In recent years, state and federal courts have repeatedly been faced with the questions of whether governmental grants and programs can provide money to churches, seminaries, and other religious institutions without running afoul of the First Amendment or state constitutions, and, conversely, whether withholding such funds constitutes prohibited religious discrimination. Michael Helfand, examining the sometimes-contradictory rulings on the matter, sees—and applauds—an emerging tendency for the Supreme Court to allow, or even require, religious institutions to be eligible for government largess:

[J]ust this past Thursday, the New Jersey supreme court punted on a . . . case addressing New Jersey’s “Building Our Future Bond Act,” which provided funds for capital-improvement projects for institutions of higher education. Among other institutions, both Beth Medrash Govoha (BMG) in Lakewood and Princeton Theological Seminary received funds under this program—approximately $10.6 million and $650,000 respectively. . . . At issue for the court was whether the funds would ultimately be used for conduct and purposes that it could describe as wholly religious. . . . Thus, while BMG clearly expressed that its programs included significant amounts of religious study, it also highlighted that less than 5 percent of its students pursue [rabbinic] ordination. . . .

Ultimately, the [U.S.] Supreme Court has allowed for the exclusion of religious institutions from government funding in the narrow set of cases where [providing such funding] would put the state in the position of using tax dollars to support the ministry. But veering away from those narrow historical confines, the Supreme Court has emphasized that excluding a religious institution from “benefits for which it is otherwise qualified” is “odious to our Constitution.”

And maybe, notwithstanding all this constitutional messiness, that approach—prohibiting religious discrimination in government funding except in the narrowest of circumstances—provides the best option for courts going forward. Accordingly, . . . maybe once the state is granting funding for higher education, then it should not be able to exclude a subset of institutions of higher education simply because they primarily pursue the rigorous study of religion.

At bottom, when adjudicating claims of religious discrimination in government funding, courts are thrust into a clash of values between [the] non-establishment [clause] and neutrality. But in parsing cases that fall uncomfortably between the two, courts might be wise to embrace an approach that defaults to putting religious and secular institutions on equal footing. No doubt, there may be hazards in adopting such an approach. But the hazards of tolerating the singling out of religious individuals and institutions for unequal treatment seem far greater.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.