If the high court refuses to recognize the right of taxpayers to challenge government funding of religion emanating from the executive branch, the defense of the separation of church and state becomes all the more difficult.
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning heard oral arguments in an important case that could affect your right to defend the separation of church and state in court.
At issue in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation is a dispute over “standing” – the right to sue.
Taxpayers don’t automatically have the right to sue just because they don’t like how their money is being spent. In cases dealing with the “establishment of religion,” however, the Supreme Court in 1968 carved out an exception to that rule. The Founders were concerned about tax funding of religion, the court noted, and therefore taxpayers should have the right to challenge the practice through legal action.
Most lawsuits of this nature challenge congressional appropriations. The Hein case is different because the funds being challenged come from White House discretionary funds. The White House used the money to put on various conferences promoting its “faith-based” initiative, a practice that riled the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Today’s argument was somewhat obtuse and legalistic, but even a layperson could understand how much is at stake. If the high court refuses to recognize the right of taxpayers to challenge government funding of religion emanating from the executive branch, the defense of the separation of church and state becomes all the more difficult.
Unfortunately, some justices appear to be willing to embrace that approach. Andrew J. Pincus, the attorney who argued the case on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, faced especially aggressive questioning from Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Antonin Scalia was similarly aggressive, hurling a line of sarcastic questions at Pincus.
After the argument, advocates on both sides took questions from the media on the portico of the Supreme Court. Representatives from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC) were on hand. Americans United has worked with this group for many years. Its staff and supporters hold fast to the traditional Baptist view that religious freedom is not secure without a high wall of separation between church and state.
“As soon as government starts to meddle in religion, for or against it, or take sides in matters of religion, favoring one over another, someone’s religious liberty is denied and everyone’s is threatened,” said BJC General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman in a press statement.
Amen to that. The only way we can make certain that our religious liberties are secure is to hold the courthouse door wide open for those who seek to use the legal system to protect that fundamental right. A right that cannot be defended in court quickly becomes worthless.
Here’s hoping the Supreme Court agrees.
© 1947 - 2008