Separation of Church and Taxes -- Part One
---
First it was a bureaucrat in West Palm Beach, Florida, deciding that there was, somehow, a desperate need to hire over 100 churches to serve as polling places -- with taxpayer money used to pay those churches rent. And that, to a federal judge, was "no big deal" as far as the First Amendment was concerned. It was, somehow, not an "excessive entanglement."
Then it was taxpayer money being used to renovate churches in Detroit, to "spiffy them up" in anticipation of a World Series and Super Bowl. And that, to a federal judge, was "no big deal" as far as the First Amendment was concerned. It was, somehow, not an "excessive entanglement."
Well, are we at "big deal" now?
As I asked in the aforementioned posts: Are we at "excessive entanglement" yet? Who would dare assert that there is any quantum of sophistry that would make these political indulgences permissible under the Establishment Clause? Or was it simply a matter, as it so often is, of the politicians just hoping not to get caught in their moral defectiveness?
Meanwhile, as the theocrats pause to be thankful for the beneficence of ("democratically elected") politicians who fiscally rape taxpayers in God's name, I am instead thankful for the ACLU, which is suing to stop the insanity.
The (nascent) case is ACLU v. Blanco (E.D. La.) (Complaint PDF - 8 pages; "Memorandum in Support" PDF - 24 pages).
Then it was taxpayer money being used to renovate churches in Detroit, to "spiffy them up" in anticipation of a World Series and Super Bowl. And that, to a federal judge, was "no big deal" as far as the First Amendment was concerned. It was, somehow, not an "excessive entanglement."
Well, are we at "big deal" now?
[Louisiana's] general appropriations bill, HB1, signed into law last month, unconstitutionally directs taxpayer dollars in the amounts of $100,000 to Stonewall Baptist Church in Bossier City and $20,000 to Shreveport Christian Church. The grants were not subject to any oversight or competitive bidding process, and the bill offers no purpose or justification for the challenged earmarks.No wink-wink gobbledygook excuses about needing polling places or beautifying the neighborhood. Politicians just went ahead and gave two churches -- not faith-based initiatives, not religiously-sponsored schools, hospitals or summer camps, but churches -- tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars for no reason at all, and with no strings attached. A taxpayer-extracted gift, from politicians to clerics -- Praise the Lord!
As I asked in the aforementioned posts: Are we at "excessive entanglement" yet? Who would dare assert that there is any quantum of sophistry that would make these political indulgences permissible under the Establishment Clause? Or was it simply a matter, as it so often is, of the politicians just hoping not to get caught in their moral defectiveness?
Meanwhile, as the theocrats pause to be thankful for the beneficence of ("democratically elected") politicians who fiscally rape taxpayers in God's name, I am instead thankful for the ACLU, which is suing to stop the insanity.
The (nascent) case is ACLU v. Blanco (E.D. La.) (Complaint PDF - 8 pages; "Memorandum in Support" PDF - 24 pages).
Related Posts (on one page):
- Separation of Church and Taxes -- Part Two
- Separation of Church and Taxes -- Part One
- Communism + Theocracy = ?
- Using a Church as a Polling Place Not an "Excessive Entanglement"?
Posted by Kip on
14 August 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
