New Jersey Ruling Could Reignite Battle Over Church-State Separation

NJ Transit is historic and worn out.......put some of that "historic preservation dough" on the tracks.

It has been my experience that within these congregations are contractors capable of repairing the temples that stand as physical expressions of their religious beliefs. Allow them to come forward and apply their expertise, and their qualified labor force, to whatever maintenance issues might apply. Short of that, how about taking the money spent on legal fees and the assorted costs of litigation against the State or United States Constitution, and apply it instead to the repair of their sacred edifices? Too often, it seems that funky separation thing becomes confused by believers to mean it was intended to create the opportunity to provide a challenge to the obvious fact that "separation" means everybody wins if we leave each other alone!

Do what the Austrians have done - landmarks are owned by the state and rented to others including churches. Cultural history can be preserved and rental fees can be used for maintainance

Funny how religious groups have no qualms about not paying taxes, but as soon as they see an opportunity to use money collected through taxes they jump on it. They should put the money they save by not paying taxes towards their renovations.

Separation of church and state means exactly that, no exceptions. NO taxpayer's handouts. If a church or religion cannot survive on it's own, then let it go. We have many more important areas to fund for all citizens than religion. Religion is so very delusional.

The churches should have to pay back the grant money.

It is becoming a slippery slope we are going down. I Truly believe in Seperation of Church and State. If a religious organization can not get the funds for upkeep from their followers I don't believe the city, or state should interviene. Whether it's a Christian Church, A jewish Temple, a Islamic mosque or whatever other Religious Denomination.

This is so simple. Those churches do not pay taxes so they do not get tax money back, for buildings, or playgrounds either. There is no gray area here.

While I agree that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause should be strictly interpreted so as to bar any government funding or support of religion, and that to paraphrase Ben Franklin, any religion that does not support itself so that it is obliged to seek help from civil authorities is a sign of it's not being a worthwhile religion, the New Jersey Supreme Court did not rely on the Federal Constitution's Establishment Clause to declare the county funding unconstitutional. It carefully reviewed the history of New Jersey's Religious Aid Clause, expressly noting that it predated the US Constitution and remained a fixture of the New Jersey Constitution from it inception in 1776, through the constitution revisions of 1844 and 1947. The granting of funds to religious institutions was contrary to the plain language of New Jersey's Religious Aid Clause. And rightfully so.

If a religious institution is exempt from paying property tax, as most are, isnt this meaningful support already? Why should taxpayers be obligated to provide more?

Touro Synagogue in Newport, RI is the oldest surviving Jewish house of worship in the continental US. In 1946 it was chosen to become a National Historic Shrine (today Site) not only for its architectural distinction but also because of the role it played in President Washington's guarantee of religious freedom to all citizens of the newly formed United States. Its small congregation has proudly borne the burden of caring for it without federal or state financial assistance, relying instead on grants, loans, donations, and creative fundraising, keeping faith with Washington's centuries-old promise.

These are difficult cases. If the stained glass windows were removed from this church after the congregation chose to raze the building for inability to maintain it, and the windows were then loaned to the Museum of the State of NJ, could we use public money to restore and mount them as an art exhibit? As art, don’t the windows have even more significance when viewed in situ? The idea of some public money going to institutions that espouse religious doctrine doesn’t offend me, provided that there is some objective architectural historical or artistic value recognized by reasonable people who are unaffiliated with that creed. Sure Y, some of the readers so offended by any of their tax dollars going to religious institutions think nothing of going to the countless museums supported by tax dollars and filled with religious and church commissioned artworks. That seems a little hypocritical to me, and may simply be a knee jerk opposition to organized religion. On the other hand, before we built the museum of the Native American at the Smithsonian in DC, we did practically destroy their cultures. Incidentally, I sincerely doubt that the mainstream Presbyterian congregation in Morristown would ever make anyone who wanted to study or admire the church feel unwelcome inside or out of the building. It’s just not how these folks roll. Maybe that should be the test - take public money and you open your doors to the public. ALL THE PUBLIC.

Religious organizations should also be against public funds being used to assist them in any way. The separation of church and state benefits them, in that it keeps government out of their daily business. Once you start accepting financial assistance, you open yourself to state intervention. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Once taxpayers are asked to financially asset religious organizations, they will logically expect to have a voice in how the money is spent and in Church activities. Religions cannot have it both ways. They best maintain independence by not pursuing or accepting taxpayer dollars.

I resent a penny of my taxes going to any religious institution. Moreover, no religions are taxed, so they should spend THEIR funds. Got it?

I wonder how people would react if it was an Islamic mosque of the Salafist/Wahabbi persuasion seeking taxpayer historical preservation funds to repair the mosque dome.

The taxpayers shouldn't be paying for "historic preservation" of private property owned by non-churches, either.

Several years ago, my Monthly Meeting faced a pressing problem arising from the deterioration of the Stony Brook Meetinghouse roof. Adjacent to the Princeton Battlefield, the Meetinghouse had been a "field hospital" to both Continental and British soldiers in the aftermath of the Battle. It clearly has a place in American history. But I was singularly opposed to seeking state funds for the project precisely because of the separation of church and state. I had to "stand aside" and have my objection minuted in the face of a sense of the meeting that it was proper to seek such funds. Fortunately, the application was rejected, the Meeting was able to raise the necessary funds and the project was completed. The irony is that the NJ Constitution contains that prohibition specifically due to the wording of the Concessions of the Proprietors of West Jersey (written either by John Locke or William Penn), which was the Quaker group that settled the area in the late 1600s. It's not a slam on religion...it's an express constraint on the incursion of politics into religion. After all, it's a slippery slope from supporting a congregation to hindering it by the withdrawal of aid.

NO public money for religious use of any kind. If their congregations cannot support them, then they should "go out of business" and close their doors. And they should be paying taxes as well.