re: #515 Scion9

Dude. It is one sentence separated by a semicolon. They are addressing a restriction for funding two different categories of involvement with restricted institutions. Those that are used for religion purposes; and those substantially used for religious purposes.

Does the gymnasium qualify as being used for religious purposes? Yes, there is a Bible club there; funding denied. Ok, now lets finish reading the sentence. Does the gymnasium qualify as being substantially used for religious purposes? No; funding granted.

The second clause is the binding one in this scenario. If funding was barred based on clause one in this scenario, the second would be obsolete. No funding would ever be eligible for being considered for denial, because substantial religious practice is irrelevant if any religious practice is grounds for denial before getting to the end of the article.

The only reason to include the second half of the sentence is as a modifier of the first. Reading the first half of the sentence in a way that makes the second never apply is not logical, and not legal. The intent of the framer is clear.

So it is left open for (someone) to decide… Scouts, out; foot baths, in; prayer group, in… I mean is the second half in there to let local favors be granted?