Christian Grants? - A History of Government Funding For Christian Organizations

Should government fund Christian and otherwould be used for nonsectarian purposes. Twenty
religious organizations? If so, what kind of stringsyears after the grant, the schools would be
should it attach? Should the strings be long?permitted to use the facilities for Christian and
Short? Should there even be any strings? Theseother religious purposes.
questions do not lend themselves to easyThe Court held that the grants would be
answers, as American history shows.permissible if the state eliminated the 20-year
In the colonial period government funding forprovision. While the statute had a secular purpose
Christian organizations was an established practice.and would not entangle government with religion,
A number of colonies even designated one religionthe 20-year provision would advance religion.
to receive tax dollars: It was the Anglican ChurchThe Court's new accomadationist stand
in much of the South and the Congregational1983 marked a turning point. Justice Sandra Day
Church in much of New England. Other coloniesO'Connor voiced the Court's new philosophy.
required citizens to choose their own protestantThere will be less government entanglement with
church beneficiary. Delaware, New Jersey,religion if lower courts monitor Christian and other
Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island were the onlyreligious organizations less and trust them more to
colonies not to require their citizens to fundadhere to government requirements not to
religion.disburse government funds with a secular
The relationship between the state and religionpurpose, she said.
changed after the Revolution. The framers of theFor the same reason the Court began to give
new United States Constitution included thestates and their statutes the same deference.
following words in the First Amendment,In 1983, the Minnesota legislature made parents of
"Congress shall make no law respecting anschool children eligible for tax deductions, the
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the freestated goal to help fund tuition, textbooks, and
exercise thereof." The first part is thetransportation for their children's public or parochial
Establishment Clause, the second part the Freeeducation.
Exercise Clause.The Court upheld the statute. It passed the 3
Through the ages Americans have interpreted theprong test: Its secular purpose was to enhance
Establishment Clause differently. There are thethe education of all students; it avoided advancing
separationists who are skeptical aboutone religion; and it did not entangle government
government funding Christian and other religiouswith religion.
organizations because they say it impliesEnsuing Court decisions furthered the
endorsement of and support for religion. Ouraccomadationist trend. A 2002 Court decision, is
government must not favor one religion overone example. The case involved a pilot program
another, or religion over non-religion, or non-religionthat allowed poor students from Cleveland to
over religion, they say.attend participating public and private schools, with
Then you have the accomadationists who arethe help of $2,500 a year, government-sponsored
open to government funding Christian and othertuition vouchers. A lottery was needed because
religious organizations. They say the Clausethe volume of students applying to enter the
permits it - it only bans government fromprogram far exceeded the number of students
favoring any one religion or certain religions overthe program could accept. Students choosing to
others -- and it solves secular problems.stay in their public school would have access to
These are the battle lines. And the courts havetutorial instruction. Eighty-two percent of the
been the referees.participating private schools had a religious
The Supreme Court and the Establishment Clauseaffiliation. Ninety-six percent of the students
For more than 150 years after the Constitutionattended religiously-affiliated schools.
was drafted, the Supreme Court dealt with fewThe Court found Cleveland's voucher policy
cases that implicated government funding forconstitutional. It based its decision on a five-prong
religion. The turning point came in 1947 when thetest it devised for this and subsequent voucher
Court dealt with a New Jersey statute. The heartcases. To be constitutional voucher programs
of the issue was whether the Constitution permitsmust:
the government to reimburse parents to give
them the means to bus their children to parochial1. Have a valid secular purpose
school.2. Aid parents and not the schools
Yes, the Court said, there is nothing3. Benefit a broad class of students
unconstitutional about government enabling children4. Be neutral with respect to religion
of all religions to get to school. This case involves5. Include adequate nonreligious options
indirect aid to religion with a secular purpose, andThe Court held that the purpose of the program
that is permissible.was to improve educational opportunities for
But the most significant part of this decision wasstudents in failing public schools. The money was
the Court's holding that the Establishment Clausegiven to parents, not the schools. A diversity of
applies to the states via the Due Process Clausestudents representing various races, creeds,
of the Fourteenth Amendment, the post Civil Warnationalities, and religions participated in the
amendment that bans the states from deprivingprogram. The program allowed parents to send
its citizens of life, liberty, and property.their children to public schools and nonreligious
This made the Establishment Clause andprivate schools.
government funding of Christian and otherCharitable Choice
religious organizations a national issues for theOutside the realm of case law, much has been
Court to pass judgment on. In the early decadesmade of President George W. Bush's faith based
after the NJ Decision, separationists had the upperinitiative in 2001 that opened the door to
hand.government funding for pervasively Christian and
In 1971, the Court held that providing teacherother religious organizations. What gave him the
salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials foropportunity was a provision of the 1996 Welfare
sectarian subjects in nonpublic schools violates theReform Act passed by President Bill Clinton called
Establishment Clause. It's too overt, too direct.charitable choice.
This decision is mostly known, however, for theBefore charitable choice, the only Christian and
three-prong test the Court set up to decide thisother religious organizations to receive
and future cases involving government funding forgovernment funds disbursed social services via a
Christian and other religious groups. To passseparate nonprofit organization that they set up
constitutional muster, a statute must have asolely for that purpose. Since charitable choice,
secular purpose, not advance nor inhibit religion,pervasively Christian and other religious
and not foster excessive governmentorganizations have had equal access to federal
entanglement with religion.bids and grants that allow them to provide social
In 1973, the Court dealt with a New York statuteservices.
that provided grants for parochial schools thatSome wondered if charitable choice was
cater largely to low income students. Theconstitutional. A Court decision in 1997 cleared the
legislature provided the money for schoolair even though the case was not about charitable
maintenance. It also reimbursed parents whochoice. Here Justice O'Connor partially rewrote the
qualify and provided tax deductions for parentstest so that the third prong supplements the
who did not qualify. Another objective of thissecond. She added two other qualifiers. Recipients
legislation was to keep the children in privateof government funding still must ensure it serves
schools to avoid public school overcrowding.a valid secular purpose and does not advance
The Court found the legislature had a secularreligion.
purpose in curbing overcrowding in public schools.But to satisfy the "does not advance religion"
But it nullified the statute anyway, stating that itprong, they must only ensure that the aid:
advanced religion and entangled the government- Is not being used for religious indoctrination
with religion. This statute's chief objective was- Defines the eligibility of participating organizations
parochial school maintenance. Public schoolwithout regard to religion
overcrowding was a secondary concern. The NJ- Does not create excessive government
decision, on the other hand, was about bussing.entanglement
The beneficiaries were parents and children.From 1971 decision, the Court had demanded that
In 1971, the Court had to decide whether thegovernment funding for Christian and other
Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 wasreligious organizations be indirect. The 1997
constitutional. The Act provided grants todecision, however, suggested that direct aid could
church-sponsored colleges to build facilities thatbe okay.