Bush's faith-based program debated in court

[Judi Lynn]

Bush's faith-based program debated in court
By James Vicini
16 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court debated on Wednesday whether taxpayers can contest the use of government funds for church-related activities, with examples about presidential travel to address religious groups and bagels served at prayer breakfasts.

The theoretical discussion came in a high-profile case related to the perennial issue of keeping faith out of state matters as mandated by the U.S. Constitution.

The administration was urging the top court to limit the right of taxpayers to sue over government funding of religious activities as a way to derail another larger question over whether President George W. Bush's federal program to funnel federal dollars to religious groups is unconstitutional.

In considering the question, Justice Antonin Scalia asked if a taxpayer could sue over a hypothetical trip by the president on Air Force One to speak to a religious group, with the U.S. government picking up the whole tab, including the cost of fuel and security guards.
(snip/...)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070228/us_nm/bush_faith_court_dc

[azurnoir]

1. Even more

is it constitutional for tax payer monies to be used in a discriminatory manner by the recipients: religious charities can discriminate on religious grounds when hiring, the jobs are funded by the tax payers. So do the tax payer have to pay for discrimination?

[Hekate]

2. Before Bush, religious charities that got fed funds couldn't discriminate in hiring

Catholic Charities was an expert in working that system, and it was fine. In other words, you obviously would want a Roman Catholic to be a nun (which isn't about hiring anyway), but if you were hiring social workers to help the poor you couldn't discriminate on the basis of religion in either hiring or services.

Where it breaks down is when religious groups want to use our tax money to proselytize their religion (as opposed to living their religious practices, like "help the poor," see above), make agreement with that proselytization a condition of receiving the services (as has happened with the fundies under Bush), and restrict hiring based on the applicant's religous affiliation (ditto).

I have no problem giving my tax money to religious groups I don't completely agree with as long as they don't violate the Constitution. Bush broke that system quite deliberately with his privatization and faith-based schemes.

God help us all with the Scalitos on the Supremes...

Hekate

[Sadie4629]

3. I think there are some misconceptions here

I work for a faith-based organization, and we receive tax dollars (state) to run a parenting program. There are VERY strict rules that we must abide by in order not to jeopardize our funding. Anything that is taxpayer funded can have NO religious content--our paid teachers, materials, etc. must all be secular. Anything that is paid for by our NPO money can be whatever we want it to be. A few years ago we had a grief support group that had Christian content. It was clearly marked as to what it was, it was taught by volunteers, and the materials were all donated. This really isn't as scary as some people think.

[Bandit]

4. Why are religious organizations tax exempt?

That alone IMO should be unconstitutional as it shows favoritism to religions. So not only do they get a huge bonus by not having to pay taxes but they receive money from those of us that do pay taxes but don't agree with the religion...Using my money to support religion is not to my liking...

[Hekate]

5. I'm willing to be corrected. I'm going by a PBS program that came out awhile back...

...where, unfortunately, it was rather as I described. Aside from PBS (I think it was Bill Moyers, a well-known devout Evangelical) there have been various articles in the print media -- the Los Angeles Times, not a "liberal" paper, is my usual source for in-depth coverage; articles shared from other sources here at DU also factor into the formation of my opinion.

But I'm really glad to hear of at least one program that is working out well.

Welcome to DU, by the way!

Hekate

[robinlynne]

7. I think religous groups have their place in society. but not in washington.

period. It is absolutely against the constitution.
In the same way this government has refused medical aid to any foreign hospital which supplies contraception. Moral principles (like birth control) are personal decisions and not to be handed down by the government. As are religious principles.

[VegasWolf]

9. Why, to steal money from gullible FReepers???? Sorry, just kidding!! nt

[robinlynne]

6. This is an important case. the yahoo article is TERRIBLE.

and looks like we're losing. I really admire this group's work. And the judges seem to be using ridiculous examples which have nothing to do with reality. The reality is that this government brought religion into political office. Our constitution prohibits it. It is not about who buys bagels. This court is once again, making a mockery of our democracy!

[Charlie Brown]

10. and the only question so far is whether the plaintiffs can file suit

Apparently, some of the Justices do not even believe taxpayers are eligible to contest this sort of sectarian-religious funding in court.

[VegasWolf]

8. Praise da Lord!!!! NT