Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
From what you've presented, the Trinity Lutheran is arguing in favour of secularism, and I can't see them losing their battle. Even the Constitution of the U.S. favours secularism.It undermines Trinity Lutheran's arguments. They say that they should be treated the same as a non-religious group, but regardless of what happens with this particular grant, they won't be treated the same: Trinity Lutheran gets special consideration and benefits not granted to non-religious groups.
They're arguing that their religious status is being made a liability for them because they can't get their grant. However, when we look at the big picture of everything that's affected by their religious status, it's not clear at all that the church is suffering a net disadvantage. It seems to me that it's actually the opposite, in fact.
The public is already subsidizing the playground, as the church does not pay taxes. Asking for more public funds is unreasonable, imho.
The former is more secure. And it's right.Instead of wanting government funding, why don't they ask for donations from the local residents who use the playground? That would be the fair route for all concerned.
I disagree that withholding taxes is a subsidy.The public is already subsidizing the playground, as the church does not pay taxes. Asking for more public funds is unreasonable, imho.
The former is more secure. And it's right.
And they could do both.
If they provide a service indistinguishable from those who do pay taxes and provide the same service, then a secular government cannot refuse them.That would be true, if they paid taxes but they don't. They're tax exempt and choose who can use their property and when. No, public funds would not be appropriate much less right. It would be acceptable to request donations from those who use it per their invitation.
No, they aren't arguing for secularism. They're arguing for religious privilege.From what you've presented, the Trinity Lutheran is arguing in favour of secularism, and I can't see them losing their battle. Even the Constitution of the U.S. favours secularism.
Yes, it can.If they provide a service indistinguishable from those who do pay taxes and provide the same service, then a secular government cannot refuse them.
The article in the OP says otherwise.No, they aren't arguing for secularism. They're arguing for religious privilege.
Well, yes, of course they have the power to refuse them, but what I'm saying is imperative.Yes, it can.
They're tax-exempt, they are not a government entity not sanctioned or hired by the city or state. They chose to open their property to whom they want, when they want.
Let them start paying taxes and then they can lobby for how funds are distributed.
In effect, it's the same thing.I disagree that withholding taxes is a subsidy.
but what I'm saying is imperative.
In that I believe that if the church provides a service indistinguishable from others who provide the same service, then a secular government should not refuse them.It is? How so?
It isn't because they are religious.If the grant is intended to disclude them simply because they are religious, it's no wonder that it's with the Supreme Court.
I'll be curious to see how it gets ruled.It isn't because they are religious.
It's because they already have a ton of special tax breaks. They are essentially freeloading off the other taxpayers. So I oppose them getting yet more tax paid benefits. They can decide for themselves if playground safety is as important as whatever else they do with their tax exempt income.
Tom
My guess is that they will get their way. And that is specifically because they are religious. So they will get special treatment.I'll be curious to see how it gets ruled.
In that I believe that if the church provides a service indistinguishable from others who provide the same service, then a secular government should not refuse them.
Quote where petitioners argued "for religious privilege": http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/TrinityLutheranPetitionersBrief.pdfNo, they aren't arguing for secularism. They're arguing for religious privilege.