| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
07 Sep 2007 05:51:06 AM |
| Object: |
Aid to Religion, fancy money laundering |
Originally posted by Humanist Carol in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
Council for Secular Humanism <dkoepsell@centerforinquiry.net> wrote:
Council for Secular Humanism
Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health
Vol.3 No.9
SPECIAL REPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY:
FAITH-BASED FUNDING: THE LAMENTABLE STATE OF THE LAW
By Ronald A. Lindsay
Among the questions often posed to me in my capacity as Legal Director for
the Center for Inquiry are “How can the government give money to religious
organizations? Isn’t that unconstitutional? Shouldn’t we file a lawsuit to
prevent this?” Unfortunately, as a result of the Supreme Court’s decisions
in recent years, the prevailing interpretation of the Establishment Clause
is that it does not forbid all aid to sectarian institutions. This article
and an article in next month’s newsletter will describe how we arrived at
this situation and how we can still try to enforce some limits on
government funding of religious organizations.
Based on modern Supreme Court jurisprudence, including decisions extending
well into the 1980’s, one might justifiably conclude that the Establishment
Clause does prohibit providing sectarian institutions, including parochial
schools, with public funds. For example, in Everson v. Board of Education,
330 U.S. 1 (1947), the Supreme Court unambiguously stated that the
Establishment Clause means, at the very least, that “No tax in any amount,
large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or
institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt
to teach or practice religion.” That certainly seems like an unqualified
ban on public money funding religious institutions.
However, the religious right and other forces that have pushed for
government support of religion have succeeded in obtaining a Supreme Court
and a federal judiciary that no longer adheres to a strict “no aid”
interpretation of the Establishment Clause. In fact, they have managed to
secure court rulings that arguably turn the Establishment Clause on its
head. Instead of ensuring that our tax dollars are not used to support
religious institutions, the Establishment Clause is now interpreted by some
as a vehicle for funneling money to religious institutions to ensure they
are treated “equally.” Far from prohibiting the government from funding
sectarian institutions, the Establishment Clause, according to some
jurists, including some members of the Supreme Court, supposedly permits
funding of religious institutions as long as similar funding is available
to nonreligious organizations that provide the same services. Pursuant to
this skewed interpretation of the Establishment Clause, hundreds of
millions of dollars (your dollars) are flowing to faith-based organizations
that supposedly provide needed social services.
It gets worse. Faith-based organizations that provide social services are
not supposed to use government grants for actual religious activities,
although monitoring of the use of these funds is negligible. But, in any
event, according to a 2002 Supreme Court decision, financial assistance can
be used to promote religious indoctrination if the assistance is provided
“indirectly,” as a result of allegedly independent choices by private
citizens or institutions. For example, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536
U.S. 639, the Court upheld a tuition assistance plan under which tuition
aid was provided to families, which could then use that money to send their
children to private schools. Even though the overwhelming majority of
schools that benefited from this plan were religious schools, and
state-funded tuition inevitably meant the state was funding instruction in
religious subjects, the Court majority concluded that this financial
support of religious indoctrination could not be attributed to the
government. Instead, because the families decided where to spend the money,
it was—wink, wink, nod, nod—their choice, not the government’s.
Thus, the legacy of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison has been
circumvented through a simple money-laundering scheme. Government gives
$3000 to a family, family sends their children to a Catholic high school, a
fundamentalist elementary school, or an Islamic charter school, and the
government disclaims any responsibility for religious indoctrination.
Finally, according to at least four justices of the Supreme Court, even
direct aid to pervasively religious organizations is permissible. In
Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 795 (2000), the plurality opinion authored by
Justice Thomas would have upheld direct government funding of pervasively
sectarian institutions as long as the funding serves a secular purpose.
Thus, you could have a thoroughly religious organization use government
money to finance religious indoctrination provided the publicly funded
services of the organization allegedly serve some secular purpose. This is
the rationale that many inmate “rehabilitation” programs have used to score
government cash for religious immersion programs.
Doesn’t Christianity or Judaism or Islam, etc. inevitably make you a better
person? And doesn’t transforming an inmate into a better person serve a
secular purpose? Fortunately, the deciding vote in Mitchell was supplied by
Justice O’Connor, so it is her concurring opinion that is controlling on
the proper interpretation of the Establishment Clause. O’Connor’s
concurrence specifies that direct financing of religious indoctrination
remains impermissible. Oh, wait, O’Connor is no longer on the Court.
Justice Samuel A. Alito has taken her place.
However, we should not become overly pessimistic. Despite the lamentable
state of the law, there are some limits on state sponsorship of religion
that we can try to enforce. I will discuss those next month.
Dr. Ronald A. Lindsay is Director of Research & Legal Affairs for the
Center for Inquiry. He is located at CFI’s Office of Public Policy in
Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------
***************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Aid to Religion, fancy money laundering |
07 Sep 2007 07:54:50 AM |
|
|
On Sep 7, 5:51 am, wrote:
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
How is it that money is "separated" from going from the government to
anyone religious, but the money of anyone religious is taxed and sent
to the government? Isn't that called taxation without
representation? Why is it that an "establishment of religion" is a
church when referring to who cannot be taxed but is any religious
group when it comes to getting funds FROM the government.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Aid to Religion, fancy money laundering |
07 Sep 2007 03:23:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1189169690.199664.190560@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
On Sep 7, 5:51 am, wrote:
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
How is it that money is "separated" from going from the government to
anyone religious,
Really?
Wow...
Since the non-religious in this country are only 5-15% of the
total popluation, then that must mean all the money is going
to us.
Where's my five billion, that's what *I* want to know.
but the money of anyone religious is taxed
So is mine. Or at least I thought it was.
Are you saying I didn't need to send in my taxes all those times?
and sent
to the government? Isn't that called taxation without
representation?
Whoa!! Religious people don't get to VOTE, either?
Man oh man, the things you can learn on Usenet.
Why is it that an "establishment of religion" is a
church when referring to who cannot be taxed but is any religious
group when it comes to getting funds FROM the government.
So, if the Federal government does not underwrite bowling
teams, then no one who bowls should have to pay taxes?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Aid to Religion, fancy money laundering |
07 Sep 2007 09:00:53 AM |
|
|
On Sep 7, 6:54 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 7, 5:51 am, wrote:
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Why is it that an "establishment of religion" is a
church when referring to who cannot be taxed but is any religious
group when it comes to getting funds FROM the government.
The exemption of churches from federal taxation is not required by the
Constitution. Instead, it is a policy choice made by Congress that
can be removed at any time.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Aid to Religion, fancy money laundering |
07 Sep 2007 01:37:48 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
How is it that money is "separated" from going from the government to
anyone religious,
It isn't. Your buddy Pat Robertson received more than $10 million in
matching funds in the 1988 presidential campaign, and he is religious.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DF173CF935A15750C0A964958260
but the money of anyone religious is taxed and sent
to the government?
The money of anyone living in the United States is taxed.
Isn't that called taxation without representation?
No.
Why is it that an "establishment of religion" is a
church when referring to who cannot be taxed but is any religious
group when it comes to getting funds FROM the government.
Your question makes no sense and is probably based on a faulty
understanding of what others have said, as usual.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
