Free Exercise of Religion and Public Funds
Controversy over the meaning of neutrality emerges clearly in disputes over the scope of religious exercise by organizations receiving public funds. For some, neutrality requires the denial of financial aid equally to all religious organizations. For others, neutrality requires that religious organizations have equal access to public benefits without having to shed their religious character. Otherwise, they suffer from a disaggregated neutrality that burdens religion through a denial of substantive exemptions, but that denies religious benefits that formal neutrality would allow as the incidental result of general laws. This formulation, however, results in disaggregated neutrality in reverse. That is, religious organizations would receive benefits on the same basis as secular groups, but they would also receive exemptions not available to secular groups under generally applicable laws. Public funding for religiously based organizations has no place in a liberal polity unless these organizations are separately incorporated and thus governed by laws against proselytization and discrimination in hiring. Allowing the government to decide which religious groups are worthy of support is divisive and results in favoring some groups over others. These groups should not receive public funds when their policies impact those who may not share their values.