The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case from an Illinois man who wanted to sue the state for funding a religious cross.

The line between church and state is more blurred as a result. The line needs to be clearer and better enforced to ensure this country lives up to its mission of not favoring one religion more than another.

In 2008, the state of Illinois gave a grant of $20,000 to fund the renovations of a 111-foot-high cross, located in Alto Pass, Ill. The cross is placed atop one of the highest mountains in the region. Robert Sherman, an atheist, sued in 2010, arguing the state was directly funding the advancement of a particular religion. The court refused to hear the case last Wednesday, saying Sherman lacked the legal standing to sue.

People who see no problem with state money for renovations are quick to argue our society is too concerned with maintaining a religion-neutral atmosphere. The lawsuit then fits into a narrative of suing because of over-sensitivity or political correctness. Most often, those who accept the state’s actions are believers in Christianity.

Funding to repair the cross is unmistakably the advancement of religion. Whether or not the state intended to advance it is irrelevant. Government is not in the business of supporting religion.

Simply because Sherman did not have legal standing does not invalidate his point. Taxpayers should not be forced to fund any religion. The First Amendment has been interpreted to ensure the government stays out of religion.

He said by not hearing his case, the Supreme Court sent a signal to legislative bodies that they can “make blatantly unconstitutional grants to advance religion simply by naming an executive branch agency as a middleman in the transaction.” In this instance, the middleman was Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity.

Imagine if instead of a cross, the state funded the $20,000 renovations of a mosque. Non-Muslim individuals would be just as upset as Sherman. To them it would be, as Sherman said, “a fraud against the taxpayers of this country.”

Sherman’s arguments are not about political correctness or an attack on Christianity. His viewpoint is not intolerant of religion. He only wants government to be held accountable when it funds religion. If the cross needed to be repaired, the church should have funded repairs – not the state of Illinois. This should not be a controversial viewpoint or a view that only atheists identify with.

If the government was serious about upholding its commitment to not privilege religious institutions, it would discontinue the practice of granting tax-exempt status to religions. Unfortunately, the United States has a long way to go before reality mirrors the words of the Constitution. Not punishing inappropriate uses of taxpayer money will only perpetuate this.

In the overall picture, funding the cross is yet another example of the state showing particular religions favoritism. The $20,000 is a relatively little amount in any state’s massive budget, but it symbolically means states can openly advance religion without being punished.

Sherman called the nation’s court system “a joke” after his case was thrown out. America is made up of people with diverse religious backgrounds. Our government’s attitude toward religion needs readjusting. None should be favored.

Harmen Rockler is a senior newspaper and online journalism and political science major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at horockle@syr.edu or followed on Twitter at @LeftofBoston.

Published on January 29, 2013 at 1:30 am