Personal About Politics: Supreme Court Case Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation; Separation of Church and State.

This case will likely be decided under the Lemon test, an analysis created in 1971. The court will ask three questions: Does the government's action have a legitimate secular purpose? (answer must be yes); Does the government's action have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion? (answer must be no); Does the government's action result in an "excessive entanglement" with religion? (answer must be no). If any of the answers are wrong, the government is violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The analysis of this case will be interesting. It was obviously deemed constitutional to create this office and to distribute funds accordingly.

"the Bush administration is asking the court to throw the case out on the grounds that ordinary taxpayers have no legal interest in how the executive branch spends public money."

I just had to post that quote again. I cannot believe anyone can possibly believe that. We as taxpayers have no legal interest in how the executive branch spends the money that comes out of our pockets? Excuse me?

I, too, was troubled by that statement. I think it is also important to show a quote from later in that article, as the Coan piece was definitely an opinion piece.

"To be sure, the administration does not advocate the wholesale abolition of taxpayer standing in establishment clause cases. It would allow taxpayers to challenge specific congressional spending programs, but not executive branch spending from general funds. This is hardly a consolation, as the Court of Appeals recognized in rejecting the administration's argument."

This is very interesting. Yes, it was deemed constitutional to create the office, but many times things are created and deemed constitutional without really applying the matter to rigorous constitutional standards. Or it is simply over looked because the majority at the time is thinking philanthropically and not constitutionally. This seems like it might be one of those instances. I'm sure certain loopholes and rhetoric can get around it though if one tries hard enough.

"That's the beauty America, you're never wrong if you know how to argue." Movie, Thanking for Not Smoking

i have always been against the "faith based initiative".it is just another way to push religion down people's throat and waste tax payer's money. this has to stop.

I don't know why we even use the constituion anymore. Why don't the politicians just say they want to re-write our constitution.

Lauren, thanks for your comments. I always rely on you to clarify legal issues. Although I research, I am not an attorney, so I am limited in my interpretations on legal issues.
The Foundation is not trying to eliminate the Faith Based Initiative in this suit. They are trying get the right for taxpayers to sue this organization. That is my understanding. So, if the Foundation wins this case, that will allow others to also sue the Faith Based Initiative for separation of church and state.
Let me know if I am correct in that, Lauren. After reading so much information, after awhile it all begins to blur.

And a note to readers: I am not against religion. I am for separation of church and state as it is stated in the 1st Amendment.

Cheri -

You are absolutely correct, by my reading of the case. It is a blur and your interpretation is well-researched and thought-out IMHO.

It seems the question before the court is whether Article III allows taxpayers to challenge executive branch officials who act on an executive order to distribute generally appropriated funds. This involves a lot of appropriations laws I have not studied, but I think the reason this is not as cut and dry as it seems is that, legally, the plaintiffs would not be challenging an Act of Congress and the government is not providing funding to any group outside of the government. In other words, the funds are perhaps going toward prisoner or children-of-prisoner work, not to a church or non-profit or something.

Thanks Lauren!

The problem continues when you think of all the "faith"-based decisions the President has already rammed down our throats: no stem cell research, abstinence-only sex education, the ridiculous posturing of the FDA over the morning-after pill. The only one that can go to the court is the most flagrant case currently disregarding separation of church and state; even if this tree is chopped down, there are plenty next-tallest trees in the forest to take its place. And that's assuming someone actually convinces Justice Scalia to glance at the Constitution long enough to see if the Bill of Rights is still there.

The current Presidential administration is helping erode the constitution and our rights and this is proof of that.

I guess the thousand points of light needed a little help from the big bad government. The Faith Based Initiative was an admission that the idea that private charities can do a better job of caring for the less fortunate than the government is just plain wrong. I've never been able to understand why Republicans believe that charity, (which they will whole heartedly agree is a good and noble thing,) when administered by the government is somehow evil or un-American.

Also; Mr. Bush needs to be reminded that this government exists for and by the PEOPLE, and he needs to never be allowed to forget it.

Thank you very much for writing this article. We need more information like this to expose the lie that so-called faith-based initiatives are just benevolent programs that do no harm.

First of all, the 1st Amendment never said anything about separation of church and state. That was taken from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Church in 1801 (?) - 17 years AFTER the U.S. Constitution was written. The whole purpose of the 1st Amendment was to ensure that a state-based church was not established. Remember, the reason the Puritans and Quakers came to America was to get away from the Church of England which was/is the official church of England.

The Scots used to gather in the bogs at night and read their bibles by candlelight. When English soldiers rode into the gatherings, the men were killed and the women and children (who had to be kept from crying) hid in the freezing cold marshes so that they would not be found. Quakers were thrown into jail for long periods of time for not praying according to the dictates of the Church of England.

The start of the framing of the U.S. Constitution was begun with a three-hour prayer. ALL of the men who attended that session were Christians, except for Benjamin Franklin, who believed in God. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the U.S. Consitution, was the first President of the American Bible Society and wrote the Jefferson Bible (which was for the benefit of American Indians). In addition, Jefferson, as Superintendent of Education for the District of Columbia, said that every schoolchild should have two books, to wit: the Holy Bible and an hymnal.

A good resource is "Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion," by David Barton of Wallbuilders.com. Barton does an incredible job of ploughing through ORIGINAL documents to find out what the founding fathers thought and how the courts got it wrong.

In regard to the current topic of government-sponsored faith-based organizations, Bush has, by Executive Order, created something to which the founding fathers would have vehemently objected. None the less, the good that the faith-based organizations did during the Katrina disaster was good because it was all volunteer and no one had religion crammed down his throat.

What this lawsuit is about is making the faith-based organizations pay back to the federal government the monies which they have received. The churchs would be bankrupted if they had to give back the money they have used to assist those in need. That is the point. Everyone should go the websites of these organizations that are against religion and see what they advocate. They don't call themselves "atheists," they call themselves "non-deists."

In regards to Kris M.'s statement about "faith"-based decisions, there are problems. First, embryonic stem-cell research is a crock because it is a theory. Mature stem-cells are proving to be the winners. Abstinence-only sex education does not produce unwanted pregnancies or sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs). The morning-after pill (RU-487) manufactured in France, taken by mature women who were monitored for three days to ensure that the baby was aborted. Further study showed that taking RU-487 interferred with a woman's ability to have any more children. Giving a morning-after pill to under-age girls (who won't be monitored by a physician) is absolutely irresponsible. In addition, rapists could cover their tracks by forcing their victims to take the morning-after pill.

No President should be making law via Executive Order. As Bill Clinton's former (Chief of Staff?) Paul Begala said regarding EOs , "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool." Jim Hirsen, Ph.D., wrote a book during the Clinton administraton about the error of Executive Orders (have the book, can't remember the title). It is a good book and should apply equally to Bush.

Let us remember that EOs originally were directions the President gave to his cabinet and they weren't numbered. During the infamous reign of FDR, he began numbering them. I believe the unconstitutional round-up of Americans of Japanese descent and putting them in re-locations camps was 9666. What most people don't realize is that each EO can be deleted, modified, or expanded by each succeeding President. Allegedly, Congress has 30 days to react to an EO but Congress doesn't say a word and unconstitutionally abrogates its authority to make law to the Executive branch.

I wonder of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will recuse herself in this case. As a former lawyer for the ACLU, Ginsburg should recuse herself but has never done it in the past.

Connie, I don't believe that these faith-based organizations are being asked to pay back to the government what was already given them, they are just trying to get the gov. to stop using taxpayers money for it. Also, the whole reason our constitution separated church and state is not because our founding fathers were atheists, but because they knew all to well what religion and its interference with the state did throughout history - especially England. It created war after war, civil and international. Two separate authorities with separate ideals cannot co-exist peacefully within a state. You must either be one or the other. This also inspired Hobbes to write his famous "Leviathan". I am not a realist like him, but the point of the book was peace, not debunking religion.

Sorry, Connie, you're confusing the morning-after pill, Plan B, with RU-486, the "abortion pill," illegal in the U.S. and available only in Europe. Considering how difficult it's been just to get Plan B on the market, you're most likely safe from RU-486 making it to anyone's local drugstore. Also, abstinence-only education works exactly as well as preaching abstinence has always worked: 50% tops, and the kids who don't abstain get pregnant because they're kept ignorant on how not to get pregnant.
This country was founded without a singular religion at its head for a reason: the framers of the Constitution had seen what happens in a country with a national religion and didn't like it. They wouldn't like it very much now, either, although the current religious issues aren't the only problem they'd encounter. As for what your fellow Americans wish to be called -- atheists, non-deists, pagans, heretics, or, like me, Christians -- so what? If you've got faith, what other people do or don't believe is insignificant.

Oh. One of those Willow Falls types?

You have to also remember what these faith based organizations are doing with the money. They are spending it on human aid, and disaster relief, and poor and unfortunate people all over the world. This is who we are as a country. And it is not our decision what to do with this money. We elect our government officials to decide what is best for our country. If you want to have something to do with the money, then run for a political office. Just because we pay taxes doesn't mean we decide where every penny is spent. This just seems like another attack on religion, that is using other means to use as an excuse.

Lauren and Sean commented that the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was found to be constitutional. That seems likely but was it actually challenged in the courts?

On another point, it seems inconsistent that taxpayers could, quoting Lauren, "...allow taxpayers to challenge specific congressional spending programs, but not executive branch spending from general funds." I am far from knowledgeable about this but it just seems to me that both the Congress and the Excutive Branch should be working for me, the taxpayer, and not be above challenging.

From the People For the American website, I see that James Madison was quoted from his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments as saying Madison opposed a bill introduced in the Virginia General Assembly that would have levied a tax for the support of teachers of the Christian religion. In explaining his opposition, Madison wrote,

"Who does not see . . . that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" He was arguing against taxes to support teachers of the Christian religion. (btw, Madison, I think is one of our founding fathers *smile*)

A point being made on the website is that many want much more support to many more faith based programs and much less chance for taxpayer input.

Thanks, Lauren and Sean, for your comments, and Cheri, for your important article. We will be hearing much more about this issue!

Bruce, although I said the Faith-based initiatives were found constitutional, I also believe that they probably were not highly scrutinized constitutionally either. I think if it is closely held up to constitutional standards it will be found to be unconstitutional. You have good points. Hope to see you back on gather in the future. Sean

Bruce,
thanks for you comments! stick around gather...you'll get the hang of it, and enjoy it!

Sean, thanks for welcoming me to gather. Yes, I did notice your qualification to the comment that Faith-based initiatives were found constitutional. I wonder why the entire office (of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives) was not challenged more. I guess I do understand the politics of it somewhat.

Jason and Connie mentioned that the faith based organizations have used the money for good things. I think I would agree with Devin on this. I hope our government can continue to be seen as able to deliver help to those in need. I hate paying taxes to have the government do things that I have to pay nongovernmental organizations to fight against!

Many people are worried that those of us that fight for separation of church and state are against religion. As an agnostic (I don't believe in the existence of God but neither believe I can prove He does not exist nor desire to try) I am willing to fight for the freedom of others to worship Him in whatever way they believe in. I think that separation of church and state is what preserves freedom of religion. There are those that want a theocracy but that will only serve their desires temporarily because Christianity may not always be the religion of the majority/those in power. Nothing lasts forever. Is that a song?

Bruce, I agree with you entirely about keeping religion separate from the state in order to preserve religion. Although I can understand religions want to be involved in politics, I don't necessarily believe it is to religions benefit to be involved politically. I think religion can achieve more on its own, without the side choosing, constant conflict, give and take, and corruption involved in the political process. Leave the politician's to the necessary dirty work, and let religion stay virtuous.

One also only needs to look at the state of most Muslim theocracies in the world to understand that a theocracy is the most unstable and unprogressive form of government. They simply do not work this day and age. I am religious, but for the sake of religion and for the sake of peace I believe the two should be separate.

I also think that some of these religious organizations that are receiving federal funds are probably doing very virtuous non-religious philanthropy, and they are probably doing it better than the state can. However, that is not the point. The point is that this could eventually lead to a trend that gradually erodes the constitution, and that cannot happen.

Good comments from both of you.

I just wanted to add a couple of comments. How would these same conservatives feel if the religion receiving this money were Muslim? What about a cult hiding behind the auspices of religion? They could possibly receive money from the faith based initiative since there is no oversight.

There are many, many religions ( and many pretending to be religions) represented in the United States and by singling out one to give money to, the government is coming very close to a national religion, which is exactly what the Establishment Clause is trying to avoid.

I too, am religious, but believe in separation of church and state.

Cheri, this is a terrific article, as usual, and I wasn't aware of this case. Thanks!

Another insightful article, Cheri.

Bruce B.: I agree with your comments. I am looking forward to reading more of your insightful thoughts.

I just received an e-mail with a sentence in it that may be revelent to this article:
"If you want a nation ruled by religion, move to Iran."

the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, which forbids government promotion of religion."

The establishment clause forbids government promotion of one religion over another

Liberal BS- Remember, now, faith base does not single out one religion over another so it is not a "church" issue. The government is not supporting faith however it does allow a choice of faith in the education system which is paid for by all tax payers. It does not eliminate nor force, but simply allow a choice of educational systems for our children. DO not believe in faith but to eliminate choice for some who do have faith to equal treatment should be allowed. It REPRESENTIVE desire of a tax payer to choose the education of their children. Why have the government force no faith, hmmmmm.. "CHild Benefit" here will most likely I hope make this a moot case, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968)

Again, this is not a promotion of one religion over another, nor over secular school, it is only allow choice for the childs benefit.


Also, it is not seperation of church and state, it is from establishment of a state or government church. Hospitals that are run by churches can be paid by Medicare, Federal grants given to faith based hospitals, Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291 (1899),books can be lended to church schools by the state.Cochran v. Board of Education, 281 U.S. 370 (1930)

I say allow federal assistance to schools, all schools, that meet standards of education.