The NJ Supreme Court Sides with… Former Morris Freeholder Hank Lyon
Hank Lyon got it right a few years ago when he said the Morris County freeholders should stop giving grants to churches.
Lyon’s argument was shot down and he is no longer a freeholder, but his sentiments were endorsed this week by no less an authority than the state Supreme Court – unanimously, in fact.
The court ruled awarding tax money to houses of worship is not permitted in a nation that cherishes, or at least should, the separation of church and state.
This ruling likely will be condemned by some on the right as an example of an activist, liberal court running amok, but those so inclined should consider the facts. The ruling was unanimous, which means it was backed by the four justices named to the court by then-Republican Governor Chris Christie. Moreover, the roots of the decision date back more than 240 years to the founding of the Republic.
First through a grant-in-aid program and later through an historic preservation program, the Morris freeholders traditionally have awarded grants to repair and restore churches. As the court noted in its ruling, the county awarded $4.6 million in grants to 12 churches from 2012 to 2015.
Lyon tried to stop the awards in early 2015, saying they were unconstitutional. A fiscal conservative, Lyon’s seeming motivation was saving tax money, not hostility to religion. A majority of freeholders disagreed and Lyon eventually abandoned the idea. But later that year, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison Wisc., non-profit, sued to stop the grants to churches.
In an opinion that reversed lower court rulings, the Supreme Court said simply that, “the churches are not being denied grant funds because they are religious institutions; they are being denied public funds because of what they plan to do – and in many cases have done: use public funds to repair church buildings so that religious worship services can be held there.”
Thus, it was the churches’ stated reason why they needed the funds that sealed their fate.
For example, the First Presbyterian Church of Boonton got grant money to repair a stained glass window depicting Jesus and two disciples on their walk from Jerusalem to Emmaus. Other churches sought and received money to improve the interior of their facilities in hopes of making them more appealing to congregants. In short, the court said, the grants constituted an “impermissible religious use of public funds.”
A key part of the case revolved around a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling involving state money awarded to Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri to resurface a playground with recycled tires. The court upheld the grant.
But there are differences here. It can be argued that anything that improves a church has a religious purpose. However, there is nothing overtly religious about a playground surface made from recycled tires. But there is definitely a religious purpose to restoring a stained glass window of Jesus. The distinction is important and the state Supreme Court got it right.
There is, and will likely continue to be, a battle in this nation over the proper interaction between government and religion.
The dividing lines are well-established. Conservatives, some of whom want to bring back prayer to public schools, lament what they see as government disdain for religion. This mentality drives those who complain about the so-called “War on Christmas.”
On the other side are those who see religion as a purely personal matter that should not be influenced by government in any way.
This debate won’t be settled here, but the court’s reference to the Religious Aid Clause, which dates back to 1776, and previous court rulings is instructive.
One earlier opinion noted that “a large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches.”
It continued that “with the power of government supporting them, at various times and places,” Catholics persecuted Protestants, Protestants persecuted Catholics, different sects within religions persecuted each other and many different religions persecuted the Jews.
One logical answer to all this is to remove government from the equation. Forbid it to persecute any religion, but also forbid it to favor any religion.
In a small way, that’s what this week’s New Jersey Supreme Court ruling did.
(Visited 19 times, 1 visits today)
Leave a Reply