Church-state question before justices The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation has sued to get rid of crosses in city parks, to end Good Friday public holidays and, most vigorously, to thwart President Bush's faith-based initiative. Now, the group that for 30 years has sought a firm divide between church and state will be at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in a case that could affect taxpayers' ability to challenge — and government's ability to defend — a multitude of public programs that involve groups with a religious affiliation. The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was set up in 2001 to help religious groups compete with secular organizations for federal grants to provide social services. The case before the justices focuses on regional conferences that promoted the initiative. The Freedom From Religion Foundation likened the conferences to "revival meetings" and said they boosted the grant prospects for religious groups "without similar advocacy for secular community-based organizations." The legal question is not whether those conferences violated the constitutional separation of church and state, but more fundamentally when a taxpayer may even get into court to challenge such mingling of government and religion. It's a question that could have national significance. Numerous outside groups have joined both sides of the case. Twelve states, backing the Bush administration, are trying to block the lawsuit. On the other side are atheists and religious organizations such as the American Jewish Congress and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. "If the Bush administration were to prevail," says Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, "nobody would be able to challenge these programs. We feel that our litigation and educational efforts have never been more important." U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, representing the administration, counters that if the foundation wins, judges could end up scrutinizing "every government encounter with religion … at the behest of any one of the more than 180 million taxpayers in the United States." Typically, taxpayers cannot sue over how the government spends money, but in a 1968 case known as Flast v. Cohen the justices carved out an exception for lawsuits based on the separation of church and state. The Constitution's First Amendment says government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Bush administration says the Flast case allows challenges to congressional spending but not to executive branch actions. The Bush faith-based initiative was created by executive orders, not specific congressional appropriations. A U.S. trial court dismissed the foundation's lawsuit, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reversed it in January 2006. "The line proposed by the government … would be artificial because there is so much that executive officials could do to promote religion in ways forbidden by the establishment clause," that court said. In the administration's appeal, Clement says Flast and other cases since 1968 connect taxpayers' right to sue with the legislative taxing and spending power. Washington, D.C., lawyer Andrew Pincus, representing Freedom From Religion, says neither the 1968 case nor American history requires a distinction between legislative and executive actions. "The Framers (of the Constitution) were well aware of the potential for abuse of executive power in the area of religion. … There simply is no basis for concluding that they were less concerned about exercises of executive discretion than about the actions of Congress." Enlarge By Morry Gash, AP Annie Laurie Gaylor, at her foundation's headquarters, says its efforts "have never been more important."