatorship defies description, though I try.

[Heywood J]

27. Heaven forbid!

That those dirty peasants have objections as to how the executive spends their money. The king is all-powerful here in Nottingham...

[Freedom_from_Chains]

5. Hopefully they will do the right think and declare these things

unconstitutional. Madison did when this type of idea was presented to him.

[DavidDvorkin]

6. FFRF does a lot of good work of this sort

They, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the ACLU are among the few bulwarks we have.

[kath]

30. People for the American Way also does a good job of fighting for separation

of church and state, among other issues.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2496

[twilight_sailing]

8. Church of Satan charities federally funded? Why not?

"The group claims the Bush administration violates a
constitutional ban on state-supported religions by singling out particular
faith-based organizations as worthy of federal funding."

Looks to me like the Feds have chosen sides and they are using our tax money to promote one religion over another.

How about polytheism? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are they getting Federal money?

[Ian David]

23. It's mostly Moonies, Scientologists and Pentecostals that get the money

And almost always places that are "politically connected" in key swing districts and demographics.

[Sapere aude]

9. The federal government has always given money to religious charities.

My brother use to run Catholic Charities in DC. Part of the money he got was from the federal government. The reason was that Catholic Charities was and organization in place and it was cheaper to give money to an organization in place rather then start a new government office. My brother had projects in poor parts of the country like Appalachia and El Centro, CA. He used the money to open things like credit unions for poor people so their money stayed in their communities.

The Reagan administration ended the funding by the federal government to Catholic Charities, not because of the 1st amendment but because it was a social program.

[gravity]

12. Faith based charities aren't always bad

I don't have a problem with faith based charities recieving funds from the federal government as long as the charities don't discriminate against people based on faith or for anything else. I don't see how it would be different than giving aid to a private secular charitiy.

[jefferson_dem]

15. The difference is in the Constitution.

The Court has consistently held that laws or policies that advance religion violates the First Amendment's "wall of separation." Surely, publicly funding sectarian faith-based groups, that deliver Bibles alongside hot meals, represents such a violation.

[intheflow]

21. So you might support funding faith-based charities

as long as they didn't proselytize?

[Mountainman]

24. Leave out the bibles and it is only giving food. I have no problem with that.

Traditionally churches helped the poor based on bible teachings. That is why the are organized as charities. As long as they help all people and don't demand religious indoctrination along with the help I am ok with it.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi gravity!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[JudyM]

14. This is HUGH especially if they examine the disproportionate distibution.

I recall reading a while back that the vast majority of the $ is going to right wing-oriented churches, many of which were giving canned GOTV sermons in the weeks leading to the '04 election.

It'd be great if those churches had to do an accounting to demonstrate they weren't using the $ for establishment of religion, but only for strictly social services. If the Supremes don't look into this I hope our newly-minted Dem Congress does!

This issue is similar to the one the Supremes heard this week about whether EPA could be forced - again by taxpayers - to regulate carbon emissions. Maybe SCOTUS is planning to issue the opinions jointly, articulating a single principle.

[wishlist]

16. I get impression their charity efforts are skewed towards helping their flock

I have personal knowledge through a nearby church that is in a denomination that has been involved both with Katrina housing rebuilding and a program providing services for the disabled for which they receive federal funding as part of the faith based initiatives. No question that they provide helping services, but my impression is that the majority of their assistance for Katrina relief has been provided to pastors and congregation members of their own denomination (sister churches). In the federally funded program, it seems to me that they are predominantly helping people who are either church members or have some kind of personal connection to their congregants, rather than the general public at large, so it seems to me that more oversight is in order.

[classysassy]

17. Poppy said

its your country and your money son,spend it on whom ever you choose,so its ok for me to bribe a few tv preachers.

[progressoid]

18. Gee, I wonder how Scalia will vote?

[central scrutinizer]

19. two issues here

1. Anytime you fund services outside of the governmental umbrella of civil service protection you create a bunch of workers with a vested interest in keeping their jobs, i.e., voting for the party that funded you. This is behind Bushco's drive to "privatize" as many governmental functions as possible. It has been shown time and time again that this does not save money, so the "free-market efficiency" argument is bullshit. It is all about patronage and creating a bunch of people whose votes you can count on.

2. Private agencies, especially faith based ones, do not have to follow hiring guidelines and can discriminate against gays, people of other faith, etc.

[PassingFair]

26. That second issue is the one that will bring this unconstitutional

bullshit "executive order" crashing down.

Social services had always (in my memory) never discriminated
AGAINST faith-based organizations, as long they kept the religion
OUT of the social work. That meant no discrimination in hiring of
workers AND over site from the government to see to it that they
did NOT. AND no proselytizing.

The new "faith-based initiatives" trashed all that. Jail programs
in some states were actually releasing inmates sooner, and giving
inmates better prison assignments for "getting saved".

Other organizations were told it was ok to discriminate against
gays and people of other religions in their organizations, because
to do anything else was to prohibit the free expression of THEIR
religion.

Thomas Paine would be frothing at the mouth.

[David Zephyr]

22. Our Opus Dei Court? How will it vote?

It's already decided. Once Sandra Day left, the theocracy had the majority.

[onager]

28. Ben Franklin got it right.

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."--Poor Richard's Almanac, 1754 (Works, Volume XIII)]

And since I'm an atheist myself, here's a Free Bonus Franklin Quote:

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason."--Poor Richard, 1758

[NVMojo]

31. I hope this type of federal funding goes away ...it's not freaking fair

[fujiyama]

32. More like

SC will rubber stamp state funding of religion under rule of religious fanatics Alito and Scalia.

BTW, each time a bad SC ruling comes up for the next 20 something years, I just can't help but thinking about Ralph Nader.