Recent legislative efforts in South Carolina aim to improve safety measures for places of worship and schools by providing security grants to eligible institutions, including religious ones. While the intent of these bills is to protect communities from threats, the inclusion of religious institutions in such programs has sparked debate over whether this constitutes an unconstitutional "establishment" of religion.
 |
| House Rep. Bernstein Advocating for Bill |
Proposed legislation in South Carolina, titled the Pray Safe Act, seeks to allocate state funds to enhance security measures at places of worship and educational institutions in response to a rise in crimes targeting religious establishments. Religious organizations would be eligible to apply for these grants, alongside secular entities. It outlines a $750,000 grant program, allowing tax-exempt organizations "at particular risk of being subject to a religiously motivated crime" to apply for up to $25,000 to improve security. This includes hiring personnel, purchasing enhanced security systems such as cameras and locks, and other protective measures.
Representative Beth Bernstein and other supporters argue that the grants are necessary to address the increasing threats faced by religious communities, citing incidents of violence targeting places of worship. Bernstein stated, “In recent years, we have seen hundreds of houses of worship facing violent attacks, from shootings to bomb threats to potential fires.” Critics, however, say that providing state funds to religious institutions risks violating the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from endorsing or advancing religion.
The controversy revolves around whether the security grants represent a neutral government interest aimed at public safety or an impermissible unconstitutional entanglement with religion. The compelling state interest lies in the protection of public safety, an interest that applies broadly to both religious and secular nonprofit institutions. The bill does not explicitly favor one religion over another, nor does it require recipients to adhere to specific religious practices. It clearly states that the program will “involve comprehensive safety and security measures, including threat prevention, preparedness, protection, mitigation, incident response, and recovery to improve the safety and security posture of nonprofit organizations” (Pray Safe Act of 2024, Section 2a). While the bill uses facially neutral language to support the general welfare of all nonprofits, the effect is allowing religious groups to receive government funding. Even when used for secular purposes like security, taxpayer funds going to religious organizations may be perceived as government endorsement of religion, thereby implicating the Establishment Clause especially in cases where tax payers do not support their money going to religions they don’t support.
The “Lemon Test” requires that legislation must (1) have a secular purpose, (2) neither advance nor inhibit religion, and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. The Pray Safe Act appears to satisfy the first two prongs. It has a clear secular purpose in protecting public safety, and it does not directly promote religious practice. However, the third prong remains contentious.
From a Free Exercise perspective, excluding religious institutions from accessing otherwise available public benefits could also raise constitutional concerns. In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not deny benefits to individuals based on religious practices without a compelling interest. Applying this logic, denying access to public safety funds solely on the basis of religious affiliation may place an undue burden on religious organizations’ ability to protect their congregants.
I believe that, given the rise in religiously motivated crimes and the bill’s inclusive language toward both secular and non-secular institutions, the legislation qualifies as a justified response to a compelling state interest. Importantly, taxpayer dollars are not being used to promote or endorse religious beliefs. Rather, they are being used to protect individuals who gather in religious settings just as they would protect people in schools, libraries, or other community centers. To maintain a constitutional balance between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, the state should implement safeguards that ensure neutrality. For example, grant applicants could be required to demonstrate that funds will be used strictly for secular purposes, such as hiring security personnel or installing surveillance equipment. This would allow the state to meet its public safety obligations without violating constitutional protections.
Ultimately, the Pray Safe Act raises significant questions about how the government can support vulnerable communities including religious ones without crossing the line into unconstitutional endorsement. In a time of rising threats against religious and secular communities alike, should the government be more concerned about avoiding any appearance of religious favoritism, or about ensuring equal protection and safety for all citizens, regardless of where they worship?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr7296/text
2 comments:
I agree with your assessment on this issue. While the law may create an "excessive entanglement" between government and religious institutions, it is in the government's best interest to protect its citizens. This is a good example of an issue where the Sherbert Test can be too broadly applied. One of the most important functions of the government is to protect its citizens from foreign or domestic threats. This is true regardless of a groups religious views or other beliefs. Asking the group to potentially face violence or provide their own private security would place a burden on their religious exercise. It's clear to me that this law should be passed and deemed constitutional despite its potential violation of the outdated Sherbert Test.
I agree that this law is in the governments best interest to uphold to promote public safety and protect its citizen. Your point in the recent rise of religiously targeted crimes is really interesting. This issue reminds me slights of Everson v. Board of Education. In this case, it was ruled constitutional to allow the reimbursement of transportation costs to kids attending religious schools. The main reason for allowing this was to promote safe ways of transportation for children to get to school. This case is similar, as everyone is entitled to government protection no matter their individual preferences. Allowing religious institutions to become more vulnerable to crime would be wrong, and not the purpose of the First Amendment.
Post a Comment