The Court of Appeals dismisses the Church’s Establishment Clause claim on the grounds that it is irrelevant because the Entanglement doctrine applies only to cases in which the government offers funding to religious organizations. While that is the Entanglement doctrine’s historic use, the Court of Appeals must consider the purpose of Establishment Clause more thoroughly. The Court of Appeals’ holding is correct, however, it should not dismiss the Establishment Clause claim without consideration. The Supreme Court often notes the three evils that the Founding Framers attempted to avoid by creating the Establishment Clause: compulsion of nonbelievers to support religious institutions, corruption of religion, and religious and …show more content…
The Court of Appeals refutes this argument stating that the State only evaluates the proposals based on financial and architectural matters. However, the Church’s finances are inextricably linked to its ability to operate; it cannot exist as separate financial and religious entities. Although the State does not evaluate any religious doctrines or practices, it nonetheless involves itself in the Church’s ability to administer its charitable programs, which are part of its religious …show more content…
However, the fact that this Law requires the State to make judgments on the merits of a church’s claim to modify its buildings distinguishes this case from Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, which involves a standard tax and requires no such judgment. Government discretion over how churches may use their land could lead to corruption of religion because the Church hold an extremely large financial interest in getting approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commission. The Landmarks Law raises a valid question about entanglement between Church and State because the State has to continuously re-review the Churches’ proposals to rebuild or to modify their