Are President Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives Constitutional?

[timetofight]

Has President Bush violated the US Constitution in initiating his faith based programs? Is this a matter that should be addressed by the Federal Courts? Is it Constitutional? I offer the below quotes, which are found in a long essay on the separation of church and state, at the link listed below:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. 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. Neither a state nor the Federal Government, can openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." (Justice Hugo Black, U. S. Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. Quoted by John M. Swomley, Jr., Religion, The State, & The Schools, New York: Pegasus, 1968, pp. 21-22.)

Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of nonreligion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. (U. S. Supreme Court, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 103 [1968], as quoted by Martha M. McCarthy, A Delicate Balance: Church, State, and the Schools, Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation, 1983, p. 173.)

Intellectual freedom is essential to human society. Freedom of thought is the only guarantee against an infection of people by mass myths, which, in the hands of treacherous hypocrites and demagogues, can be transformed into bloody dictatorships. (Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, 1921- , Russian nuclear scientist. From Henry O. Dormann, compiler, The Speaker's Book of Quotations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1987, p. 44.)

"The whisper becomes louder, then a voice is heard, and then crowds of voices, and eventually the whisper becomes the roar of change!" wjc


http://justanothercoverup.myblogsite.com

 

[Redneck Revolver]

i dont neccasarily AGREE with bush's views in regards to religion (at least not ALL of them) but its ridiculouse to think that his faith will not influence the decisions he makes or whether or not our faith in any particular thing will affect the decisions we make. thats more or less how people live their lives, by making decisions based on their own system of beliefs. the first amendment was, as stated, created to protect against persecution from the government. "congress shall make no law..." is very plain english in my mind. as to whether or not the president is right or not however in his initatives is another story.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. (U. S. Supreme Court, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 103 [1968], as quoted by Martha M. McCarthy, A Delicate Balance: Church, State, and the Schools, Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation, 1983, p. 173.)

So, is it neutral for the government to provide funds to help secular charities, but absolutely refuse to support faith-based charities? Faith-based charities often are already established and efficently run in areas where there may not be secular charities. If they are doing a good job, why not help out with the costs? As long as it's a soup kitchen or food bank or shelter, I see no reason why not to.

(You can guess how I voted.)

 

[Coltdriver]

Hugo Black was full of crap!

How the country got to be ruled by judges when they were never envisioned as the final word is beyond me.

 

[Rebar]

Phantom Warrior

+1

And yes, it's perfectly Constitutional.

 

[dolanp]

When Jefferson talked about the "wall of separation between church and state" (which is where the phrase is lifted, not from the Constitution which a great many people believe) he was addressing a group of Baptists in an attempt to assure them that the majority church of the state of Connecticut would not be allowed to persecute their minority beliefs. It had nothing to do with making sure that not a drop of money ever went to anything associated with religion.

As such, as long as Bush's plan is implemented equitably and not only to Christianity, for example, I see no reason why organizations who already devote their time to charity work can't get assistance that would otherwise go to less effective government-created programs.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Probably not, but if the criteria for receiving grants were such that both secular and religious charities could qualify, then it would be Constitutional, insofar as the dole is Constitutional at least. I expect the Christian super-majority to naturally slip some privileges around the First Amendment, so I haven’t investigated this issue too closely or worried about it very much.

~G. Fink

 

[Master Blaster]

if the criteria for receiving grants were such that both secular and religious charities could qualify, then it would be Constitutional, insofar as the dole is Constitutional at least

Thats how it works, faith based charities running social service agencies that provide services, to parolees, homless people, group homes for juvenile delinquents, low level community probation, foster care homes and training, adoption services, drug and alcohol counseling, and many other social services have been recieving government money and running these types of services, by paid contract for many years. They are doing it and quite well in your home town now as I type this. Catholic Charities, YMCA, The Jewish Federation, all run social service programs that get government money via a contract or a Grant, and they do a Damn fine job, in a very cost effective manner.

The Jewish Federation runs B'nai Brith House retirement communities/ old age homes, that provide assissted and non assisted living. They receive government subsidies, such as medicare and section 8 housing grants, and also provide funds from private charitable contributions.

My agency contracts with a Boys Town operation (Father Flannigan), and with Seton Villa, both of which are run by Catholic Charities for secure group and therapeutic group homes for at risk youth.

Most people of course buy the Liberal Crappolla they read and hear on TV that the government is violating the seperation of church and state.

But hey maybe you would like to host an abused juvenile sex offender in your home instead

 

[Standing Wolf]

Speaking strictly as a lifelong atheist, I'd say they probably are.

Speaking strictly as a libertarian, I'd say most of what passes for "welfare" is injurious to the nation and its recipients.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Thats how it works …

Great. All we we hear from Standing Wolf’s “leftist extremist†news media are the key words faith based. I wasn’t too concerned either way, even though I expect some abuse, as I said.

~G. Fink

 

[Talon]

I agree with StandingWolf, and I'm a lifelong Christian man.

Any contributions to any charity organization of any religious or non-religious origins are way out of place for the Government of the U.S. to be involved with.

Charities and Churches exist for the sole purpose of helping people in need.
Government exists for the sole purpose of providing for the common defense and conducting foreign relations. See the difference? It's not that complicated.

As such, I voted "no," it's not constitutional. But if you're going to give money to some, you gotta give it to everybody I suppose. It's a farse really.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Churches exist for the sole purpose of helping people in need.…

Talon, at the risk of hijacking the thread, what gives you this idea?

~G. Fink

 

[MaterDei]

Cool, a round table topic!

Coltdriver
+1

The judiciary is totally out of control. Of course so is Congress and the Executive branch, but not as much as the judiciary!

Come on Congress, do something. Eliminating federal courts (except the SCOTUS) is totally within their jurisdiction. They need to shut them down and reestablish new ones with different judges. Either that or impeach some of those activist judges who have overstepped their bounds. Personally, I think that starting from scratch would be much easier.

The Executive branch could also help by packing the courts with conservative judges.

Neither will act I'm afraid because the minority party in congress calls all the shots.

It's pathetic.

 

[Waitone]

At one time virtually all the social welfare functions (less the excesses) was provided by the religious community. Government moved in and crowded out charities.

Now the government wants to give free government money to charities. Any religious organization falling for it richly deserves every thing that will shortly come its way.

Someone point out to me where government control did not follow in short order government money? Government (for now) controls via the purse strings. I can not imagine religious institutions accepting government money. What will happen when the government through the agency of the courts begins to conflict with a particular religious group's beliefs. Confllict is inevitable.

 

[pax]

No RKBA or related content -- closed as off topic.

pax