Re: Re: Re: Well, Several other posts have dealt with this issue, but let me give you a hypothetical. The Evangelical Church of Hebrew Islamicism has a building for three purposes: a worship temple, a religious school, and a homeless soup kitchen. It's annual operating budget for all activities is $3 million. By way of federal grant, obtained from your tax money, they are given $1 million. This grant is not conditioned on the money being used for non-secular purposes. The church now has $4 million in unrestricted funds. It renovates the building to add more classrooms and expand its worship center. Problem?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, ECHI ... that's some church! Your double negative on the grant money is giving me a headache. If the grant is conditioned on use for govt. program purposes, then fine. If grant is unconditional, not fine. If you are asking me whether, by giving a grant, even a conditional one, the federal government has now effectively permitted ECHI donors to redirect their money to fund mission activities, increase their number of religious services, or decide to give more to Pat Robertson, the answer is "yes." Money is fungible. When budget is freed up by unexpected funds, money will flow elsewhere. However, the same would be true if government, using general tax receipts, fully funded homeless soup kitchen needs, effectively taking ECHI out of the soup kitchen business. So, I don't see the constitutional issue. Q: Is there any suggestion that unconditional grants would be given to churches?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, This is a very interesting argument. Let me make sure I understand it correctly. You are saying that, using John Galt's logic, the constitutional inquiry -- and result -- is the same in the following two situations: (1) the the government obviates the need for a function of a religious organization; and (2) the government frees up money, by way of grant, that would otherwise be used to fund a function of a religious organization. You seem to be saying that, because 1 is clearly constiutionally permissible (with which I agree), 2 is also constitutionally permissible, because the end result is the same. Am I following correctly? Here's an interesting case from which some principles can be derived: http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/bowen v kendrick.htm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, But that's not necessarily true. Just because the government can pay for a soup kitchen, doesn't mean the church will stop running it. Perhaps it designates 1/3rd of its money to some charity - not necessarily soup kitchens. It may close the soup kitchen, or may start buying homeless people condos. Who knows. Also, just because a logical eventuality might obviate the effect, tax dollars would be going to religious organizations, which has all those icky establishment issues. Granted, if someone like Easterbrook or Posner sat on the Court, the case would have a lot more merit.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, Your logic conflicts above. If, as you say, the end result is the same, whether the government gives a million conditional dollars (charitable purposes only) or a million unconditional dollars (use it for the general fund), why is one not fine and the other fine? Courts have agreed with your fungible point, and concluded that's why there is a constitutional problem. A million dollars that frees up money for church purposes is the functional equivalent of a million unrestricted dollars. Although no one has pored over the regulations in detail, there seems to be some suggestion from the press and the posters here that the new Bush Admin. regs. lean in this direction.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, This case was very interesting. [For those interested, quick summary is that court by 5-4 vote ruled that AFLA (Adolescent Family Life Act) was not on-its-face unconstititutional. AFLA grants were awarded for the purpose of promoting "family values" in counseling on family, sex, pregnancy issues, and AFLA permitted (perhaps encouraged?) grants to agencies with a definite religious connection.] Thanks. I agree with Blackmun's dissent. I'm arguing that the determination of whether a federal law violtates the Establishment clause hinges on direct federal support for a religious purpose or motivation. Providing food and shelter is not a purely religious motivation. Grants to religious institutions that are conditioned on their use for this purpose do not establish religion despite the fact that donors may be able to then steer money to purely religious causes (e.g., missions) that they otherwise would have given to, say, a food bank operated by a church-connected organization. This is distinguishable from similar grants for social services involving family counseling or schools where a religious agency will view the religious message and the social service being supported as one and the same. That is why I agreed with Blackmun's dissent in the Bowen v. Kendrick case you cited, although I think Christian agencies have the correct message for pregnant teens, etc. Blackmun also explicitly made this distinction in his dissent. What I completely disagree with are views, such as Demosthenes, who think that the FEELING of a hypothetical person that he/she has been subjected to a religious message is the proper measure for a constitutional violation. When that improper basis is used, common sense distinctions between enforced school prayer (clear violation) and government grants to a food bank connected with a religious organization are harder to see.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, Obviously O'Connor was speaking about a different issue, but my question is whether it applies to providing federal money to an organization which (either intentionally or inadvertantly) causes people to feel like outsiders based on their religion. I know this is not the same as a religious message on a government building, for example. But if government money is being used, is the charity in some sense an extention of or agent of the government? And if it is, then isn't it obligated to not create the FEELING of a religious message? That is why I brought up the hypothetical examples. I was assuming that a charity using federal money would be subject to the same restrictions as any other government institution.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, And yet, O'Connor couldn't bring herself, in the case you took this language from, to vote "yes" that a Pawtucket nativity scene, within a larger Christmas season display, is an endorsement of the Christian message. The Court does not adopt the viewpoint of the plaintiff, then back its way into an Establishment Clause violation. Rather, it struggles with a proper test to see if OBJECTIVELY the government has sent a message amounting to the endorsement of religion. Fortuntately, Alan Dershowitz, who lost the nativity scene case, is not the definition of an objective or reasonable person. So, if a nativity scene case is a close call, how in the world are you going to reasonably arrive at the conclusion that govt. endorses religion by its choice to fund a food bank? It's only message is that the government supports feeding poor people.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, A county that places a nativity scene on its courthouse lawn is absolutely endorsing a specific religion. I see very little connection bewteen this and granting federal money to non-secular church charities.
Even the insunuation of mixing religion and the federal, state or local governmant is only asking for trouble. Keep religion segregated to those who chose to practice it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, I agree there is an endorsement. Whether the endorsement rises to the level of constitutional infringement is more questionable to me, but I could see it either way. I also agree that the "endorsement" analysis has little to do with the involvement of religious institutions in food distribution. This is the point I was trying to make to Demo.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, So you think that the government endorsing a particular religion is constitutionally ok?
Re: Re: Well, Its not that simple. Here's an example: I distribute food which is packaged with the Church's logo, and its motto - Jesus saves. So, is that religious or not? Its packaging for food.......... That's a simplification of my point, and you know it. If churches helped people in a wholly secular way, as they can and do, there are no establishment issues. It has to promote religion, not have a thin religious connection.
But the mix is already there. Congress begins it's session with an invocation (not necessarily for any one religion, but religious nonetheless), the President takes the oath of office using a Bible, religion permeates our politics. A truly secular state is communism, and that got mixed reviews in the 20th century. Trouble in the mixing of state and religion, and in this case, "faith-based" initiatives comes when the federal money is used directly for proselytizing. Example, church A uses federal money for their soup kitchen to buy Gospel tracts that they hand out at the meal. This is a clear violation. But if that money just goes to buy soup, bread, water, utensils, dishwashing soap, whatever.... then the money is being put to use as it was intended. I think the reason the "faith-based" initiatives was thought up is that many faith-based organizations are already doing things to benefit the less fortunate. It would require fewer federal resources to simply grant money to an already existing soup kitchen than to create a federal agency, federal soup kitchens and pay people to do "volunteer" work. Besides, most soup kitchens work solely with volunteers. There are no labor costs. And they do it out of religious motivation. The federal government, if they instituted soup kitchens, would also have to account for labor, etc... and probably wouldn't receive the number of volunteers that a religious organization would attract. Costs would be higher to benefit the same amount of homeless or poverty-stricken people who need help. I can see why the Bush Administration supports this, it's as much of a business decision as it is a religious one. This is how a Capitalist would fund soup kitchens, using the existing infrastructure, free labor, and cutting management costs. All they pay for is the soup. The church probably pays the manager, paid for the building or mission, and has the volunteer network in place. You save a lot of money on start up costs. Regardless of the constitutionality (not to take away from the importance of that argument), this is the most efficient business model.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, I view the whole area of historical quasi-secular presence of religion (invariably Christianity) as questionable. Undoubtedly, it caused no particular concern for many years, so it is hard to argue that it is clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment. On the other hand, viewed from today's US population make-up, the historical anomaly is just that - an anomaly. So, if the court were to throw out public nativity scenes, the "under God" phrase, "in God we trust," prayers to start out public meetings, etc., I would be fine with that as a reasonable application of the First Amendment today.
Funding of religious charities has taken an interesting turn in Georgia. NPR had a story this morning on a case involving a gay woman who was fired from a methodist children's home because her sexual orientation conflicted with the chuch's views. This children's home receives 40% of its funding from the state so both the church and the state were sued. The state and the church capitulated before trial. The state has agreed not to fund any organization that descriminates in the hiring process based on religious affiliation. The church has agreed not to even discuss their beliefs on sexual orientation with the children. The interesting part came from some commentators who believed this will cause other states and religious organizations to back away from public funding of religious organizations. This type of funding was never scrutinized in the past but will be now that President Bush has made such a public case on behalf of faith-based charities. The implication (my take) is that President Bush may actually hurt religious charities in the long run because he didn't leave well enough alone. http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=6-Nov-2003&prgId=3 scroll down to Faith-Based Lawsuit Settled.