Supreme Court hands victory to Bush on faith-based initiatives »
Posted by: TechnologyExpert 1 year, 1 month ago185 Comments Report this Story
On a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a group of taxpayers did not have standing to sue the US government for its funding of faith-based initiatives with federal money.
Read Full Story at rawstory.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 185
-
0%
quackpot1 year, 1 month ago
Making Faith-based legal doesn't make it effective.
For the Executive branch (with consent from an effite Congress to continue pooring HUGE $$ into this demonstrated ineffective program is obscene.
Reply-
0%
gamahuche1 year, 1 month ago
'But in Alito's decision, the Justice was dismissive of the worries of the plaintiffs in the case.
"None of the parade of horribles respondents claim could occur...has happened," the Court's newest Justice wrote. "In the unlikely event any do take place, Congress can quickly step in."'
Hardly reassuring use of the English - or American - language.
It would be interesting to know a bit more about which "horribles" he is thinking about and how exactly Congress will "step in quickly.." [Is he talking about a veto?]
As a fervent advocate of the separation of government and religion having seen and experienced some of the worst possible excesses imaginable in various countries in Europe under Nazism and Communism this is about as far from making me whoop with joy as I can imagine.
Reply-
0%
SpazMat1 year, 1 month ago
I totally see the problem you have with healthy marriage!
Wait, did I read that right? What is wrong with that?
I looked 9 pages deep in google "Healthy Marriage Initiative", and the only things I found bad were that some people with a long record of marriage advocacy were paid to advocate marriage. Their crimes seem to be that they were also conservative, and (this one may be real, but did not lead to any charges) that they were not disclosing that they were paid by the Gov to continue to advocate for marriage.
The outcome is that the government is not allowed to hire anyone with a history of marriage advocacy who works for the media.
That is a stupid restriction.
I guess we should not hire anyone who has advocated diplomacy to be a diplomat.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01...
Reply -
0%
SpazMat1 year, 1 month ago
I looked at the link you provide, and it shows that some people work for the government, or get grant money, who happen to have a particular religion ("Moonies").
They are not hiding their religion, they are not allowed to proselytize.
So what if they are Moonies? So what if they are left, right, purple or what ever? I thought libs were supposed to be all for inclusion and diversity. Are you picking on them cause they are MOONIES? Do you only want people who think marriage is a lose lose situation should teach it?
Do they have to swear they are atheists or agnostics to apply?
Do you even care that good marriages have a healthy outcome for kids?
What are you complaining about that is legitimate?
Reply -
0%
coolwhip1 year, 1 month ago
You mean the guy that was coronated by congress?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04179/337795.stm
Reply -
0%
icono11 year, 1 month ago
I agree; this is a slippery slope the Court has stepped onto. As history has shown several times, whenever religion is involved to a great degree in the monetary affairs of the state or vice versa, then there is, under the guise of religion, a natural tendency for persecution against some members of a society while other members enjoy a privileged and or protected life style supported by the church/state. I think that is why the founding father's was rather adamant about a separation of church/religion and state.
Also, I would like a clarification of the word 'horribles' as used in the context of the decision.
Reply
-
0%
Lurch1 year, 1 month ago
I agree with both of you to some degree.
As a semi religious person who appreciates the benefits religion provides, I don`t like the politicization of the largest religious group in America through political purse strings. That said, religious groups have been historically very effective centers of charity for those who have fallen through the cracks of society. As a regular community volunteer I think this is an admirable initiative. The question is how to share the $ among all religions and regions for the greatest positive affect.
This is where I have trouble with the results.
Bush`s Faith-based initiatives have been politicized and have been proven ineffective. As a taxpayer I find this misuse or waste of our money offensive.
Why not apply NCLB type rigid testing to Faith-based initiatives in order to keep the money flowing?
Reply-
0%
quackpot1 year, 1 month ago
yes, it does depend on what you mean by Fiath-based. As applied by this administration, it has rsulted in billions going to ineffective AIDS programs and ineffective sex-"education" programs. There are, on the otherhand many "faith-based" initiatives in general eduation (pirvately funded Catholic schools for one) that have been effective in their missions.
Reply
-
-
0%
tiredofnonsense1 year, 1 month ago
"Making Faith-based legal doesn't make it effective. "
The fact is that the faith based agencies where more effective than non faith based before the question of making government money available. Unfortunately, with all the strings attached, few agencies will actually apply for the money.
Reply -
0%
KeyserSooze1 year, 1 month ago
"Making Faith-based legal doesn't make it effective."
The fact that it's faith based, doesn't make it bad or ineffective.
The point is that these groups were being hampered by unreasonably restrictive laws.
We give support to lots of groups who provide assistance to people in need, and faith based groups should not be excluded simply because christo-phoebic groups are going to have a tantrum about it.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
MajJohn1 year, 1 month ago
It will be so nice for luvmyprez and me not to be annoyed by your presence (in heaven) and it is euphoric to know we are righteous. By the way you said the agnostics were bad, we didn't. That's the thing about being a Christian, we're all inclusive, too bad you're not. We can still pray for you whether you like it or not.
Reply
-
-
0%
Dave531 year, 1 month ago
note that separation of church and state is a constructed doctrine out of the constitution that merely says that the government shall not establish a religion (ie. church of England type).
Now some would make any relationship between religion and the state illegal. Quite a stretch.
Reply -
0%
Vehre1 year, 1 month ago
Things like the Freedom From Religion Foundation are why, however mad/disappointed I may be with W, I can never be a liberal or a Democrat.
Especially in the inner city, faith-based groups are highly effective ways to deliver services and assistance ot the underprivileged. Some may have records of dishonesty, but not great majority. Phoney,money-grubbing televangelists are not the kind of people I'm talking about, but the inner-city churches and mainistries.
The thing I'm not comfortable about is the ability of these groups to exclude others from working with them. It seems to me that if you take public money you should not then be able to turn people away either from working as volunteers or from receiving services because they are not part of your group. Not that private groups shouldn't be able to decide with whom to associate--that's a civil right the ACLU does NOT support--but that if they take money from society as a whole, they lose the right to be exclusive.
Reply-
0%
coolwhip1 year, 1 month ago
Oh yes, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is eeeeeevil!
These are some of the anti-American things they have done:
"In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery."
Reply
-
-
0%
libsRfunny1 year, 1 month ago
So they prefer people suffer instead of getting help. I bet a faith-based charity is far more efficient with the funds it gets than "professional" charities that gobble up most of the funds while lining their pockets.
Reply-
-
0%
Jaydee401 year, 1 month ago
Because only a fool would not recognize the power grab the extreme religious right is making on the countries political landscape. These people call them self Christians but don't have the traditional Christian values we all learned and remember. They call themselves Evangelicals, or Fundamentalist's or similar names but they have a very nationalistic view of religion and a strong right leaning aim for the country. Many of these people find nothing wrong with the brainwash of very young children as at the infamous Jesus Camp. These people must not gain control of your government at any cost.
Reply
-
-
0%
Lurch1 year, 1 month ago
libs,
> I bet a faith-based charity is far more efficient with the funds it gets than "professional" charities that gobble up most of the funds while lining their pockets.
How do you know?
I want data backing this up because I know that the Red Cross for example is quite effective at providing support to people in need, whereas abstinence only faith based programs have been shown to be a waste of funds.
It should not be a faith vs no-faith; that is just politicization of religion and charity.
The question should be which charities demonstrate the greatest achievement per $ towards their stated goals.
Reply-
0%
SpazMat1 year, 1 month ago
The red cross has had their share of scandals, too.
And really, the onus is on you, since you want to discriminate against these organizations based on their religion, which they are not allowed to share with these funds.
And I agree with your choice of a metrics.
Reply -
0%
SpazMat1 year, 1 month ago
But just for grits and shins,
Red Cross, program services, the closest thing I can find to talking about amount spent vs amount arriving at help site, in thousands (from page 4)
Total Expenses: 5,300,778
Financial and material assistance:2,241,000
That is 42% of expanses getting on the ground
or try:
Program services: 5,300,778
Supporting services: 3,427,869
(5.4/(3.4 5.3)) = 61% (I rounded up)
http://www.redcross.org/pubs/car06/2006CFS.pdf
World Vision (in millions) (from page 5)
Programs services: 819
Fund raising and Mngt and general: 127
(819/(819 127)) = 86% (I rounded down)
http://worldvision.org/resources.nsf/main/2006_...
For the record, this is where I give, up and beyond my tax dollars. (Since I am affiliated with them, and religious, according to the rules of the healthy marriage initiative, I would not be allowed to advocate for them. Cool, huh?)
Reply
-
-
0%
NelsonR1 year, 1 month ago
Oh right, give the Church's the money to donate, they are so charitable and tax free already. The U.S. is inundated with numerous poor, homeless and needy now. Where are all these donations every Sunday going to now? The needy get crumbs while the donors get Sunday redemption for sins of the past week. I think a doner should donate himself and not rely on past Church's practices or other charitable groups to squander his proceeds.
Reply-
0%
Teech1 year, 1 month ago
The churches love it! Billions of dollars of taxpayer money for programs that do no good except to squander money and push the religious right agenda. But the "administrative costs" that the churches skim off the top sure help to build those fancy churches and cathedrals.
How about condoms with Jesus Saves written on them, that would work better. I'd agree with birth control pills with little crosses on them.
When will the Bush regime decide that Southern Babtist will be the official religion of the U.S.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
SpazMat1 year, 1 month ago
Will they be able to advocate before the 2008 election anytime before 2011?
Reply -
-
-
0%
Twilightreader1 year, 1 month ago
Thank God that they are because someone's got to fight, and I think that the U.S.A. should require all able-bodied citizens to serve at least two years in the military.
Reply
-
-
0%
quackpot1 year, 1 month ago
YEP! All those studies showing that faithbased approaches to sex-education are at best ineffective were done by COMMUNISTS!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago
They are, but just how many "faith based" organizations, using our tax dollar would spend it on "pro-choice" advertisements
and supoport "pro-choice" candidates?
None!
All of these "faith based" efforts are supposed to be apolitical.. these advertisements clearly cross the line!
I am not pro-choice, but I do not want my tax dollars being spent on political ads...
THAT is the issue!
Reply-
0%
SpazMat1 year, 1 month ago
Right. You want to restrict Planned Parenthood from promoting anti life advertisements and anti life candidates? They get hundreds of MILLION of dollars of tax payer money!
Why should churches be a-political if other non-profits and not-for-profits are allowed to be? Unions and other organizations that are covered by the same tax-exempt laws that religious organizations are covered by are allowed to be political.
A church or religious organization being political is not the government making laws establishing it. It is a group of citizens getting together around what they believe and affecting policy.
Reply
-
-
0%
SpazMat1 year, 1 month ago
Yes, all of them. The metric should be how well they do the job, not whether they believe any particular thing (or not, atheists and agnostics are allowed in to).
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago
More like Jimmy Swaggart's and Jim Baker's faith based
anti-prostitution program..
You see, it's like this..
You go to their nighborhood, pay them money, have sex,
and then you try to redeem their souls..
Or was that after the 8th time??
Ohhhhhhh, you're supposed to do it
BEFORE
you take your clothes off...
Well, so much for that program!
Reply -
0%
SpazMat1 year, 1 month ago
From 8.7 billion, the red cross actually puts out 2.6 billion in financial and material assistance.*
So, the Red Cross "siphons" off over two thirds (really 69%) of it's budget. But that is lies, damn lies and statistics.
I think you should go out and look at the fiscal effectiveness of some of your non-faith based groups before you point fingers.
* page 4 (Financial and Material assistance vs totals of Program and Supporting services)
http://www.redcross.org/pubs/car06/2006CFS.pdf
Reply
-
-
-
0%
mcarpentry1 year, 1 month ago
Great news, thanks Supreme Court. Great article TechnologyExpert.
Reply -
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 1 month ago
The White House program appears to have had a substantial impact.
Among the programs: Substance abuse treatment, housing for AIDS patients, community re-entry for inmates, housing for homeless veterans and emergency food assistance.
No wonder DemLibs and atheists are fighting the programs so vigorously......
Reply-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 1 month ago
With the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, President Bush says he wants to level the playing field. Religious charities and secular charities should compete for government money on an equal footing.
Taxpayers in the case "set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur" unless the court stopped the Bush administration initiative, wrote Justice Samuel Alito. "Of course, none of these things has happened."
White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore called the ruling "a substantial victory for efforts by Americans to more effectively aid our neighbors in need of help."
She said the faith-based and community initiative can remain focused on "strengthening America's armies of compassion."
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago
He is going..in 2008..
and Thank God is right!!
Will you love your next prez? I hope!!
Don't be selective now...
Thanks for inviting me to this thread.
Have a cool summer!
Reply
-
-
0%
Lurch1 year, 1 month ago
KOT,
you`re such the socialist! (just kidding)
I think the reason Dems and others might be fighting some of the initiatives you mentioned is because that`s what they had been doing for years without federal $ and then suddenly somebody sticks a `Faith-based` label on the project and the taxpayer money suddenly comes rolling in, to the Johnny-come-lately.
Where is the data on what program or what approach is more effective?
Reply -
0%
quackpot1 year, 1 month ago
Why re-package these social programs under the title "faith-based"?
I wonder if the reason is to make compassion for the unfortuate palatable to the neocons? If so, I applaude the Bush administration.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
bubba21 year, 1 month ago
ANY and ALL organizations that are registered with the federal government as non-profit entities (e.g., 501(c)3, etc.) are REQUIRED by law to have their financial records open and available to the public at any time.
I am affiliated with several non-profit orgs and I do know that this is the law.
If you go to a group that is registered as non-profit and ask to see their financial records and they refuse, you can report them to the IRS.
Reply
-
