When coronavirus hit the United States, it hurt a lot of small businesses and Congress responded by throwing together emergency loans for the Small Business Association (SBA) to distribute to these businesses. Loans were able to be given to any business no matter the religious nature and are forgivable if they go to paychecks, rent, or utilities. Usually under the SBA’s rules religious based organizations are not allowed to be given these loans, the regulations stating, “(organizations barred are those) Principally engaged in teaching, instructing, counseling or indoctrinating religion or religious beliefs, whether in a religious or secular setting.” Certainly under this regulation churches would be unable to receive any federal funding, however the SBA has decided that they will not enforce these regulations and has said, “faith-based organizations are eligible to receive SBA loans regardless of whether they provide secular social services”.
Churches routinely rely on collection dishes at in person services to fund their institutions and the pandemic has limited their ability to collect in person funds, but has not hampered the ability to hold virtual services or collect money online, which is now a regular and easily accessed way to donate money. So far these churches, schools, and Catholic dioceses have received more than 3,500 loans. Religious groups will also be exempt from the rule that disqualifies businesses of more than 500 workers and the Catholic church has now received between 1.4- 3.5 billion dollars in relief loans due to the pandemic. Chieko Noguchi, a spokesperson for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, has reported that 407,900 jobs were able to be saved through this aid money. Advocates of this policy argue that not allowing religious based organizations to receive funding is discriminatory against religion and would unfairly prioritize secular organizations. Those against the funding argue that this violates the establishment clause and that this direct funding of religion is basically the federal government establishing religion even though any religious based organization is eligible to apply. This is taking public tax-payer money and giving it directly to religious institutions that promote religion. It is also important to note that many of these churches are not in financial need due only to the pandemic, millions of these dollars has gone to dioceses who have recently declared bankruptcy or paid large settlements of money over sexual abuse coverups. (Washington) Some of these dioceses, although also economically hurt through the pandemic, were already in financial need due to sexual abuse cases. The Payment Protection loans went to 40 dioceses paying for sexual abuse cases that have received at a minimum 400 million in aid. However this factor should not sway those who believe that the church should be exempt or not exempt due solely to the constitutionality of establishing religion.
I agree that not enforcing the prior SBA regulation that disqualifies churches from receiving funds is in direct violation of the establishment clause. Even though the money will only be forgivable if it goes to paychecks, rent, or utility, it frees up any other funds for direct promotion of religion. Further the three above factors (paycheck, rent, and utilities) already directly benefit religion. Those with jobs in this industry should be helped through other governmental programs that do not go directly towards helping the church, such as unemployment and economic relief packages that went to individuals. However this is also hard because these other packages do not always ensure financial stability. People should be taken care off during pandemics like those working for the church but not the church itself. When looking at the three prongs of the Lemon test, the overall aid package given to the SBA does have a secular purpose, however not enforcing the SBA regulation does not seem to have a secular purpose. For the second prong, the primary purpose of the loans is not to further religion, but again not enforcing the SBA regulation does have a primary purpose of helping religious institutions. The entanglement prong is also violated because this is a significant link between government and state. Further, the pandemic has hurt church revenue in that those who would physically attend church cannot donate money physically but they are still able to donate money electronically and churches are still able to hold virtual meetings. The problem then is that church attendance is down and that those who go to services are not donating as much money and this could be through their own financial troubles due to the pandemic. However does this mean that churches should receive taxpayer money because they are no longer receiving as many donations or cannot motivate their congregation to attend services? Is there really no difference between a church receiving money and a restaurant? Is this not in fact subsidizing religion?
The question then is during an external circumstance, such as pandemics, is the government responsible for helping religious institutions or are only those that believe in the religion and volunteer their money responsible for helping the religious institutions? I feel as though there are clear violations of the wall between church and state in this instance. It shouldn't really be the responsibility of every tax payer to help someone else's faith. If we also wanted to look at sincerity from the government, is the government sincere in providing aid to not discriminate against religion, or could this more be about winning votes in the upcoming election? In countless previous supreme court cases: Wolman, Grand Rapids, Nyguist, Meek, and Ball, the courts have restricted the types of aid that can be given to religious schools because they represented an entanglement between church and state. Many of these were revoked such as Agostini revoking the Grand Rapids and Aguilar decision in part because there is only indirect aid, however in this case there is direct aid going to the actual churches in the form of forgivable loans.
8 comments:
I agree with your analysis and decision that monetary aid to churches is in fact an establishment of religion. Thinking back to one of the first pieces we read by James Madison, he clearly stated that no tax in whatever amount could be given to religious institutions, in the case he was referring to it applied specifically to religious ministers. I like the point Maggie makes that those who may be working for the church can seek support and assistance from the government in other ways that would completely allow for separation of church and state to still exist and so there is a less restrictive means to achieve this goal, rather than aid going directly to the churches themselves.
I agree that it seems like providing relief funds to religious institutions is directly funding religious proselytizing and indoctrination. Unlike religious clubs being given space in schools, in this situation it cannot be denied that the money being given to the core institution of a religion is serving the purpose of directly advancing religion in these uncertain times. Similar to McKenzie, I really liked Maggie's point that the true economic victims of the pandemic are the individuals who work in the churches, not the churches themselves. With this in mind, I agree that the religious individuals are entitled to the forms of government assistance and relief aid without implicating an establishment of religion, but funding the institution directly definitely creates an unconstitutional state endorsement of religion.
I agree with the author on this. Giving reliefs loans to religious institutions, while it may be said to have secular purposes, clearly allows other funds to be allocated for religious reasons. Additionally, even of there were a way to ensure these funds wouldn’t allow others to be freed up, the government should not be paying people to participate in religious teachings, which is exactly what is happening when they are giving loans to fund paychecks.
In this instance, I think your application of the Lemon test is really appropriate. It's tempting to say that a religious institution should fall under the same neutral, blanket relief loan policy, but the aid is going directly to a religious institution, and it's hard for me to imagine any secular purpose a Church might have that outweighs their religious goals. McKenzie's citing of Madison's Remonstrance resonated with me too, and I agree that this situation would be giving direct financial aid to religion, violating the Establishment clause. I agree with you that this is a clear violation of the separation of church and state and that it's not the government's responsibility to assist private religious institutions. Going off of that, I really liked your point (and Emma pointed this out too) about how it's the government's responsibility to help the individuals who go to church but not the church itself.
I do not think that the government is responsible for helping to fund religious institutions. The entanglement prong of the Lemon test is being directly violated by churches and religious organizations receiving aid. Since a church is not the same as a business, it does not have the same secular purposes that are necessary for the said organization to receive federal funds. Since the money is going directly to a religious institution, it is still furthering or aiding religion, which is an obvious violation of entanglement between religion and government. I ultimately agree with the author and with the majority of the above on this topic.
I would call into question the Lemon Test in this case. It seems as though it is merely being used as a tool to dismantle religion and treat it unfairly to other businesses. You bring up the question of whether or not it is appropriate to make tax payers fund religions they don't agree with. I would ask the same of all those tax payers that have to send money for any government program they disagree with.
I agree with the author, it is not fair to give funding to the religious groups. Giving taxpayer dollars to a religious institution without a doubt aids in the establishment of religion. Though, there is some grey area because of the mandate that prohibited churches from meeting which ultimately would have caused the economic troubles. There are other ways for people to make donations to the ir churches and it is not the responsibility of the state or of the American people to aid a religion that they may not believe in. There may be some times where this aid should go to the workers who work inside the churches, but the aid should not go to the churches themselves.
I agree with your evaluation of the Lemon Test in application to this case. However, I also agree with Dominic's point that I am not sure if the Court would use the Lemon Test due to the critisicm the Test has received, and specifically because of the uncertainty caused by the coronavirus which may make the Court more accomodating.
Post a Comment