If Christians of government funds and other religious organizations? If so, what kind of strings, we need to? If the strings in the long term? Court? Should there be any conditions? These questions are not suitable for easy answers, as shown in U.S. history.

The support of the colonial government to Christian organizations was an established practice. A number of colonies even designated a religion to receive tax dollars: It was the Anglican Church in much of the south and the parish church in large parts of New England. Other colonies necessary for citizens to choose their own beneficiaries Protestant church. Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island were the only colony not to require their citizens to support religion.

The relationship between state and religion has changed after the revolution. The authors of the new US Constitution included the following words in the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first part is the establishment clause, the second part of the Free Exercise Clause.

Throughout history, Americans have interpreted the Establishment Section otherwise. And 'separationists who are skeptical about government funding for religious organizations and other Christian, it is said that the approval and support of religion. Our government should not favor one religion over another or religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion, they say.

Then there accomadationists which are open to state funding for Christian organizations and other religions. It is said that a clause that allows him - only prohibits government favoring any specific religion or religions of others - and it will solve earthly problems.

These are the battle lines. And the courts were judges.

The Supreme Court and the Establishment Clause

For over 150 years after the Constitution was written, the Supreme Court has dealt with some cases involving public funding of religion. The turning point came in 1947 when the Court dealt with the state of New Jersey. The heart of the issue was whether the Constitution allows the government to reimburse the parents to enable them to bus their children to parochial school.

Yes, according to the Court, there is nothing unconstitutional about the government of allowing children of all religions to come to school. This case is an indirect aid to religion in a secular purpose, and who is eligible.

But the most important part of this decision was the Court holding that the Establishment Clause applies to states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, modification of subsequent civil war, which forbids states to deprive its citizens of life, liberty and property.

This led to the establishment clause and the public financing of Christians and other religious organizations, one of the national issues of the Court to make judgments about. In the first decades after the decision by New Jersey, separatists had the upper hand.

In 1971, the Court held that the provision of teachers 'salaries', textbooks and teaching materials to matters sectarian nonpublic schools violates the establishment clause. And 'too blunt, too direct.

This decision is known, but the leg of three tests, the Court set up to determine this case and in the future involving public funds to Christians and other religious groups. To meet constitutional muster, a law must be a secular purpose, neither before nor hinder religion, and not create excessive government entanglement with religion.

In 1973, the Court in a New York law, which provides grants to parochial schools that are primarily for low-income students. The legislature has provided funding for school maintenance. Also returned to the parents who are eligible and provided tax deductions for parents who were not eligible. Another objective of this legislation was to keep children in private schools to avoid overcrowding in public schools.

The Court held that the legislature has a secular purpose to curb overcrowding in public schools. But he canceled status, however, said that the religion of art and the government entangled with religion. This law was the main goal the maintenance of parochial schools. Overcrowding in public schools was a secondary concern. The decision of New Jersey, on the other hand, was about Büssing. The recipients were parents and children.

In 1971, the Court was whether the Law on Higher Education of 1963 was unconstitutional. The Act grants to church-sponsored colleges to build facilities that will be used for non-sectarian. Twenty years after the grant, schools will be allowed to use the facilities for Christians and other religious purposes.

The Court held that the grant would be permitted, if the government removed the 20-year rule. Even if the statute had a secular purpose and not confuse the government with religion, 20 years ahead of government in religion.

Accomadationist Court News

1983 marked a turning point. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor expressed new philosophy of the Court. There will be less government entanglement with religion, if the lower courts to supervise the Christians and other religious organizations, small and make them more confident to meet the requirement of the government not to disburse public funds a secular purpose, she said.

For the same reason, the Court began to give states and their laws the same respect.

In 1983, the legislature of Minnesota, parents, school children receive a tax deduction, said the goal to help finance the teaching, textbooks and transportation of children to public or parochial.

The Court upheld the law. He passed the three-pole test: is a secular purpose was to increase education for all students, is to avoid the advancing one religion, and not confuse the government with religion.

Subsequent cases tend accomadationist unknown. A 2002 decision the Court is an example. Spoke of a pilot program that allowed poor students to attend the Cleveland involving public and private schools, with the help of $ 2500 per year, good education supported by the State. A lottery was necessary because the number of students who apply to enter the program far exceeded the number of students the program could accept. Students who choose to remain in their public schools would have access to tutoring. Eighty-two percent of participating private schools had a religious affiliation. Eighty-six percent of students attended religiously affiliated schools.

The Court concluded that the policy constitutional coupon Cleveland. He based his decision on a five-leg test is developed for this case and subsequent coupons. To be good programs constitutional must:

First have a valid secular purpose

Two parents with schools and non-

3. Advantage of large groups of students

Being the fourth neutral to religion

5. Includes options of religious right

The Court held that the purpose of the program was to improve educational opportunities for students in nonpublic schools. The money was given to parents, not schools. A variety of students representing different races, religions, nationalities and religions participated in the program. The program has allowed parents to send their children to public schools and non-religious private schools.

Charity Choice

Outside the field of jurisprudence, has done much for the faith initiative of President George W. Bush in 2001 that opened the door on the basis of an omnipresent government funding for Christian and other religious organizations. What gives you the opportunity of a provision of the Act, welfare reform of 1996 approved by President Bill Clinton called charitable choice.

Before selecting a charity, only the Christian and other religious organizations to receive state funds had been paid to social services through a non-profit independent organization, which are set up solely for that purpose. Since the choice of charities, religious organizations pervasively Christian and others were forced to have equal access to offers and federal grants, which enable them to provide social services.

Some wondered whether the choice of a charity by the Constitution. The Court's decision in 1997 cleared the air even if the case was not about charitable choice. Here, Justice O'Connor, in part, rewrote the test so that the branch is complementary to another. He added two more qualifiers. Beneficiaries of government funding has yet to verify that a valid secular purpose need not advance religion.

However, to satisfy the "not advance religion" pins, just make sure that the assistance:

* Not used for religious indoctrination

* Determines the eligibility of the participating organizations, regardless of religion

* Not create excessive entanglement

Since 1971, the decision, the judge had asked that the State funding Christian and other religious organizations are indirect. 1997 decision, however, suggested that direct payments might be in order.

When Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996 Welfare Reform Act, the executive and the legislature approved charitable choice, and direct support to Christians and other religious organizations.

President Barack Obama shows no sign of disapproval. Accomadationist trends of the Board of Directors will continue in the near future - at least until the judges separationist accomadationist to replace the right to counsel is the High Court. Since the initiative charitable choice and faith based aspect is now under close accomadationist public financial assistance programs.

Jeffrey J. Rodman is a Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE) and a certified grants (CGS). It is an experienced grant writer, fundraiser, management, non-profit, public speaker and operates by-4-You Consulting and Grant Christian Church Grant Writing provides consultation on grant applications Christian ministries and churches worldwide.

Jeffrey controls a number of writers, scholars, journalists and administrative staff, providing consulting services to grant proposal writing, nonprofit development and fundraising in nearly every state and a dozen foreign countries and has worked for proposals to federal, state and local, as well as foundations, civic groups and many others.

Jeffrey received his BS and M.Ed. from George Mason University. He wrote 100 proposals received millions of dollars in funding, and maintains a support rate of 80%. He has successfully managed more than 25 different supplements, such as a grant administrator and also served as an auditor of a state grant, federal and local level and based on the review panels. Jeffrey is an experienced speaker and is a certified national trainer for programs in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Florida.

Jeffrey is very active in his church, especially in regions with respect to growth, education and finance. He is involved in several local and national ministries, including teens Opposing poverty.