IN THEORY:Should taxpayers be allowed to challenge public funding of religion?

The U.S. Supreme Court recently threw out a challenge to the White House’s faith-based initiative that provided seminars for religious organizations seeking federal grants. A group of atheists and agnostics said the seminars violated the separation of church and state, but the Supreme Court ruled that taxpayers lacked the legal standing to challenge that type of program. Should taxpayers be allowed to challenge public funding of religion?

Of course taxpayers should be allowed to challenge public funding of religion. We are supposed to be a democracy, where the voice of the people should be allowed a hearing in court. And whether the funding was authorized by the White House or Congress should make no difference. It would be like Vice President Dick Cheney saying that he doesn’t have to abide by any rules of either the executive or legislative branches of the government, because he is not entirely a part of either branch. He sits in the White House but occasionally puts a toe in the halls of Congress, so supposedly he gets to play musical chairs and use his avoirdupois to push others around.

What utter garbage!

All branches of our government should be subject to the voice of the people and the laws of the land.

The new justices, clearly selected by President Bush for their known ideology, are making rulings to promote that ideology instead of following proper legal logic as they had promised to do, while ignoring wise and time-honored decisions of the past.

JERRY PARKS

The question shows a flawed understanding of what is happening, and the attacks on such programs are also misinformed.

First, the government is not funding religion; it is funding the social services that are provided by many faith-based groups in arenas where we do better than the government can do alone.

Second, the Constitution refers to the bias of the government toward a particular faith group and establishing it over another. There is no limitation on which groups can participate and which cannot. These atheist and agnostic groups can also appeal for the funds but do not have the social awareness and outreach efforts that the faith community has. So if they are jealous about the funding, maybe they should participate in and provide social services rather than suing to get the funding cut off from people who benefit from these services.Third, these programs are an effort to bring faith-based groups into partnership with government to meet needs the government cannot fill alone.

Fourth, many congregations are refusing the government funding because it limits the ability of the congregation to include faith in the discussion.

The atheists and agnostics afraid of proselytizing with taxpayer funds obviously haven’t read the restrictions that come with the funding.

RIC OLSEN