Disappointment

"By a 5-4 vote, a conservative majority concluded taxpayers did not
have "standing" to challenge in court the discretionary spending
authority of the executive branch for its Office of Faith-Based
and Community Initiatives."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/25/faith.based.office.scotus/index.html

Another step back for the separation of church and state...

Originally posted by wittywonka
"By a 5-4 vote, a conservative majority concluded taxpayers did not
have "standing" to challenge in court the discretionary spending
authority of the executive branch for its Office of [b]Faith-Based
and Community Initiatives."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/25/faith.based.office.scotus/index.html

Another step back for the separation of church and state...[/b]

Did they start a state religion?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Did they start a state religion?
Kelly

No. The State endorsed religion. This is by definition not separation.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
No. The State endorsed religion. This is by definition not separation.

Nemesio

Endorsed religion, hmm you lost me here, it did not setup a state
religion? You think if a state penny touchs a religious 'anything' that
is some how against the law?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Endorsed religion, hmm you lost me here, it did not setup a state
religion? You think if a state penny touchs a religious 'anything' that
is some how against the law?
Kelly

The state has gone further than that. They have a specific office just for faith-based charities. This implies that special preference is given to religious charities.

I have no problem with the government supporting charity work, but there must be no discrimination against non-religious charities.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The state has gone further than that. They have a specific office just for faith-based charities. This implies that special preference is given to religious charities.

I have no problem with the government supporting charity work, but there must be no discrimination against non-religious charities.

I doubt there are special preferences, more than likely a group setup
to make sure no special preferences are given. Nothing implied about
it, unless you think that every group that gets a specific office gets
special preferences.
Kelly

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The state has gone further than that. They have a specific office just for faith-based charities. This implies that special preference is given to religious charities.

I have no problem with the government supporting charity work, but there must be no discrimination against non-religious charities.

Do you think that all the non-religious charities are getting special
treatment above religious ones without this special office?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I doubt there are special preferences, more than likely a group setup
to make sure no special preferences are given. Nothing implied about
it, unless you think that every group that gets a specific office gets
special preferences.
Kelly

Why didn't they just call it the "Office for charitable initiatives"?