NJ Supreme Court cuts off Morris County's historic preservation grants to Houses of Worship

Here's a syllabus and the court's opinion on the decision.

Since the framers of the Religious Aid Clause did not imagine historic preservation would become a public purpose, the Constitution should be amended to allow for public funding of church building preservation on grounds of architectural and community historical significance regardless of intended use. Otherwise, religious buildings will be singled out and excised from history by being excluded from public preservation programs, which defeats their purpose. Who could convincingly argue that religion is a not major context of history?

Would PNJ lead this effort?

What religious aid clause?

​For me NJ's religious structures are one of the most historically significant building types for their architectural expression, association with both history and culture. It is certainly difficult to think of a more ubiquitous and pervasive property type.

The precarious position of religious properties that often are short on financial resources, diminishing congregations, and fragmented community support makes for a very difficult circumstance. Further the reuse of religious structures for other uses has proven to be very difficult, if not impossible in many many cases, especially if one tries to maintain the architectural integrity.

​I have always been saddened by NJ's unconstitutional support for religious ​properties​. Beyond the blatant violation of the First Amendment, I often think of the m​a​ny hardworking 1st and 2nd generation immigrants being ask​ed​ to preserve s​ites directly​ associated with ​institutions responsible for ​Western imperialism and oppression. Sites associated with the evangelical spread of western religion​, and the ​genocidal ​suppression of traditional lifeways​, cosmology, and culture.​

Religious properties are in a Scylla and Charybdis situation. Private property by any definition, that are rapidly declining in congregation and financial viability. Properties given unconstitutional tax exceptions
​Making churches and other religious organizations tax exempt is the cleanest way to avoid government entanglement with (and exercising undue influence over) religion, which is prohibited by the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
As Chief Justice John Marshall stated back in 1819, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Keeping churches tax exempt removes the temptation from government to interfere with the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court held that property tax exemptions for churches were in keeping with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (Walz v. Tax Commission)... Can you say, they have the best of both, Or they get their cake and eat it too?

I would also note the long-established practice of the National Trust for Historic Preservation to stay away from religious properties preservation issues. Anyone wonder why? Because the NTHP started as a federally funded agency, which like all other federal agencies are mandated to tread very carefully when public funds could end-up in a church.

I fully appreciate and acknowledge Mary's point and this crisis situation that NJ has been able to address, but the ends do not justify the means. Janet and I disagree on the most fundamental issue at hand, the separation of church and state which is required by the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

So, for me the path forward is for the HP, municipal, and religious communities to find new ways to preserve religious properties. A very very difficult task, but one that can be addressed and one that can not be a violation of the First Amendment. We know other states have done it.

As a progressive and secular humanist who draws my political philosophy in Spinoza, Hume, Paine, and the founding fathers, I can not support government funding for preservation of religious properties. The American democracy was founded as an unconditionally secular form of government.

Lastly, I will undermine my own position and state that I can hardly imagine a situation where public resources and funds should not be used to protect Native American sacred sites. The justification and difference is obvious. Peter Primavera

To answer Peter's question: "Religious Aid Clause" = NJ Constitution, Article I. 3. "No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor under any pretense whatever be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his faith and judgment; nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform."

I'm not from New Jersey, but it would seem reasonable to me to amend the clause to permit restoration funding for church buildings no longer used for workship or for the specific administrative needs of a religious organization.  This would mean that the denomination or owner of the building, in exchange for support, would cease to hold worship services there and would publicly state on the property that the building is of historical significance as a former place of worship.  The owner could, I suppose, even transfer the building to a trust that could not be managed by the denomination.  I'm sure the legal eagles could come up with wording that could balance the denomination's continuing interest in structural integrity and the public's interest in remaining several degrees removed from tax money sustaining religious organizations.

regards

Peter

Here is an article explaining why the plaintiff filed suit: https://www.dailyrecord.com/story/news/2016/01/05/religious-group-sues-…