Faith-based

Neda Bolourchi sent me this comment about the article yesterday about faith-based initiatives (I cite with her permission): "As'ad, I just wanted to write to you regarding the above link you included from the NYTimes. I don't know how much you know about the funding of faith based groups but what is entirely missing from the piece is a discussion (or in this instance a mention of the law). I don't know how anyone who "specializes" in secularism could not or would not mention the fact that the funding of faith based initiatives and groups under Bush was upheld by the Supreme Court (5-4) (there was technically a three way split but the end result was 5-4 from the "conservative" judges) in 2006 (at the end of the term..kinda like presidential pardons). Thus, while a bad decision by Clinton, enlarged beyond recognition by Bush, and now perpetuated by Obama (who at least reversed the Mexico Convention) exists, people should also know that those who sued did not have standing (see for how the case pretty easily got tossed before getting into the merits of the matter [well, ok, obviously, standing is an issue but not the heart]) exists there's no reason for it to be. I could go into how to reverse it but point being that people should actually know the truth and not the nonsense from the NYT: The nation's highest court ruled that taxpayers may not mount legal challenges against the government over funding to religious organizations unless Congress has specifically authorized the programs that provide the money. Citizens may not sue over purely discretionary actions of the President and his administration paid for out of general administrative funds, the court determined. That meant taxpayers had no right to sue the White House faith-based office over its conferences or other activities; lacking congressional support, the Bush Administration’s Faith-Based and Community Initiative had been advanced largely by executive orders issued by the President rather than legislative action.Before this case, courts did not make a distinction between executive or legislative responsibility for a government action when deciding whether citizens could mount a legal challenge against it based on church-state separation grounds. After the Hein decision, that distinction influenced the kind and number of lawsuits brought, and increased the tendency of defense attorneys to question plaintiffs’ standing before arguments about alleged constitutional violations were ever heard. () Not only should people be outraged at their tax-payer dollars going to faith based initiatives and organizations (which already get tax breaks) in violation of the constitution but in terms of legal ramifications, the decision has been reverbating ever since (beginning in the same week), cases and inquiries [in courts as well as agencies and departments] started getting tossed (or dismissed) as a a result. In general, while the idea of that article was good, the execution was horrible. The situation is much worse than Jacoby either knows, cares to know, or cares to let on. As usual, another person in a major outlet not knowing anything."