The Garden State's Religious Identity Crisis

In the Garden State, there is an ongoing dispute over the entanglement between the church and state and the allocation of state funding for the repairs of religious institutions. The use of the taxpayer funds for the reparations of religious institutions has been permitted within Morris County legislature for the past 16 years, as the restorations have been deemed appropriate so long as the intended use was for the restoration of historical monuments. However, in December of 2015, the Freedom from Religion Foundation filed suit against the Morris County Board of Freeholders stating that the use of taxpayer dollars to repair religious institutions creates a blatant promotion of religious establishment by the state. In response, the Morris County Board of Freeholders justified their application of taxpayer dollars for the repairs, claiming that all of the religious institutions receiving the aid had met the proper qualifications that allowed them to be formally recognized as historical landmarks. Additionally, the board of freeholders stated that the repairs being made to the religious institutions were either to address structural flaws the threatened the integrity of the building, and damages that subtracted from the historical accuracy of the institution (namely mending bell systems and resurfacing the façade). The court ruled in favor of the Board of Freeholders, as it found no establishment of religion being promoted through the state’s assistance. Additionally, the court found that the Freedom from Religion Foundation failed to recognize the other sections of the Constitutional article being questioned, stating that no individual may be deprived of public services (including funding for repairing historical monuments) due to their religious affiliation. The court then turned to the decision rendered in Everson v. Board of Education while formulating their decision, explicitly citing the ruling of taxpayer dollars being issued to the parents of parochial school children as a constitutional practice.

Fast-forward to April 2018, where the same article is being questioned yet again. The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the Morris County freeholders this past week arguing that the aid provided from taxes fosters a relationship between the church and state as the repairs had no secular intent evident to the reasonable observer. The ACLU specifically addressed the renovations made to the roofs, towers, ventilation systems, and stained glass windows depicting religious imagery as their primary concerns. In response, the Morris County Board of Freeholders stated that taxpayers voted to allow the churches to receive the aid, and thus their voice should be represented through the state’s Constitution. Additionally, the board of freeholders made note that all of the religious institutions granted aid were selected through a neutral process with consideration given to all of the other historic organizations within the county. The Supreme Court of New Jersey overturned their prior ruling in 2015 with a 7-0 decision in favor of the ACLU, finding the $4,200,000 aid provided by the state to be a direct promotion of the establishment of religion by the state. Chief Justice Rabner of the New Jersey Supreme Court delivered the opinion of the court on the matter, stating that the provision of aid to the religious institutions must be found unconstitutional as the repairs were being made specifically so religious worship services could be held in the respective locations. Justice Rabner further explained the court’s stance on the matter, agreeing with the claims made by the ACLU that there is no secular intent apparent in these renovations. To this point, Justice Rabner explained that there is a difference between repairing stained glass windows and renovating a playground that happened to be on church property. In response to the ruling, Kenneth Wilbur, the attorney for the board of freeholders and religious organizations stated that the historical significance of these institutions significantly outweighs the potential religious advancement caused by the funding. Specifically, the renovations made to the stained glass were only warranted to increase the historical accuracy of the original state of the window rather than to increase the visibility of the religious message.

This issue raises a significant level of concern for myself as the church I have attended for twenty years has lost funding through this ruling. However, all personal considerations put aside, I find myself in agreement with the argument presented by the ACLU on this matter. While I understand that there are historical considerations that call for renovations to be administered to these establishments, I fail to see how they may be deemed neutral while the congregations are active. The establishment of religion provided through state funding in this matter is also extremely apparent through the repairs made to the stained glass windows depicting religious messages. This only promotes religious messages through state funding, as the reasonable observer would be tasked to find any historical significance of the stained glass on the side of a church. This promotion of religion additionally causes the original legislature to fail the second prong of the Lemon test, provided through the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, a practice that is strictly prohibited under the First Amendment. Finally, I feel as though the interpretation of the article itself was grossly misinterpreted during the case of Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Morris County Board of Freeholders, as the proscription explicitly states that no person be obliged to pay for reparations of any kind made to churches and other religious establishments.