Politicians praise churches but undermine their mission in helping the needy

By James Lobsenz

Congress continues to reduce funding for federal programs that support low-income individuals. 

Recently, the House and Senate agreed to eliminate nearly $300 billion in funding designated for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) through 2034.  It is estimated that this cut would affect 23 million families and over 3 million children who rely on food stamps to buy groceries.

As the federal government reduces financial support to the poor, religious organizations have steadily increased their support. Politicians and local government officials often praise their efforts and assert that it is more appropriate for churches to provide these services instead of federal taxpayers. 

But the same people often make it more difficult for faith-based organizations to provide such relief, thereby revealing that their statements lauding such efforts are piously hypocritical. 

The same government officials who praise the religious organizations that provide such relief simultaneously adopt laws and regulations that make it more difficult for them to do so, because many residents are unhappy about long lines of poor people gathering at churches or the offices of charitable food distribution centers.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down one such law, ruling that it discriminated against some religions based on their theological beliefs.  Wisconsin provided a tax exemption to nonprofit organizations “controlled, supervised, or principally supported by a church,” but only if the organization was “operated primarily for religious purposes.” Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., a nonprofit that served as the “social ministry arm” of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, provided services to the poor and disadvantaged to carry out its self-proclaimed mission to follow the charitable teachings of Christ. 

However, Wisconsin denied Catholic Charities a tax exemption because its services were not truly “religious” in nature.  Wisconsin noted that Catholic Charities was assisting poor non-Catholics (and anyone else who needed assistance, regardless of their faith).  Wisconsin also pointed out that Catholic Charities was not proselytizing or attempting to inculcate aid recipients with the Catholic faith. 

Therefore, according to Wisconsin, the organization was “secular in nature,” and “not religious.”  Because feeding, clothing, or housing the poor was not a form of “worship, religious outreach, ceremony, or religious education,” Wisconsin refused to recognize Catholic Charities as a religious organization entitled to a tax exemption.

Happily, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously disagreed.  The Court recognized that some churches believe that providing support for the poor is a religious duty and that carrying out that duty is a form of worship.  Just because not all religious organizations hold such beliefs was no justification for discriminating against those, like the Catholics, who do.  By defining the charitable work of this particular Catholic organization as not primarily religious, Wisconsin “establish[ed] a preference for certain religious beliefs based on the content of their religious doctrine.” 

The Court condemned this kind of “official differentiation on theological lines” as “fundamentally foreign to our constitutional order.”  The Wisconsin law did not make it impossible for Catholic Charities to provide support for the poor, but it made it more expensive.

The Court held that giving a “denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices” violated the First Amendment’s command that government “maintain neutrality between religion and religion.”

The disciples were confused when Jesus told them that they had fed, clothed, and taken him in when he was hungry, naked, and unsheltered.  Peter asked him, “When did we [do that] to you, Lord?”  And he replied, “Whenever you did it to the least of my brothers and sisters, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:40). 

Many Catholic churches continue to practice their faith by serving Christ just as Catholic Charities has been doing, and the same is true of my synagogues and mosques. 

The duties to “take in the stranger” and “to give alms to the poor” are central to Islam and Judaism. Bless those who continue to do so despite laws that try to prevent them from carrying out those duties.  And bless the U.S. Supreme Court for defending its constitutional right to do so.

James Lobsenz, who lives in Ashland, is a practicing civil rights attorney.