Can Massachusetts taxpayer money subsidize historic church renovations? SJC will decide
Through the early 1800s, the meetinghouse was the center of
both religious and civic life in Massachusetts. Boston's famous Freedom
Trail includes four historic churches, and hundreds of the state's
historically significant houses of worship have been preserved through
public funding.
But can public grants for historic preservation legally be given to a church? Or does that constitute illegal taxpayer support of a religious institution under the Massachusetts Constitution, which contains an "anti-aid" amendment, which prohibits the use of public money to aid a church or religious institution?
The Supreme Judicial Court will hear arguments on Sept. 7 in a case, George Caplan v. Town of Acton, that could have implications for the use of public money for church renovation projects around Massachusetts.
The case has attracted the attention of national groups on both sides of the issue.
One side argues that public money should not be going to subsidize a house of worship. "We understand that historical preservation is valued in Massachusetts," said Eric Rothschild, senior litigation attorney at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. "But the commonwealth was also very emphatic when it passed this amendment that it was not going to require people who are not members of congregations to have to set aside the dictates of own conscience to fund churches they're not a part of."
On the other side is the argument that a public grant program cannot favor or disfavor a religious institution. "You can't keep a church out of a generally accessible grant program just because it's a church," said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in the case. "The religious status of a church cannot disqualify it from that. It shouldn't give them an extra edge, but they also shouldn't be treated worse than other organizations."
The case centers on two historic preservation grants totaling $100,000 that the town of Acton awarded the Acton Congregational Church under the state's Community Preservation Act. The grants were to create a master plan for preserving the church and two historic houses it owns, and to restore the church's stained glass windows, which have religious imagery.
The Community Preservation Act is a state program that local voters can adopt, which lets communities raise tax money to preserve open space, restore historic sites, and for other purposes.
Thirteen taxpayers appealed the grants to the court, arguing they violated the state Constitution's "anti-aid" amendment, also referred to as a "Blaine Amendment." Massachusetts is one of around 35 states with similar amendments, which are rooted in 19th century anti-Irish Catholic sentiments, prohibiting public aid for religious schools and institutions.
A Middlesex County Superior Court judge denied the taxpayers' motion for an injunction to prevent the town from giving the grants.
The taxpayers argue that if the grants are allowed to stand, the Superior Court ruling effectively allows state agencies and municipal governments to use public money to fund religious institutions without restrictions. "The Superior Court approved something that this Court has never sanctioned: the grant of public funds to an active house of worship," attorneys for the taxpayers wrote in a court brief.
The American Civil Liberties Union, siding with the taxpayers, argues that public funding of religious institutions also risks infringing on religious freedom. "When taxpayer dollars subsidize a house of worship -- even at the request of the religious institution -- it threatens religious liberty by, among other things, creating a risk of government interference and surveillance, fomenting divisiveness among religions, and creating incentives that compromise religious beliefs," attorneys for the ACLU wrote.
The town's attorneys argue that the Acton Congregational Church, which was established in 1846, is an important part of the Acton Center Historic District.
Attorneys for the town wrote in a court brief that the decision to fund the projects was based on the significance of the historic resources, not the applicants' identity or motives. "The CPA grants in this case are entirely consistent with previous funding by the Town, other Massachusetts municipalities and the state itself," attorneys for the town of Acton wrote.
Statewide, more than 300 Community Preservation Act projects involving religious institutions have been approved over the years, according to Acton's court brief. The Massachusetts Historical Commission has funded 38 projects at religious institutions, ranging from the Vilna Shul in Boston to St. George Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Springfield.
"The Anti-Aid Amendment has never been found by this Court to contain an absolute prohibition on public funding of churches," attorneys for the town wrote. Rather, they say, grants are allowed if they are made with the effect of restoring historic resources, rather than aiding churches.
The plaintiffs believe those earlier projects were also unconstitutional -- it just took until now for someone to bring a case, according to Rothschild.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey filed a brief siding with the town.
"The Attorney General's Office believes that our state's historic preservation grant programs are constitutional and serve an important purpose in protecting our diverse culture and history for the benefit of all our residents," said Chloe Gotsis, a spokeswoman for Healey.
Healey wrote in a court brief that many of the state's earliest and most important historic resources are church buildings, and it is in the public interest to be able to preserve them. "These buildings and their features represent important artifacts of the Commonwealth's history, and they could be lost without public support for their restoration and preservation," Healey wrote.
Several Boston and New England-based historic preservation groups also filed a brief arguing that religious buildings are an important part of the state's history, and legally, they cannot be treated differently than secular historic buildings.
But can public grants for historic preservation legally be given to a church? Or does that constitute illegal taxpayer support of a religious institution under the Massachusetts Constitution, which contains an "anti-aid" amendment, which prohibits the use of public money to aid a church or religious institution?
The Supreme Judicial Court will hear arguments on Sept. 7 in a case, George Caplan v. Town of Acton, that could have implications for the use of public money for church renovation projects around Massachusetts.
The case has attracted the attention of national groups on both sides of the issue.
One side argues that public money should not be going to subsidize a house of worship. "We understand that historical preservation is valued in Massachusetts," said Eric Rothschild, senior litigation attorney at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. "But the commonwealth was also very emphatic when it passed this amendment that it was not going to require people who are not members of congregations to have to set aside the dictates of own conscience to fund churches they're not a part of."
On the other side is the argument that a public grant program cannot favor or disfavor a religious institution. "You can't keep a church out of a generally accessible grant program just because it's a church," said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in the case. "The religious status of a church cannot disqualify it from that. It shouldn't give them an extra edge, but they also shouldn't be treated worse than other organizations."
The case centers on two historic preservation grants totaling $100,000 that the town of Acton awarded the Acton Congregational Church under the state's Community Preservation Act. The grants were to create a master plan for preserving the church and two historic houses it owns, and to restore the church's stained glass windows, which have religious imagery.
The Community Preservation Act is a state program that local voters can adopt, which lets communities raise tax money to preserve open space, restore historic sites, and for other purposes.
Thirteen taxpayers appealed the grants to the court, arguing they violated the state Constitution's "anti-aid" amendment, also referred to as a "Blaine Amendment." Massachusetts is one of around 35 states with similar amendments, which are rooted in 19th century anti-Irish Catholic sentiments, prohibiting public aid for religious schools and institutions.
A Middlesex County Superior Court judge denied the taxpayers' motion for an injunction to prevent the town from giving the grants.
The taxpayers argue that if the grants are allowed to stand, the Superior Court ruling effectively allows state agencies and municipal governments to use public money to fund religious institutions without restrictions. "The Superior Court approved something that this Court has never sanctioned: the grant of public funds to an active house of worship," attorneys for the taxpayers wrote in a court brief.
The American Civil Liberties Union, siding with the taxpayers, argues that public funding of religious institutions also risks infringing on religious freedom. "When taxpayer dollars subsidize a house of worship -- even at the request of the religious institution -- it threatens religious liberty by, among other things, creating a risk of government interference and surveillance, fomenting divisiveness among religions, and creating incentives that compromise religious beliefs," attorneys for the ACLU wrote.
The town's attorneys argue that the Acton Congregational Church, which was established in 1846, is an important part of the Acton Center Historic District.
Attorneys for the town wrote in a court brief that the decision to fund the projects was based on the significance of the historic resources, not the applicants' identity or motives. "The CPA grants in this case are entirely consistent with previous funding by the Town, other Massachusetts municipalities and the state itself," attorneys for the town of Acton wrote.
Statewide, more than 300 Community Preservation Act projects involving religious institutions have been approved over the years, according to Acton's court brief. The Massachusetts Historical Commission has funded 38 projects at religious institutions, ranging from the Vilna Shul in Boston to St. George Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Springfield.
"The Anti-Aid Amendment has never been found by this Court to contain an absolute prohibition on public funding of churches," attorneys for the town wrote. Rather, they say, grants are allowed if they are made with the effect of restoring historic resources, rather than aiding churches.
The plaintiffs believe those earlier projects were also unconstitutional -- it just took until now for someone to bring a case, according to Rothschild.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey filed a brief siding with the town.
"The Attorney General's Office believes that our state's historic preservation grant programs are constitutional and serve an important purpose in protecting our diverse culture and history for the benefit of all our residents," said Chloe Gotsis, a spokeswoman for Healey.
Healey wrote in a court brief that many of the state's earliest and most important historic resources are church buildings, and it is in the public interest to be able to preserve them. "These buildings and their features represent important artifacts of the Commonwealth's history, and they could be lost without public support for their restoration and preservation," Healey wrote.
Several Boston and New England-based historic preservation groups also filed a brief arguing that religious buildings are an important part of the state's history, and legally, they cannot be treated differently than secular historic buildings.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe live in interesting times.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand using tax dollars to preserve historic churches. We've done that here in Templeton up on our historic common...used CPA money to repair the pillars in front of the church.
On the other hand a plaque on George's Island (Boston Harbor) is now surrounded by plywood because it was placed to mark the presence of Confederate soldiers held as prisoners during the Civil War /War of Northern Aggression.
So who's history is it?
No public money should be used for any active religious house of worship, period. If the building is an historical building not used or owned by a religious entity then sure, but as long as its owned or operated as a religious house of worship tax money should only become available if the religious institution pays taxes!
ReplyDeleteNo public money to support any religion!