When is a church activity "secular"?

[columbus]

“We aren’t asking for special treatment. We are just asking to not be treated worse than everyone else.

Well, this certainly isn't true.
Like them, I am a private citizen with a backyard. Unlike them, mine is not tax exempt property. Like them, I am not entitled to tax payer funded improvements even if I let neighbor kids play in the yard.
They want to have the advantages of secularism while maintaining their special religious status.
I say, "No. Pay for your own playground stuff."
Tom

 

[bobhikes]

Well, this certainly isn't true.
Like them, I am a private citizen with a backyard. Unlike them, mine is not tax exempt property. Like them, I am not entitled to tax payer funded improvements even if I let neighbor kids play in the yard.
They want to have the advantages of secularism while maintaining their special religious status.
I say, "No. Pay for your own playground stuff."
Tom

That's true of you but I believe all public works area's are tax exempt as well. I don't know of any state parks or playgrounds that pay taxes.

 

[columbus]

That's true of you but I believe all public works area's are tax exempt as well. I don't know of any state parks or playgrounds that pay taxes.

Correct, but those are government owned and operated. As a tax payer, I have as much interest in them as anybody from any church. That isn't the same as private property where the owners aren't under the same restrictions. This church wants special treatment the way religious people often do.
Tom

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I imagine that the cost to create this subsidiary, sever the playground from the rest of the church property, and transfer ownership of the playground to the subsidiary would greatly exceed the value of the grant they're hoping to get to upgrade the playground surface.

Of course, I'd probably think the same about launching a Supreme Court challenge, so maybe the church would go for it after all.

Edit: another possible wrinkle: is Missouri one of the states that exempts church-run daycares from normal requirements? I wonder if separating things the way you suggest would kill that exemption for them.

Don't know about Missouri law, but under federal law and most of the states I'm familiar with, creating a subsidiary nonprofit does not require the drastic actions you describe, at least as I understand it (and I have taught public and nonprofit management for several years). What is required is a separate accounting and management of the nonprofit--but the director of the daycare/whatever nonprofit is hired to be a director (does not have to be a paid position), but there has to a person who has the responsibility of running the daycare under the review/direction of the board of directors. Generally, funds received by the daycare/whatever nonprofit cannot be transferred to the church, except as paid rent, shared utilities, insurance, etc.

 

[columbus]

Don't know about Missouri law, but under federal law and most of the states I'm familiar with, creating a subsidiary nonprofit does not require the drastic actions you describe, at least as I understand it (and I have taught public and nonprofit management for several years).

You know, none of this would be an issue if churches didn't demand special treatment as a matter of course, then expect extra-special treatment when it suits them.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

@9-10ths_Penguin
The churches opening statement

From
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer

“This is about working together to help keep our kids safe when they play—wherever they play. The safety of all children should matter to all of us. Most of the children who come to our preschool are from families who don’t go to our church. And a lot of children who play on our playground are from the surrounding neighborhood; they come with their families in the evening and on weekends.

“We aren’t asking for special treatment. We are just asking to not be treated worse than everyone else. Whether you are a Jewish, Muslim, or Christian kid, or not religious at all, when you fall down on a playground, it hurts just as much at a religious preschool as it does at a non-religious one. We trust and pray that the Supreme Court will consider that carefully, and rule in favor of the safety of children everywhere. Thank you.”

It seems they allow public access every day of the week.

That's nice, but as you said, it is closed during school so the school has access to it. Want to furnish a playground to everyone in the neighborhood and have the government fund its upgrade, fine, but then you can't discriminate during the week and make it available only to those involved in your church sponsored program.

.

 

[bobhikes]

Correct, but those are government owned and operated. As a tax payer, I have as much interest in them as anybody from any church. That isn't the same as private property where the owners aren't under the same restrictions. This church wants special treatment the way religious people often do.
Tom

I look at it as them providing a public service without costing the taxpayers money. We pay taxes to use the state parks and playgrounds. If they did not allow public access you would have a point.

In the same token if you put a playground in your yard and allowed everyone access you should be allowed to get the tire shreds as well. My neighbor allows the police to use his driveway and the township paved it for him. If trees in your yard are a danger to the public as in the electrical lines the city will have them trimmed at the public's expense my father had this done. As long as the public is granted full access public funds should be available.

 

[bobhikes]

That's nice, but as you said, it is closed during school so the school has access to it. Want to furnish a playground to everyone in the neighborhood and have the government fund its upgrade, fine, but then you can't discriminate during the week and make it available only to those involved in your church sponsored program.

.

In my town we have 3 elementary public schools all 3 have playgrounds. The playgrounds are all closed to the public during school operation. The school uses it for recess, gym and other activities and they don't want a security risk. The public tennis courts are used by the High School and public access is only granted when school is not using them. How is this any different?

 

[columbus]

I look at it as them providing a public service without costing the taxpayers money.

Every year I get a tax bill. They don't. Since they don't, mine must be higher to cover the city budget. They cost the tax payer money every minute and now they also want them to pay for their stuff so they can spend their tax deductible donations on other stuff that they want more than playground safety. And they don't even have to explain what that is, because they are a private concern.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

In my town we have 3 elementary public schools all 3 have playgrounds. The playgrounds are all closed to the public during school operation. The school uses it for recess, gym and other activities and they don't want a security risk. The public tennis courts are used by the High School and public access is only granted when school is not using them. How is this any different?

They are public schools and at all times operate in the interest of the public.

.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You know, none of this would be an issue if churches didn't demand special treatment as a matter of course, then expect extra-special treatment when it suits them.
Tom

perhaps. But it's a large part of the reason that there are so many nonprofits in America.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Every year I get a tax bill. They don't. Since they don't, mine must be higher to cover the city budget. They cost the tax payer money every minute and now they also want them to pay for their stuff so they can spend their tax deductible donations on other stuff that they want more than playground safety. And they don't even have to explain what that is, because they are a private concern.
Tom

Yep.

Our local tax digest for exempt properties is literally in the Billions of dollars. That's real estate that does not carry any of the tax burden levied by the budget. It can equate to millions of dollars of lost tax revenue depending on the county/province whatever. It's a huge problem for governments, both large and small. So for an arm of that problem to then request tax payer money to fix/repair/maintain their grounds seems a little unfair, I think.

The school is not public. If it operates like any of our local church preschools, they take in money for the services they render. This fee should cover pay for employees, as well as the upkeep of the property and grounds. (I'm going to wager that they purchased that playground with their own funds.) The grounds and buildings themselves are tax exempt, and the playground area is admittedly only open for public use during the summer months. If they aren't taking in enough money to maintain the service that they wish to provide, then that's an organizational problem and not the responsibility of the State.

If the church wanted sidewalk and driveway upgrades because their sidewalks and driveways were "open to public use some of the time", should the government and citizens of Missouri pay for that as well?

I think this case is rather simple.

 

[columbus]

perhaps. But it's a large part of the reason that there are so many nonprofits in America.

I've been on staff at different non-profits. We would have loved to get the perks churches get, like tax exempt digs. We had to follow all kinds of rules that churches ignore. And we didn't get tax payer grants to pay for our stuff, we had to raise our own fundage from donors.
And we could not refuse our public services to anybody based on their gender or whatever, because we had to strictly adhere to the nondiscrimination laws. II'll bet that church doesn't feel any need to do gay marriages because they are special.
Tom

 

[bobhikes]

They are public schools and at all times operate in the interest of the public.

.

Kids going to school whether it is private, religious or public is in the interest of the public. It is illegal in my state if a child between the ages of 5 and 16 is not being educated. The state set regulations private, religious and public schools must follow which include security. I doubt the state would allow them to grant public access during school hours anyway.

 

[bobhikes]

Every year I get a tax bill. They don't. Since they don't, mine must be higher to cover the city budget. They cost the tax payer money every minute and now they also want them to pay for their stuff so they can spend their tax deductible donations on other stuff that they want more than playground safety. And they don't even have to explain what that is, because they are a private concern.
Tom

I google it. It is a very nice playground in a heavily residential area. You have to cross a highway to one public schools park which is not that good. You have to pass a large body of water to get to the other public school park, which I wouldn't want my children doing on there own. The are no immune from civil lawsuits due to injury in there playground and they take a big risk with that. They can't just lock down the park to the public and they don't. If I was a resident of that area I would support the church even though I am not Lutheran but pay taxes because of my kids. Just like I pay to take them to a fair or water park.

 

[columbus]

If I was a resident of that area I would support the church even though I am not Lutheran

As a private citizen choosing what to do with your own money I would be totally good with that. As a gay citizen who pays taxes I oppose the tax money being spent on people who don't feel the need to do anything for me at all.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Don't know about Missouri law, but under federal law and most of the states I'm familiar with, creating a subsidiary nonprofit does not require the drastic actions you describe, at least as I understand it (and I have taught public and nonprofit management for several years). What is required is a separate accounting and management of the nonprofit--but the director of the daycare/whatever nonprofit is hired to be a director (does not have to be a paid position), but there has to a person who has the responsibility of running the daycare under the review/direction of the board of directors. Generally, funds received by the daycare/whatever nonprofit cannot be transferred to the church, except as paid rent, shared utilities, insurance, etc.

Creating a not-for-profit doesn't need all that. Creating a situation where the playground isn't directly owned by a church does.

 

[columbus]

Just like I pay to take them to a fair or water park.

While we are on the subject of taxes and supporting your own kids...
The bulk of my property tax goes to pay for the public schooling of other people's children. I have never attended a public school nor enrolled a kid in one. I think I have sufficiently supported other people's proclivities as it is. I don't need to be supporting the private schools teaching kids why gay people are less equal than other people.
Tom

 

[bobhikes]

As a private citizen choosing what to do with your own money I would be totally good with that. As a gay citizen who pays taxes I oppose the tax money being spent on people who don't feel the need to do anything for me at all.
Tom

You have the right to your opinion as well. Some stats for you though. The first number is the Trinity Lutheran Church and the Second number The Lutheran Church as a whole. Thought you might like to see the numbers.

Homosexuality
Homosexuality should be accepted:44%56%
Homosexuality should be discouraged:47%33%
Neither/Both Equally:4%3%
Don't Know/Refused:5%3%

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Muddying the waters quite a bit...

I looked up the Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources program in question:

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

If you click on the "Previous Grant Recipients" page, you see quite a few churches.

Hmm.