Ruling Knocks Out State Funds To Churches

[CMF Newsman]

Rep. Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown) said he received a state attorney's general opinion today stating "it is unconstitutional to use state taxpayer dollars to further religion by providing unrestricted Community Enhancement Grants to churches."

Rep. Kelsey said, "Giving pork to churches or church youth groups with no restrictions on how it is spent violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"If taxpayers want to give to charitable organizations, they should do it as individuals. The government shouldn't pick and choose which charities receive taxpayer dollars and which don't."

The Community Enhancement Grants ultimately passed the legislature Monday evening as part of the budget, HB 2353, but survived in a different form from that proposed by the House Democratic leadership. Rather than being distributed in each district solely based on the choices of individual legislators, $20 million dollars will now be aggregated and distributed to certain charities, including churches, which apply for the grants, Rep. Kelsey said.

www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_108811.asp

[Felix]

What part of "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" do so many politicians and others not understand? Giving funds to churches effectively endorses religion itself, especially Christianity, since that is by far the dominant faith in this country.

Arguments about only supporting the charitable activities of churches are beside the point.

Churches already are tax-exempt, that is more than enough support.

[Gary]

"If taxpayers want to give to charitable organizations, they should do it as individuals. The government shouldn't pick and choose which charities receive taxpayer dollars and which don't."

Quoted for Truth.

[stray]

WOOT!

[el Gusano]

I agree completely.

But, they need to cut funding to all religions, not just Christian churches. (Think about the Muslim library in New England that was being funded by the government, because "it would be open to all". Well, most churches fall into that category.)

They also need to cut out all charity, and let the churches take that back over. There is much more accountability when there's a face attached and not merely a number.

[tncoaster37]

Marvell, the constitution says establishment of religion not fund it. In order to establish anything you have to create it first. Since government is not creating a religion thus doesn't violate the ammendment.

[bernardjenkins]

but once establish if it is recognized or accepted by government funding than there is an issue.

[Kordax]

Supreme Court had something positive to say on this issue today ....

[Felix]

Kordax's "something positive:"

The Supreme Court today threw out a suit against the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives as violating the Establishment of Relgion clause of the Bill of Rights.

The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is a calculated pandering to those who want government to endorse religion. The decision today ruled on the standing of the organizations filing the suit against the OFBI, not specifically on the legitimacy of government support of religion. Justices Scalia and Thomas, however, held that a previous ruling ( Flast v. Cohen) which allowed exceptions for taxpayer suits on this subject, was in error.

From the Washington Post:

Justice David H. Souter wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Yesterday's decision "closes the door on these taxpayers because the Executive Branch, and not the Legislative Branch, caused their injury," he wrote. "I see no basis for this distinction in either logic or precedent."