OMB Watch Comments Oppose Rule Allowing Federal Funding for Church Buildings - March 10, 2003 Vol. 4 No. 5

March 10, 2003 Vol. 4 No. 5:

Published: 03/10/2003

Printable Version
Email to a Friend

OMB Watch Comments Oppose Rule Allowing Federal Funding for Church Buildings

On January 6 the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed new regulations implementing the President’s December 12, 2002, Executive Order requiring “equal treatment” of faith-based organizations in the federal grant process. The proposal is similar to regulations proposed last month by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, they go further, allowing religious organizations to partially fund construction, acquisition or rehabilitation of structures to be used for both religious and government funded purposes. OMB Watch opposed this proposal, writing, "This is a can of worms that should not be opened."

The comments go on to say, "Current law, guided by Supreme Court cases, restricts capital improvement funds for structures that are permanently dedicated to exclusively secular purposes. See Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971) and Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973)."

Partial government funding of buildings used for worship and other religious activities raises a host of problems that are best avoided, and does nothing to simplify or streamline the process for religious organizations. For instance, what happens once the government no longer funds a program within such a building? Is the religious organization required to continue the program, or seek another organization to set up shop in its house of worship? What kind of record keeping would be necessary for a religious organization to demonstrate it has not exceeded the allowable portion of religious use of the facility? Will designated space be set aside where religious activity is prohibited? How would "religious" and "non-religious activities" be defined? Would a house of worship be required to open its building to the general community for meetings, events or programs? Who would own the non-religious interest in the building?

These questions are only a few examples of the kinds of complications this proposed rule would create. The Establishment Clause was intended to avoid this level of entanglement. HUD should revise the rule and bring it into line with current law, so that no partial government funding of structures used for religious activities is allowed.

See the full text of the comments. Also see our comments on HHS proposed charitable choice rules.