Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "COBRA COMMANDER #5 Cvr A Image Comics 2024 5A 0324IM214 (CA) Milana + Leoni"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/comic-books/image/gijoe/cobra-commander/05A/t-DSC06608.jpg)
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "VOID RIVALS #7 2nd ptg Image Comics 2024 0324IM865 (CA) Howard (W) Kirkman"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/comic-books/image/void-rivals/07-2nd-ptg/t-DSC06062.jpg)
Supreme Court considers faith-based initiatives
Wisconsin-based group of atheists and agnostics challenges Bush program
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with the question of whether taxpayers have the right to challenge the White House's aggressive promotion of federal financial aid for religious charities.
At issue is whether a Wisconsin-based group of atheists and agnostics have legal standing, by virtue of being taxpayers, to bring their complaint in the federal court system.
Taking one extreme, Justice Stephen Breyer asked a lawyer for the White House whether a taxpayer would be able to challenge a law in which Congress sets up a church at Plymouth Rock.
"I would say no," responded Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, but he added that such a church could be challenged in other ways - just not on the basis that a taxpayer has been injured. Clement is representing the Bush administration, which is trying to prevent the taxpayer suit over its aggressive promotion, through the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, of federal financial aid for religious charities.
Taking the opposite extreme, Justice Antonin Scalia asked a lawyer for the Wisconsin group, Andrew Pincus, whether taxpayers would be able to sue over the use of security money for a presidential trip where religion is discussed.
Pincus said that taxpayers would not have standing to do so, arguing that in such a case the money spent would be "incidental," and not central to the issue.
The case may turn on a 1968 Supreme Court decision that created an exception to the general prohibition on taxpayer challenges to the government spending of tax revenue. In an 8-1 decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the court allowed taxpayers to challenge congressional spending for private religious schools.
But the Bush administration says spending for speeches and meetings of executive branch officials does not involve spending federal money outside the government and therefore taxpayers are not entitled to challenge it.
At issue
In the current case, the Bush administration organizes conferences where faith-based organizations are allegedly singled out as being particularly worthy of receiving federal money.
The group challenging the Bush administration, called the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., characterizes the White House's initiative as a singling out of faith-based organizations to the exclusion of other organizations.
Last year, a federal appeals court allowed the group to pursue its lawsuit. Instead of going through Congress, President Bush issued executive orders to create the White House office and similar centers in 10 federal agencies during his first term.
One of the goals Bush set for these offices was to help religious and community groups compete for federal funding to fight poverty, substance abuse and other social problems.
The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago sided with the anti-religion group, and the Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court.
The case is Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., 06-157.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Caelus wrote:I feel really stupid for saying this but I don't actually understand what most of that said.
Maybe my wife can explain it to me...
shockwaveuk wrote:Caelus wrote:I feel really stupid for saying this but I don't actually understand what most of that said.
Maybe my wife can explain it to me...
If I'm understanding it correctly, the government wants to use taxpayer money to build a church, non-christian groups are challenging it on the basis they don't want their taxes contributing to building christian places of worship. That the gist of it?
Taking one extreme, Justice Stephen Breyer asked a lawyer for the White House whether a taxpayer would be able to challenge a law in which Congress sets up a church at Plymouth Rock.
Caelus says:
Do you understand this: http://seibertron.com/forums/viewtopic. ... sid=#38537
Caelus says:
?
Krsi says:
looking
Krsi says:
okay, it seems that the all knowing & powerful Pres Shrub has spent federal (tax) money on conferences praising Faith-based (religious) organizations and giving them federal (tax) monies
Krsi says:
A group of athests & agnostics are challenging the use of federal money, probably using Amend 1
Krsi says:
stating that either the gov't shouldn't be giving these groups money, or they should also give to non-faith based organizations
Krsi says:
Does that help?
Caelus says:
So has the govt given them money, or just spent money on conferences talking about giving them money?
Krsi says:
that is what I'm not sure about
Krsi says:
I'm reading a court transcript of the day it was argued
Krsi says:
I'm not sure they know either
Krsi says:
The problem is the courts are very selective in what establisment clause cases are brought to them, and the SC I don't think really cares for this one. It seems that they are having problems trying to figure out what the people are objecting to: if the gov't did this, would it be okay, what about this situation, that sort of thing
Caelus says:
Also, is this part: Taking one extreme, Justice Stephen Breyer asked a lawyer for the White House whether a taxpayer would be able to challenge a law in which Congress sets up a church at Plymouth Rock.
Krsi says:
yeah, I read that in the procedings, they keep not leting the lawyer answer
Caelus says:
Was that serious or hypothetical?
Krsi says:
hypothetical
Krsi says:
The WH lawyer, I think is saying that the gov't giving a rel org. money to build a church is okay, but the gov't building a church is not; in responce to the question. (okay, w/r to the est. clause)
Caelus says:
I think it's a poorly written article.
Krsi says:
yeah
Krsi says:
but it is getting its material from a court transcript that is kind of hard to read
Krsi says:
I would have been laughing my ass of if I was present
Krsi says:
the transcript reads like a school boy trying to tell a panel of teachers why he broke a rule, and that they are misintrupruting the rule in the first place
Caelus wrote:shockwaveuk wrote:Caelus wrote:I feel really stupid for saying this but I don't actually understand what most of that said.
Maybe my wife can explain it to me...
If I'm understanding it correctly, the government wants to use taxpayer money to build a church, non-christian groups are challenging it on the basis they don't want their taxes contributing to building christian places of worship. That the gist of it?
I think that was a hypothetical situation one of the justices was using to make his point. But it's really hard to tell by the way it's worded.Taking one extreme, Justice Stephen Breyer asked a lawyer for the White House whether a taxpayer would be able to challenge a law in which Congress sets up a church at Plymouth Rock.
Heres the thing though, you don't NEED more churches to be built, however, if you cut spending on the war it'll be harder to win.shockwaveuk wrote:Caelus wrote:shockwaveuk wrote:Caelus wrote:I feel really stupid for saying this but I don't actually understand what most of that said.
Maybe my wife can explain it to me...
If I'm understanding it correctly, the government wants to use taxpayer money to build a church, non-christian groups are challenging it on the basis they don't want their taxes contributing to building christian places of worship. That the gist of it?
I think that was a hypothetical situation one of the justices was using to make his point. But it's really hard to tell by the way it's worded.Taking one extreme, Justice Stephen Breyer asked a lawyer for the White House whether a taxpayer would be able to challenge a law in which Congress sets up a church at Plymouth Rock.
If that spending is oposed so could the spending on the war in the gulf by anti-war groups couldn't it?
Head Shot wrote:Heres the thing though, you don't NEED more churches to be built, however, if you cut spending on the war it'll be harder to win.shockwaveuk wrote:Caelus wrote:shockwaveuk wrote:Caelus wrote:I feel really stupid for saying this but I don't actually understand what most of that said.
Maybe my wife can explain it to me...
If I'm understanding it correctly, the government wants to use taxpayer money to build a church, non-christian groups are challenging it on the basis they don't want their taxes contributing to building christian places of worship. That the gist of it?
I think that was a hypothetical situation one of the justices was using to make his point. But it's really hard to tell by the way it's worded.Taking one extreme, Justice Stephen Breyer asked a lawyer for the White House whether a taxpayer would be able to challenge a law in which Congress sets up a church at Plymouth Rock.
If that spending is oposed so could the spending on the war in the gulf by anti-war groups couldn't it?
nicely put!Caelus wrote:Head Shot wrote:Heres the thing though, you don't NEED more churches to be built, however, if you cut spending on the war it'll be harder to win.shockwaveuk wrote:Caelus wrote:shockwaveuk wrote:Caelus wrote:I feel really stupid for saying this but I don't actually understand what most of that said.
Maybe my wife can explain it to me...
If I'm understanding it correctly, the government wants to use taxpayer money to build a church, non-christian groups are challenging it on the basis they don't want their taxes contributing to building christian places of worship. That the gist of it?
I think that was a hypothetical situation one of the justices was using to make his point. But it's really hard to tell by the way it's worded.Taking one extreme, Justice Stephen Breyer asked a lawyer for the White House whether a taxpayer would be able to challenge a law in which Congress sets up a church at Plymouth Rock.
If that spending is oposed so could the spending on the war in the gulf by anti-war groups couldn't it?
And spending money on the war doesn't come uncomfortably close to violating the legal seperation of Church and State.
This isn't about tax-payers having the right to decide what their money is spent on, this is about tax-payers having the right to protest the federal government spending their money in a manner that violates a major cornerstone of the U.S. constitution.
I think that's what it is about anyway.
and then there'sInstead of going through Congress, President Bush issued executive orders to create the White House office and similar centers in 10 federal agencies during his first term. One of the goals Bush set for these offices was to help religious and community groups compete for federal funding to fight poverty, substance abuse and other social problems.
and just for kicksAt issue
In the current case, the Bush administration organizes conferences where faith-based organizations are allegedly singled out as being particularly worthy of receiving federal money.
so now you know...The group challenging the Bush administration, called the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., characterizes the White House's initiative as a singling out of faith-based organizations to the exclusion of other organizations.
Last year, a federal appeals court allowed the group to pursue its lawsuit.
Wigglez wrote:Just remember. The sword is an extension of your arm. Use it as if you're going to karate chop someone with your really long sharp ass hand.
exactly why I stopped going to church around age 7 (not that my church did it, but hearing about stuff like that made me care less and less about religion as a whole.)Shadowman wrote:When I start paying taxes, I don't want them to use it on groups that burn children's fantasy books, and tell me that either I follow their rules, or go to hell.
I'm not saying all Christian groups do that, I just don't want to fund the ones that do.
Rodimus Lantern wrote:I am an Ordained minister and I honestly working on forming my own religion because the hypocrisy of it all makes me laugh.
America was founded as a Christian nation this is true. However due to the constitution a separation of Church and State was imposed. This separation has nothing to do with the line "One Nation under God" People who say that the separation of church and states forbids that line are clearly idiots. The separation of Church and State was instituted to guarantee that the central government never had a single secular religion associated like much of Europe.
Our Tax money should not be used to build a christian church. However if proper documents can be provided of a previous church that was located in Plymouth Rock then it would fall in as a replica of American History.
Just my $0.02
Caelus wrote:GUYS!
They aren't using tax payer money to build a church at Plymouth Rock. That was hyperbole, metaphor.
The issue is Bush is spending money to promote religiously based charities at the exclusion of nonreligiously based charities.
The US Government isn't building any churches!!!
Registered users: Bing [Bot], EvasionModeBumblebee, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MSN [Bot], Overcracker, Whifflefire