It is evident we must be careful to avoid running afoul of the first amendment's establishment clause. The court in the Voswinkel case, though only a U.S. District Court, has given some guidance that should withstand the scrutiny of the U.S. Supreme Court: "The creation of a counseling position to which any counselor could apply and be considered on religiously neutral grounds is not a government action that could reasonably be said to threaten "An establishment of religion". "The city may, of course, spend money to provide its police officers with the purely secular services described in the agreement (between the city and the church). There is nothing unconstitutional in hiring a clergyman to perform those services, so long as the clergyman is selected as the result of a religiously neutral process rather than, as here, pursuant to a contract with a specific church that restricts eligibility to ministers. Indeed, to reject a job applicant because he is a minister would violate the first amendment prohibition against government interference with the "Free Exercise of Religion", as well as statutory prohibitions against religious discrimination in employment. Neutrality in religious matters, not hostility toward religion, is what the constitution requires. The court does not believe that a public employee, hired as a counselor through some neutral selection process, is constitutionally required to refrain from discussing "spiritual" or "moral" matters in the course of his counseling duties. There is nothing unconstitutional, per se, in a church's donating money or property to a governmental entity or in the passage of money from a government entity to a church for some purpose that does not threaten to assist religion or to entangle govt. excessively in religious affairs.