Even if "church/state separation" were an accurate term for describing the Establishment Clause, this action by FEMA hardly qualifies as the removal of that doctrine. Although as you say, there are many reasons for religious groups to decline reimbursement, reimbursing religious groups for providing essential services hardly amounts to an establishment of religion.

On the other hand, if you're using "church/state separation" to refer to the misconception that the government must be completely segregated from religion, then that is an idea that deserves to be removed, and your headline is apt (though not in the way most would read it).

I'm not really convinced this raises an Establishment Clause issue. But I do think it touches on the separation of church and state, a philosophy that has developed within church and government culture. Whatever the legal arguments involved - and I think they're minor - there are still relatively significant practical implications that do, in my opinion, lead to the removal of the church/state separation.

Given that money is fungible, how does this act differ in any meaningful way from a direct government subsidy of certain religions?

You're assuming that if funding is given to a church's public-service activities, they'll shift their public-service budget to religious activities. But it seems more likely to me that they'll either expand public service or do less fundraising for those services.

In any case, that argument seems just like the idea that a tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and while secularists have made that argument it's never gotten anywhere in court on Establishment Clause grounds.

You're assuming that if funding is given to a church's public-service activities, they'll shift their public-service budget to religious activities.

No, I am assuming nothing. Money really is fungible, and no "shift" is required to make it so. A donation to a church is a donation to a church, no matter what the goal or purpose of that donation might be. No matter what happens, it enriches the church in a way that would not have happened otherwise, and it ought to be forbidden on First Amendment grounds.

Incidentally, the fact that a particular argument has failed to win support from the courts ought not to dissuade anyone from believing it nonetheless. I presume that this is exactly how you feel about the privacy cases, for instance.

No matter what happens, it enriches the church in a way that would not have happened otherwise, and it ought to be forbidden on First Amendment grounds.

You know as well as I do what the First Amendment says, and I vehemently disagree with the idea that it prohibits any interaction between church and state. As long as the government is giving grants to private organizations to do public service work, I believe they should not discriminate against groups that are religious in nature. (After all, they have historically been the most effective charitable organizations in this country.)

Yes, of course you are free to believe in whatever interpretation of the First Amendment that you wish, however, I think it's relevant that my interpretation has over 200 years of precedent behind it. Only in the last ~50 years has the peculiarly secular interpretation represented by the phrase "separation of church and state" gained any traction.

You know as well as I do what the First Amendment says, and I vehemently disagree with the idea that it prohibits any interaction between church and state.

I know quite well what the First Amendment says; it declares that there shall be no establishment of religion. This means that the state may not subsidize religions. Now we may debate whether or not the tax exemption is a subsidy, but a direct cash payment is pretty much the definition of a subsidy.

Would you say that to have an "established" religion requires that other religions be prohibited? Clearly the founders did not reason this way, as they agreed to another entire clause of the First Amendment, the free exercise clause, for the sake of preventing this particular act. The establishment clause is designed to prevent direct cash payments from the government to religion, as was done (and still is) with the Church of England; in historical context, the clause can have no other meaning, and this act is a clear violation of it.

The Volokh Conspiracy addresses all of this today.

Now we may debate whether or not the tax exemption is a subsidy, but a direct cash payment is pretty much the definition of a subsidy.

Actually, I think you have a stronger argument against tax exemption than you do against the reimbursements that FEMA is proposing. The tax exemption directly benefits religious activity, whereas the reimbursement is only applicable to public service activities.

Consider this: what if there simply wasn't enough space in public facilities to shelter all the hurricane evacuees, and the government had to ask churches to house them? Would it not be proper for the government to reimburse the churches for the use of their facilities? That's a large part of what's happening here, except the churches stepped forward without being formally asked.

I have to say that this is one of the rare times that I disagree with Cathy Young. Usually I find her spot-on right.

Tell me, Eric, if I put a dollar in your left hand, have I not made you a dollar richer?

And if I put a dollar in your right hand, have I not also made you a dollar richer?

This is how fungibility works: A dollar, when given to an institution, is a part of that institution's wealth, just exactly as any other dollar it has ever received. Perhaps you may have to show receipts for your purchases, and perhaps those purchases have to meet certain government standards (and this is a good thing?), but no matter how you slice the budget, it's still a dollar of federal money going directly to a religious institution.

So now my question is, if I put a dollar in an envelope labeled "for Katrina relief," and I hand it to you, have I not made you a dollar richer? How is it that the label on the envelope magically turns a subsidy into a non-subsidy? (If the label read "for proselytizing" or even "for killing cute little puppies," the result would be the same: a subsidy for an institution.)

It may be unpleasant to contemplate that religious institutions are excluded from federal money even in emergencies, but this is the plain meaning of the text. It contains no emergency exception and no indication that "equal funding" of religious institutions is a permitted reading of the clause.
It simply isn't there.

Even while the federal government (wrongly) funds everything else under the sun, the text itself states that religions are not to be funded. Frankly, the founders never contemplated that the federal government would redistribute wealth to the degree that it now does. They never contemplated the vast subsidies given out to so many various activities. These subsidies make the establishment of religion seem almost reasonable, provided it's done on equal footing.

Yet while liberals agree that the sometimes-vague text of the Constitution may be stretched to allow for secular economic redistributions, conservatives have to argue against a direct prohibition to get the religious economic redistributions that they want. Amazingly, while they sometimes inveigh against the liberals' fanciful interpretations, they have no problem ignoring a perfectly explicit prohibition.

Is it a true emergency? Of course it is. But then, in the old days, state-sponsored churches were funded on the logic that going to hell was an emergency, too, and that the government should do everything possible to send people to heaven instead. If it was wrong in that emergency, then it is certainly wrong in this one.

So now my question is, if I put a dollar in an envelope labeled "for Katrina relief," and I hand it to you, have I not made you a dollar richer?

No, I'm not a dollar richer. It seems obvious to me to the point of absurdity. There is a string attached to that dollar that dictates how I must spend it, and I may not use it in any way, shape, or form that enriches me. In the case of a religious group (Note: most of these aid groups are not actually part of a church, but are parachurch organizations), they may only use that dollar for non-sectarian relief activities.

It may be unpleasant to contemplate that religious institutions are excluded from federal money even in emergencies, but this is the plain meaning of the text.

The plain meaning of what text? The First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."? I don't see anything in there about federal money.

The plain meaning is that Congress may neither establish a Church of the United States, nor infringe on people's rights to practice their own religions. It's also consistent to say it requires the government to treat all relgious groups equally--e.g., all religious groups must have equal access to public facilities if any do.

The First Amendment certainly does not say that the government may not act in a way that benefits religious groups as a whole. (And grants for faith-based charities are only one form of benefit. Allowing a Bible club to meet at a public school is equally a benefit--even moreso, because the Bible club's meetings are religious in nature, whereas FBC's must do their work in a secular fashion--and the courts have upheld the right of Bible clubs to have equal access to other extracurricular activities.)

You may construct an argument based on various reasonings and precedents that federal grants for FBC's ought not be allowed, but it's certainly not in the "plain meaning" of the First Amendment.

Jason: If I put a dollar in an envelope labeled "for Katrina relief," and I hand it to you, have I not made you a dollar richer?

Eric: No, I'm not a dollar richer. [invective deleted] There is a string attached to that dollar that dictates how I must spend it.

But... That string dictates to you that you must spend the dollar... in the manner that you had already intended to spend another one of your dollars.

The First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."? I don't see anything in there about federal money.

Eric, an "established religion" is a religion that receives money from the government. That's the definition of "establishment." If you put a disclaimer on that money, saying "this isn't really a Church that the government has established or otherwise given official approval," that disclaimer is simply false and accomplishes nothing.

Now I had thought that this point had been made--and accepted--several comments ago, and that we were only arguing over the details. It's clear, though, that you do not wish to confront the plain meaning of what the Constitution actually says, and because of this, I see no further point in debate. Don't worry, though, you are clearly in good company, as the implications of this plain meaning are deeply upsetting to many.

But just as a piece of advice, you should seriously reconsider whether you think yourself any sort of originalist when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. It seems clear to me that you are not.