Of Course, My Tune Will Change Once I Start My Own Religion...
Because Mr. Intermittent doesn't have a comments system, I'll respond
to
his
remarks here.
I never said that not supporting something wouldn't make it harder for
that thing to exist. In fact, I think it's pretty obvious that
withholding support will make matters more difficult than providing
support would. My point was simply that it's not the same as
actively restricting something, which is all the Constitution prohibits
with respect to religion.
The distinction might be easier to see if we look at another example
not involving religion: Simply because the government doesn't
give me money to write my blog full-time doesn't mean it's restricting
my right to free speech. Sure, it makes it harder for me to share
my wonderful insights with the world, but I don't think the government
has to underwrite my speech in order to make it unrestricted. Now
if the government started censoring certain entries or shut down my
blog, then I might start objecting about my speech being restricted.
As for whether the state should provide fire protection or sewer
service for churches,
Lithwick's
article contains a passage which addresses the former concern:
Scalia wonders if the state can "decline to provide fire
protection for churches and synagogues." Souter answers for Pierce:
"Washington's position is that it will put out a fire in a church, but
it won't spend money ensuring that people will go inside a church."
I agree with this. I assume most church members pay taxes that
support the local fire department, so I see no reason why they should
be denied this basic service once they enter a certain structure.
I don't know how sewer service works in other cities, but I pay for it
along with my water bill, so I assume churches would pay for that
service on their own. Back when I still went to church, I
remember notices in the bulletin outlaying their expenses, which
included utilities such as heating and electricity. I assume
sewer services fell under this category as well: Services the
church needed to pay for itself, hopefully covered by the contributions
of its members. And this is how I think it should be: I
don't think the state should refuse to provide basic services to
religious organizations, but I also don't think those groups should get
those services for free. The Constitution only guarantees the
right to express one's faith; it doesn't guarantee the right to do so
in a elaborate building with enormous upkeep costs.
