Even more church-state activism for me now

[256 colors]

Hi :ff:! I got some great news today and I thought I would share it with you all.

I was elected to the National Advisory Council of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (http://au.org)! I am so pleased and honored. I'm not really all that "good" at church-state stuff, I mean, I can research things online to answer questions in email or on forums, but I'm not so hot "off the cuff" if someone asks me church-state questions in real life. I recently spoke on behalf of AU at a meeting of the Secular Student Alliance at University of Delaware, and the students asked me things that I couldn't just answer off the top of my head.

When AU first told me I had been nominated, I thought that I wasn't really qualified for the position, which is a 3-year term on AU's NAC. But when they sent me the list of requirements for NAC members, I realized that I was already engaged in the activities that NAC members are supposed to do: namely, searching for and reporting church-state violations to AU's national office; keeping abreast of news stories and issues, and speaking out in my local paper on the op/ed page when church-state issues arise. So I accepted the nomination, and I got my letter today, informing me that I was elected to the NAC.

So, what that means for :ff: is that when I lurk here I will be on the lookout for threads about church-state issues. If any of you are ever so inclined, feel free to PM me to alert me to important threads or news stories. And if any of you ever witness a church-state violation in your school, town, or state, contact me! I will be glad to help.

This is some pretty cool news for me and I am really excited about it, I hope that I am sharing my joy in the correct forum. I hope I do a good job for Americans United.

Any of you can ask me anything about AU or church-state separation; if I don't know the answer, I will find out for you. I remain at your service and I rely on people like you for inspiration and information. Thanks!

[godfry n. glad]

Get rid of anything and everything tainted with the "Faith-Based Initiatives".

[Naru]

Congratulations, ELGS.

[256 colors]

Get rid of anything and everything tainted with the "Faith-Based Initiatives".

Oh man, the FBCI is a personal pet peeve of mine, and Americans United filed an amicus brief in the recent Supreme Court case that did not end well for our side.

See here: Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hein_v._Freedom_From_Religion_Foundation)

Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation was a United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) case which ruled on June 25, 2007 by a 5-4 decision that taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the constitutionality of expenditures by the executive branch of the government.
At question was whether taxpayers have the right to challenge the existence of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Community_Initiatives).[1] (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/06-00157qp.pdf) The case centered on three Supreme Court precedents: Flast v. Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flast_v._Cohen), 392 U.S. 83 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=392&page=83) (1968), Bowen v. Kendrick (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowen_v._Kendrick&action=edit), 487 U.S. 589 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=487&page=589) (1988), and Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valley_Forge_Christian_College_v._Americans_United_for_Separation_of_Church_%26_State&action=edit), 454 U.S. 464 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=454&page=464) (1982). Oral arguments were heard February 28, 2007.
I actually pulled my kids out of school and took them to DC on February 28 to show my support for the groups that filed this suit. We lost. I do not quite know what this means for the future of lawsuits about abuses of the faith-based funding system. In my work with both Americans United and other groups, I have seen testimony from individuals who say that they were required to participate in religious services in order to receive assistance from some groups that receive FBCI funds.

Americans United, FFRF, the American Humanist Association, and other secular groups are fighting hard to tackle the faith-based funding problem. These groups would benefit from your membership dollars to support their work in the legal and legislative forefront. If you need more info about the benefits of membership in any such organization, please ask, I am a member of almost all of them. Americans United is strictly a church-state group, not an "atheist group," and its legal department has been very proactive in working on church-state issues and cases. Hey, if any of you guys happen to join any of these groups, tell them that Janice Rael sent you. That would make my day!

[D. Scarlatti]

At question was whether taxpayers have the right to challenge the existence of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

Who writes this stuff. Article III standing isn't a "right"; it has to do with whether the Supreme Court, and by extension the lower federal courts, are empowered to hear a dispute involving parties whose status as litigants don't meet the "cases or controversies" requirement of Article III.

And it wasn't the "existence" of the White House office that was challenged. The question revolved on whether the plaintiffs, if they did have standing, could reach the activities of the Executive generally, since the precedent -- Flast -- addressed acts of Congress.

Flast, incidentally, remains intact. And if it's true that some recipients of government dough are required as a precondition to swear sectarian allegiance, then there are other means of challenging such preconditions.

[freemonkey]

This is great news, ELGS. Congratulations. You'll do a great job.

[Crumb]

You should edit the article, DS and fix it. :yup:

ELGS: Congrats! :shake: I'm sure you'll do great! Do you know if AU or any other organization has information available on presidential or other political candidates and their views and histories regarding CSS issues?

[D. Scarlatti]

I couldn't be bothered. There's enough intelligent commentary on Hein and other cases that Wikipedia should be anybody's last resort. For example (http://www.acsblog.org/bill-of-rights-guest-blogger-supreme-court-gives-the-president-immunity-from-many-establishment-clause-suits.html). Wikipedia is maintained by amateurs. It's handy, but frequently misleading.

[Crumb]

But who's ever heard of ... ( oops heh )... those other places? :chin: Everyone knows Wikipedia.

[256 colors]

You should edit the article, DS and fix it. :yup:

ELGS: Congrats! :shake: I'm sure you'll do great! Do you know if AU or any other organization has information available on presidential or other political candidates and their views and histories regarding CSS issues?

Thanks, Crumb!

Americans United just had a blog story about the current candidates and their church-state stances: Candidates And Scripture: Bumping Into God On The Campaign Trail (http://blog.au.org/2007/12/10/candidates-and-scripture-bumping-into-god-on-the-campaign-trail/).

The Secular Coalition for America has a Congressional Scorecard (http://www.secular.org/scorecard/2007/) and a newly-released Full report: 2007 Year-End Report on the 110th Congress (http://www.secular.org/news/2007report.html).

The Interfaith Alliance has an Election Year Resources (http://www.interfaithalliance.org/site/pp.asp?c=jkLSJ6MRKvH&b=3019113) guide, but it doesn't report on candidates.

The Secular Web :eek: has an article by Frank Steiner called The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html), the complete version of this article is a book, Barnes & Noble.com - Books: Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents ... (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.barnesandnoble.com%2Fbooksearch%2FisbnInquiry.asp%3Fuserid%3D38MUSELAQE%26isbn%3D0-87975-975-5%26itm%3D1&ei=6iReR4vKAZyoetqU3TE&usg=AFQjCNFsaH965Ql1NHTnJ6GeJl9zIN4bwg&sig2=UT4-bdPUdByy3A1ZfqdktQ); it is an old book but B&N has some used copies for sale.

Hope this helps!

[maddog]

Get rid of anything and everything tainted with the "Faith-Based Initiatives".

Oh man, the FBCI is a personal pet peeve of mine, and Americans United filed an amicus brief in the recent Supreme Court case that did not end well for our side.

I actually pulled my kids out of school and took them to DC on February 28 to show my support for the groups that filed this suit. We lost. I do not quite know what this means for the future of lawsuits about abuses of the faith-based funding system. In my work with both Americans United and other groups, I have seen testimony from individuals who say that they were required to participate in religious services in order to receive assistance from some groups that receive FBCI funds.

Americans United, FFRF, the American Humanist Association, and other secular groups are fighting hard to tackle the faith-based funding problem. These groups would benefit from your membership dollars to support their work in the legal and legislative forefront. If you need more info about the benefits of membership in any such organization, please ask, I am a member of almost all of them. Americans United is strictly a church-state group, not an "atheist group," and its legal department has been very proactive in working on church-state issues and cases. Hey, if any of you guys happen to join any of these groups, tell them that Janice Rael sent you. That would make my day!
Here's part of the problem right here, as shown by the highligted phrase ... The ONLY reason to call something "faith-based" is to try to put it over euphemistically on the public as something other than what it *IS* -- which is "religious." People should stop letting the theocrats subvert and coopt language in this way. Stop saying "faith-based" -- the word is "religious."

#1511

[godfry n. glad]

Ramen.

I'd be willing to wager that there's some exclusivity in which faiths get access to "faith-based" initiative monies, too.

Next up....Faith-based defense (http://www.slate.com/id/101070/nav/navoa/).

[Sock Puppet]

Well, of course. We can't be calling infidels (godless communists, Moozlums, face-to-face dancers, et al.) "faith-based," now can we?