skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Taxpayer-Funded Green Ministries in Prince George's County Violate the Constitution
From Hans Bader of CEI.
"Reporters like separation of church and state, unless it’s progressives violating it. Then, they lose interest in the concept. A recent Washington Post story cheerily reported on churches getting exemptions from a state-mandated stormwater fee (Maryland’s “rain tax”) in exchange for taking “green” positions, in the progressive bastion of Prince George’s County,
Maryland. The story did so without even mentioning the serious issues
that raises under the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment.
This sets a dangerous precedent. As legal commentator Walter Olson asks,
“Since when does government get the power to cut churches tax breaks in
exchange for their agreement to preach an approved line?”
This violates freedom of speech under the unconstitutional conditions
doctrine. Under Supreme Court precedent, you can’t condition a valuable
government benefit like a tax exemption on someone’s speech.
Speiser v. Randall,
357 U.S. 513 (1958), was a Supreme Court case addressing California’s
refusal to grant a veteran a tax exemption because he refused to sign a
loyalty oath as required by a California law. The Supreme Court ruled
that the condition violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has
reaffirmed this “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine in many other
cases and contexts, such as in Dollan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 385 (1994).
Even if this did not violate the First Amendment’s free speech
clause, it would still be unconstitutional. This government meddling in
the content of sermons constitutes undue entanglement and religious
favoritism in violation of the Establishment Clause and the religion
clauses of the Maryland and federal constitutions. Government officials
are not supposed to even indirectly meddle in things like the “voice of
the church,” even through generally-applicable, non-discriminatory labor
or employment laws (which this viewpoint-discriminatory reward for
green ministries manifestly is not, making it patently
unconstitutional). See, e.g., EEOC v. Catholic University of America,
83 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (appeals court ruled that EEOC could not
enforce even generally-applicable employment laws so as to regulate who
religious university employed as the “voice of the church” in matters of
theology, since that would entangle church and state, and violate
religious freedom); Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, 459 U.S. 116
(1982) (Supreme Court declared that land-use provisions that would be
valid in secular context violated the establishment clause when they
conferred a benefit on churches suggestive of a symbiotic union of
church and state).
Selective concern for separation of church and state is nothing new. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Obama administration’s attempt to regulate hiring of clergy and teachers of theology in the 2012 Hosanna-Tabor case,
thereby preventing bureaucratic entanglement in internal church
affairs. Although its ruling protected separation of church and state,
it was denounced by many self-proclaimed supporters of separation of
church and state. Those hypocritical progressive groups had filed amicus
briefs with the Supreme Court seeking to give federal bureaucrats the
ability to micromanage churches’ hiring of clergy and other “voices of
the church.”"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.