with whom they deal are far
greater."143
Thus, the court held unconstitutional
the Article 36 exclusion from jury duty
of atheists, agnostics and such religious
groups (e. g., Buddhists) whose members
do not believe in a Supreme Being.
Mrs. Murray (see Murray v. Curlett,
supra] again challenged Maryland's law
when she brought suit to attack state
tax exemptions for religious organi-
zations.144 It was urged that the ex-
emption violated, among other provi-
sions, Article 36 of the Declaration of
Rights and the First Amendment. The
Court of Appeals upheld the validity
of the exemption, pointing out that such
a policy toward property dedicated to
religious uses has long been regarded
as reasonable and for a public purpose
(and hence valid). The exemption was
uniform and nondiscriminatory (prop-
erty of atheistic organizations is also
immune from the tax, the court said)
and there were sufficient secular justifi-
cations for its constitutionality. The
case has been appealed.145
The most recent case to struggle with
the church-state relationship problem
was that of Horace Mann League v.
Board of Public Works.146 The State
enacted statutes providing outright
matching grants, for the construction of
buildings, to four private colleges (Hood,
Western Maryland, Notre Dame and St.
Joseph). The grants were attacked prin-
143 Id. at 479.
144 Murray v. Comptroller, 241 Md. 383,
216A.2d897 (1966).
145 See Kauper, Tax Exemptions for Reli-
gious Activities, in the wall between
church and state 115 (oaks, D. H. ed.
1963). See also M. howe, the garden
and the wilderness 152 (1965).
146220 A.2d51 (1966).
|
cipally on the grounds that they violated
the First Amendment of the federal Con-
stitution and Article 36 of the Maryland
Declaration of Rights.
The lower court dismissed the com-
plaint. The Court of Appeals, in a
4-3 decision, found that the grant to
Hood College was valid but that those
to the remaining three institutions were
unconstitutional. Each case, said the
court, must be decided on its own facts.
Every religious observance by a college
does not sectarianize it; "the question
of sectarianization depends upon a con-
sideration of the observances, them-
selves, and the mode, zeal, and fre-
quency with which they are made."147
If the institutions are in fact sectarian,
"no tax, in any amount, large or small,
can be levied to support [the institu-
tions], whatever they may be called or
whatever form they may adopt to teach
or practice religions."148 The court
found that, although Hood College was
affiliated with a Protestant sect, that
sect contributed only 2.2% of the school's
operating budget, and there were no
sectarian requirements for teachers or
students; upon these facts the college
was not sectarian in the legal sense
under the First Amendment. The other
schools, however, were denomination-
ally oriented; their governing boards
were controlled by religious orders; and
their faculties were either committed to
a Christian philosophy or were predomi-
nantly of one sect. Grants to these col-
leges were held unconstitutional.
On the other hand, the court found
that none of the grants violated Article
36 of the Maryland Declaration of
Rights (". . . nor ought any person to be
compelled to frequent or maintain, or
147 Id. at 65.
148 Id. at 64.
35
|
