The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

[Sunstone]

The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

Please discuss.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

Please discuss.

Let me see if I've got this right: the Missouri state government must now not only continue indulging Trinity Lutheran Church's tax-exempt status because it's a religious institute, it must now also actively feed it taxpayers' money because it's a religious institute.

Is that the gist of this?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Its monstrous. Trinity Lutheran's employees and trustees benefit from their tax exempt status, and now they also benefit from taxes. They have perverted the course of God's work by accepting money from the government, although they've already perverted it by having a paid ministry. The whole thing is uglier than two sheep screwing a wolf.

 

[Sunstone]

Let me see if I've got this right: the Missouri state government must now not only continue indulging Trinity Lutheran Church's tax-exempt status because it's a religious institute, it must now also actively feed it taxpayers' money because it's a religious institute.

Is that the gist of this?

That's how I read it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's an odd case.....odd cuz I agree with the ruling.

Quoting the article......

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the state of Missouri cannot deny
public funds to a church simply because it tionis a religious organization.

This makes sense because denial was based solely upon its being a church.
Denial of a right it's otherwise entitle to would be an unreasonable restraint of religion.
If the state constitution conflicts with this, then the federal Constitution rules.

The major church-state case could potentially expand the legal understanding
of the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I don't see expansion legally here, although the practical effect could be.

It is also the first time the Supreme Court has ruled that governments must
provide money directly to a house of worship, which could have implications for
future policy fights—including funding for private, religious charter schools.

Governments must already provide services, eg, fire, police.
So this isn't fundamentally different....just money instead of service.
But I'd prefer that churches pay taxes from which they're exempted.

Trinity Lutheran is a big case that hinges on mundane facts. In 2012, when Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri applied for a state grant to resurface its playground, it was ranked as a strong potential candidate for the program. Ultimately, though, Missouri denied the funding under a state constitutional provision that prohibits public money from going to religious organizations and houses of worship. “There is no question that Trinity Lutheran was denied a grant simply because of what it is,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in his decision for the majority. “A church.”

State constitutions must comport with the fed Constitution, not the other way around.

Tis interesting that Gorsuch (Trump's appointment to the court) dissented.

 

[Father Heathen]

Here's an odd case.....odd cuz I agree with the ruling.

Quoting the article......

This makes sense because denial was based solely upon its being a church.
Denial of a right it's otherwise entitle to would be an unreasonable restraint of religion.
If the state constitution conflicts with this, then the federal Constitution rules.


I don't see expansion legally here, although the practical effect could be.


Governments must already provide services, eg, fire, police.
So this isn't fundamentally different....just money instead of service.
But I'd prefer that churches pay taxes from which they're exempted.


State constitutions must comport with the fed Constitution, not the other way around.

Tis interesting that Gorsuch (Trump's appointment to the court) dissented.

Think of it this way, do you want the money taken from your pocket via taxation to fund the propagation of religious views that go against your own principals? For example, imagine being a gay person who's money is being used to pay these churches to teach children to hate gays.

 

[Nakosis]

The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

Please discuss.

Tax money being used to keep children safe. I can't get too upset about that.

State schools are all run by taxes, so why create this as a special fund? Just have the state schools pay it from their normal budget.

Perhaps they are like Calif were the school systems are isolated from governmental control. So the only way to control the schools is to provide a special fund which requires the schools to meet certain requirements.

So a private non religious school if it meets the requirements can access the fund.

Nice photo op for politicians to show they care about children safety as long as they are not kids going to a religious school. We don't care about those kids.

 

[tytlyf]

The founding fathers and our secular god-less constitution are watching their creation get torn apart by dominionists.

I don't vote for them, that's anti-American.

This case seems to be an issue with the Missouri govt

 

[Falvlun]

While I prefer the dissenting view, and I do think this sets a dangerous precedent, the ruling does make sense.

Should the state be allowed to discriminate against an organization just because it is religious? That does seem like religious discrimination. Also, how does this differ from fire fighting services?

The caveat included by Roberts makes me hopeful that this doesn't mean government money can be used for explicitly religious promotion:

“This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing,” he noted in a footnote. “We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.”

However, I agree that it may be hard to separate secular and religious uses of money given to religious organizations.

And yes, it does rankle that tax exempt churches can benefit from taxes.

 

[Augustus]

Let me see if I've got this right: the Missouri state government must now not only continue indulging Trinity Lutheran Church's tax-exempt status because it's a religious institute, it must now also actively feed it taxpayers' money because it's a religious institute.

Is that the gist of this?

I read it as 'it must give it tax payers money, despite the fact it is a religious institution.'

 

[columbus]

Tax money being used to keep children safe. I can't get too upset about that.

If I let kids play in my yard, can I both stop paying property tax and also get the government to give me money?
Or do I have to be religious to pull all that off?
Tom

 

[Nakosis]

If I let kids play in my yard, can I both stop paying property tax and also get the government to give me money?
Or do I have to be religious to pull all that off?
Tom

I'm not sure it relevant but you can rent and there's probably some subsidy program you can get on. So no you don't need to be religious.

The real issue here is how does it harm the principle of separation of church and state?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

What about the opposite? Atheists do not want tax money going to a religious entity. But what about money going to atheists organizations? Religious people may not like it but it happens all the time.

 

[columbus]

'm not sure it relevant but you can rent and there's probably some subsidy program you can get on.

I don't rent. And I doubt that the church in question does either.

My question is, "Can private entities, like myself, get taxpayer money? If so, how do we do it?".
I don't think I can. I think the reason is that I am not religious and so I don't get the benefits of being religious. Which includes not paying taxes and also getting money from taxpayers, including the ones who teach kids to hate me.

I don't particularly care to subsidize Christian groups, given what they teach about me.
But apparently, now I have to. Because they are so special.
Tom

 

[tytlyf]

What about the opposite? Atheists do not want tax money going to a religious entity. But what about money going to atheists organizations? Religious people may not like it but it happens all the time.

Everything is secular, until you add something to it.

 

[columbus]

But what about money going to atheists organizations?

What money are you talking about?
I would like to get some, but I don't think it exists.
Tom

 

[Kemosloby]

Church or not, why are public funds going towards privately owned playgrounds?

 

[columbus]

Church or not, why are public funds going towards privately owned playgrounds?

Because Christians demand that sort of privilege.
And get it.
Tom

 

[Kemosloby]

Because Christians demand that sort of privilege.
And get it.
Tom

No, read the frikcen article. The church was only one candidate.

 

[Skwim]

Governments must already provide services, eg, fire, police.
So this isn't fundamentally different....just money instead of service.

It is different because fire and police protection of structures and parishioners also serve community safety needs. Providing funds, whatever their character, for playgrounds does not. Playgrounds are elected none-religious constructions. Under the ruling churches could derive public funds for building a petting zoo for its pre-school children, or a go-cart track for its older children, or a band stand for its adult members.

.