Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man
Does the US Constitution cover a city giving a church money to restore it because of its historical significance?
|
That's an interesting question. I think I cogently laid out the proper analysis of the issue a few posts back:
Quote:
I have to wonder whether this would pass a court challenge, should someone mount one. After all, the building is primarily used for religious services. In fact, in this case, city money will go to restore religious murals. There's a whole line of Supreme Court cases about what limited categories of government aid to parochial schools are allowable. Perhaps the city would argue that the proper part of the First Amendment to measure against is not the Establishment Clause, but the Free Exercise Clause. The argument would be that if it's allowable to give city money to restore a landmark Elks Lodge, it would be unconstitutional to not give money to a similarly designated building just because it's a church.
|
muertecaza says the question is decided in
Trinity Lutheran, the 2017 Supreme Court case about providing rubberized surfaces to church preschools same as other preschools. But that's not the only case in this area of First Amendment law, and part of the Establishment Clause test is "for a secular purpose." Preschools are a level removed from religious activities, and their playgrounds even more removed. Protecting toddlers from falls is hard to characterize as "advancing religion." In the case of First Deliverance, the building being restored is used almost exclusively for religious services—the two towers are known as "Old Testament" and "New Testament"—and part of the money will be used to restore religious murals
whose intrinsic purpose is liturgical.
It's the sort of unresolved close question used on Constitutional Law final exams, and I would hesitate to confidently predict how an appellate court would rule.