SJC faces decision on using public funds for churches
The separation of church and state is a fundamental American concept, and the Bay State’s highest court is now charged with figuring out where to draw the line when it comes to public funds being used to restore houses of worship.
A group of taxpayers is challenging more than $100,000 in community preservation grants that are slated to go to the Acton Congregational Church. Among the restoration projects are stained-glass windows that have religious imagery.
“The government cannot write a check to help an active house of worship,” said Douglas Mishkin, an attorney for the taxpayers, during a hearing in front of the Supreme Judicial Court yesterday. He argued that the Anti-Aid Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution prevents “aid to sectarian institutions.”
But the issue, according to attorneys for the church — and several SJC justices — isn’t cut and dried. Under the Community Preservation Act, municipalities are able to fund local historic preservation projects, and the churches at issue have historical significance in Acton, according to a town attorney.
“I do not believe that something that has religious significance to some can’t have historical significance that is worth preserving,” said Nina Pickering-Cook, an attorney for Acton. “I don’t think they are mutually exclusive.”
Mishkin argued that if a house of worship is primarily historical — like Old North Church in Boston — it may qualify for funds. Some justices, however, weren’t sure where they could draw a line.
“I think the Old North Church is an interesting one because, to the people who worship there, it is an active church,” said Justice Barbara Lenk. “How do you say what the predominant use is? Is there an objective test?”
Chief Justice Ralph Gants said granting one church money could cause issues if and when other religions ask for the same accommodation.
“I’m speaking of the risk of competing claims among different religions — each seeking comparable appropriations for the renovation of their institution,” he said. “Some get it, some don’t. Is there not a risk?”