05-22-2002, 12:26 AM
|
#1
|
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Challenge to Faith Based Charity in Texas to get hearing
A case to watch.
<a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1419201" target="_blank">Faith program challenged over use of taxpayer funds</a>
Quote:
...
At issue is whether the charitable choice program violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of separation of church and state under a 1999 contract with the Texas Department of Human Services.
. . .
Civil rights advocates say the case -- the first in the nation challenging a charitable choice program under federal welfare reform law -- could be critical as the Bush administration pushes an expansion of faith-based solutions to social ills.
"I don't think there is any doubt that what went on was wrong, that they were using tax money to subsidize proselytizing," said Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, which brought the suit with the American Jewish Congress.
...
DHS spokesman Mike Jones hotly denied that any state money was used to purchase Bibles or that state money was used in any way to fund religious proselytizing.
He said public documents showing just such plans by the group were part of an earlier proposal that had been changed under the contract.
"That is absolutely false," he said, asserting that the entire grant was channeled into the executive director's salary.
"This was a local community group that has (provided) and continues to provide a service to the community. It's unfortunate that some special interests have chosen to waste taxpayer money on a frivolous lawsuit," he said.
Civil rights are not a special interest, said Samantha Smoot, executive director of the Texas Freedom Network, which monitors the activities of the religious right.
"This is an enormous issue because the White House says it is perfectly OK to require taxpayers to fund religious organizations as long as the money doesn't go to religious practice," she said.
"In this case it did. This issue is anything but frivolous," she said. "The White House's rationale for this being constitutional hinges on this point."
. . .
|
|
|
|
