When is a church activity "secular"?

[Callisto]

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.

 

[Willamena]

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.

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.

 

[bobhikes]

The public is already subsidizing the playground, as the church does not pay taxes. Asking for more public funds is unreasonable, imho.

The public subsidized your stadium with a lot more money just for future income which the church also provides through teachers, janitors and members etc. I tend to believe that the tax break and subsidy the church gets is covered by the workers it hires, I am not so sure about the stadium though. The church only asks for donations, the stadium charges money to make a profit for a private entity. The church will never abandon the community. The stadium will move as soon as it feels it can make more money at another location.

Yes why do we give grants to stadiums. I think we should definitely stop.

 

[Willamena]

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.

The former is more secure. And it's right.

And they could do both.

 

[Willamena]

The public is already subsidizing the playground, as the church does not pay taxes. Asking for more public funds is unreasonable, imho.

I disagree that withholding taxes is a subsidy.

 

[Callisto]

The former is more secure. And it's right.

And they could do both.

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.

 

[Willamena]

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.

If they provide a service indistinguishable from those who do pay taxes and provide the same service, then a secular government cannot refuse them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

No, they aren't arguing for secularism. They're arguing for religious privilege.

 

[Callisto]

If they provide a service indistinguishable from those who do pay taxes and provide the same service, then a secular government cannot refuse them.

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.

 

[Willamena]

No, they aren't arguing for secularism. They're arguing for religious privilege.

The article in the OP says otherwise.

Edit: David Cortman is absolutely correct that there is "a difference between funding of religious activities and funding [the] secular activities of a religious organization." If the grant is intended to disclude them simply because they are religious, it's no wonder that it's with the Supreme Court.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Well, yes, of course they have the power to refuse them, but what I'm saying is imperative.

 

[leibowde84]

I disagree that withholding taxes is a subsidy.

In effect, it's the same thing.

 

[Callisto]

but what I'm saying is imperative.

It is? How so?

 

[Willamena]

It is? How so?

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.

 

[columbus]

If the grant is intended to disclude them simply because they are religious, it's no wonder that it's with the Supreme Court.

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

 

[Willamena]

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

I'll be curious to see how it gets ruled.

 

[columbus]

I'll be curious to see how it gets ruled.

My guess is that they will get their way. And that is specifically because they are religious. So they will get special treatment.
Tom

 

[Callisto]

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.

Except it is distinguishable, a public play ground or park is open year round to the community, whereas they retain private control and they, not the government, determine IF and when it can be used and by whom. Which means they, not the city or state retain exclusive control and the public has no say.
If they want to be seen as indistinguishable then they need to donate that piece of property to the community, which would then quailfy it for public funds. Otherwise, the financial obligation is their own, for which they can solicit donations, including donated maintenance, from their members and interested residents.

 

[columbus]

It seems part of the problem here is that everybody agrees that the children's safety is important. I would expect any entity to which children are entrusted to provide both security and a safe surface. So this school, like any other, must control the usage and access some of the time.
But that isn't the real point here. Any other private club, tax exempt or not, would have the same obligations. The question is whether or not a tax exempt club has the same rights to taxpayer funded grants as the rest of us do.
I am saying that they don't. Not because they are religious, my opinion is entirely secular. I think the VFW is also a tax exempt organization, I wouldn't expect tax paying nonmembers to foot the bill for their improvements either.
Tom

 

[Nous]

No, they aren't arguing for secularism. They're arguing for religious privilege.

Quote where petitioners argued "for religious privilege": http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/TrinityLutheranPetitionersBrief.pdf