Attorney: Faith-Based Abstinence Programs Are Constitutional, Effective
by Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
May 23, 2005
(AgapePress) - The president of a Florida-based pro-family legal organization contends that a lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by the American Civil Liberties Union is without merit. In the suit, the ACLU is complaining against the federal government for providing tax dollars to a nationwide abstinence program.The lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the law firm of Jenner & Block LLP claims the federal government improperly used taxpayer dollars to fund Christian activities through an abstinence program called the "Silver Ring Thing" (SRT). In the past two years, that program has received more than a million dollars as part of the Bush administration's effort to expand abstinence-only education.
The Silver Ring Thing uses teen-oriented activities, including high-tech presentations, sketch comedy, club style lighting, and high-energy music videos -- along with a faith-based abstinence message -- to make its point. In the first five years of the ministry's operation, nearly 1,000 teenagers completed the two-hour program, received a silver ring, and signed an abstinence vow. SRT events have been held in Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, among other states throughout the U.S.
The SRT program is scheduled to visit many other areas across the country in the coming months. As more cities become interested, a national deployment program has been launched to meet the demand; and now communities nationwide are being offered the opportunity to build teams, generate leadership, and obtain equipment to put on SRT events in their own geographic areas.
Critics believe the SRT is nothing more than a vehicle for converting kids to Christianity. Senior staff attorney Julie Sternberg with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom project contends that the SRT program "urges students to commit themselves to Christ," and the courts have repeatedly established that taxpayer dollars cannot be used to promote religion. Sternberg says the popular program "blatantly violates this principle."
The ACLU also claims the people behind the SRT program have changed the program's Internet site out of concern some of its religious content. "They are going to great lengths to paint a picture of an organization that does not use taxpayer dollars to promote religion," Sternberg stated recently. She added, "Unfortunately, altering their website will not be enough to hide the overtly religious message that they have been promoting for years on the public's dime."
However, Liberty Counsel president Mat Staver argues that the SRT program has nothing to hide. During a recent appearance on the Fox News Channel, he explained that the Silver Ring Thing does not violate the U.S. Constitution with its activities, and is actually fulfilling its mandate lawfully and successfully.
Mat Staver | |
Even though the SRT message is abstinence-based, and it is a faith-based ministry, Staver insists, "The reason why the president wants to fund these faith-based ministries or outreaches is because they work." And consequently, he says, supporters of faith-based abstinence programs do not want to strip them of everything that makes them successful."On the other hand," Staver adds, ministries or outreaches offering abstinence programs "are not to be evangelization or proselytizing organizations." And this particular organization is not," he insists, but is simply trying to promote sexual purity and is "doing a good job."
While the ACLU suit argues that the Silver Ring Thing is unconstitutional because it encourages young people to commit themselves to Christ, the Liberty Counsel spokesman maintains that people behind SRT and similar faith-based programs operate within strict guidelines when it comes to the use of federal funding. "Clearly, they are going to be under attack," he says, "and it's no surprise that the ACLU is bringing this lawsuit."
But in the final analysis, Staver believes the Supreme Court has gone away from what he calls its once "stilted view" of the Establishment Clause. "I think these faith-based initiatives that the president strongly supports will finally be upheld by the United States Supreme Court, once this case -- or some other case -- goes to the high court," he says.
