Faith Based initiatives....are they constitutional or not????

Question

What do you think. If you were a supreme court justice, how would you vote on this question, and how would you explain your decision?

Answer 1

I would consider how they can be abused. Is the government favoring any religion in handing them out? Is the government discriminating against any religion in handing them out? Lets say that a church of satan applied for one. Do you think they would receive it? Lets say that there are 50 of them available and 50 christian groups applied and 50 muslim groups applied. Do you think they would be handed out in proportion to the number of religions that applied?

Even if they are no cases of discrimination today, how do we prevent that in the future?

Next up, lets consider how these initiatives are being used. Will the church discriminate against those from other religions who come for the aid or service? Since it is government money, the people providing the aid or service need to be 100% impartial to religion. If a person came to a christian ran, government funded program with a shirt that said "satan rocks", do you think the person would be treated differently than a person who came in wearing a shirt that said "jesus rocks". I believe that there will be a difference there. Therefore, I do not support the idea of faith based initiatives.


alleninthehills
The problem is not people turning down help because it comes from religion. The problem is that religion has a very long and rich history of only paying attention to their own. There are many people who will gladly let a "non-believer" suffer and not get the benefits they are supposed to receive. How would you feel if you went for a government benefit and you were ignored because you were not of the correct religion. How about if you were pushed to the back of the line or just plain told not to come back to them because you had different religious beliefs. Faith based initiatives will be a weapon used by churches to discriminate against people.

Answer 2

The recent Court decision allowed the faith-based initiatives--but only on what amounted to a technicality (also--a 5-4 decision)--and in my opinion, it amounts to saying the plaintiffs didn't set up their arguements well (thus not giving the Court due cause to declare the program unconstitutional).

Personally, I would have sided with the minority--technicalities or no. The clear intent of the program is to support religious activities--which is unconstitutional. The Court has been clear about this in the past. The govrnment may support humanitarian activities by a religious orginazation--if the activities don't advocate for the religious doctrine, etc.

The "faith-based" initiatives do give a superficial nod to that principle--but the intent and practice is, given thenature of the program--clearly to channel funds to religiousorganizations and NOT to non-religious organizations. That--and there is ample precedent for this view--is NOT constitutional.

That being said, here's my prediction: either Congress will abolish the program in 20009 or a better prepared challenge will convince the Court to toss this program out (possibly after the Court shifts back from its current conservative imbalance. That, BTW, is highly likely--Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas all have been onthe Court a long time already. One or more will retire inthe next 9 years.

Answer 3

They are Constitutional only in to the degree that it does not violate the “establishment clause” as some have alleged. It does however violate the 10th Amendment in my opinion which sets limits on what the Federal government can do policy wise. As a libertarian, I am opposed to the idea for the same reasons I oppose the use of my tax dollars for anything other than those things listed in the Constitution as the actual duty of the Federal government.

The concept of a wall of separation between church and State is not in the Constitution, was not considered by the Founders and is a deliberate attempt to force a particular zeitgeist upon the people via judicial fiat. The Founders simply wanted to prevent the Federal government from establishing a national religion and more importantly, doing anything that would infringe upon the rights of an individual to practice his/her religion. To understand this merely requires an appreciation of their history. They came from places where there were official State religions. One could not advance in society economically, socially or politically unless one was a member of that official faith. Jews had to convert to Christianity or at least pretend to. Protestants had to hide their faiths in Catholic countries and vice versa. One could not even attend schools if his faith conflicted with the dominant culture. These were some of the points upon which the “establishment clause” was predicated.

Answer 4

Definitely unconstitutional. Faith based initiatives are only christian based initiatives. Even if other religions were supported it would still be unconstitutional.
I expect the Supreme Court to support collusion between church and state. Even supporting making the Roman Bible the Law of the Land similar to Al Qaeda. The Supreme Court is now the enemy of the Constitution. They're a bunch of ultrachristians. If they believed in the Constitution, Reagan and the Bushes would not have nominated them.

Answer 5

If I were addressing the issue from the Bench, I would look at the manner in which those programs were attempting to address the underlying problems.

If they were using neutral (secular, or non-religion-specific faith-based) means, then it would matter if they were run by religious organizations -- the fact that the groups were not using religion as the process means that it would be valid.

However, if the group was using one particular religion, and promoting faith in that one particular religion, as the method for resolving the underlying problem, that is promotion of a specific religion and not something that can be govt funded.

Answer 6

If people get fed, clothed, housed. Trained, educated, helped, If children have a youth center, if mothers have baby sitters, if people have a friend to talk to, and no matters of religion are pushed, advocated, or advanced, is that not the point? or is it still better to let the failing institutions that we have, keep waisting funds to accomplish nothing. If you are homeless and a christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist offers you and your family shelter from the storm, would you turn it down? if so, you need help we cant give.

Answer 7

Maybe. If I were ruling on a particular case, I would be looking to see to what extent religion intrudes into what presumably should be a civil matter; if there is significant intrusion, it's history. There is quite a lot of law interpreting the "estalishment of religion" clause, and those precedents would generally be binding.

Answer 8

What's a faith based initiative?

If you're talking about faith based charity organizations being able to apply for federal funding using the same criteria as secular organizations where they were previously excluded, then yes, they are constitutional.

Answer 9

The presidential office of faith based initiatives is not constitutional.

Let's be truthful and call it what it is.

This is the office of establishment of religion.

A skunk by any other name still smells just as bad.

Enough of religion hijacking the government to enforce religious dogma.

Answer 10

Can I get government funds for my Rastafarian initiative?