digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Supreme Court Bars Lawsuits Against Faith Based Initiatives

nytimes.com — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal money.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jstohler, on 10/11/2007, -20/+99So speaketh the imperial presidency.
    • crweaks23, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Apologies for hijacking this comment, but until the commenting system is fixed I won't feel bad.

      Does anyone know if there is a source somewhere that lists all of the noteworthy conservative changes that have taken place since Bush was elected? I'm just looking for a compilation of everything from the abortion ruling a month or so back, all shots taken at the constitution, etc.
      • polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I know of a huge repository for that stuff!!

        Its called google.com
  • garycompugeek, on 10/11/2007, -15/+134The Constitution forbids any law "respecting the establishment of religion". How do you dismantle the constitution? Place a majority on the supreme court.
    • BrokenWind, on 10/11/2007, -32/+9The money goes to the charity organization, not the religion(church itself). Why is that so hard to grasp?
      • virtueandwine, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14Yes, but the charity organization is helping the religion's cause by teaching their ways in school etc..
        • BrokenWind, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Examples? You'll find that more often the charity is really just a genuine attempt at being..well...charitable.
      • DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -5/+30A Christian group who feeds the homeless gets money from the government, a mixed group of Jews and Christians who don't specifically identify themselves by their faith, simply by the fact that they're a bunch of people who want to feed the homeless, get nothing.

        Discrimination. Just give money to any ethical charities, don't favor religeon. Most of the charities will probably end up being religeous anyway.
        • BrokenWind, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2The law is about allowing equal funding, not discriminating funding.
      • Drahkar, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15I wish someone would just go out and Impeach Cheney and Bush. They have violated international agreements. Defaced US Law and squatted all over personal liberties and rights. Now they are co-opting our government for religious purposes. The longer we leave them in office the bigger the mess that will be left to clean up will be.
        • BrokenWind, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1If that was true, it would have been done y now. Get over your hate, and try to find truth.
        • Drahkar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This isn't Hate. This is fear. I am -afraid- of what this country is turning into. Hate would have me calling for their heads. I'm not doing that. I'm demanding they be held accountable for the crimes that they have been committing in office. That's not hate. That's asking the American Justice system do its Job. Just because you have the perception of a two year old doesn't make what these two are doing right.
      • Palintheus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5The article states that both secular and religious charities will now be able to get federal money, it says nothing about favoring the religious charities.

        The fact that both serve people in need should be the only thing looked at. Have you ever seen a church group serving the hungry on thanksgiving or Christmas? Most just serve them and give them a decent environment to eat and be warm for the holiday, there is no requirement that they be Christian, or anything else to get the food.
        • init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"The article states that both secular and religious charities will now be able to get federal money, it says nothing about favoring the religious charities."

          In practice though, only the religious groups will get any federal grants from your Christian fundamentalist president.
        • BrokenWind, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ init100
          you have only your hate to drive such an opinion.
    • DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -13/+35what the flying *****? how is this possible? completely FLAGRANT disregard for their only job... to protect the Constitution. I feel so helpless. If America elects another NeoCon in '08 I'm gone for good. Where are the pussy-ass Democrats who are supposed to impeach Cheney, Rove and the lot? Where are the right-minded Republicans who can restore dignity to their party and stop pandering to the Evangelical minority to be "more electible"? The suppression of one's political adversaries is the definition of Tyranny. Elect a Liberetarian or a Democrat in 08 and lets dismantle all the damage that has been done moving our country backwards for 8 years. The Republican Party simply cannot be worthy of trust until the Neo-Con movement is over. All you fiscal conservatives I recommend u switch to Liberetarian :)
      • GlenLeafJr, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Where are you going?
        • DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Good question. Japan? The UK? Germany? France is kinda weak and socialist atm, but with the new reformists in power they might pick up. Really it's impossible to find governments with no corruption :(
          • drphred, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Try New Zealand. Liberal government, low population. No religious power base. Beautiful country. Lots of sheep. Hobbits.
        • oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3What's wrong with Canada? We're just a stones throw away.
        • Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2To hell in a hand basket? But really, Canada doesn't sound bad at all. Or *****, maybe Cuba... at least I'll be able to get some sun and have health care all in one!
        • EXreaction, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Whats wrong with Canada?

          Well, maybe immigration laws. It really isn't that easy to get in legally, especially if you are young. It sucks. :(
          http://www.canadavisa.com/

          But I don't know if it is better anywhere else...
      • JibberGeorge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4It's partly our own fault (the voters).

        We didn't elect a VETO PROOF majority in '06 so the Democrats' hands are pretty much tied. So we won the house and the senate but Bush still won essentially.

        More proof that we need to win the WhiteHouse next year more than ever.
      • Iriel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Yes, the Democrats have failed us just as the Republican Extremists have, but maybe not for the reasons you assumed. While Democrats did take Congress in '06, it wasn't by much. As Bush already proved with the last Iraq funding bill, he will do anything to win by holding his breath until he gets his way (remember his preemptive threat to veto ANY bill with anything about withdrawing?). The problem is that a lot of Democrats won't continue to fight this because they know that the R-Extremists will tell the American public that Democrats are wasting YOUR tax dollars on things they know will fail. The sad part is that a lot of Americans will buy into it and vote Republican next time. While I think those Democrats are too timid to be in office, the larger problem lies with the voting public. There are too many Americans that find politics too depressing or frantic to follow, so they buy into hyperbole. As such, there are far too many politicians that act accordingly to that group.
      • init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"If America elects another NeoCon in '08"

        It will. Bush will have made sure that this happens. That's why GOP-friendly companies such as Diebold get to deliver electronic voting systems, so that the GOP can alter the votes through a backdoor if it turns out that the Democrat candidate might win the election.
    • kittynipples, on 10/11/2007, -8/+10I'm sorry, but where exactly has the Congress established a religion again?
      • jjesusfreak01, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Well obviously the congress has done no such thing. The Supreme Court simply decided that money could go towards charities that were religiously based. May God forbid that any church would want to put effort to help people, like having a rescue shelter, soup kitchen, sending disaster relief teams after Katrina...
        • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8You forgot that they are allowing the charities to discriminate in using that money.

          If JesusCo Charity that accepts 90% of their money from Federal funds decides that Muslims aren't allowed into their soup kitchen, the Supreme court said that's okay and that you can't sue.
        • BrokenWind, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2good grief, what religious charity gets 90% federal funding?
          • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Deliberate hyperbole to underline the legal point.

            Most of them get... what, 40%? Some Catholic groups get 60%?

            What if their budget was 45% government funds? Are you saying they could discriminate twice as much as they could at 90%?
          • BrokenWind, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1the "point" is invalid without actual knowledge of who gets what.
      • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Evidently, the victims in Katrina can ONLY be helped by the government.....and NOT by faith based charities (Christian or otherwise)......
      • UnstableMind, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I don't think anyone said they established a religion, they just said that "tax dollars" (hard earned at that) can go to charities with a religious base (who will discriminate where said charity money would go). I see two things wrong with this, one being, what about separation of church and state? And second, why the ***** are my tax dollars being sent to charity? If I want ANY specific charity to get any money, well, I would send it to them myself. This is ***** ridiculous!
        • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Myself, I'd draw a distinction between nongovernmental charities with specific or religious purpose and between things like Social Security.
    • vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4The ruling specifically states that this was due to it being an executive branch issue, not the congress...

      That's right. We don't read articles here.
      • Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Exective Branch? WTF is that? I thought we had Legislative, Judicial, Decider, and Cheney.
    • sevun, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4If Muslims, Hindu, Christians, Jews, and Wiccans have access to the funds, then how is it establishing a establishing a national religion?
      • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Why do atheists not have access to these public funds? Seems like preferential treatment for theistic organizations to me.
        • kittynipples, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Do you know this, or are you assuming?
        • Veretax, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1They Already have access through their 90% block on the rest of the Humanist Organizations that get moneys.
      • compdude32, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0atheists have always had access to these funds *****.
      • init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1In theory yes, but in practice, only neocon christian fundamentalists like mr shrub himself will get any funding.
    • HPCELarry, on 10/11/2007, -8/+6Its not establishing a religion, its recognizing that religious groups tend to benifit society so they get paid.
      • Veretax, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I agree. This is not establishing any particular religion or denomination. Churches are often strong organizations at the local level and better positioned to help in humanitarian concerns then government in many cases. I think this is a good Decision.
    • HUKI365, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7It has been proven time and time again in courts all over the world that providing funds to relgious based organisations is not establishing a religion. Statutes mandating beliefs are illegal, contributing equally to all significant religions (I'm sure if you tried to you could organise a aethiest religion, however you'd have to prove a large following - a sutmbling block so loony 30-person congergations can't get access to funds) is not.
      • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3There is a Separation between Church and State. This is disregarding that Separation of Church and State. Federal or State funding of churches (who are already exempt from taxation) is establishing a church regardless of what you say. Once a government utilizes a church to do something publicly with our tax dollars, it is in fact becoming part of that government.

        How do you suppose we tax payers KNOW for FACT what these churches do with our tax money? Will they discriminate? Will they use it to proselytize? Will the government now have to regulate churches for oversight? See where this is leading?

        The separation between Church and State was meant to protect both from each other. Once that line is crossed, both are now susceptible to further collusion and corruption. The government uses the church, and the church uses the government. Just read up on the history of the church being intertwined with the powers to be of old Europe.
    • Jadart, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Anyone defending this is overlooking the fact that many religious charities don't really do good things for society. They might think they are but in reality... Take for instance the whole issue the Catholic Church has with sex. So the church is given funds from the government to spread it's anti-sex/masturbation/contraceptive pro-abstinence programs that have been shown DO NOT work and are quite harmful to society.
      • compdude32, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0and how exactly does abstinence not work? Haven't heard of anyone (well except if your catholic) ever getting pregnant by not having sex.
        • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3He said pro-abstinence *programs*, which evidence suggests don't really improve abstinence rates and for those who are not abstinent they don't have the basic knowledge necessary to avoid STDs and pregnancies.
        • dodus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Abstinence doesn't work because nobody practices it; so all that money that could have gone to contraceptives, education, and medical treatment goes down the tubes for nothing instead.
      • BrokenWind, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1again, the CHURCH doesn't get the money for this kind of activity.
      • dodus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Also, the anti-abortion "treatment" centers are getting some of this funding as well if I'm not mistaken.
    • TheFederalist, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3First of all... the passage you refer to is talking about not creating laws that force people to obey any certain religion. Secondly, why does everyone on here seem to think that CHRISTIANITY is the only religion in America? This law, stating that taxes can go toward religious institutions, applies to ALL of them. Does that make you feel better???
    • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3So Jadart, many of the churches and congregations that went to Louisiana to help rebuild after Katrina was a BAD thing?

      Just remember, for every anecdotal evidence that you can bring forth, I can bring one too. But like most people, you're too quick to generalize a WHOLE culture based on once instance...

      Just because pro-abstinence programs didn't work, doesn't make abstinence a bad idea...
      • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Only if it's their own money and not federally funded. The Seperation between Church and State is pretty simple. It's why Churches are never to be taxed. Now, that may have to change. Now churches are playing government roles just by accepting our tax money. Very careless point of view to think this is ok. Preserving the Seperation between Church and State is the ONLY way to safe gaurd both from each other. This is dangerous.
    • geekee, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Yeah. Give the money to all those atheist soup kitchens instead. Given me a break. Unless you show that people are promoting their religion while doing charity work, you are just talking out of your ass.
      • MacEnvy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Ever been to an AA meeting? Check it out (Google is your friend). The entire basis for this "charity support organization" is religious. You can't finish your twelve steps until you espouse a belief in a creator and "hand yourself over to his protection".

        AA is one of the orgs least associated with religion. Extrapolate this to a group that explicitly works for a church and you'd be surprised to find out how much proclaiming of faith is required to get a hot bowl of soup in many situations.

        Edit: For the record, I'm not personally in AA, but I have a close friend who has confided in me about his experience.
    • Zipko, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@TubaTechno in response to your second point; eventually, if an idea that is theoretically sound continues to repeatedly fail, you've got to abandon the idea and try something else. Sure, youths practicing abstinence is a good idea, but when the idea is implimented in pro-abstinence programs it fails.

      It's analogous to the line of jokes about a religious person in danger who refuses obvious help because they claim god will save them, then wonder why he didn't. Religions get so worked up about doing things "God's Way" that they forget what the objective is. That's the fault many religious charities have when they make the world worse. They ignore practical solutions because those methods don't fit with their religious teachings.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2No one said that line of *****, I don't want my money (tax dollars) going to any charity that I can't specify. This ***** is ***** ridiculous. The charity should come from the people, not from our pool of tax monies. I mean *****, we're giving to charity and we can't even pay our ***** bills.

      /yes, when I'm pissed and can speak anonymously, I say *****...
      • BrokenWind, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2A valid point, but be aware that if the charity wasn't given the money, the gov't would be providing the same funds to the cause via a govt entity. I trust the charity to spend it wiser.
      • Veretax, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Doubly agree, if you want to rail against this, than rail against all the EARMarked Excesses that would be better done locally anyways. More money in our pockets means more money to decide where we'd like charity to be done.
    • MixMastaKooz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually, it's "AN establishment of religion" and not "the establishment of religion." Using "the" implies starting a religion whereas "an" refers to existing religions: so basically, congress can't make a law concerning established or future religions.

      Just FYI, and in addition, because of this, I think the SC's decision is even more horrific.
    • StormTrooperVII, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", meaning that the federal government not only should not recognize ANY religion (an = one. if you recognize two, you recognize each one), but you can't tax-exempt religious institutions. Ergo, tax-exempting churches, and any government-sponsored faith-based initiative is unconstitutional.

      1st ammendment goes on: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" opening the door up for the "but exercising of religion should be free!" Damn the english language, they meant free as in speech, not free as in beer. You have a constitutional right to exercise your religion, and the government has a constitutional obligation to tax it.
  • nixwiz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22The press release from the FFRF can be found here http://ffrf.org/news/2007/heinvFFRF.php and I suggest also reading Souter's dissent in the opinion. Link to PDF of the opinion http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-157.pdf
  • ktchpmn, on 10/11/2007, -15/+45Well, it looks like we are in for another long period of conservative rulings by the Supreme Court. Please kill me now.
    • Poland, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I would, but that would probably make me a terrorist, and you know what? I'm not in the mood for disappearing off the face of the planet.
    • GlenLeafJr, on 10/11/2007, -13/+2Please kill yourself. Thank you.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I'm confused, how is this conservative? Giving money away and funding religious charities with taxpayer dollars? Did I missed your sarcasm tag? If so, digg me down.
      • MacEnvy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's interesting in this case to note the differences between social and fiscal conservatism. They often do not go hand in hand, though the current crop of fiscal liberals call themselves "conservative".

        I guess my point is, you're right to a certain extent, except that the people making these decisions absolutely believe themselves to be "conservatives".
  • Hillsfar, on 10/11/2007, -16/+68Riiiight. So the Bush Administration bars giving money to health organizations that offer reproductive health services to Third World countries because that frees up money for abortions!

    Buuuut they give federal money to religious charities, even though that means it frees up money for religious proselytization.

    In Bush World, eeeeeverything makes perfect sense.
    • GabrielS, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Planned Parenthood still received about 300 million dollars US from the Federal Government in the fiscal year 2006.

      You can read their financials on their website. They even managed to produce a 150 million dollar profit.
      • jjesusfreak01, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1And doesnt it bother anyone that these groups that so strongly support "womens rights" make tons of money off of abortion every year. For the Christians, it is not a matter of a womans rights, its a matter of the childs right to live. To planned parenthood, its all about profit! Its really a three step process:
        1. Tell women that they are being oppressed and having babies when they dont want them is a form of oppression
        2. Encourage abortions, provide them for free or cheap, and then charge the federal government
        3. Profit!!!
        • knde, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I cannot for the life of me understand this overwhelming concern for mere embryos/fetuses...

          I'm certainly not trying to be rude, but perhaps you can try and fathom this: Every minute, right here in the USA, children’s lives are being ruined. Be it from the abusive parent or the paedophile in the park.

          Using nothing but logic, doesn't it make a ton of sense, that FIRST we concern ourselves with living children here today, whose rights are being trampled upon? I respect that your concern for humanity extends so far and say kudos to you that.

          On the other hand, there is a question I must ask. I’m not very familiar with the Bible, but aren’t there any verses that back up the often said, “pick your battles wisely?”
        • jheathupton, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Why not give the unborn a chance to live instead of deciding for them that the world is just too bad? i was born under less than ideal circumstances but I thank God and my mother that she didn't kill me just for her comfort. I'm doing pretty well despite my drug-dealing/abusing parents.
      • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I think PP mainly works within industrialized nations, and also they don't have a religious component.
    • vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5The charities have to use the money for the charitable purposes intended.
      Oh!
      Wait!
      Sorry!
      I forgot we don't have to understand what we are commenting on. Just see "religious" or "atheist" or whatever and comment along those lines. OK.
    • WarPirate, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2OIC so you would rather rid the world of Evil future infants than let a catholic church feed 150 homeless people on Thanksgiving day?
    • miriclaire, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Did you read the article and understand it? Or do you only react to Headlines? Look at some of the "faith-based" charities: "Among the programs: Substance abuse treatment, housing for AIDS patients, community re-entry for inmates, housing for homeless veterans and emergency food assistance."
      What would happen to these people without "faith-based" charities?
      • Hillsfar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1All religious-based treatment. Having God enter your life to save you from addiction. Yeah. Not psychology-based or science-based, but faith-based.
    • bonhoeffer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0The Bush administration bars money for abortion services (not very healthy) to 3rd world countries.
      The faith based initiatives complement the manpower and time religious orgs give to serve the needy, and increases the number of persons served. It is neither the purpose nor necessary result that it "frees up money." That's a stretch of an argument!
    • UnstableMind, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2If people are so concerned with feeding a 150 people who can't afford food on Thanksgiving, I say:

      - Donate your money to said charity. (Not w/Taxpayer dollars)
      - Make some food for them and donate to said charity.
      - Donate your time and serve them.

      Don't bring up this stupid socialist rhetoric of "What about the poor". What about them, if your so concerned about their lack of drive and quality of life, give unto them your riches. I've been there, you can't tell me that someone is holding them down. If anyone is, it's b/c they WANT to be the victim.
  • dildoolielly, on 10/11/2007, -20/+19One word Republicans run from...

    Constitution
    • keithmcbride, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4you do realize that the justices stricter about the wording of the constitution are the conservative ones, right?
      • Coven, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4These so called "conservative" justives aren't very conservative then, are they?
      • keithmcbride, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2um... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

        this is conservative because it allows private organizations to do charity work rather than raising taxes to pay for services such as welfare. read the last line of the article...
        • Coven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3This decision allows FEDERAL funds to be given to religious charities. Read: Our TAX dollars are going to religious organizations. How the ***** is that constitutional?
          • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1It's not constitutional at all. It is a deliberate move by the christian right to destroy the Seperation between Church and State for one objective. Power....

            This is why Roberts and Alito were never trusted by most folks who want to preserve the Seperation between Church and State. Now these extremely religiously motivated judges are rewritting the Constitution to suite their own objectives to empower religiousity. It is in fact prosthelytizing their notion of faith on America.

            So now what? Who gets to make sure these churches spend that tax money indiscriminately? Are churches now responsible to We the People since they now take our tax money. Does this also mean Churches are opening themselves up to taxation as well? This is a very dangerous precedent.
    • luckyscs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6***** neocons are the ones ignoring the constitution.
    • BrainedChild, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2This isn't about seperation of church and state or "establishing a religion", this is about giving federal aide to organizations that normally help the needy out of pocket, as in, church member's pockets. And it doesn't matter which church, so long as the money is going towards charity purposes.
    • bonhoeffer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1To have a constitutional case, you have to have a violation and standing. The Freedom From Religion group had neither. No "establishment" by congress, and no injury to the persons suing.
      This case was decided rightly.
  • crazybugger, on 10/11/2007, -16/+61Religion has become a prison for the human mind.
    • HBNDonut, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7What the hell are you talking about? Religion is a great big joke, is what.
    • mykool, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Religion has ALWAYS been a prison for the human mind.
    • norman619, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9World leaders for ages have known to control the masses you control their religion. There is a reason why the poorest and most deprate parts of the world are also the most religious. Religion offers hope to the hopeless. It's is both a source of hope and shackles. Religion does not promote free thought and thus shackles the human mind. Give the poor a bible and government cheese and all will be well.
      • bonhoeffer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1There is religion and then there is religion. Where Christianity has flourished (Western Europe, North America, South Korea) so has freedom and wealth.
      • init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@bonhoeffer

        "Where Christianity has flourished (Western Europe, North America, South Korea) so has freedom and wealth."

        I guess you mean secular Christianity. The US fundamentalist hillbillies does not seem to be very wealthy.
    • OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4When did that happen exactly? 6000 years ago?
      • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2No... Creationism started in the 1980's. It's called a cult.
        • OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Disregarding the fact that you and I obviously don't see eye to eye on the nature of religion, Creationism emerged as a political movement in the '50s and '60s, and several highly touted creationist books were written in the 1920s. The creationists have been resisting the theory of evolution pretty much since Darwin came up with it.
  • editednews, on 10/11/2007, -19/+24***** this is getting ridiculous. The SOB justices who support this are breaking their promise to defend the US Constitution. They are spitting on it just like Bush has.

    Everyone realizes that the VAST majority of Americans realize our government is full of ***** and they oppose this type of crap too. Dont think that only a few people know and are upset- that is propoganda BS from the media. They are not covering the truth about what people know and think.

    PERFECT EXAMPLE is on Fox News caught lying about Public Opinion red handed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g1O4LJNs94

    Realize that this is what they do all the time. So when they report Bush has 26% approval ratings- yeah ***** right!!!! Look at what Nixon did and what Bush has done- that is the biggest BS to think that more people approve of Bush than Nixon at his LOWEST. Bush is probably around 5% at the most.

    70% according to their own polls of people are against the war in Iraq. The remaining 30% is most likely conservative 'they hate our freedom' idiots. BUT since they are conservative with low IQ's they are most likely racists who adamantly oppose the Amnesty Bill to illegals 'they took ur jobs!"

    So of the 30% hardcore conservatives who support the war lets be generous and say that 1/3 support amnesty (yeah right- more like 1%). Even with that nice figure that leaves only 10% for Bush approval rating. That makes more sense, but it is probably lower because I doubt 1/3 of the super conservatives would support Amnesty to 12 Million Illegal Immigrants.

    Anyways all Americans are on the same boat so we should all let our government know that we are against all this BS and we will vote every last one of them out of office.
    • TinMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3As I agree with what you are saying, just a side note the PERFECT EXAMPLE of Fox News lieing is actually a local fox news station, not the national. Although the national has about the same success rate of telling the truth in their own polls.
    • dschep, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Just thought I'd mention that your video is simply of a local Fox affiliate station, not Fox News Chanel (the 24 hr new channel with Hannity, O'Reilly and the like), which isn't too different from local NBC, CBS, or ABC affiliate stations as far as I'm aware.

      Still bad lie though.
    • blorc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I'm not a fan of Fox news, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that maybe... and try to follow me here... but just maybe... being that it was April Fool's day... they were playing a bit of a joke. I mean, come on, guys. They're pretty bad, but I find that unbelievable. Looked intentional to me.
    • RealHyperX, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Funny to see you liberals squirm. Religion is one thing that keeps this country semi-sane. Moral values are important. How about the outrage about taking kids to the gay pride parade? No, that's ok for most of you.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'd like to consider myself conservative, but with a high IQ. I see conservative as; fiscally responsible, states rights over federal government, no stupid ass amnesty bill that will ensnare every American as well (ie, background check for new job, national papers, er id card, etc...), no corporate involvement on Capitol Hill, completely against the ***** up Iraq war that half of America seem to think is related to 9/11, and am tired of this ***** on our constitution by ***** corrupt jackals who think they own the government and can re-write laws on the fly. God, please damn them to hell.

      I'm am so sick and tired of everyone just being complacent with their lives. I understand why they are b/c they just want to go about their day-to-day lives. But something has got to be done, or we will (AND I STRESS) fall into oblivion faster than the world trade center towers just like the Roman Empire. The media is definately a MAJOR factor in what is going on. I think legislation needs to be introduced to remove the semi-monopoly style media. It has got to change and the truth has got to find its way to the people.

      The people are the government, not the other way around.
    • init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@UnstableMind

      "I'd like to consider myself conservative, but with a high IQ."

      Wow, that's unusual.
    • Hillsfar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I agree with you except about the amnesty. I don't want to give them ANY amnesty whatsoever.
  • profOblivion, on 10/11/2007, -10/+48We should start the Religion Opposed To All Religions Including This One and apply for some grant money to be used for charity work. Just to see how it goes, y'know?
    • BrokenWind, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4too late, one exists and its called the ACLU
      • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Funny... because the ACLU protects EVERYBODY's rights, even church's rights. But see, that's not good in the eyes of those who want exclusivity, now is it?!
    • Coven, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3I was going to suggest something similar, except it would have been called the Holy Church of Coven.
      In order to avoid establishing a state religion, they would have to treat all religions equally, right? Church of the FSM should be seeing a nice chunk of change fairly soon in that case. Strippers and beer for all!

      This ruling is such an unconsitutional crock of *****. What exactly are the methods of getting rid of SCOTUS justices? Do we really have to wait for the likes of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, etc to croak or retire?
    • pandasonic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Imagine all those Christian's faces when they die and realize there ain't no "God".
      Following Christian tradition, perhaps this new chruch of reason should be called "the church of ***** your god", since that's pretty much what Christians think about other religions. Who knows, maybe we could get 'em to convert; we can always offer the keys to heaven if they say a magic word before dying, like abrakadabra instead of "God forgive me".
      • Miche1987, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4"Imagine all those Christian's faces when they die and realize there ain't no "God"."

        Well, since we'd be dead and we'd have no afterlife, then what would it matter?

        And at the risk of being recursive, if the Christian God of the Bible were true (which I believe, digg me down), I'd REALLY hate to see "all those atheists' faces".
        • pandasonic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I won't digg you down, I'm not like that
          . Basically, it is a matter of belief. The problem here is that, you can believe what you want, and I honestly and sincerely have no problem with that. My pain starts when other Christians, unlike you, try to shove "God" down my throat. "Religion" should be a personal thing.
          "Well, since we'd be dead and we'd have no afterlife, then what would it matter?" Isn't that the whole purpose of Christianity? So that you can do whatever you want in life (because no Christian does as he/she should) and repent and go to a beautiful afterlife? Sadly, the only ones who suffer and those hurt by those who believe in the afterlife.
          • Miche1987, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Sweet, someone with whom I can have a civil discussion. :)

            The Bible does say that we are supposed to "go and tell" people the gospel...but that's not the same as "shoving down your throat" and that's where many, many Christians get tripped up. The Bible teaches that it is God's job to change hearts, and our job only to reveal the gospel to people. If they decide to reject it, then oh well, not the Christian's problem anymore. It's between the recipient of the gospel and God. That's what the Bible teaches anyway...shame more Christians don't apply what the Bible says to their own lives (myself included, at times).

            "So that you can do whatever you want in life (because no Christian does as he/she should) and repent and go to a beautiful afterlife?"
            You're certainly right, no Christian ever is always doing right...in fact, we screw up all the time. The Bible (and common sense) mention the fact that we have no guarantee of tomorrow, so we should repent now. "Repent" actually means "a change of mind." So if a Christian "repents" then turns around and willfully commits sin again, then he didn't truly repent.
    • vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Hey!

      How about we have the organization of "Actually read the article before commenting"?
    • JibberGeorge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1http://www.agnosticforums.com/
  • rhabd0mancer, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4Welfare loonies make me sick.
  • Barbarino, on 10/11/2007, -21/+11The sky is falling the sky is falling! lol, peeps, Churches who feed hungry kids is not something we should worry about. Does everything have to be hate Bush on this site? Grow up already.
    • kakalaki, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Thank you! It's about time someone on here makes sense.
    • creepermclurker, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5First of all these churches are not 'feeding hungry kids'. They are simply getting money from the federal government to spend as they choose and 'hungry kids' are often left out of the picture.

      Second, do you really not understand why this is an issue. Churches should be as interested in the seperation of church and state as the rest of the population is.

      Finally, regarding your suggestion to "Grow up already." ***** off.
      • Zarchon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Among the programs: Substance abuse treatment, housing for AIDS patients, community re-entry for inmates, housing for homeless veterans and emergency food assistance.

        You know, maybe you should grow up. And while you are at it, you and the rest of the left should understand that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" does not mean you can legislate AGAINST religion. When you stop an an organization from geting money simply because they are faith based, you ARE prohibiting the free exercise thereof. You ARE promoting the religion of Atheism. Freedom OF religion is not freedom FROM religion.
        • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Among the programs: Substance abuse treatment, housing for AIDS patients, community re-entry for inmates, housing for homeless veterans and emergency food assistance."

          How do we know that? Care to enlighten me, a tax payer? Because I don't get to vote for priests or ministers who decide what they do with MY money. See... that's the difference between church and state. I don't need to believe in a god or go to your church in order to vote or take part in government in order to make sure my money is being spent in discriminant. And we already KNOW for a FACT, that churches have and do discriminate when feeding the poor or taking care of the sick. We DO KNOW that churches USE charity to proselytize.

          So what now? Does the government get to tell churches what they can and can't do with that money? And since when does the government get to tell churches what they can and can't do. Well, now it looks like things will have to change. There was reason for the Separation of Church and State. Anyone claiming this is not subverting the Separation of Church and State is either a liar or ignorant.

          ALSO: there is no proof that Churches or religious orgs are better at socialism. However it has been proven that secular/nonreligious organizations do a much better job because they are not dogmatic nor do they discriminate due to religious or nonreligious views. Secular groups are stringently regulated by the government so that they can't discriminate. That is now all gone due to this ruling.
  • Bogie22, on 10/11/2007, -18/+6Not religion! Aren't they the people that....believe in....God? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    *pout*
    • Glitchr, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3The Taliban thinks they believe in God too. Religion is at the heart of most wars and death. How is that for irony?
    • miriclaire, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1GLITCHR- they don't "think" they believe in God. They do.Maybe not yours, though. So what does this have to do with religion-based charities that feed the poor and house the sick? *****. Read some articles...get passed the headlines.
  • pilotss, on 10/11/2007, -10/+26The Republican religion machine has lost a long time conservative voter today.
    • kittynipples, on 10/11/2007, -15/+2Empty threats over the internet make you cool...
    • p0s3r, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3As if a SCOTUS ruling allowing religious charities to compete for the same federal grants that non-religious charities can is such an affront to your conservatism that you'll stop voting R and start voting D.
    • inhaler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Threat? Try statement nipples. Who cares what he does, I respect him for standing up for something regardless. Grow up.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Too late.

      If we have an election in 2008, and IF the Democrats are outsiders who aren't in cahoots, and IF we don't have a war with Iran, and IF the next President pushes for investigations... then I think it will hurt the Republicans that they lost you.

      >> Anybody else having problems with these CAPTCHAs? I can only get one in five to work.
  • penguinofhonor, on 10/11/2007, -10/+15so the UK decides creationism isn't science while the good ol' USA does almost exactly the opposite. I'm in the wrong country. How much is a plane ticket to Europe?
    • keithmcbride, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6funny how many people comment like this, yet none of them will ever leave...
      • Coven, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5We're just waiting for the rapture to come and take all the fundies away so we can finally have things our way.
      • ArnoldTPants, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1And then you'll leave? That doesn't make any sense.
    • Fizpez, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Please, just go. The article is about whether charitable organizations that do community service can receive a share of the government handout parade, the same way a "secular" organization can. Meanwhile you seem to see some sort of creationist "boogey-man" and you want to leave the country. Well I found a lovely 1 stop flight on Virgin Atlantic in 3 weeks time for $318. I gave ya 3 weeks to get your things in order, please don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out. The flight leaves New York and arrives in London - your mileage may vary from where you currently are, but I hear London is a lovely city.
    • Zarchon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Yes, leave already... damn.
  • eatsushi, on 10/11/2007, -10/+11***** this, i'm ready to quit my job and fight our government. I still have 60+ years to live. Jesus ***** Christ...
    • meltingrobot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3You going for 100 too? That's my goal. I've got 74 years to go though.
    • zybch, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Good luck trying to reach that age with the US health system the way it is.
    • Miche1987, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Empty words, I'll bet.
    • eatsushi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5actually i'm going for 80, after that you kinda want to die.

      @Miche1987

      You can bet all you want. I believe the bigger picture is though that you should have the same attitude as I right now because what's being done is simply not right, and you know it. Yet people digg me down for saying something that they think is totally impossible. That's some bs. You wanna bet on something, why don't you bet that I will someday make my mark in history for the better, and you will be riding on my back thinking it just happened out of thin air.
      • Miche1987, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3All I'm saying is if you're going to do something, then go and do it, and don't sit and talk about it. I've heard enough people saying the same things you're saying, and I wonder how many of those will end up doing nothing.

        So, give me your name, and when you pop up in news headlines and/or show up in the history books, then I'll know I didn't bet right.
  • david76, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7FTA: The taxpayers set out ''a parade of horribles'' they contended could happen, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. None did and ''in the unlikely event that any of these executive actions did take place, Congress could quickly step in,'' he wrote.

    In what reality does Alito live in where Congress actually takes action on constitutional issues? Isn't that the court's job?
    • GabrielS, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The Justices are applying the Roberts philosophy. In essence, if the terribles that the plaintiffs describe are going to occur, they must first occur before you can issue a challenge. The facial challenges are far too vague and end up creating ludicrous jurisprudence that over time cannot be defended.
    • pandasonic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3So true, that's like telling us that theft should not be prevented and thus banning all sorts of anti-theft systems; and that, in the event of theft to take place (although highly unlikely), we should call the cops and get their help.
    • jjesusfreak01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Umm, I am not sure where y'all are from, but from what I have seen, the Supreme Court has been ruling on non constitutional issues for a very long time now. They are corrupt on both sides, republican and democrat, just like the congress.

      Unfortunately, any one new justice coming in cant do anything about it. By the time the cases are passed to the Supreme Court, it has already been screwed up by justices, and the Supreme Court really has no better thing to do than make a ruling based on what they want.
  • eatsushi, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Why don't us ordinary citizens just stop paying taxes? I mean, it is a choice we do have isn't it?
    • pandasonic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I agree. Especially, when I have no say on HOW MY ***** MONEY IS SPENT.
    • egroeggnik, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6You don't PAY taxes, the government takes taxes at gunpoint.

      If you think I'm being silly, try not paying them. The gov't will come. With guns.
      • pandasonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1LOL. That's so true that it makes my head hurt.
  • liberalplacebo, on 10/11/2007, -22/+11All the dopey liberal moonbats that hate the Christian religion are in an uproar over this because of Constitutional reasons....but they could care less about the 2nd Amendment; that any and all gun control laws violate. And they could care less about all of the 1st Amendment violations from liberal university speech codes.

    Must be nice to have ZERO intellectual integrity....Nothing but Christian bashing.

    But what do you expect from the "Hate America First" crowd?
    • Bogie22, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4Agreed old bean. Quite so. Must be a rather miserable life living for what you hate. No wonder they're so irritable.
      • pandasonic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I mean, it does suck to know at the end of every two weeks my check has been raped by the government to use this money for ALL THE WRONG REASONS. And, when I call 'em on it and ask them to use it more to my liking they tell me to ***** off.

        *****, who wouldn't be pissed?
    • Eivo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3I see we meet again liberalplacebo, but this time your trolling techniques won't work on me.
      *Hiya*
      Dugg Down Fool!!!
    • Alpione, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5Funny - liberals bash the right around here and are complimented on it. Someone bashes the left and is a "troll." Typical liberal hypocrisy ...
      • Eivo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4It's simple little man, just do your research (that would be his profile, you just click his name in case you didn't know) and it will show you his crazy trolling. Till next time, do your homework.
        :D
    • Oldfart2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
      Uh, the last I read it, the 2nd amendment says nothing about REGULATING guns, just infringing on your right to possess them.
      Of course, according to you and the NRA, babies and felons ought to be able to possess and carry weapons and if you want to own a, say, fully functional and loaded Gatling gun and carry it around in the back of your truck, you ought to be able to do that.
      Every citizen of this country is allowed to vote but YOU HAVE TO REGISTER TO VOTE FIRST AND THERE ARE SOME RESTRICTIONS such as you have to be a certain age, you can't be a felon (in many states) and you can only vote at certain places. In the past there were even more restrictions and, if the neocons have their way there will be more in the future.
      In the same way, every citizen in this country is allowed to own a weapon BUT THERE ARE SOME RESTRICTIVE REGULATIONS that control what age you are when you can buy a gun, whether or not your a felon and where you can keep your gun.
      I'm sure that being a member of "A well regulated Militia", you will understand that. (NOT!)
      The phrase "A well regulated Militia" just seems to float over the head of NRA members.
    • Zarchon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3the 2nd amendment says nothing about REGULATING guns, just infringing on your right to possess them

      So what does infringe mean?

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

      NO LAWS ...prohibiting the free exercise thereof. When you disallow religion access to public funds you are, in affect, punishing that religion.

      As for your other hyperbole, the NRA does not want babies and felons to carry weapons.

      Explain to me how you can find the right to an abortion in the Constitution but you can't understand the RIGHT to bear arms. And if you think the RIGHT to bear arms allows for regulation (which I am ok with) then the RIGHT to vote should also be regulated. I think you should have to prove who you are simply by showing legal I.D. before you vote. Bet that gets your panties in an uproar.
    • gerran, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Nice generalization *****. I'm an atheist who owns two assault rifles (Colt AR15 and Armalite AR10).

      And don't think you're special. We don't bash Christianity. We bash irrationality and stupidy. Unfortunately for Chrisitianity, it's smack in the middle of that group.
      • pandasonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's being sandwiched by those two every day.
  • Bogie22, on 10/11/2007, -13/+9You could all become Christians. Jesus is better than Nancy Pelosi. She may look like she's come back from the dead, but it's just an illusion.
  • Beevo, on 10/11/2007, -9/+7I've said it in another digg article and I'll say it again here...

    This is why I'm somewhat leery of voting for Ron Paul. Not that the man isn't intelligent but the Supreme Court has been ***** by Gee Dubs appointees. It's time to get a more liberal view into the white house to turn the court back closer to neutral.
    • Bogie22, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4You could always hold a fetus burning party to show your rage. That's what liberals do in their free time isn't it? OHHH and you could even gather up all religious texts and symbolism and have a good old fashion Nazi book burning!
    • kittynipples, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Right, because the welfare state and compelled participation in a federal old-age benefits system (Social Security) are so constitutional.
    • inhaler, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2A welfare state and social security system reflect the purpose of government - providing for the people in time when they cannot provide for themself. That's the whole "social contract" thinga-majig.

      Secondly, assuming that social security and welfare are completely negative institutions (which I'm assuming they aren't), your argument is ad hominem nipples.
      • kittynipples, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0When I decide to play high school debate team, I'll let you know. As to the original argument made about the SCOTUS needing to be more liberal, it was the liberal courts who allowed the ever growing expanse of government that we have today. And it's not about what you think the purpose of government is, it's what the Constitution allows the government to do; and the Constitution, as it exists today, is still structured around the original 18th century concept of a minimalist type government. If it should be changed, there is a process for that to occur, but nowhere in that process does the court lie.
    • GabrielS, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Bad news. The liberal minds on the court are older, in poorer health, and increasingly frustrated that their opinions are not able to build a majority.
      • Beevo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2That's why a more liberal president needs to be elected....the older justices are likely to die or retire soon, not sure they'll make it another 4 years.
  • zevgreen, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4I love how they specifically stated, "said Ralph G. Neas, president of People For the American Way Foundation, a liberal-oriented group."

    Since when did the NYT get bought out by News corp?
    • GabrielS, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2PFAW isn't liberal?

      This line is ***** progress dude. For years the NY Times has been attaching 'Republican', 'Conservative', and other monikers when the subject of the story is corruption, but when the subject is a Democrat or Liberal you'll be lucky if they even mention that.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -12/+21If you really want to challenge this law, why don't you people get an aethist-based charity to ask for the incentives. What? There's no such thing as an aethist-based charity? Well, that's hardly my problem now is it. Well, just don't stand there, get cracking.
    • pandasonic, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4I agree.
    • kidtwist, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11There are secular charities. But an atheist-based charity though makes no sense. It's like having a charity run by a an organization of people who don't believe in leprechauns.
    • thefirelane, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7There are plenty of non-religious charities, and those are what Aetheists use... Perhaps they just don't feel like ramming their religion (or lack thereof) down everyone's throat like Christians.

      "Here, you look hungry, have a sammich... but repeat after me first: There is no God"

      Please
    • inhaler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7While athiesm seems almost like a movement on the rise as of late (atleast that's the impression ***** like kirk cameron and other propagandists are trying to portray), there's no organization. Instead of an organization alike to one of people who don't believe in leprechauns, think of it something like one run by people who don't watch american idol. Other than they, they have nothing else in common.
    • gigawatts2k, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Actually it's not Christians in general who shove the religion... it's Southern Baptists :)
      • mattsw84, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Does everyone on digg live in the south, is that why they hate Christians so much?
    • Oldfart2, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Aethist - one who believes in air
      Aetheist - one who believes in an air god
      athiesm - I have NO idea what this one is.
    • orxor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4The problem is that in order to get the money you probably have to believe in a magical being. Just like in some states you can hold office unless you believe in a magical being. So unless atheists start believing in Puff the magic dragon we're not going to see a penny of that money.
    • physik3r, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Too bad atheism isn't a religion eh?
  • weside, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3Now we just need them to overturn Roe v Wade
    • Glitchr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3As if the country is not divided enough? The people with sons, daughters, wives & husbands in IRAQ believe there is a higher priority. Your inability to see this reality is why the Republican party and religious fundamentalists will lose another election in 2008. You are OUT of touch with what America wants. America wants to end the Iraq debacle. America wants affordable health care for EVERYONE. America wants to end the GOP culture of corruption. America wants to restore the Constitution. America is TIRED of running scared from the terrorists. It is time to stand strong and say.. "We are not going to give away our rights and freedom because of terrorists and paranoid GOP leaders." America will march on. If you want to prevent abortion, volunteer in an adoption clinic.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I agree, I am completely against abortion. I believe...scratch that...know that when you have an abortion you ARE taking a life. Call it what you will if that makes you feel better. This stupid non-sense of "woman's right to choose" is craptacular. Since when did women get to decide to kill someone. Yes I agree a woman has a right to do whatever she wants to her body, but a baby is not her body, it is just using the woman as a host to grow. Besides, if they didn't want a baby, they should have been a little more responsible.

      Oh and @Glitchr, I agree with mostly what you said, except the abortion comment. I would like affordable healthcare, but not government funded healthcare. And I would like to add that this immigration amnesty is a bunch of bull-***** that's going to ensnare all Americans, they just haven't read what it entails. Build a ***** fence for ***** sake. If our administration was truly concerned with TTEERRROOORRRIIISSSMMMM, there would definitely be a fence up, hell, maybe even a "Great Wall of China" type fence.
      • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1We don't want your religious extremist views indoctrinated into our federal laws. This is why a seperation between Church and State must be preserved. Your personal beliefs due to DOGMA or what you are told in a church is for you to uphold. Not me. And yes, I do think certain religious folks are terrorists. Especially those that straps bombs on their backs to blow up hospitals or clinics. I also believe those who think abortion is murder yet have no problem with supporting wars are twisted stupid ***** hypocrites.

        You sound like you'd fit in very well with the Taliban.
  • grubout, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5Religion=Terrorism
    • Bogie22, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Careful there son. there's a vein popping out of your forehead. and it's twitching.
    • pandasonic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Damn straight. Anyone noticed that Christians treat their 10 Commandments like Bush treats our Constitution?
    • luckyscs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2The jews own the 10 commandments, the Christians kinda stole it.
  • SvnX, on 10/11/2007, -19/+21Although I know many won't understand, but religious organizations do more than you think. It's been proven and documented that churches across the country have better results with

    1) Getting people off drugs

    2) providing job training and back to work programs that 'STICK' .... Their success rate is higher than government programs that only have 'so much money' but the churches go beyond 'just the government money' and also use 'tithes & offerings' from the congregation. Church people also use more of their own time and don't 'stop working when it's time to punch the clock.'

    3) these 'religious organizations' are made up of tax payers also. They should have a say in where the tax dollars are spent as well and if these tax dollars can / should support something that they believe in.

    4) Although some believe this is a violation of church & state, I won't get into the history of this country and Christianity. Never mind the fact that 'God' is on our money and that 80% of the drafters of the constitution were Christians...guess that dosent mean a thing either?

    I guess my bottom line is: what do the religious organizations do with the money? Do they have better results than government programs? Do these religious organizations provide programs that ultimately keep you and your family safe from harm and put some person (battered wife, x-con, homeless children...etc) back to work / training them / providing a home / giving them the ability-training to keep that home WITHOUT WELFARE!!!....

    Let's look at what they do with the money and their results. Never mind that maybe GOD is the difference in their success and the money is just a tool used to help get there.

    Digg it down...Digg it up. The truth is the truth...either it is or it isn't.

    Peace...and Today...in God...LiveLifeLoveandLearn
    SvnX
    • Bogie22, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7It's kind of like a starving atheist who refuses a hot meal and a place to sleep because it's a Christian offering it to him.
      • pandasonic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6No, it's more like an atheist that's pissed this money is not used for actual beneficial scientific research but instead given to Priests so they can put things other than food in children's mouths.
        • mattsw84, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Yeah, because all Christians rape kids and clean the mess up with 100 dollar bills.
    • patrix, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8"80% of the drafters of the constitution were Christians" yet they put in the clause for separation of Church and State (as you mention). I guess that doesn't mean a thing either, eh? So even if somehow magically the Iraqis adopt democracy today, it would be ok for them to go back to Islamic law later since they are all Muslim.

      And 'God' was put on the money only in the mid-50s. Never was a better political gimmick made.
      • mykool, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Your dead wrong - 80% were not Christians, rather "Deist" a completely different animal. The reason for the separation of Church and State was because they believed the church held too much political power and were trying to remove this influence from the politics of running a country. If the church would have been allowed to prevail...we would have never had the "industrial revolution" which was sparked by the freedom allowed in the USA. Scientist and inventors for once didn't have to worry about being labeled a "heretic" and put to death for trying to make life better through technology.

        • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You are right... they were diests. However, if the majority of them were christians and still felt the need for a seperation between church and state, maybe we should take their advice since religious persecution was condoned by the "state" in Europe for centuries. That's why some religious came here, to free themselves from oppressive governments and the religions they solely endorsed over all others.
    • kakalaki, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4/applaud If anyone shuns a program that helps other based only on who runs it should be ashamed of themselves. Tell it to the people who get help from Church ran soup kitchens and shelters. It's awful that some people can be for self-centered. Nice post SvnX!
    • kilps, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Exactly ... I am not American but personally I think that the separation of church and state doesn't mean that the state cannot support the religious when they do something good ... it means the church shouldn't influence government decision

      Charities should be able to compete equally for money - whichever does the most good should get the money

      This whole thing seems more like an attack on religion than anything else
      • mykool, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2NO. it's the foot in the door, if we don't close it...they will keep pushing till it opens more.
      • egroeggnik, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3kilps, the 'separation of church and state' isn't there to get all religion out of government and vice-versa.

        "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

        This means that the gov't cannot make a 'state religion', i.e. all citizens are now required to become catholics. It doesn't mean that the gov't has to stay away from religion entirely.
        • stepnw1f, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1WRONG!!!!!!! That is only part of what it means. Nice try though. See we know it means a hell of a lot more than that because we have documents written by our forefathers that go into motivating factors in regard to what you just misinterpreted. Don't try to DUMB down the Constitution.

          "The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax dollars in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally, and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices not be restricted by the government. The effect, of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions, while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy, has been termed the "separation of church and state."

          In other words, there shall be NO connection between Church and State. Therefore NO tax money should ever go to a church or religious org. That's part of the reason Churches are not taxed!
    • GabrielS, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4I like the Salvation Army standard. For every dollar you give them, 93 cents ends up in the hands of the people that need it.

      The Red Cross return rate is one dollar in, 64 cents out.

      The US Government is one dollar in, 43 cents out.

      Religious groups are much more effective at getting the funds to the people in need because of self sacrafice and the personal charity through volunteering that people perform through their churches. The grace of God and ultimate salvation is worth one million times more than the good grace of government.
      • gerran, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Too bad the "grace of God" is just a fairy tale. That's the problem. Funding this tripe just spreads ignorance and stupidity.
        • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And churches are allowed to discriminate.

          "What's that? You don't accept our God. Well then, starve you heathen!"

          And who is there to stop them or regulate them so that they can't discriminate?
    • pandasonic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6They also turn gays back into straights. (that's sarcasm)
    • inhaler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"Never mind the fact that 'God' is on our money and that 80% of the drafters of the constitution were Christians"

      God wasn't introduced unto the dollar bill until the 50's if I remember correctly, and the 80% of constitutional founders also believed in religious equality; hence the whole seperation of church and state "thing".

      "Let's look at what they do with the money and their results. Never mind that maybe GOD is the difference in their success and the money is just a tool used to help get there."

      Well, if he doesn't need it anyhow, then maybe he should stop asking for handouts. I won't argue. You can use faith alone to build those missions across the world, since it's such a durable building compound.
    • jackkerouac, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Excellent point.
    • Oldfart2, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Churches are particularly good at converting homosexuals into heterosexuals..............................NOT!
      Churches are particularily good at teaching good sexual health and practices.............................NOT!
      Churches are particularily good at getting those Right-To-Lifers to adopt all those unwanted children threatened by abortions...........................NOT!
      Churches are particularily good at teaching abstinence-only to kids who go on to get anal and oral STDs but remain virgins..............................YES!
      • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1But they sure as hell are great at covering up pedophilia.
    • Alpione, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3@Oldfart - You sound angry. You must be speaking from experience on those anal STDs. That would piss me off, too...
      • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Such a christian thing to say.....
    • Glitchr, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Links? Where is this proof that religious groups help drug addicts better? Do you have some study or scientific proof of this claim or are you just pulling stuff from your bum? Is this another one of those things that religious people believe, but have no proof?

      Religious organization are great a DIVERTING public money into their internal operations. Do a property title search in your area. How much property is owned by the Catholic Church? In my city it almost a half page of microfiche. All are properties owned by the diocese. The government funding of religious organization is just another example of Bush handing tax dollars to his cronies. You know.. "Bushies". I swear it is defacto communism. When the government owns the corporations, it is communism. What the hell is the difference if corporations own the government? The results are exactly the same. In this case the big business is religion. Too bad those supposedly "religious" people don't give a rats bum about the hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq under our name.
    • kurtwinter, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Excuse me, but, what does God need with my taxes? Why don't you just ask your sky spirit to miracle some results, and keep YOUR HANDS OUT OF MY POCKET!
      • mattsw84, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Yeah I don't want to help anyone either!
        /sarcasm
        • UnstableMind, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1He's not saying he doesn't want to help anyone, just that it shouldn't come from taxpayer dollars, but rather an individual's decision to give to that charity...
    • mawginty, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Well, that's not really the issue here. The issue here is that a bunch of folks contend that the way their tax money is being spent by the executive branch is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that they can't even get into court to argue their point, they don't have standing to sue. If this were the legislative branch that were doling out money, there is direct precedent on point that they could sue. So, if the executive branch spends money unconstitutionally who can stop it? The legislature can pass a law, but there is already a law -- the constitution! What if the executive were to found a church? The Church of the President of the United States would be an unconstitutional entity, and tax dollars used to fund it would be unconstitutional appropriations, but individual taxpayers could not sue on the merits to settle that issue, Congress would have to pass a law. If Congress has to pass a law to make illegal something that is already unconstitutional, then the constitution means nothing at all.

      Maybe you're correct, and we should be giving tax dollars to churches. Maybe that is even constitutional. But that's not what this opinion stands for. This opinion shuts the door on judicial oversight of executive appropriations.
    • gerran, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3> I won't get into the history of this country and Christianity. Never mind the fact that 'God' is on our money and that 80% of the drafters of the constitution were Christians...guess that dosent mean a thing either?

      The majority of people in this country are white. 100% of the founding fathers were white. We have white people on our money. The U.S. is a white country! Deal with it or get out!

      See? Your arguments are stupid, your beliefs are unfounded, and there is no place for superstitious beliefs in government.
    • mrgreen4242, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"80% of the drafters of the constitution were Christians"

      Well, ***** the other 20% of them then, right? The trouble isn't that people don't agree that churches CAN do good work with money they have, even better than some non-religious groups. The problem is that I HAVE to pay my taxes. If I don't they send an FBI assault team after (I'm not being paranoid, that just happened this month)> Now, my tax money, which is being forcibly collected, is used to support a "charity" who CAN and DO deny me and other people I care for services. Why should I pay for a select group of people to get charity when I'm not even in that group?

      That's why the Constitution sets up this separation. It allows churches their freedom to be selective (discriminate) and the state the freedom to collect taxes to be used for the public good. If I felt that churches or masques or synagogues or whatever were the best place for people to get help, and I only wanted to help those that agree my ideology then I can give the church some money. There's nothing stopping me, but should I be FORCED to tithe to them?
    • StormTrooperVII, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You have proof that your statements are correct? You have documents? Proof and documents that prove that because they were religion-based they are better than any possible non-religious-based program?

      PRESENT THEM!!

      ... And I will present to you 10 times more showing why those "proofs" have been discredited
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0There is so much wrong with the parent post that I can't begin to address all of it.
      None of your assumptions about the religiousity of the founding fathers was correct. Faith-based does a good job compared to what? It's a complete failure compared to some government programs --- while other government programs that are being designe to fail (based on your faith-based president) are worse than nothing.

      If you want to feel good wasting time with a bunch of nice people, holding committees and dolling out objects nobody wants anymore.... then join a charity. About the only good charity I ever heard of that makes a difference is Carter's Habitat for Humanity.

      The Founding Fathers were mostly Deists, Masons, and even Pagans. You could kind of call them also Christians. Although Benjamin Franklin left Massachusetts because of the witch burnings and never wanted to go back, and Thomas Jefferson re-wrote the bible without miracles. Madison himself, might be in line with today's Republicans, but first he would apologize to Thomas Jefferson for ever doubting his mistrust of Religion and Corporations, and would go back in time and stop himself from preventing the placing of limits on Corporations explicitly in the Constitution.

      Also, the founding fathers would probably stipulate that a religious organization cannot sell products and keep its tax exempt status. Or have day cares and schools and gymnasiums. The mega churches by us look like Malls these days.

      Jesus didn't even like banking, much less a credit-card machine in a church.
    • SvnX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1People People People....

      Many points are being over looked...

      1) Some say "my taxes are being used to fund Christian organizations..." Can't I also say 'My taxes are being used to fund NON-Christian organizations"...? Guess what...Your taxes have been used to fund MANY organizations, wars, research, law enforcement agencies, polititions and more....THAT YOU HAVE NO SAY IN !!!. The same for me as well. Your taxes are even being used to support ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ....But hey...who's counting. But maybe that's a different discussion.

      2) The Bible and the Constitution: The Constitution of the United States was founded off of Bible principles. Let's name a few:
      The primary just function of government is defense of God-given rights. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed…” Gen. 9:6
      God instituted the death penalty thereby creating governmental authority, and that over even life itself.

      “You shall prepare roads for yourself…” Deut. 19:3 God gives to the government, and not to any other entity, the responsibility of building roads.

      There are many others but it's late and I have to get up for work in a few hours. Oh...Taxes came from the Bible and God set up governments (think David, Solomon, etc)... So even God knew there would be governments because he authorized it.

      3) Info about the founding fathers since we have so many history buffs on Digg:
      Spoken at the signing of the Declaration of Independence: "We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven, and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.” Samuel Adams

      Spoken to the chiefs of the Delaware Indian Tribe: "You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ… Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention.” George Washington

      "In this age there can be no substitution for Christianity… That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”
      House Judiciary Committee - 1854

      “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
      Northwest Ordinance 1789

      “Seeing God is the giver of all wisdom, every scholar, besides private or secret prayer, where all we are bound to ask shall be present morning and evening at public prayer in the hall at the accustomed hour….” Yale University requirement

      “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

      and finally
      “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
      Thomas Jefferson

      --------------------------------
      Oh...and ONCE AGAIN.....the CATHOLIC CHURCH is NOT the CHRISTIAN CHURCH!!! Get it right!
      --------------------------------

      So...let's just chalk this up to another organization getting what they need (and the Mexicans, and the Cubans, and the and the and then....)
      • mrgreen4242, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Some say "my taxes are being used to fund Christian organizations..." Can't I also say 'My taxes are being used to fund NON-Christian organizations""

        Ya, they are, but they shouldn't be used fund other, non-Christian groups. They should be used to fund secular groups, or really, non-secular government agencies AND THAT'S IT.
  • vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -9/+9I can't believe that we are being forced to fund organizations that do things like Substance abuse treatment, housing for AIDS patients, community re-entry for inmates, housing for homeless veterans and emergency food assistance.
    /sarcasm
    • SiliconBadger, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3In a free society, it is absolutely wrong to be forced to do anything other than respect other people's rights.
      • vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I am curious what is more important:
        Rights or responsibilities?
    • Oldfart2, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I'll repeat an earlier comment:
      Churches are particularly good at converting homosexuals into heterosexuals..............................NOT!
      Churches are particularily good at teaching good sexual health and practices.............................NOT!
      Churches are particularily good at getting those Right-To-Lifers to adopt all those unwanted children threatened by abortions...........................NOT!
      Churches are particularily good at teaching abstinence-only to kids who go on to get anal and oral STDs but remain virgins..............................YES!
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2As long as they do it in a wholly secular manner I have no problem.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Are you kidding, if you're so concerned, donate to a charity, do NOT use taxpayer dollars, this is a ***** crime. People who post about being against this ruling are getting pegged as someone who is against charities. That is NOT the case, just against using taxpayer dollars. Get a ***** clue please.
  • rberk72, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6The woman bringing the lawsuit is based here in Madison, and she is a definite crackpot. Called Mother Theresa a monster when the city wanted to put her on a bus pass. Like she's ever done anything that would compare to the good Mother Theresa accomplished. Frankly, I discounted the legitimacy of the case as soon as I heard she was involved, that's how nutty she is.

    @david76, I'll have to read his decision, the quote you attribute to him gives me hope. Despite his votes on this and the 'bong hits' case, it does sound like Alito is starting to be more forceful in articulating constitutional principles. Both the left and right wings of this court seem to ignore it when it conflicts with the way they want to vote.
    • kidtwist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6More than a few people think that about Mother Teresa, notably Christopher Hitchens who wrote a book titled "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice" which is extremely critical. It says her charity is mostly just tries to convert the dying while supplying substandard medical care, despite her charity taking in millions. He also points out that when Mother Teresa herself needed medical care she got the best money can buy.
    • inhaler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If you're adverse to the whole "reading" thing, there's always the episode of ***** on google video that mentions Hitchen's book and attempts to disprove the "holier than thou" attitude held by Teresa.
      • rberk72, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Nonetheless, Mother Theresa actually HELPED the poor, dedicated her life to it in fact. I guess I'm just much more impressed by actions than those who simply denigrate what she has done, without doing anything comparable themselves. Especially when their rhetoric is accompanied by a sense of moral or intellectual superiority.

        Never been a big fan of Hitchens. A pseudo-intellectual who is more intent on impressing people with his knowledge and style than making sense. Hitchens or Mother Theresa. Who's helped more people during their lives? Seems clearcut to me. He reminds of Hemingways response to Faulkner that you don't need big words to make your point, big emotions don't come from big words ...
      • dpmcalli, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Any chance of a link to that particular ***** episode, Id love to check it out.

        Thanks in advance
    • vitaminKsGood4u, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3and only God knows the damage she did telling an AIDS infested country not to use condoms.
    • Oldfart2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3This "crackpot" helped to form a group of atheists that grew from 3 people to many groups in many states. This in spite of being from the sticks in Wisconsin demonstrates that she comes from a people who can think for themselves and just won't have crackpot theories like Christianity shoved down their throats. They are way too agressive for me. I choose to leave the primitives alone since they tend to riot and burn people at the stake when aroused.
      • rberk72, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1atheism is every bit a religion. Belief in an unprovable tenet. Should I worry about seeing you roaming the streets with a match and a big log?
        You'll have to excuse those 'primitives'. They haven't evolved yet to the form where they can go on Digg and make sweeping generalizations about fully 90% of America, 60% of Europe, etc..
  • pandasonic, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4Let's do this: We need to start an "atheist church". But, since that's not possible, we should start up some sort of non-profit atheist charity group.

    I have some free time. We can show Christians you don't need to have sex with little kids in order to help them.
    • SvnX, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4For the RECORD...: CHRISTIAN does not equil CATHOLIC!!!! I am a Christian....that dosent play with little boys. In addition to that, in the Bible...Paul was the only one who didn't have sex / marry. He said it was better to marry than to burn with lust. The Catholic church should have listened. There are many successful ministries of Husband / Wife pastoral teams.

      And...their are already 'Atheist Groups'....those are the ones run by the US Government, the school system where you CAN'T talk about God, the clinics where you CAN'T pray for a person on their grounds. So....you already have your places.
      • Oldfart2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2First of all, who said Catholic priests were the only "holy men" interested in little boys and girls? We all know better.
        Secondly, those operations by the US Government are SECULAR - not atheistic. SECULAR. Look the term up sometime. Stretch your mind beyond what you learned in VBS.
    • kakalaki, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0"We can show Christians you don't need to have sex with little kids in order to help them".
      • kakalaki, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0For some reason, it ain't showing the rest of my comment. I basically said that the quote was just an awful thing to say about anyone.
    • GabrielS, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Will this project mean you will spend less time on Digg?

      /fingers crossed

      Get crackin. Hop to it my atheist friend.
  • Miche1987, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5I'll be the first to say, even though I am a fundamental Christian, I do not agree with this ruling at all. The only government that is to be a biblical theocracy is Israel (in which case I use the term "biblical" fairly loosely, they're more just OT) and the future kingdom of Christ. No other secular government ought to run "God's government".

    Separation of church and state is not only logical, but biblical as well. (How about that.../s)
    • Bogie22, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0are you referring to "render unto Caesar" or some other teaching?
      • Miche1987, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, that is what I'm referring to..."Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God's the things that are God's." (Forget the reference...it's in Matthew somewhere)
    • airship, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2As a born-again Christian myself, I agree. I don't want the government in my church.

      The best way for government to support 'faith-based initiatives' is to lower taxes so that parishioners can afford to contribute more to their church's social programs. There is no excuse for letting the government tax an atheist to support a church-sponsored program. Or to tax me to support a program run by the Mormons, Buddhists, or Jehovah's Witnesses, as far as that goes.
  • JonnyTrombone, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6This is *****- the US has a little known SCOTUS decision called "Lemon V Kurtzman" that ought to make crap like faith-based initiatives illegal. If you don't think separation of church and state is institutionalized in the US, I suggest you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
    • Alpione, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"Crap" like faith-based initiatives?" Seriously - I really wonder if you liberals care about anything other than yourselves. Yeah, I really hate organizations that are non-profit and created specifically to help others. Damn them!!!
      • Viliam, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The organizations are non-profit and created specifically *to promote religion* by helping others. As an advertising, it is nice. (If all advertising would be done by helping other people, this planet could be a nice place.) Still it is an advertising of religion, for taxpayers' money.

        If you only want to help others, just call the organization "Charity". If you call it "Christian Charity", you advertise. If you have a condition that your members must be Christians, or that Christianity must be promoted... then your goal is also to promote some group of people... *and* help others.
  • luckyscs, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9This is just a ruling saying you can't sue bush for attempts at aiding religions. THIS IS NOT VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION. It says that the constitution will only be enforced by the judges and not by the people. Don't worry, just read the story.
    • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1uhhh... yes it is violating the Constitution.
  • jmghollywood, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Looks like it's time for me to make a faith based religion in something. I figure since I can't beat these morons, I might as well use their ridiculous rules against them.
    • Alpione, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3You children are so funny to watch... You'll grow up eventually...
    • miriclaire, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Well, as long as you do something WORTHWHILE! like feed hungry and sick, moron!
  • LucidParody, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12The title is misleading. The Supreme Court did not bar suits against faith based initiatives. They barred a suit against a faith based initiative. If someone were to sue saying they've been actually injured by this faith based initiative [e.g. they didn't get funding when they should have solely b/c of this initiative choosing faith based organizations over secular ones], then the courts might be able to hear that dispute. They simply won't hear challenges to laws from people simply because they are tax payers. Otherwise, every person in america would have a cause of action when it seems the government may be violating the establishment clause. Government funds would be siphoned off defending each and every action they take -- legitimate or not. Further, it's not the courts role to make policy judgments in the abstract. If you want to change policy, go to election booth. If you have an actual injury that needs fixin' go to the courts.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2It's against the Constitution to send $1 dollar to a faith-based or religious organization.

      So protecting them from lawsuits -- well, if the government doesn't want to address lawsuits all day, then it should follow the law.

      Funding these initiatives is unconstitutional and this ruling is also unconstitutional. So is Bush's government -- appointed by these very same activist judges.
      • LucidParody, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1First, no, it's not against the constitution to send $1 dollar to a faith-based or religious organization. Second, even if it were -- if you haven't been actually, concretely and particularly injured, go to the political process to fix your problems.

        People are always complaining about how overly litigious this society is. What a double standard -- when you've been physically injured -- it's your fault. don't rely on the courts to fix your problems. Don't even think about going to the courts to figure out who is really at fault (because you know, that's not their function or anything). BUT when the government does something YOU think is wrong, let's go to courts to fix it.

        I thought I'd never be saying this -- but thank god/buddha/me for the lawyers.
  • SiliconBadger, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11You know, this wouldn't even be an issue if the federal government would just let us keep our money in the first place. Then we could donate to whomever we like, and there's no big argument over who should or shouldn't get the money.

    It's the government that should never have that money in the first place!
    • bitsplice, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1That's ridiculous. You live in a society. We pay taxes to support that society and all of the goods that it includes. However, the US government is outrageously guilty of misusing funds. These funds should be used to ensure that we all can get health care.
    • miriclaire, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2And do you think that many of the selfish morons on here and elsewhere would actually donate to the sick and hungry and displaced? Yeah! Right. Get a grip and a REAL opinion.
  • jackkerouac, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Did any of you loonies actually RTFA? Most of the comments here show little or no knowledge of the actual article.
    • FearlessFreep, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Nobody here reads the articles. The lin k to the article only provides some sort of legitmacy as an excuse to post about a given topic, but the summary and the title are based on whatever sip in the submitter wants to put on the topic and then everyone replies to what the title says, thinking they are commenting on the content of the article