Jim Stillman
M-KazBush’s Legacy will Endure – to our Detriment
July 23rd 2007 00:49
A Supreme Court decision on June 25th, 2007, Hein v Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. points out just one of the areas in which Bush administration may have caused irreparable harm to the very fabric of our society.
When President Bush finally leaves office in January 2009, he will leave behind many legacies. One will be a nation stripped of its moral bearings. Once we did not torture and were a nation of law; that is no longer true. Bush will also leave us in far reduced international standing and with a disabled military. He will leave an exhausted treasury with a national debt of many trillions of dollars more than he found it.
In additional to all that, Bush will leave us with a system of church-state entanglements on an epic scale. By pouring billions of dollars into religiously affiliated social service providers, Bush will have accomplished precisely what the nation's Founders warned against: a process by which people of many faiths and none at all are forced through compulsory taxation to underwrite other people's religious activities.
A bit of history is in order.
In 1785, a proposed bill was introduced in the legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia entitled, "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion." The proposed law would fund religious teaching with taxpayer funds. James Madison wrote a lengthy Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments which had been for over 200 years the bedrock of separation of church and state. Mr. Madison wrote, in part, “"it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. . .. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
Remember that “three pence” reference because it is often repeated and, until 2007, repeated with honor. The Bush appointees to the Supreme Court had no hesitation in adopting a radical, activist philosophy, certainly not in accord with the positions and beliefs of the Founding Fathers!
An organization named the Freedom from Religion Foundation [FFRF] based in Wisconsin took action against the administration's faith-based policies. The foundation and three leaders of FFRF, as taxpayers, sued the director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives as well as the heads of eight additional faith-based offices - all created by Bush through executive fiat. The suit alleged that these agencies were using tax dollars to advance and promote religion.
It is pretty clear that the faith-based agenda of the Bush administration has been to do precisely what FFRF alleges. The regional conferences that the faith-based offices hold have had, from published reports, the feel of revival meetings where participants have been so whipped up they've been known to speak in tongues.
The Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2006 finding that the faith-based recipients of federal grants are not sufficiently policed to ensure that they don't discriminate in their services on the basis of religion. It found that some grantees engage in overtly religious activities, such as praying, while providing government-funded social services.
Anyway, back to the suit and a bit of legal stuff
It is a general rule of law that individual taxpayers cannot sue the Federal government to challenge financial expenditures because of a lack of sufficient “standing”, a doctrine that says, in effect, one can only sue the Federal government if his or her specific interests are significant, unique and meaningful. The Federal courts are open to cases and controversies and not, in effect, to render advisory opinions on theoretical questions. (Many state courts, for example the Florida Supreme Court do, in fact, render advisory opinions when called upon by the Governor to do so.)
The underlying theory is well known to every first year law student! Because the interests of the petitioner in such a case are, in essence, the interests of the public-at-large, deciding a constitutional claim based solely on taxpayer standing would be not to decide a judicial controversy. It is an axiom that a petitioner raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.
When the case came before the District Court, it was dismissed on just those grounds. When the case was heard by the Court of Appeals it was reversed under a very limited and unique precedent. In Flast v Cohen (1968), the Supreme Court allowed such suits, specifically when the allegation was a law passed by Congress in violation of the Establishment of Religion clause in the First Amendment. It was considered such a breach of propriety as to tear at the very fabric of our nation. However, the situation in Flast involved Congressional action. In the present case, Bush acted on his own!
The “conservative” Supreme Court sidestepped Flast, holding that the actions of the President, on his own and without legislative authority, could not be challenged by an individual citizen. Huh? A law passed by Congress establishing or supporting a specific religion could be challenged but an arbitrary action of the Executive was beyond review!
Remember the background.
Before the 2000 election, George W. Bush - a born-again Christian - campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" and promised to deliver faith-based social services to his evangelical constituents. As president, Bush did not disappoint. In January 2001, he issued an executive order creating the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. In the order, President Bush explained that his "paramount goal" was to ensure that "private and charitable community groups, including religious ones" have the "fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field." In separate orders, the president created centers in a number of federal agencies to coordinate faith-based community initiatives.
President Bush's support for faith-based providers of social services revived concerns - mostly dormant since Ronald Reagan's presidency - that the wall separating church and state would be weakened, if not dismantled, as the result of efforts taken by the Federal government. Notwithstanding the neutral language in the executive orders, critics have complained that Bush's efforts have led to unconstitutional governmental support for religion, and, in particular, for the evangelical organizations receiving government funds to administer social service programs.
The new Bush Court, conservative, disbelieving in activist jurisprudence, giving reverence to the Founding Fathers, and so forth and so on, chose to ignore precedent, conservative rhetoric and those Founders!
Being compelled to support others' faith was a wrong that the Founders well understood. To them, the religious wars and mass slaughter that came in the wake of the Reformation were relatively fresh. Some had progenitors who were part of the migration from Europe escaping religious tyranny. They also saw the way minority religious groups in the colonies such as Quakers and Baptists chafed at state-collected religious taxes.
For this unique and historically portentous harm, the Supreme Court in Flast almost 40 years ago, granted aggrieved taxpayers the ability to get into court and object.
But the new Supreme Court in 2007 has shut the courthouse door with a slam. The majority made some nonsensical distinction between the 1968 case that involved a congressional appropriation, and the fact that FFRF was seeking to challenge a discretionary expenditure by the executive branch. The four-member dissent accurately summed up the distinction as lacking any basis in "logic or precedent."
There is now a conservative plurality of the Roberts court that is openly hostile toward those who seek to keep their tax money from flowing into religious coffers. The dismantled wall between church and state will be just another one of Bush's disastrous legacies.
Not too many people have taken note of this latest disaster but of all of Bush’s legacies, this one may haunt us for a long, long time.
When President Bush finally leaves office in January 2009, he will leave behind many legacies. One will be a nation stripped of its moral bearings. Once we did not torture and were a nation of law; that is no longer true. Bush will also leave us in far reduced international standing and with a disabled military. He will leave an exhausted treasury with a national debt of many trillions of dollars more than he found it.
In additional to all that, Bush will leave us with a system of church-state entanglements on an epic scale. By pouring billions of dollars into religiously affiliated social service providers, Bush will have accomplished precisely what the nation's Founders warned against: a process by which people of many faiths and none at all are forced through compulsory taxation to underwrite other people's religious activities.
A bit of history is in order.
In 1785, a proposed bill was introduced in the legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia entitled, "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion." The proposed law would fund religious teaching with taxpayer funds. James Madison wrote a lengthy Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments which had been for over 200 years the bedrock of separation of church and state. Mr. Madison wrote, in part, “"it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. . .. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
Remember that “three pence” reference because it is often repeated and, until 2007, repeated with honor. The Bush appointees to the Supreme Court had no hesitation in adopting a radical, activist philosophy, certainly not in accord with the positions and beliefs of the Founding Fathers!
An organization named the Freedom from Religion Foundation [FFRF] based in Wisconsin took action against the administration's faith-based policies. The foundation and three leaders of FFRF, as taxpayers, sued the director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives as well as the heads of eight additional faith-based offices - all created by Bush through executive fiat. The suit alleged that these agencies were using tax dollars to advance and promote religion.
It is pretty clear that the faith-based agenda of the Bush administration has been to do precisely what FFRF alleges. The regional conferences that the faith-based offices hold have had, from published reports, the feel of revival meetings where participants have been so whipped up they've been known to speak in tongues.
The Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2006 finding that the faith-based recipients of federal grants are not sufficiently policed to ensure that they don't discriminate in their services on the basis of religion. It found that some grantees engage in overtly religious activities, such as praying, while providing government-funded social services.
Anyway, back to the suit and a bit of legal stuff
It is a general rule of law that individual taxpayers cannot sue the Federal government to challenge financial expenditures because of a lack of sufficient “standing”, a doctrine that says, in effect, one can only sue the Federal government if his or her specific interests are significant, unique and meaningful. The Federal courts are open to cases and controversies and not, in effect, to render advisory opinions on theoretical questions. (Many state courts, for example the Florida Supreme Court do, in fact, render advisory opinions when called upon by the Governor to do so.)
The underlying theory is well known to every first year law student! Because the interests of the petitioner in such a case are, in essence, the interests of the public-at-large, deciding a constitutional claim based solely on taxpayer standing would be not to decide a judicial controversy. It is an axiom that a petitioner raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.
When the case came before the District Court, it was dismissed on just those grounds. When the case was heard by the Court of Appeals it was reversed under a very limited and unique precedent. In Flast v Cohen (1968), the Supreme Court allowed such suits, specifically when the allegation was a law passed by Congress in violation of the Establishment of Religion clause in the First Amendment. It was considered such a breach of propriety as to tear at the very fabric of our nation. However, the situation in Flast involved Congressional action. In the present case, Bush acted on his own!
The “conservative” Supreme Court sidestepped Flast, holding that the actions of the President, on his own and without legislative authority, could not be challenged by an individual citizen. Huh? A law passed by Congress establishing or supporting a specific religion could be challenged but an arbitrary action of the Executive was beyond review!
Remember the background.
Before the 2000 election, George W. Bush - a born-again Christian - campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" and promised to deliver faith-based social services to his evangelical constituents. As president, Bush did not disappoint. In January 2001, he issued an executive order creating the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. In the order, President Bush explained that his "paramount goal" was to ensure that "private and charitable community groups, including religious ones" have the "fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field." In separate orders, the president created centers in a number of federal agencies to coordinate faith-based community initiatives.
President Bush's support for faith-based providers of social services revived concerns - mostly dormant since Ronald Reagan's presidency - that the wall separating church and state would be weakened, if not dismantled, as the result of efforts taken by the Federal government. Notwithstanding the neutral language in the executive orders, critics have complained that Bush's efforts have led to unconstitutional governmental support for religion, and, in particular, for the evangelical organizations receiving government funds to administer social service programs.
The new Bush Court, conservative, disbelieving in activist jurisprudence, giving reverence to the Founding Fathers, and so forth and so on, chose to ignore precedent, conservative rhetoric and those Founders!
Being compelled to support others' faith was a wrong that the Founders well understood. To them, the religious wars and mass slaughter that came in the wake of the Reformation were relatively fresh. Some had progenitors who were part of the migration from Europe escaping religious tyranny. They also saw the way minority religious groups in the colonies such as Quakers and Baptists chafed at state-collected religious taxes.
For this unique and historically portentous harm, the Supreme Court in Flast almost 40 years ago, granted aggrieved taxpayers the ability to get into court and object.
But the new Supreme Court in 2007 has shut the courthouse door with a slam. The majority made some nonsensical distinction between the 1968 case that involved a congressional appropriation, and the fact that FFRF was seeking to challenge a discretionary expenditure by the executive branch. The four-member dissent accurately summed up the distinction as lacking any basis in "logic or precedent."
There is now a conservative plurality of the Roberts court that is openly hostile toward those who seek to keep their tax money from flowing into religious coffers. The dismantled wall between church and state will be just another one of Bush's disastrous legacies.
Not too many people have taken note of this latest disaster but of all of Bush’s legacies, this one may haunt us for a long, long time.
| 31 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
We in America are literally only a couple of executive orders and signing statements away from losing all of our important freedoms.