Case Against Religion in VA Care Fails

[unhappycamper]

Case Against Religion in VA Care Fails
August 07, 2008
Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. - Taxpayers cannot sue the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for incorporating religion into its health care programs for the nation's veterans, an appeals court has ruled.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 5 the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation and three of its members have no legal standing to bring the case.

The group was trying to end the department's practice of asking patients about their religion in "spiritual assessments," its use of chaplains to treat patients, and drug and alcohol treatment programs that incorporate religion. It claimed those practices violated the separation of church and state.

But the court ruled that federal taxpayers cannot challenge those expenditures. The court cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year in which the same group was not allowed to sue over President Bush's faith-based initiative.

In that case, the court ruled 5-4 the executive branch cannot be sued by taxpayers for expenses that allegedly promote religion. Cases can only be brought when the questionable expenditures are explicitly authorized in a congressional spending bill, the court ruled.


Rest of article at: http://www.military.com/news/article/case-against-religion-in-va-care-fails.html?col=1186032310810

[ananda]

1. Sorry but there's no two ways to look at it.

Any use of taxpayer money to promote religion
is a violation of the freedom of religion
protection in the Constitution.

However, as I understand it, the Constitution
is nothing but a piece of toilet paper to
Bushinc.

[Solly Mack]

2. That's fucked up

[LiberalFighter]

3. Just because the court rules one way doesn't mean they are right.

Patients need to rebel against this and change their personality to one of Crankshaft.

Why are they wasting funding that is better used in other areas for the veterans? When people receive religious support do they really want support from strangers vs those that have more of a bond? Aren't strangers more likely to screw it up because they don't know the client?

[Seeking Serenity]

4. I don't see the problem.

Are these veterans forced to incorporate religion in their treatment programs? Are they subjected to punishment or lesser standard of care if they choose not to participate? Are the religious aspects geared solely to one religion to the exclusion of all others?

If there is no force or coersion and if the non-religious veterans can freely choose a non-spiritual course of treatment, and if other religions are treated equally, then I don't see this as unconstitutional.