PDA

View Full Version : Legal SCOTUS: Religious student groups and public school funds


Jenson71
02-11-2010, 03:11 PM
Last year, the Supreme Court granted cert to a petition by the Christian Legal Society student organization chapter at University of California. They claim that their First Amendment right of association was infringed upon by their school's nondiscriminatory requirement in order to receive sponsorship, funding, benefits, etc. The group was admittedly discriminatory in their officer positions: you had to be a Christian. Makes sense.

The case should be heard sometime this spring, either the April or May terms.

What are your thoughts?

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:12 PM
Fuck 'em. All religious organizations should be prohibited from receiving public funding.

Jenson71
02-11-2010, 03:22 PM
**** 'em. All religious organizations should be prohibited from receiving public funding.

But this is just a student organization. It's not like the Catholic Church is setting up a mini-archdiocese on the campus using public funds.

And is it the religious aspect that moves your opinion? For instance, can a strictly gay student organization be discriminatory in their selections for officers?

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:24 PM
But this is just a student organization. It's not like the Catholic Church is setting up a mini-archdiocese on the campus using public funds.

And is it the religious aspect that moves your opinion? For instance, can a strictly gay student organization be discriminatory in their selections for officers?

A discriminatory organization shouldn't get public funding either.

petegz28
02-11-2010, 03:27 PM
I agree with Native. However, if you are going to fund one then you must fund them all. Does CAL have organizations for Islam or Muslims?

Jenson71
02-11-2010, 03:33 PM
A discriminatory organization shouldn't get public funding either.

Imagine a gay student group that is forced to allow non-gays as officers. Then a horde of anti-gays comes in and votes themselves into positions, thereby compromising the goals and values of the gay student group.

Jenson71
02-11-2010, 03:36 PM
I agree with Native. However, if you are going to fund one then you must fund them all. Does CAL have organizations for Islam or Muslims?

It looks like the Law School has both a Muslim and a Jewish student organization, though I have no idea as to whether they exclude non-believers as officers.

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:40 PM
Imagine a gay student group that is forced to allow non-gays as officers. Then a horde of anti-gays comes in and votes themselves into positions, thereby compromising the goals and values of the gay student group.

I've never seen a gay student group that requires it's officers to be gay. Any group that puts discriminatory (on the basis of religion,nationality,race,ethnicity,sexuality) requirements on their membership and officers shouldn't receive public funds. They can exist but they can raise funds from sympathetic parties if they choose. Public funds shouldn't be given to them under any circumstance.

Jenson71
02-11-2010, 03:47 PM
I've never seen a gay student group that requires it's officers to be gay. Any group that puts discriminatory (on the basis of religion,nationality,race,ethnicity,sexuality) requirements on their membership and officers shouldn't receive public funds. They can exist but they can raise funds from sympathetic parties if they choose. Public funds shouldn't be given to them under any circumstance.

On nearly every campus, if not every one, there is a Black Students Group. I would be pretty surprised to find out that there is the possibility of a bunch of white people occupying the offices of President, Vice-President, and Secretary, among others of the Black Students Union. In my opinion, it is absolutely fine for a group dedicated to the interests of Black Students to get together with a discriminatory rule that says "Oh yeah, since this is the Black Students Union, you have to be black in order to be an officer." And I would be fine if they received funds from the student activities fee that every student has to pay.

I guess I should have made that known. The funds come from the Student Activities Fee. Does that change your opinion?

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:50 PM
On nearly every campus, if not every one, there is a Black Students Group. I would be pretty surprised to find out that there is the possibility of a bunch of white people occupying the offices of President, Vice-President, and Secretary, among others of the Black Students Union. In my opinion, it is absolutely fine for a group dedicated to the interests of Black Students to get together with a discriminatory rule that says "Oh yeah, since this is the Black Students Union, you have to be black in order to be an officer." And I would be fine if they received funds from the student activities fee that every student has to pay.

I guess I should have made that known. The funds come from the Student Activities Fee. Does that change your opinion?

I was a member of Hispanic student organizations and we've never had a rule like that. I think discriminatory requirements defeat the purpose of the organization.

With the funds coming from the student's fee, I'm still against it unless it's a private school (then the school can require whatever they want).

petegz28
02-11-2010, 03:50 PM
It looks like the Law School has both a Muslim and a Jewish student organization, though I have no idea as to whether they exclude non-believers as officers.

Regardess if they do, then the Christian organization should be funded.

Jenson71
02-11-2010, 03:53 PM
So there's a couple of considerations: one is that they get their funds from the student activities fee, which isn't public funds, it's from every student who attends the school.

The other problem is the non-funding elements. For instance, can a discriminating student group use a room in the Student Union for their meetings? Can they get their name on the website? Stuff like that.

Garcia Bronco
02-11-2010, 03:56 PM
Last year, the Supreme Court granted cert to a petition by the Christian Legal Society student organization chapter at University of California. They claim that their First Amendment right of association was infringed upon by their school's nondiscriminatory requirement in order to receive sponsorship, funding, benefits, etc. The group was admittedly discriminatory in their officer positions: you had to be a Christian. Makes sense.

The case should be heard sometime this spring, either the April or May terms.

What are your thoughts?

The football team at that school probably discriminates. I would imagine one would have to be male and genetically able to play football. That's discrimination. remove the football team and at least they'd be consistent.

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:57 PM
The football team at that school probably discriminates. I would imagine one would have to be male and genetically able to play football. That's discrimination. remove the football team and at least they'd be consistent.

You are a fucking moron.

Garcia Bronco
02-11-2010, 03:59 PM
You are a ****ing moron.

LOL. You can't even live by your own rules.

Jenson71
02-11-2010, 03:59 PM
I was a member of Hispanic student organizations and we've never had a rule like that. I think discriminatory requirements defeat the purpose of the organization.

Definietly disagree. The purpose of student organizations are for like-minded students to come together to promote their concerns and values. This means the group has to stand for something. The purpose of student groups is not to design a group that essentially means nothing.

KC native
02-11-2010, 04:02 PM
Definietly disagree. The purpose of student organizations are for like-minded students to come together to promote their concerns and values. This means the group has to stand for something. The purpose of student groups is not to design a group that essentially means nothing.

Promoting your concerns and values by excluding others from leadership positions in your group doesn't promote your concerns and values very well (IMO it does a disservice to the groups' goals). A group can stand for something and not be discriminatory in their requirements for leadership positions.

Garcia Bronco
02-11-2010, 04:06 PM
Promoting your concerns and values by excluding others from leadership positions in your group doesn't promote your concerns and values very well (IMO it does a disservice to the groups' goals). A group can stand for something and not be discriminatory in their requirements for leadership positions.

Then you don't understand the concept of a group. They whole idea behing a group is to exclude people. Any group excludes people.

Jenson71
02-11-2010, 04:06 PM
Promoting your concerns and values by excluding others from leadership positions in your group doesn't promote your concerns and values very well (IMO it does a disservice to the groups' goals). A group can stand for something and not be discriminatory in their requirements for leadership positions.

So, for example, there is a Christian Student's Group on campus. Their concerns are promoting a comfortable place for Christian students to gather together on campus, talking about Christianity, and setting up events displaying information about their Christian faith. Your opinion is that the group is better at doing so if the officers of the group are all self-acknowledged anti-Christians, if the other alternative is making a rule that says all officers have to be Christian?

KC native
02-11-2010, 04:09 PM
Then you don't understand the concept of a group. They whole idea behing a group is to exclude people. Any group excludes people.

No, it isn't. Does AA exclude non-alcoholics? One purpose of a group can be to exclude people but not all groups' purpose is to exclude people.

KC native
02-11-2010, 04:11 PM
So, for example, there is a Christian Student's Group on campus. Their concerns are promoting a comfortable place for Christian students to gather together on campus, talking about Christianity, and setting up events displaying information about their Christian faith. Your opinion is that the group is better at doing so if the officers of the group are all self-acknowledged anti-Christians, if the other alternative is making a rule that says all officers have to be Christian?

Wow, when did you turn to false dichotomies? How effective they are will be governed by the dynamics of the group. If the group doesn't want anti-christians to be their officers then they better get their members to support and vote for the people they feel are best.

Jenson71
02-11-2010, 04:16 PM
Wow, when did you turn to false dichotomies? How effective they are will be governed by the dynamics of the group. If the group doesn't want anti-christians to be their officers then they better get their members to support and vote for the people they feel are best.

That's not a false dilemma. That's a realistic scenario of what could happen to a group that doesn't put any limits on their leadership positions. An opposing population (anti-gays, anti-socialists, anti-women, anti-Catholics) flood the group, and vote themselves into power, and then basically destroy the goals of the group. Meanwhile, the former, the minority, are left with nothing.

And my example is theoretically debatable in your principle, so I think it's worthy of your consideration.

ClevelandBronco
02-11-2010, 04:20 PM
No, it isn't. Does AA exclude non-alcoholics?

No, but it does say that its only requirement for membership is the desire to quit drinking. It excludes those who don't meet that requirement.

Garcia Bronco
02-12-2010, 01:04 PM
No, it isn't. Does AA exclude non-alcoholics? One purpose of a group can be to exclude people but not all groups' purpose is to exclude people.

Technically it does...because the meetings are organization are centered around drunks that can't control themselves.

RaiderH8r
02-12-2010, 02:30 PM
A discriminatory organization shouldn't get public funding either.

Then that would include the University for discriminating against one student organization vs. another.

Jenson71
02-24-2010, 01:45 AM
Oral arguments are set for April 19th, 10:00AM. Should be an exciting day. :)

Here's the SCOTUSwiki page: http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Christian_Legal_Society_v._Martinez

WoodDraw
02-24-2010, 01:52 AM
What are the issues before the court?

Jenson71
02-24-2010, 02:00 AM
What are the issues before the court?

Major question in this case concerns the First Amendment. Specifically: Is a state law denying recognition to a religious student organization because the group requires its officers and voting members to agree with its core religions viewpoints Constitutional?

Jenson71
02-24-2010, 02:05 AM
Here's a link to the Petition: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1371_Petitioner.pdf

pikesome
02-24-2010, 05:14 AM
Wouldn't Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale) have settled this kind of issue? Which would make me wonder if the court wants to change things.

BigRedChief
02-24-2010, 07:42 AM
Major question in this case concerns the First Amendment. Specifically: Is a state law denying recognition to a religious student organization because the group requires its officers and voting members to agree with its core religions viewpoints Constitutional?wellll I agree they have that right in principle. Any group of people in america can form a private group, not allow anyone in, unless they meet certain criteria narrowluy defined by the group. Even if that criteria is no gays, blacks, jews etc., I'm okay with that from a free speech prespective. As long as that group is not recieving federal or state funding to keep their group funded and do whatever it is they want to do as a group. Thats the line thats crossed. You accept federal or state money, you can't discriminate.

HonestChieffan
02-24-2010, 07:50 AM
I agree with Native. However, if you are going to fund one then you must fund them all. Does CAL have organizations for Islam or Muslims?

Why? Who says you have to fund them all. Thats just nonsence. If Cal says the muslims can go piss up a rope Im for them.

patteeu
02-24-2010, 08:28 AM
On nearly every campus, if not every one, there is a Black Students Group. I would be pretty surprised to find out that there is the possibility of a bunch of white people occupying the offices of President, Vice-President, and Secretary, among others of the Black Students Union. In my opinion, it is absolutely fine for a group dedicated to the interests of Black Students to get together with a discriminatory rule that says "Oh yeah, since this is the Black Students Union, you have to be black in order to be an officer." And I would be fine if they received funds from the student activities fee that every student has to pay.

I guess I should have made that known. The funds come from the Student Activities Fee. Does that change your opinion?

I tend to agree with you, but would you be equally fine with a white students' group that says you have to be white to be an officer?

BigRedChief
02-24-2010, 08:31 AM
I tend to agree with you, but would you be equally fine with a white students' group that says you have to be white to be an officer?No. Basic principle. You recieve public funds, you follow the public rules on discrimination. Go private and discriminate all you want.

patteeu
02-24-2010, 08:31 AM
Promoting your concerns and values by excluding others from leadership positions in your group doesn't promote your concerns and values very well (IMO it does a disservice to the groups' goals). A group can stand for something and not be discriminatory in their requirements for leadership positions.

WTF? You don't understand why it would be counterproductive for a gay group to have homophobes and gay bashers as it's officers? Or for a women's group to be run by male chauvinists? :spock:

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2010, 08:41 AM
I totally discriminated today. I love the V8 tomato juice, but went with coffee instead.

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2010, 08:43 AM
wellll I agree they have that right in principle. Any group of people in america can form a private group, not allow anyone in, unless they meet certain criteria narrowluy defined by the group. Even if that criteria is no gays, blacks, jews etc., I'm okay with that from a free speech prespective. As long as that group is not recieving federal or state funding to keep their group funded and do whatever it is they want to do as a group. Thats the line thats crossed. You accept federal or state money, you can't discriminate.

Then you have a problem with the NAACP? La Raza? These are groups thats that discriminate based on race and they receive public funds.

KC native
02-24-2010, 09:44 AM
Then you have a problem with the NAACP? La Raza? These are groups thats that discriminate based on race and they receive public funds.

No they don't. You don't have to be African American to be in the NAACP nor do you have to be Hispanic to be in NCLR.

KC native
02-24-2010, 09:46 AM
WTF? You don't understand why it would be counterproductive for a gay group to have homophobes and gay bashers as it's officers? Or for a women's group to be run by male chauvinists? :spock:

If the group has support that's very unlikely to happen and if it does then they form another group. If a certain group of individuals wants to continue to harass that organization there are administrators that can deal with that (in a university setting).

BigRedChief
02-24-2010, 09:46 AM
Then you have a problem with the NAACP? La Raza? These are groups thats that discriminate based on race and they receive public funds.No, they don't discriminate. Anyone can join and if they get enough support be elected to leadership positions.

It's not wrong to have ethnic or religious exclusive goals as an organization. If you take public money, it's wrong to exclude anyone from that exclusive organization. Basic principle. If the KKK allowed black people to join, they should get federal funds. Why don't they allow it? Because they would be taken over by people opposed to their ideals. Thats why they remain private and therfore can discriminate legally.

Mile High Mania
02-24-2010, 09:57 AM
"The group was admittedly discriminatory in their officer positions: you had to be a Christian."

So, it SOUNDS like anyone could join the group, but in order to be an officer... well, you have to be a Christian. If that is the case, I don't have an issue with it and don't view it as being a problem.

What about the Gay Rights or any minority group, like a Black Student's Association... I would imagine (based on what I saw in college) that anyone could indeed become a member of just about any campus organization, but in order to be an officer... well, I doubt they would elect a white guy to be a member of the Latino Student Association. They may not have that language in there, but I doubt it would happen... same goes for a Gay Rights club.

Sounds like the christian group should just remove that wording... if indeed it is open for anyone to be a member. When it comes to naming officers, things will just take care of itself as I doubt they would elect a non-christian.

It is funny to me that it's ok for almost any group to have a formal existence, but when religion comes into play... an outrage occurs.

Jenson71
02-24-2010, 09:57 AM
Wouldn't Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale) have settled this kind of issue? Which would make me wonder if the court wants to change things.

It's a big part of precedent, and the principles are somewhat parallel in places, but it's definitely not the same thing. I think I know exactly where the conservative, Catholic court is going. It's going to be more of an enforcing case.

KC native
02-24-2010, 10:00 AM
"The group was admittedly discriminatory in their officer positions: you had to be a Christian."

So, it SOUNDS like anyone could join the group, but in order to be an officer... well, you have to be a Christian. If that is the case, I don't have an issue with it and don't view it as being a problem.

What about the Gay Rights or any minority group, like a Black Student's Association... I would imagine (based on what I saw in college) that anyone could indeed become a member of just about any campus organization, but in order to be an officer... well, I doubt they would elect a white guy to be a member of the Latino Student Association. They may not have that language in there, but I doubt it would happen... same goes for a Gay Rights club.

Sounds like the christian group should just remove that wording... if indeed it is open for anyone to be a member. When it comes to naming officers, things will just take care of itself as I doubt they would elect a non-christian.

It is funny to me that it's ok for almost any group to have a formal existence, but when religion comes into play... an outrage occurs.

My experience was completely opposite. The triangle (gay student group at TCU) had straight officers. OLAS (organization of Latin American students) had both white and black officers at different times I was there.

Discrimination for leadership positions is fine if they receive no public/university funds. If they do then discrimination shouldn't be allowed.

Mile High Mania
02-24-2010, 10:09 AM
My experience was completely opposite. The triangle (gay student group at TCU) had straight officers. OLAS (organization of Latin American students) had both white and black officers at different times I was there.

Discrimination for leadership positions is fine if they receive no public/university funds. If they do then discrimination shouldn't be allowed.

I guess I look at a group like OLAS with non latino leaders and ask... what's the point and is it really serving the original purpose of that group? How can non-latino leaders truly deliver the goals that were set forth by creating the OLAS? Same for the other groups...

It's more just a social club of various individuals at that point, is it not?

KC native
02-24-2010, 10:11 AM
I guess I look at a group like OLAS with non latino leaders and ask... what's the point and is it really serving the original purpose of that group? How can non-latino leaders truly deliver the goals that were set forth by creating the OLAS? Same for the other groups...

It's more just a social club of various individuals at that point, is it not?

No, it's not. The organization had clearly defined goals and the people elected officers had the best ideas to carry out those goals.

Mile High Mania
02-24-2010, 10:14 AM
No, it's not. The organization had clearly defined goals and the people elected officers had the best ideas to carry out those goals.

Opinions differ I guess...

patteeu
02-24-2010, 10:59 AM
If the group has support that's very unlikely to happen and if it does then they form another group. If a certain group of individuals wants to continue to harass that organization there are administrators that can deal with that (in a university setting).

How are the administrators going to prevent it without discriminating? And who defines harassment? All you're doing is creating a fiction of non-discrimination while allowing administrators the discretion to discriminate whenever they think a group's integrity is being breached by people from outside that group.

KC native
02-24-2010, 11:14 AM
How are the administrators going to prevent it without discriminating? And who defines harassment? All you're doing is creating a fiction of non-discrimination while allowing administrators the discretion to discriminate whenever they think a group's integrity is being breached by people from outside that group.

Perhaps the administrators at the whatever university/college. :shrug:

You're going full retard today.

patteeu
02-24-2010, 11:22 AM
Perhaps the administrators at the whatever university/college. :shrug:

You're going full retard today.

That was "the main point" that just whooshed by...

http://www.bbea.ws/WHOOSH2.gif

Chief Faithful
02-24-2010, 11:31 AM
Wouldn't Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale) have settled this kind of issue? Which would make me wonder if the court wants to change things.

I wonder the same thing. If an organization can set morality rules for membership can't they do the same for its leadership?

KC native
02-24-2010, 11:33 AM
I wonder the same thing. If an organization can set morality rules for membership can't they do the same for its leadership?

If it is a completely private organization then yes they can.

Chief Faithful
02-24-2010, 11:40 AM
If it is a completely private organization then yes they can.
They did not limit the ruling to private organizations they determined organizations have the right to establish morality criteria. BSA still receives public funds.

I guess the reason this is going to the SC is because the issue of State University funding organizations that establish entry criterea based on morality rules has not been addressed.

KC native
02-24-2010, 11:44 AM
They did not limit the ruling to private organizations they determined organizations have the right to establish morality criteria. BSA still receives public funds.

I guess the reason this is going to the SC is because the issue of State University funding organizations that establish entry criterea based on morality rules has not been addressed.

Um, what funds does BSA get?

Jenson71
02-24-2010, 12:48 PM
I tend to agree with you, but would you be equally fine with a white students' group that says you have to be white to be an officer?

Yeah. Though it could border on hate speech if it's some KKK or white supremacist group, as I can only imagine a White Students Group being, that the university should not be forced to sponsor.

But say it's like a Norwegian Student's Group. That's fine with me.

Chief Faithful
02-24-2010, 01:10 PM
Um, what funds does BSA get?

The current challenges, mostly orignating from the ACLU, have focused on the support from sponsoring organizations such as the use of public facilities like schools. In order to be a sponsoring organization you are committed to support the pack or troop that go beyond just passive access. Other challenges are support by local communities / government helping with financial support with such things as camp ground facilities.

BSA gets funding and support in many forms both private and public. Past rulings have supported the notion that just because you are a private organization in and of itself does not preclude you from public funding. With BSA it does not specifically discrimination against any specific protected groups, but it does set a moral code including the most litigated two of the twelve Laws a Scout is Reverent and Morally Straight.

KC native
02-24-2010, 01:29 PM
The current challenges, mostly orignating from the ACLU, have focused on the support from sponsoring organizations such as the use of public facilities like schools. In order to be a sponsoring organization you are committed to support the pack or troop that go beyond just passive access. Other challenges are support by local communities / government helping with financial support with such things as camp ground facilities.

BSA gets funding and support in many forms both private and public. Past rulings have supported the notion that just because you are a private organization in and of itself does not preclude you from public funding. With BSA it does not specifically discrimination against any specific protected groups, but it does set a moral code including the most litigated two of the twelve Laws a Scout is Reverent and Morally Straight.

Specifically what funding do they get? I can go to wikipedia too.

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2010, 03:08 PM
No they don't. You don't have to be African American to be in the NAACP nor do you have to be Hispanic to be in NCLR.


It's still for the Advancement of Colored People, which is their misson, and it discriminates and receives public funds. Same thing witht eh "The Race" or LaRaza.

You can't live up to your own rules. It's amusing. Just admit the truth that you have your own self-interests like everyone else.

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2010, 03:09 PM
No, they don't discriminate. Anyone can join and if they get enough support be elected to leadership positions.

It's not wrong to have ethnic or religious exclusive goals as an organization. If you take public money, it's wrong to exclude anyone from that exclusive organization. Basic principle. If the KKK allowed black people to join, they should get federal funds. Why don't they allow it? Because they would be taken over by people opposed to their ideals. Thats why they remain private and therfore can discriminate legally.

Even the ACLU discriminates.

KC native
02-24-2010, 03:10 PM
It's still for the Advancement of Colored People, which is their misson, and it discriminates and receives public funds. Same thing witht eh "The Race" or LaRaza.

You can't live up to your own rules. It's amusing. Just admit the truth that you have your own self-interests like everyone else.

:spock: How do they discriminate? Neither their membership nor leadership are restricted to those respective races.

Pitt Gorilla
02-24-2010, 03:20 PM
It looks like the Law School has both a Muslim and a Jewish student organization, though I have no idea as to whether they exclude non-believers as officers.Do they receive funding? I'm a faculty sponsor for a recognized student group and we receive no funding.

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2010, 03:40 PM
:spock: How do they discriminate? Neither their membership nor leadership are restricted to those respective races.

Their misson. That's discriminating. They should be for the advancement of all people and all races. It's your rules. You seem to think there is some difference but there isn't. You pint a finger, but there are 3 pointing back at you.

KC native
02-24-2010, 03:45 PM
Their misson. That's discriminating. They should be for the advancement of all people and all races. It's your rules. You seem to think there is some difference but there isn't. You pint a finger, but there are 3 pointing back at you.

I forgot how stupid you are.

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2010, 04:08 PM
I forgot how stupid you are.

Stop discriminating. I am as dumb as anyone around here.

Jenson71
02-24-2010, 04:26 PM
Do they receive funding? I'm a faculty sponsor for a recognized student group and we receive no funding.

I'd be surprised if they couldn't if the group offers itself and it's programs and meetings to everyone (despite the leadership policy). When I was the History Club president, all I had to do was go to a meeting with the Senate and ask for funds for things like museum entry money and advertising money. I remember them forbidding food money, though. That was in the guidelines.

Jenson71
04-27-2010, 07:00 PM
Okay, the arguments have been heard already, but these are still good resources.

<embed src='http://dl2.newmediamill.net/media/acs/flash/jw/player.swf' height='260' width='520' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' flashvars='streamer=rtmp%3A%2F%2Ffl.newmediamill.net%3A80%2Facs&file=http%3A%2F%2Fdl2.newmediamill.net%2Fmedia%2Facs%2Fflash%2F070410%2Fplaylist.xml&playlist=right&skin=http%3A%2F%2Fdl2.newmediamill.net%2Fmedia%2Facs%2Fflash%2Fjw%2Fnacht.swf&playlistsize=200&state=PLAYING&plugins=viral-1'/>

And this link: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1550/christian-legal-society-vs-martinez-religion-government-funding