The Supreme Court has just ruled that US citizens cannot sue the federal government for violating the separation of church and state.  States will now be allowed to directly fund religion.  The five Roman Catholic Justices of the Supreme Court, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy, appear much more committed to their Church and religious dogma than to upholding of the Constitution of the United States.  We should all urge Obama to appoint a 10th non-sectarian justice to block this blatant and dangerous religious usurpation of the foundation of our republic.  And we should all write strong letters of condemnation and protest to as many media outlets as possible. 

Views: 88

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And as I understand it, the Supreme Court rarely overturns one of it's own decisions!  Do you have any kind of Court Record of the case, Eric, or a good website documenting this case?  Of course, it seems blatently Unconstitutional to me!

This past sunday's editorial in the New York Times discussed the decision, which overturned the precedent in Flast.  Kagan issued a strong dissent which the editorial featured.

I believe this is the ruling you are referring to:


(Note that this source seems to be a bit biased against the ruling.)


One thing I would like to point out is that they did not determine whether this practice is or is not constitutional, only that the taxpayers lacked standing for a case in this particular instance.

So who does having standing to bring a challenge?


I bet if the ratio of private schools was heavily weighted towards secular schools instead of religious based schools, this tax redemption scheme would have never made it on the books.

Is this the case you are talking about? I think it has to be the one. If someone could confirm this.

4/04/11 - Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn


I found this comment in the Huffingtonpost about the same topic. By Jeff Rosenbury.


The ruling was the only fair ruling possible.

The court had three choices. 

It could deny standing which it did. 

It could allow standing broadly, which would allow anyone to sue the government over it's spending choices. Thus, if I don't like General Electric, I could sue them because they receive federal money. I could argue there was no due process in the payments. I could examine G.E.'s books and hold their earnings hostage. Further so could you and everyone else in the world. 

Finally the court could allow such suits only on religious grounds. Yet this itself would be an entangleme­nt on religious grounds and is not allowed by the doctrine of separation of church and state.

So how do we solve this impasse? Luckily we have two other branches of government­. The legislatur­e could do their jobs and not vote money for religious purposes. Failing that the executive could refuse to pay such moneys. Then the religious groups would be forced to sue and standing is establishe­d. 

That's how checks and balances work. 


Another post stated only congress could appoint an extra Judge and not Obama.


I skimmed through the judgment, but it's too complex for me. 




Rosenbury's argument that you can't sue a violation  of church/state separation because the suit itself would violate the separation doesn't seem to make any sense.  One would never be able to take any action against these violations if that were true.

Yeah, that seems like a strange argument.


I'm very mixed on this whole issue. While it annoys me how the supreme court avoids certain subjects, I also think "well, better that they avoid it than have this overly conservative court declare that it's okie-dokie to give religious institutions money."


There was a case way back in the day where abolitionists cheered getting a case to the supreme court... until the supreme court declared that blacks were not citizens according to the constitution and therefore had no rights, and furthermore that they were technically property and since property was protected by the constitution, no law could be made to force slave owners to release their slaves.


Sometimes having the supreme court ignore an issue is better than having them rule on it.

My comment wasn't intended to be a judgement of the constitution. Rather, it was an example of how supreme court rulings can sometimes undo years of progress. As such, I would be careful what you wish for.

Yeh, it does seem strange.

Have there ever been any previous cases where governments have been sued for how they spent or didn't spend the peoples money? I'm sure the case must mention such examples. Maybe they gave the money to the religious institution because the money is used for educating kids in schools. Rather than because of religious reasons. (But I haven't read the court transcript, and I don't have the time to do so)

Another in a line of outrageous decisions that they've made lately.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service