President Trump’s newly nominated Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, did not make it to the coveted chair without a struggle.
But after a painstaking confirmation process, Justice Kavanaugh is hitting the ground running, advocating for a controversial religious matter.
A case was brought to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not churches can receive historic preservation funds by the government, but without much deliberation the court turned down the request for review.
And Kavanaugh made his disagreement with this decision clear with a powerful response:
Last year the New Jersey Supreme Court “ruled a grant program unlawfully used state funds to make repairs to churches,” according to Christian Headlines. This is undoubtedly due to the skewed liberal perception of what it means to separate church and state.
Those dissatisfied with the bias ruling make the sound argument that excluded a historic building from receiving preservation funds simply on the basis that it is a religious building is unconstitutional, violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
CNBC makes the hasty claim that the decision is done and over with, because of the Supreme Court’s ruling to not review the case again. However, Kavanaugh has made public assertions that would argue quite the opposite.
Initially voting with the collective voice to deny the preservation funds case on “technical grounds”, reports CNBC, Justice Kavanaugh also followed up with how the case raised “serious questions.”
The newly appointed Justice added:
“At some point, this Court will need to decide whether governments that distribute historic preservation funds may deny funds to religious organizations simply because the organizations are religious. Barring religious organizations because they are religious from a general historic preservation grants program is pure discrimination against religion.”
The left is quick to defend any liberal organization’s efforts to insert themselves into American history and culture, despite how unconstitutional it may be- think marriage rights. This case presents a clear discrimination, yet the left doesn’t want to even consider it, because of their deep-rooted resentment of Christians and the conservative values they represent.
Democrat Stuart Rabner is the top judge on the New Jersey court, and he tried to explain that the denial of funds wasn’t because churches are religious, but because the money would be used to “conduct worship services, and other such religious activities,” according to Christian Headlines.
This is a feeble excuse for his decision, and a misunderstanding of the relationship between church and its attendees. Worship is an inward act of the individual towards God, thanking him for his blessings (Psalm 103:1-2).
A building is not needed for this act, it just makes it easier to collectively give thanks, while joining like-minded individuals. Money cannot buy worship. As for the other “religious activities”, that is separate from the upkeep of the building itself.
Historic preservation funds are to maintain buildings that have been landmarks in the community for a long time. The argument Rabner gave would require that certain community buildings be barred from the funds as well, because they may hold yoga classes or other religious meetings that some may find promote religion.
Kavanaugh reasoned that the preservation funds case took the correct judicial grounds “because of certain issues particular to the cases at hand, and because there was not yet sufficient case law in the lower courts on the question,” reports CNBC.
Those in opposition to laws that restrict historical churches from receiving funds to manage upkeep of the building would likely not be hard-pressed to find cases to present in the lower courts.
A similar case went to the top court in 2017 when “it found that it was discriminatory for states to block taxpayer funds to religious schools, but limited their opinion in a footnote to the very specific case of playground resurfacing,” according to CNBC.
The Supreme Court revealed their reasoning in considering the cases distinctly different, in saying that “playground resurfacing is not a religious use, but church repairs are.”
Another argument in the top court argued whether a cross should stand on top of a government agency in Maryland. Discussions for the case made obvious the chasm between the nine Justices in regards to religion.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch were both nominated by President Trump in an effort to tip the scales toward some more much needed conservative rulings. They join conservative Justice Samuel Alito who was nominated by former President George Bush.
It will be interesting to see how cases confronting grounded biblical principles unfold as conservative Justices give the Supreme Court a forgotten voice in an age of liberal relativism.
Please let us know in the comments section what you think the ruling in the preservation funds case should be, and how religious freedom in this country may be affected by the conservative Justice nominations.
