Legislative Prayer During Sessions of Lowell City Council
PR Newswire (press release) -
New York, NY, USA
---excerpt---
Legislative Prayer During Sessions of Lowell City Council
WORCESTER, Mass.,
March 6
PRNewswire-USNewswire
Ronal Madnick, President of the Massachusetts Chapter of the Americans
United for
Separation of Church and State will attend the Lowell City Council meeting
tonight.
A fax and letter was sent March 5, 2007 to the mayor, vice mayor and
councilors of the City of Lowell, Massachusetts. The letter was written to
advise them, "regarding the constitutional boundaries within which
legislative prayers must take place. Sectarian prayers--which include any
prayer which include language specific to any particular faith--are
constitutionally impermissible ... proposed plans to incorporate sectarian
prayers from other religions by alternating or rotating them with the
Lord's Prayer, or by delivering them in addition to the Lord's Prayer,
would merely compound--not cure--the constitutional violation ...
Accordingly, we strongly urge you to promptly cease opening council
meetings with the Lord's Prayer and to reject any proposals that call for
the presentation of additional sectarian prayers.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-06-2007/0004540877&EDATE=
Oath-Taking and the Bible
Up & Coming Magazine - Fayetteville,NC,USA But our courts have shown
that, when it comes to questions of separation of church and state, they
are
willing to set aside hundreds of years of customary ...
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1147&dept_id=483434&newsid=18046524&PAG=461&rfi=9
ACLU Challenges Tax-Exempt Churches
Evening Bulletin - Philadelphia,PA,USA
Writing for the Court in Everson, Justice Hugo Black concluded, "The First
Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. ...
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18043497&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6
Lessons From the Faith of the US Founding Fathers By Michael and Jana Novak
That is why it is no surprise that Jefferson chose for the audience of his
letter on "the wall of separation between church and state" a Baptist
convocation. He knew whence came the social strength for religious liberty.
http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2007/03/lessons-from-the-faith-of-the-us-founding-fathers/>
Edwards Belief Net Interview: Jesus Would Be Appalled By Faithful
Progressive(Faithful Progressive) I do believe in the separation of church
and state. But I don't think separation of church and state means you have
to be free from your faith. My faith informs everything I think and do.
It's part of my value system. ...
http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/2007/03/edwards-belief-net-interview-jesus.html
Standing Tall: Rutherford Founder Speaks Out For The Right To Sue
By Rob Boston
But Whitehead is astute enough to realize that the proper relationship
between church and state will only be harder to determine if Americans
can't
even get their cases into the courts. He also understands that a narrow
definition of ...
http://blog.au.org/2007/03/06/standing-tall-rutherford-founder-speaks-out-for-the-right-to-sue/
The Wall of Separation
<http://blog.au.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separation of Church and State - Malaysian experience?
By keropok lekor
When we talk about separation between Church/Mosque and State, we are not
suggesting a dichotomy between religion and society as spheres of human
activity. We are suggesting the need to separate religious institutions
from
state ...
http://extremeweight.blogspot.com/2007/03/separation-of-church-and-state.html
John Edwards, Teetering Atop the Church-State Wall By Jim I think you have
to be careful about how you implement it for all of the separation of
church and state issues, because you don't want discrimination. You don't
want federal money going to any organization, including a faith-based group
....
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/03/06/john-edwards-teetering-atop-the-church-state-wall/
Yes, They Have Standing to Sue
http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1172656994120&hub=Commentary
Supreme Court weighs taxpayer challenges under the establishment clause
By John W. Whitehead
Legal Times
March 5, 2007
Do Americans have a right to challenge how bureaucrats spend their tax
dollars? That is what the Supreme Court must decide in Hein v. Freedom From
Religion Foundation. Yet what should be a clear question of standing is
viewed by some as just another round in the fight over separation of church
and state — and that’s unfortunate.
The facts are relatively straightforward: The Freedom From Religion
Foundation believed that aspects of President George W. Bush’s Faith-Based
and Community Initiatives program violate the First Amendment’s
establishment clause. The foundation filed a lawsuit against the executive
branch of the U.S. government. Specifically, the foundation took issue with
seminars — planned and paid for by administration officials — that
encourage faith-based (particularly Christian) groups to seek federal
grants. Because these conferences do not benefit secular humanitarian
organizations, the foundation concluded that they constitute improper
support or endorsement of religion, while treating non-Christians as
outsiders.
The foundation’s complaint portrays the conferences, which are organized by
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives offices within several executive
departments, as propaganda vehicles for religion. A report from the
Government Accountability Office estimated that these offices spent more
than $24 million between 2002 and 2005 “on administrative activities
related to the Initiative.”
According to the foundation’s lawsuit, at the conferences, faith-based
organizations “are singled out as being particularly worthy of federal
funding” and “the belief in God is extolled as distinguishing the claimed
effectiveness of faith-based social services.” The complaint cited several
specific events as evidence, including speeches “singling out alleged
exemplary stories and anecdotes, all of which focused on faith-based
organizations, to the exclusion of other organizations,” and preferential
funding for faith-based organizations.
For example, in 2002, then-Secretary of Education Rod Paige reportedly told
religious leaders at a faith-based initiatives meeting in Washington, D.C.,
that President Bush established the program “because he knows firsthand the
power of faith to change lives,” that “[w]e are here because we have a
president who . . . is a true man of God — a man who prays every day,” and
“we can make America a better place.” Paige also praised faith-based
initiatives as a way for “good people” to “act on their spiritual
imperative.”
HEARD IN COURT?
Clearly, given the statements and actions of the Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives program, there is reason for concern that the executive branch
might be overstepping the bounds of the establishment clause. In rebuffing
the foundation’s challenge, however, government lawyers have consistently
argued that where the spending is a decision made by executive-branch
officials, taxpayers have no right to be heard in court.
As a rule, taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the legality of the
use of government funds. But in its 1968 ruling in Flast v. Cohen, the
Supreme Court held that when funds are being used to aid religion,
taxpayers do have standing to assert that an exercise of Congress’ taxing
and spending power violates the establishment clause. In relating this to
Hein, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit rejected the Bush
administration’s attempt to create a distinction between executive and
legislative spending. There the court pointed out that the Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives program was created by executive order, although it
is paid for by funds appropriated by Congress for the general operations of
the executive branch.
The Supreme Court must now decide whether taxpayers can bring the question
of the constitutionality of the program before a court.
Because Hein involves government funds being funneled to overtly Christian
groups, all the usual suspects have made an appearance. And suddenly, what
should be a question of standing has been transformed into a debate over
where to draw the line in the separation of church and state.
On one side are groups such as Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and
Justice and the Foundation for Moral Law, which claim to be acting in the
best interests of Christians.
Voicing their support for the government’s faith-based initiatives program,
these groups argue that taxpayers should not be able to challenge
government actions because it will lead to a rash of misguided,
anti-religious litigation.
On the other side are groups such as American Atheists and Americans United
for Separation of Church and State, which believe that no tax money should
be spent to advance religion. In siding with the foundation and the lower
court’s ruling in Hein, they defend the taxpayer’s right to challenge
inappropriate government spending.
THE GREATER THREATS
While the motives of both sides are somewhat suspect, the arguments put
forth by the Christian groups siding with the government fall on the wrong
side of the church-state divide.
Because faith-based initiatives programs seem to favor Christians, these
groups have aligned themselves with the current administration. But by
relying on the artificial distinction between spending decisions by
Congress and those by the executive branch, these particular Christian
groups have taken an overly narrow view of the issue and thus failed to see
the bigger picture — and the greater threats to religious freedom.
For example, would these same Christian groups be equally supportive if the
White House — under a president not so sympathetic to Christians — decided
to purchase menorahs for display in federal offices? What if the executive
branch opted to produce pamphlets extolling the virtues of Wicca? Or what
if, as Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit pointed out, the homeland
security secretary decided that in order to reduce the threat of domestic
terrorism by al Qaeda, the U.S. government should build a mosque and employ
an imam to conduct Islamic services using the agency’s general funds?
Clearly, these actions would constitute endorsement of religion in
violation of the establishment clause. Yet under the standing rule
advocated by the government, taxpayers could not bring a challenge.
Let me state that there is nothing wrong with faith-based initiatives, as
long as the funds support social programs. But secular humanitarian
organizations, many of which provide crucial services to the poor and
underprivileged, should also have equal access to these funds.
And churches should be aware that they cross an important line when they
begin taking government money. Inevitably strings will be attached, and
churches then run the risk of the government dictating exactly how those
funds are to be used — a clear entanglement of government in religion.
But that is an altogether different debate. For now, all that must be
decided in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation is whether taxpayers
have a right to object to possible government misuse of funds in violation
of the establishment clause. In the end, this is a right that American
taxpayers should have.
John W. Whitehead, a constitutional lawyer and author, is founder and
president of the Rutherford Institute.
_________________________________________________________
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
