A clash of civil liberties advocates is shaping up in West Virginia over whether public funds can be used for a prayer and music event.

On the one side is the American Civil Liberties Union, which says the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution bars public funds from being used for religious purposes. On the other is The Rutherford Institute, which says that as long as the festival isn’t given preferential treatment, it’s okay to help it financially, and that withholding funds would amount to viewpoint discrimination — also a violation of the Constitution.

In the middle are Jesus Fest and Harrison County, which has provided the festival with $2,000 a year for the last five years.

The festival is a mix of religious music and activities, including a Sunday morning service and various speakers. Here’s the festival’s description of what it’s about:

“Jesus Fest is an annual Christian festival event on Main Street in Clarksburg, West Virginia. The event is a family oriented festival with a focus on creating unity in the Body of Christ, which is accomplished through an interdenominational approach utilizing ecumenical leadership and the involvement of local area churches. The event focuses on evangelism and outreach to the unsaved by means of family oriented activities and events in an atmosphere of interdenominational praise and worship and the preaching of the gospel. Reaching out to the hurting and oppressed is a biblical mandate for us as a redeemed people.”

The ACLU says the funding amounts to government sponsorship of religion In a letter to the Harrison County Commission, obtained by The Blaze, a news site that focuses on, among other things, faith and family issues, the ACLU wrote: “The actual diversion of government aid to religious exercise, proselytization, or inculcation…remains patently unconstitutional.”

The group added that having the county’s name appear on festival banners or literature is similarly inappropriate. “In addition, the government cannot symbolically endorse or affiliate itself with a religion or a particular religious belief.”

But John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute challenges the ACLU’s position, arguing that the county money goes to non-religious aspects of the event in an even-handed way. He, too, wrote a letter to the commission, maintaining that cutting the group off just because of its religious aspects would violate the neutrality government is supposed to have:

“Harrison County’s approach to community festival funding is one that respects the civil liberties of all citizens—religious and non-religious alike. Clearly, the constitutionally sound approach is for Harrison County to continue to provide funding for a variety of diverse community festivals on a religion-neutral basis, as has been its practice. To do otherwise would be to risk violating the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and religious neutrality by engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination.”

There appear to be strong arguments on both sides, and there is a lot of nuance in the areas of viewpoint and religion. I would not wager money on where U.S. Supreme Court would go with this.

Before you weigh in, a few random thoughts:

Government funds for the most part aren’t used for parochial schools or churches, even though they provide secular teaching and programs. But that isn’t absolute — witness the federal government’s support for “faith based initiatives” that provide certain social services.

When it comes to public funding of things like cultural events, is there, indeed, a difference between a religiously-themed festival and, say, a ballet? Both have specific audiences, and plenty of people who not only would not want to attend but might vehemently object to public funds being used to support them. But ballet doesn’t get specific treatment in the Constitution; religion does. Isn’t that because it is fundamentally different from other activities, and because of the unique danger the founders saw in state establishment, sponsorship or preference for religion?

What if this was a different religion and a different schedule of events? Say, an Islamic festival that included, in addition to music, presentations on spreading the faith and how Sharia law can be applied to everyday American life. What if this was an ultra-Orthodox Jewish festival that allowed only men, or segregated men and women, boys and girls?

Can one isolate the benefit the organization receives in public funds, limiting it just to secular activities? If so, how does that square with the argument in Washington over health care reform and specifically abortion coverage? Some opponents of abortion, who include religious fundamentalists, want to bar health insurance packages that include abortion from state insurance exchanges, even if people pay a separate premium, on that argument that it’s impossible to truly separate the funds (see: Stupak Amendment). If giant insurers with vast accounting departments can’t do this, can one small festival?

What do you think?

Should public funding go to a religious festival? Yes

No

It's complicated (feel free to elaborate in a comment) View Results