The Celebrate America Fireworks Extravaganza already took place five weeks ago, a successful Fourth of July event at the Salinas Sports Complex rodeo grounds. But a question of whether the City of Salinas will approve a retroactive $100,000 sponsorship for the event is drawing scrutiny from multiple angles.
The event featured mostly secular elements and classic July Fourth entertainment, like live patriotic music, speeches celebrating America and a fireworks show. Sponsored by Compass Church, it also included several explicitly religious elements.
As the City of Salinas' own sponsorship policy states: "The City will not award sponsorships to any religion, church, creed or sectarian organization to promote religious purposes.”
In an email, Compass Church event coordinator Andrea Barton writes, "Our aim is simple…to create a safe, family-friendly, and unifying celebration that honors our country and brings people together. The event is open to everyone, and participation in any faith-related aspects is entirely voluntary."
Some people who attended shared their observations on Tuesday night, Aug. 12, when City Council was scheduled to consider allocating the $100,000.
"While [the event] may have included secular functions, it was unmistakably religious," said Cary Swensen, a resident (and two-time City Council candidate).
Mayor Dennis Donohue said a decision would be delayed and instead considered alongside other applications for city sponsorship funds as a matter of policy, although he did weigh in to express support for the event.
"By all accounts the event was well attended and provided a safe and family-friendly event at which the community came together to celebrate the Fourth of July and watch fireworks," Donohue said. "I was at the event and proud to celebrate the country at this community event…Compass Church should be applauded for stepping up."
But, Donohue added, "The City Council wants to be sure to respect the policies and procedures it has put in place."
That means a review in the coming weeks of 37 different requests for community sponsorships, exceeding over $1 million, according to a report from City Manager René Mendez. (It is not clear whether Compass Church's Celebrate America July Fourth event is included in those 37.)
The City Council budgeted just $150,000 for community sponsorships for the year, meaning they will have some tough choices to make in the weeks ahead about who does and doesn't receive sponsorships. Donohue said he expects they will announce their recommendations for community sponsorship spending within several weeks, likely in September.
The Weekly submitted a California Public Records Act seeking all 37 applications for sponsorship money, but City Attorney Chris Callihan writes that they are currently exempt from public disclosure. "They will be subject to disclosure after they have been reviewed and presented to the City Council consistent with the community sponsorship policy," he adds.
Barton says that if the full $100,000 is not approved, "We would adjust the scale of the event to match available resources or pursue additional private funding."
She adds that they hope to make it a lasting tradition after two years of well-attended July Fourth events.
(3) comments
I think it important to know the following since there have been SCOTUS cases that have set precedence fairly recently:
The United States Supreme Court has indeed ruled that governments cannot exclude religious organizations from generally available public benefit programs solely based on their religious identity or status.
This principle stems from the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which protects the right to freely exercise religion. The Court has held that denying religious organizations access to benefits available to secular organizations amounts to discrimination against religion.
Key cases establishing this principle
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017): Missouri's denial of a grant to a church for playground resurfacing based on its religious character was deemed a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020): The Court ruled that Montana's "no-aid" provision, which prohibited families from using scholarship funds at religious schools, violated the Free Exercise Clause.
Carson v. Makin (2022): The Court held that a state law prohibiting students from using tuition assistance at schools providing religious instruction violated the Free Exercise Clause.
It's important to note that this principle focuses on discrimination based on religious status or identity, rather than the use of funds for religious purposes. While the Court has upheld the exclusion of funding specifically for activities like devotional theology (Locke v. Davey, 2004), according to the Congressional Research Service, it has struck down exclusions based solely on the religious character of the organization receiving the benefit.
Therefore, the principle of nondiscrimination based on religious status means that if a government offers a program that provides general benefits, it cannot exclude religious organizations simply because they are religious.
I don't think any of these cases apply to the event. We are not saying they should be excluded from available city funding. There are numerous religious organizations, like Catholic Charities, that do great community work. I think the push back is that they are using city funds to push their religious propaganda. Let's take Catholic Charities for example, they serve the community regardless of religious affiliation, and when they provide their services, they do not push their religion on those who seek services. That is the difference. Cumpass church used this event to promote their church, and thats the big No-no, unless they extended the same courtesy to other religious/non religious organizations to do the same. I do not think it fair. Also the illusion is that it was Compass Church who paid for the event, not our tax dollars. That is deceptive. I thought they had raised the funds and paid for it themselves, now it turns out they are seeking reimbursement? Nah.
No Discrimination Based on Religious Status: The Supreme Court has ruled that excluding religious organizations from generally available grant programs solely based on their religious status violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.