in this article, , in your humble opinion, where should the line be drawn any comments would be helpful?

Question

The "wall of separation" between chuch and state - protected by the establishment clause - and free exercise will not be addressed by SCOTUS this term, much to the frustration of accomodationists (those who support accomodating religious groups with puclic funds) and separationists.

As Greenhouse notes in the attached article, "The question lies at the intersection where the two religion clauses of the First Amendment meet: the protection for the “free exercise” of religion and the prohibition against the official “establishment” of religion. It is not clear where the current justices would draw the line if they were ever to accept a case that presents the question." After reading the article, where do you think they would draw the line, and , in your humble opinion, where should the line be drawn?

Answer 1

Religious groups should be treated like other private organizations who want to use public facilities or to obtain public funds for charitable activities. If an administrator would deny a Muslim group, a union group, a political party, or business group, they should also reject a Christian group, but they can not deny Christian groups and accept the others. Free exercise does not mean that the government should pay for it. The assumption that used to be made the religious group deserved special consideration because they served a public good is longer valid since they have become politicize, if it ever was.