Comments on: On Faith Based Initiatives

By: KevinH

KevinH — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:34:11 +0000

I don’t doubt that if the government wanted to distribute money even among many different religious charities then that would pass constitutional muster, and is basically the current policy.

But your reasoning goes a bit further than that. It says that the government MUST distribute money equally to religious organizations even if those organizations don’t meet a government selected criteria. I can see how the Civil Right’s Act stands in the way of this particular requirement, but again that can overruled by a simple majority of congress.

By: Chuck Norton

Chuck Norton — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:23:21 +0000

Hi Kevin, I agree that hiring laws are more restrictive then association laws, but that is in the context of the private sector so it can fall under commercial activity using Congresses power to regulate interstate commerce (at least that is the justification they like to use since the stack the Court threat during the new deal). However in the case of church groups, missions, or the Scouts, they have a cultural, social, political, or religious mission and First Amendment coverage of THAT is a no brainer. You read the decision in the Rosenburger case. It seems pretty clear that as long as the charity money is given neutrally among non religious charities and religious charities the establishment clause doesnt apply.

By: RRRocks

RRRocks — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:52:21 +0000

I’m not sure that the issue is something anyone would want to take to the supreme court. You want free government money they follow our rules. I see no problem with that.

The really decitful tact being taken here is that in the current funding practice one must get in line, find a grant and apply for it. People like the reverend Wright are going to be rejected because of the amount of non controversial applications for grants.

Under Obama’s plan those who are standing in the Rev. Wrights way and groups like him which are highly political while being a church would have no problem accepting the hiring and firing laws contingent upon receiving loads of money to do the work of the democratic party.

This in effect will creat a giant 527 for the democratic party so that political churchs can under the cover of this program proselytize not religious converts but POLITICAL CONVERTS.

Those groups currently getting the grants would drop out as they would not want to fall under federal guidelines.

What a guy this Obama.

By: Kevin H

Kevin H — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:41:47 +0000

and, Boy Scouts of America v Dale was ALSO a 5 to 4 decision. Dissenting there is even more extreme, as it didn’t deal with public funds OR hiring, rather simply the right to associate.

Government sponsorship of Scout Troops has never been directly tested in the Supreme Court, but it looks highly questionable as special exception by congress has been deemed required to get BSA access to public school and city money.

And remember, that just for allowing the BSA to exclude gays as members. Hiring laws are generally accepted as much stricter than association laws. I think it’s pretty clear that a simple congressional vote could bring Obama’s vision into being.

By: Chuck Norton

Chuck Norton — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:28:03 +0000

Kevin, I disagree with your constitutional interpretation. Just because the Court has not ruled on this exact hiring question under this specific circumstance, does not mean that it isn’t or cant be a constitutional issue. The Court has ruled on some of the peripherals of this issue in a way that seems consistent with my argument in my view. I appreciate your argument nonetheless.

By: Kevin H

Kevin H — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:12:48 +0000

Oh, and the 4 dissenting votes on Rosenberger v. Univ Virginia are still on the court, so a 6-3 or a 7-2 decision is never going to happen.

By: Kevin H

Kevin H — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:09:50 +0000

Chuck, if even attempting to curb any right were illegal, then the government couldn’t sign on to any non-discolure agreement, or litigation waiver (due process), or just about anything. Basically every single contract involves someone giving up a right to something. That’s just how it works.

Even Rosenberger V Univ of Virginia was a 5-4 decision, and that dealt with speech directly rather than just hiring practices. It could be that the current court would strike down hiring practice limitations, but it is far far from automatic.

Also, this is NOT a Constitutional issue. Hiring practices of religious intitutions are protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII, not the constitution. Therefore even if it were deemed illegal as an executive order, Congress could make it legal by a simple majority vote.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:13:15 +0000

I just find it a simple double standard. The super-left yelled when W came up with faith-based initiatives, now Obama wants the same thing and it’s okay?

By: Chuck Norton

Chuck Norton — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:41:16 +0000

Kevin H, since the government has to guarantee equal justice and equal protection, for the government to make a contract with a stipulation to surrender first amendment freedom of expressive association rights for people of faith, is discriminatory against people of faith. It is religious bigotry and in violation of not only the rules of common decency, but the First Amendment as well. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths so many on the left will go to supress others who have religious, cultural and political views that they dont like.

By: RRRocks

RRRocks — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:58:58 +0000

This is just one more way for the Nanny Staters to get more welfare to the needy. Who is benefiting here? Not the Churchs. They are non profit oranizations who can only spend the money on works to help people in need.

Thus what we have is just another Veiled attempt at providing more welfare to those in need when we ought to be in the business of balancing the budget and paying down the debt.