Supreme Court Protects Faith-Based Initiative

Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by 2 Timothy2:1-4, Jun 25, 2007.

  1. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Supreme Court vote was 5-4 in the case of Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (U.S. No. 06-157). The ACLJ filed an amicus brief with the high court in support of the federal government’s position which prevailed today.
    “This is a very significant victory that sends a powerful message that atheists and others antagonistic to religion do not get an automatic free pass to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “The Supreme Court got it right in determining that the plaintiffs who challenged the President’s faith-based initiative had no legal standing to do so. This decision will have serious ramifications for separationist attempts to claim special privileges to sue as taxpayers without showing that a law or government activity actually injured them in any way. This is an important victory for the judicial system and for the President’s faith-based initiative. By rejecting a claim to special treatment for atheists and other separationists, the high court took an important step toward restoring equity to the legal system with respect to federal challenges in the Establishment Clause arena.”



    http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?...org&guid=8B1A49C9-E2B1-4A8D-BE65-012C31B1EEBC
     
  2. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    This 5-4 decision is a very bad one. The government has no business giving public funding to religious organizations.
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was this ruling approving the government giving money to faith based organizations or was it about who has standing to sue?

    My understanding (insert your own joke here) was that the SCOTUS was simply saying that these people did not have standing to sue.
     
  4. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is correct, at least that is my understanding.
     
  5. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    The ruling says that the party suing does not have standing to sue because they were not injured as a result of the initiative. Which is why Roe v. Wade should be revisited because the party suing was not in fact injured and lied in court there by she had no legal standing to sue.
     

Share This Page

Loading...