Court to decide on church-state split

Herald Sun ^ | 2 December 2006

[Aussie Dasher]

THE US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a challenge can go forward arguing that President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative violates the constitutional requirement on church-state separation.

The justices said they would hear a Bush administration appeal of a ruling that allowed a lawsuit by a Wisconsin group called the Freedom from Religion Foundation and three of its members to proceed.

In January 2001, right after he became president, Mr Bush issued an executive order creating he White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and similar centres in a number of federal agencies.

The White House said the purpose was to help religious and community groups compete for federal funding and to eliminate "unnecessary legislative, regulatory and other bureaucratic barriers" to their efforts to provide social services.

The lawsuit said administration officials violated the Constitution by organising national and regional conferences at which faith-based groups were singled out as being especially worthy of federal funding due to their religious orientation.

[Aussie Dasher]

This will be a REAL test of the new Justices.

[oceanview]

the new justices are fine.

anthony kennedy is the one to watch. he decides it.

[kinoxi]

violates the constitutional requirement on church-state separation.

Where is this at?

[Tanniker Smith]

Where is this at?

At the cross-roads of Emanations and Penumbra.

[kinoxi]

I thought they had confibulators stationed out there. I should restune my beeber.

[Tanniker Smith]

Ummmmm.....

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!

[backtothestreets]

The US Supreme Court will base the decision upon decisions rendered by earlier US Supreme Court decisions. What the court will not do is cast aside those earlier decisions. Such necessary action is a function of amending the Constitution.

At the core of this issue is the supposed separation of church and state. Note the First Amendment placed prohibitions upon ONLY Congress on the establishment of religion. The basis for this prohibition being exercised upon states is the result of a 1925 ruling by the Taft Supreme Court that held the Fourteenth Amendment required this prohibition be expanded to include states, not just Congress.

Now, I'm well aware there have been calls to pass amendments allowing prayer in school, the posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, and such other recommendations. In these current times when I see Islam being forced down our throats by the federal government (including the current Supreme Court*), I'd be satisfied with a single amendment stating only the Congress is prohibited from the establishment of religion. The states and local communities handled the issue quite well for the 150 years before before the landmark 1925 Supreme Court decision.

*On October 3 of this year, the US Supreme Court refused to hear a case involving a California public High School teaching students Islamic studies, including reading the Koran, Muslim prayer upon prayer rugs and requiring the students to wear Muslim attire. Public schools teaching Islamic studies are now being conducted in other states. By refusing to hear the case without comment, it must be assumed the court only addresses church state issues involving the Christian religion, and by doing so is a participant in spreading Islam within our nation.

[George W. Bush]

I'm not too certain of any of the justices on this one. I think it's likely to be unanimous, one way or the other. My guess is they'll uphold churches as government agencies.

[EndWelfareToday]

Ummmmm.....

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!

No s*** huh!

[XR7]

By refusing to hear the case without comment, it must be assumed the court only addresses church state issues involving the Christian religion, and by doing so is a participant in spreading Islam within our nation.

That is because there is only one true religion. The rest are just vain philosophies of fallible men - so the courts don't bother with them. It's the one true religion they, and the ACLU and the People for the American Way, and NOW, et al, want to see curtailed.

[Warlord David]

Christian need to establish and dictate a seperation of church and state, by treated, some what like the indians. Before the liberals and Islam do it for us. Some thing I have been calling for, for some time now.

[Warlord David]

Christian need to establish and dictate a seperation of church and state, by treated, some what like the indians. Before the liberals and Islam do it for us. Some thing I have been calling for, for some time now.

[Albion Wilde]

anthony kennedy is the one to watch. he decides it.

The one hopeful thing is that Roberts said he wanted to end the long Rhenquist period of split decisions with one tiebreaker vote. He wanted more unanimous or overwhelming-majority decisions, presumably achieved through their discussions or exchange of legal briefs in each case. It had gotten to the point where the press was drawing on the language of the dissents rather than the affirmative opinions. This case will, indeed, be a severe test of his ability to build consensus.

[itsahoot]

presumably achieved through their discussions or exchange of legal briefs in each case.

Unreasonable people rarely are persuaded by facts, they are agenda driven, kinda like Islam.

[Albion Wilde]

I haven't followed each SCOTUS case since Roberts was appointed, and the honeymoon may well be over, but I'm giving him a chance, and praying steadily for this nation.

[Darksheare]

Why are you even bothering to mention Christians and Christianity when you posted this, and it has been shown to be total farce?

[oceanview]

I don't think its possible to achieve. like america, the Court is deeply divided.

[SierraWasp]

When will they ever review the burning issue in my tagline???