|
Federal Tax Dollars Supporting Religious Efforts Considered by Supreme Court
On Feb. 28, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, a case where Americans challenged federal faith-based initiatives programs.
A federal court in Wisconsin earlier dismissed
the case, ruling that taxpayers had "no standing to sue" because
there was no federal grant at issue. But a federal appeals
court reinstated the suit, ruling that the plaintiff had standing to
challenge the use of federal funds to run a faith-based program.
The federal government then petitioned the Supreme Court to review
the case. A ruling is expected by June.
Opinion: Two key issues are at stake with one decision. The first is the issue of the federal government spending tax dollars on faith-based initiatives. The second are the consequences if they are denied, that is, the previous Wisconsin verdict would be upheld, thereby taxpayers would have "no standing to sue" the federal government over any expenditure.
Regarding tax spending on faith-based programs: there is no need for government to raise money to promote any religious endeavor. Religious organizations are free to raise money (tax-free income, I might add) through their current means. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to appropriate funds for any faith-based initiative.
The decision by the lower federal court in Washington should be frightening to all Americans. It removes a taxpayer's right to question the federal government about budget matters. If a taxpayer has "no standing to sue" in regards to federal tax revenue spending, then who does? The key item here is the last phrase of the First Amendment (below): "...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Another objection is that the Executive branch of federal government has no business distributing grants. This should be a role of Congress.
Lastly, the inside cover of the grant catalog bears a quote by George W. Bush claiming "Government cannot be replaced by charities..." However, these initiatives are not the first of their kind; charities were caring for abandoned babies long before the federal government stepped in. The president has the principle backwards, charities should not be replaced by government. See my essay about charities for more information.
Precedents: Flast v. Cohen (1968) ruled taxpayers did have standing to challenge the federal government in matters of budget expenditures.
More Details:
I did some further reading
about the suit the FFRF is pressing in regards to
faith-based initiatives and have found some interesting
twists. Notably, that all the programs listed in the
Grants Catalog are not contrary to a free society. Most
are secular programs like feeding and housing the poor.
etc. For example, there is a HIGH SCHOOL EQUIVALENCY
PROGRAM which grants additional funds to existing local
programs that help adults attain their G.E.D. Only the
staunchest Libertarian or Anarchist would oppose that. HEP
initiatives received $18.55 million in 2006.
However, the first 3 programs listed (sorted alphabetically) most definitely are designed to preach a particular morality. I do believe "preach" is the correct word. Education is the propagation of facts and skills, whereas the propagation of opinion is preaching. There is no law regarding the moralities promoted by these programs, and the degree to which they are funded is appalling. There is an initiative that funds moralistic education programs directed at teens, the COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM, to the effect that they remain abstinent until marriage, clearly a MORAL issue, and is funded $113 million in 2006. There is an initiative with a smokescreen name of MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL that funds faith-based organization only to promote the ABC program (so far so good, until you learn what ABC is, Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms when necessary). Again, a purely moralistic stance, and grants are ONLY given to faith-based organizations. Unfortunately, funding is not defined. Lastly, there is TITLE V ABSTINENCE EDUCATION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM which is also funds abstinence programs, but this time directed at "those groups most likely to bear children out of wedlock." This initiative was funded $50 million in 2006. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the middle program received the lowest funding of the 3 at $22 million. That would mean the 3 abstinence education programs received 10 times the funding of the high school education program. Clearly our president is more concerned with imposing his own morals on society, rather than promote the facts-and-skills education needed to be productive members of their community.
Supporting Documentation: Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press,
Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791
Relevant Quotes: "The civil government ... functions with
complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the
State."
"James Madison's definitions of an
"establishment" of religion include: the use of tax money for
support of teachers of the Christian religion, the donation of a
piece of federal land to a Baptist Church, congressional chaplains."
“To compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he
disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." |
The opinions expressed
here are mine alone. Care to comment? Click
HERE |