The fears about standing and about
funding of religious organizations are important questions of law, but both were satisfactorily resolved under the Supreme Court's traditional standing rules and there is no reason to think RFRA would reopen the issue.
After Blaine's proposed amendment failed to become part of the U.S. Constitution, 36 states passed their own constitutional amendments barring state
funding of religious organizations, including religious schools.
The other amendment would repeal a Florida state constitutional provision that prohibits public
funding of religious organizations.
The least restrictive Blaine Amendments, such as the one in Kentucky, forbid only direct funding of religious education; the most restrictive Blaine Amendments, such as those in Florida and Georgia, prohibit both indirect and direct
funding of any religious organization.
First, some Blaine Amendments forbid funding of religious education while others more broadly forbid
funding of all religious organizations.
Not exact matches
This is the 10th edition
of the report hailed as the «Bible for socially progressive foundations,
religious groups, pension
funds, and tax - exempt
organizations» by the Chicago Tribune.
Churches, church conventions or associations, as well as
religious and apostolic
organizations, including corporations and any community chest,
fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for
religious purposes, no part
of the net earnings
of which inures to the benefit
of any private shareholder or individual.
Supporters
of George W. Bush's faith - based initiatives plan, which would shift some
of the responsibility and
funding for social services onto
religious organizations, often stress that the plan isn't radically new but rather an extension
of accepted practices.
Yet another restriction
of religious freedom comes in the form
of monitoring
of or outright bans on foreign sources
of funding — the lifeblood
of many church
organizations and other NGOs in India.
Aggressive and legal
fund - raising on the air made possible the creation
of huge distribution systems for the televangelists — all with the bonus
of being tax free as
religious organizations..
On the one hand, language at the beginning
of the Charitable Choice provision makes it clear that the rules are intended to protect the
religious character and autonomy
of the
organizations receiving government
funds.
In an attempt to give
religious groups some guidance in navigating between Charitable Choice's front and back ends, some
religious organizations have begun work on a «Code
of Conduct» by which FBOs accepting government
funds regulated by Charitable Choice would pledge to operate.
That is, if a Jewish FBO runs an hour long, publicly
funded computer skills training class that includes a one - minute prayer by the instructor at the beginning
of class, that FBO is not engaging in «sectarian instruction»; it is simply being true to its character as a
religious organization.
Though they spend a part
of each program soliciting
funds for their
organizations, the FCC has ruled that paid - time
religious programs are not commercial - length programs.
Funding under the AFLA went, as Congress intended, to a wide variety
of recipients including state and local health agencies, private hospitals, community health associations, privately operated health care centers, and community and charitable
organizations, many
of them with ties to
religious denominations.
The executive order in question, issued by President Clinton and affirmed by President Bush in 2002, states that while
religious organizations that receive federal
funds can not discriminate against beneficiaries
of their programs, they «may retain
religious terms in its
organization's name, select its board members on a
religious basis, and include
religious references in its
organization's mission statements and other chartering or governing documents.»
Most Americans assume that the separation
of church and state is a fundamental principle deeply rooted in American constitutionalism; that the First Amendment was intended to ensure that government does not involve itself with religion (and vice versa); and that contemporary debates over such vexing issues as school prayer, voucher programs, government
funding of faith - based
organizations, and the rights
of religious minorities represent ongoing attempts to realize the separation intended by the Founders and like - minded early Americans.
Americans, these days, give some $ 300 billion a year to charitable
organizations, including
religious institutions that
fund vast networks
of education, health care, and social service serving people in real need.
«President Obama should ask Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf where the
funding for the mosque is coming from and whether he views Hamas as a terror
organization before he tries to deflect the very real security concerns at issue by instead lecturing New Yorkers on matters
of religious tolerance.»
Questions during the off - topic portion
of the press conference included his opinion
of the expected Democratic candidate in the 11th Congressional District special election and whether he'll campaign for Gentile, the prospect
of Department
of Homeland Security losing
funding,
religious organizations renting City school facilities for prayer / worship services and the related lawsuit, a NY Post report criticizing a newly - created NYPD training program, reported terror threats against shopping malls, the absence
of a Lunar New Year message from the mayor and his non-attendance at the Lunar New Year parade, his reaction to Governor Cuomo's comment that their relationship will be «the best relationship between a mayor and governor in modern political history,» his scheduled trip to Albany on Wednesday and delays in federal
funding of Sandy rebuilding.
Councilmember Greenfield, a former vice president
of the Sephardic Community Federation, heads an outside
organization that is dedicated to securing government
funds for
religious schools, and he boasts in his online Council bio that he has been successful in securing $ 600 million in tax credits for parents
of school children not in the public schools.
The agency would help
religious organizations and houses
of worship find grant
funding.
Borrowing from New York's playbook, Illinois
funders, advocates, and parents built an extensive coalition
of religious organizations, community groups, and, surprisingly, some blue - collar labor unions (not teacher unions) to advocate for the reform.
Arizona passed a scholarship program
funded by tax credits and subsequently found itself sued by the ACLU (and nominal plaintiffs that it rounded up) because many
of the scholarship
organizations were
religious and sent recipients to
religious schools.
In an analogous case, it relied on the free speech clause to strike down the University
of Virginia's (UVA) refusal to allow a
religious organization run by students to receive
funds that were made available to secular
organizations.
But they are also not accountable to the same public purposes and oversight as our fully public schools, and many
of them are
religious organizations that are now going to be getting public
funding.
It's been gummed up because
of a faith - based protection provision that would allow adoption agencies to receive state
funding while turning away prospective parents who don't fit with an
organization's
religious beliefs.
The appeal
of neo-vouchers is that the
funding for a
religious school's tuition doesn't come directly from the state; it comes from the nonprofit «school tuition
organization.»
Public
funds should be spent on public schools, not private schools state the coalition
of public policy, education,
religious and civil rights
organizations in the joint letter.
We have helped thousands
of schools and education
organizations, non-profit
organizations, communities, humane societies, animal rescues, pet adoption centers, animal
organizations, horse, dog, and cat clubs,
religious organizations, churches, sports teams, fire departments and police departments raise needed
funds.
[4] Identification
of a judge's position in educational,
religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic
organizations on letterhead used for
fund - raising or membership solicitation does not violate this Rule.
(1) an interest in the individual holdings within a mutual or common investment
fund; (2) an interest in securities held by an educational,
religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic
organization in which the judge or the judge's spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child serves as a director, an officer, an advisor, or other participant; (3) a deposit in a financial institution or deposits or proprietary interests the judge may maintain as a member
of a mutual savings association or credit union, or similar proprietary interests; or (4) an interest in the issuer
of government securities held by the judge.
A lawyer is often involved in a non-legal setting where contact is made with the media about publicizing such things as
fund - raising, expansion
of hospitals or universities, programs
of public institutions or political
organizations, or in acting as a spokesperson for
organizations that, in turn, represent particular racial,
religious, or other special interest groups.