Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, says that the Supreme Court should "just say no" to so-called "offended observers."
These are people who, on the mere sight of a monument of the Ten Commandments or a nativity scene in the town square, decide to file suits because they are taxpayers. In no other area of the law does the Court allow this kind of legal standing to bring challenges. For years, atheists and others who are antagonistic to religion and who want to remove every religious reference from American public life, have had a special privilege in federal court. Unlike everyone else, church-state separation advocates have not had to show that a law or government activity actually injured them in any way before they could bring a challenge in federal court. All they had to do was show that they were taxpayers. In essence, separationists have had a free reign to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits throughout the country just because they were "taxpayers." Simply put, that’s unfair. No other citizen can just sue because they pay taxes. It should be the same in the religion cases, and the Supreme Court has an opportunity to say "no" to these plaintiffs once and for all.
The case is Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, and it concerns FRF's challenge to the faith-based initiatives program.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation is an aggressive anti-religious organization. From their own website, they claim religion basically stifles moral and social progress.
The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.
Interestingly enough, they go on to claim that it was atheists and agnostics who were responsible for the end to slavery and the women's right to vote.
That would come as a big surprise to the Quakers, the first abolitionist group in England. It would also surprise Baptists and Methodists, as well.
In America, the Quakers formed The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, the first abolitionist group. The Second Great Awakening caused many, including small denominations such as the Free Methodist Church to support the abolitionist movement.
So, the idea that it was atheists and agnostics leading the charge for social improvements is both a lie and a mischaracterization. But that's not really anything new, is it?
But I digress.
Sekulow's main point is that merely being a taxpayer doesn't give one standing to bring a lawsuit in any other area of law. Only with the Establishment Clause, and only because of one case (Flast v. Cohen), does a citizen have standing to sue the government simply by paying taxes. You can't do this over defense spending or environmental abuses or foreign policy disputes or educational expenditures. In order to file suit for any of these causes (and more), a person must show how the government harmed him/her through some action.
Not so with Establishment Clause cases. Being a taxpayer is reason enough to attack any separation of church issue.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation case on February 28. Sekulow writes:
Subsequent decisions from the Court regarding Flast v. Cohen have rejected every argument the Court had previously made in support of its earlier decision. "In sum," the ACLJ brief concludes, "this Court has, in the years since Flast, knocked out every single rationale underpinning that decision...Like Wile E. Coyote in the old Roadrunner cartoons, Flast stands in midair, waiting only for that fact to be noticed before collapsing of its own weight."
The Flast precedent has caused a lot of mischief. It has empowered every disgruntled atheist to make a federal case out of any hint of religion in a government action. We are glad the Supreme Court is now taking another look at whether taxpayer suits under the Establishment Clause make sense under our constitutional framework. We are convinced that these taxpayer suits should no longer be permitted. Enough is enough, and it’s time for the Supreme Court to say so.
It's time for the court to put an end to this nonsensical attack on religious participation in public life.
|