The illusion of equal treatment

[Nous]

I only referred to one argument - the one from Trinity Lutheran. From their written argument:

The State of Missouri has excluded The Learning Center from a recycling program that provides a safer playground for children solely because the preschool is operated by a church rather than a secular not-for-profit.

The State has made several important
concessions in this case. Number one, that the policy in this case is not facially neutral, and number two, that based on their religious character, churches are not eligible for the benefit here.

This admitted discrimination against religion violates this Court's Free Exercise Principles.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/15-577_l64n.pdf


Except they did, so I don't see the point in dealing with your hypothetical scenario.

What you've quoted here doesn't mention any argument that Trinity Lutheran made.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What you've quoted here doesn't mention any argument that Trinity Lutheran made.

Emphasized to hopefully help you see it this time:


This admitted discrimination against religion violates this Court's Free Exercise Principles.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Inspired by this thread, but I figured it deserves a thread of its own:

"Privatized profits, socialized losses" describes an economic condition where a company gets benefits without having to bear the corresponding risks and disadvantages. I think that a similar situation often occurs with religion.

A recent ruling about state grants for playgrounds brought up the idea of equal treatment of religious organizations: a church objected that they were being excluded from a program that would allow them to get a subsidy to resurface their playground with rubber from recycled tires. The church's lawsuit argued it was illegal to deny them the benefit solely because of their organization's religious nature.

At first blush, it seems like they're arguing for equal treatment of all organizations on their merits without regard to their religious or non-religious nature... i.e. secularism. However, a closer look suggests that this isn't the case: when we remove religion's special disadvantages but not its special benefits, we actually increase inequality overall. We're taking a class of organizations that already receive disproportionate net benefits and giving them even more net benefit.

A related problem occurs with prayer in public meetings: traditionally, many government meetings (e.g. municipal council meetings) began with a Christian invocation. When challenged on this unfair and unequal treatment for one religion, many councils opened up their procedures to allow, on paper at least, invocations from any religion or no religion. Usually, this ends up one of two ways:

- being in a heavily Christian area, even when they open up the invocation to anyone who puts their name forward to do it, only Christians put their name forward. The invocations continue being exclusively Christian.

- an atheist, Satanist, Wiccan, or some other member of an "objectionable" group applies to give the invocation. Rather than suffer through a non-Christian invocation, the governmental body chooses to eliminate the invocation altogether.

The result is that even though any individual governmental body can say they treat all religions equally, when we look at the big picture, we have a situation of "Christianity or nothing."

In both situations, any "equality" is just an illusion. We only see it when we narrowly focus on one or two details without considering the overall context. When we look at the big picture, we see that what gets done in the name of "religious equality" often ends up actually worsening or entrenching inequality.

Thoughts?

"The problem with being privileged your whole life is that because you have had that privilege for so long, equality starts to look like oppression." - Mark Caddo

 

[Nous]

Emphasized to hopefully help you see it this time:


This admitted discrimination against religion violates this Court's Free Exercise Principles.

That statement is their conclusion, not their argument.

You said in the OP: "At first blush, it seems like they're arguing for equal treatment of all organizations on their merits without regard to their religious or non-religious nature." Trinity Lutheran did, in fact, cite the case law holding that it violates the Free Exercise Clause to single out religious non-profits for special disabilities. That was their argument at first blush, and after first blush. Trinity Lutheran sought for nothing more than to be treated like all other non-profit organizations for purposes of the Scrap Tire Program.

BTW, you quoted this transcript of oral arguments, saying it is "from their written argument". Oral arguments before the Court are theater. Oftentimes the volley of questions and retorts go off the rails far away from the matter of the case. If you want to know what the parties actually argued, go to the briefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Trinity Lutheran sought for nothing more than to be treated like all other non-profit organizations for purposes of the Scrap Tire Program.

It seems like you agree with me, so I'm not sure why you're using the confrontational tone.

Yes: they sought to be treated like other non-profits with regard to the Scrap Tire Program. However, since their status as a church means that they already receive net benefits and advantages far beyond those of a non-religious non-profit. Because of this, focusing on "equality" in the very narrow focus of the Scrap Tire Program ends up increasing the inequality when we look at the issue in the wider context: the result of the ruling - and what the church was asking for - was even more benefit for an organization that already gets substantial disproportionate benefit.

 

[Nous]

However, since their status as a church means that they already receive net benefits and advantages far beyond those of a non-religious non-profit.

What are you talking about? What "net benefits and advantages far beyond those of a non-religious non-profit" do churches recieve?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What are you talking about? What "net benefits and advantages far beyond those of a non-religious non-profit" do churches recieve?

- tax-exempt charitable status without necessarily having a charitable purpose (other than "advancement of religion").
- automatic tax-exempt status without needing to apply for it or be approved.
- relaxed filing requirements for churches.
- less frequent auditing than other classes of non-profits (admittedly, this is only current practice and not a requirement of the law).
- the parsonage exemption.
- property tax exemptions.
- depending on the state, exemption from lobbying disclosure rules.
- various exemptions from employment law.
- depending on the state, exemptions from other laws (e.g. standards and licensing for daycares).

Should I go on?

 

[Nous]

- tax-exempt charitable status without necessarily having a charitable purpose (other than "advancement of religion").

So do you think it's also unfair that American Atheists, Inc. is allowed "tax-exempt charitable status without necessarily having a charitable purpose"?

Frankly, I'd say that providing a playground for children on the property that one purchased is rather charitable. God knows American children need exercise and fresh air, as most of them are on their way toward video-game-playing obesity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So do you think it's also unfair that American Atheists, Inc. is allowed "tax-exempt charitable status without necessarily having a charitable purpose"?

No, because it has a charitable purpose. They explicitly state it in their IRS filings:

Financial Information | American Atheists

(The charitable purpose got cut off mid-sentence in their most recent form, but you can see it in previous forms)

Frankly, I'd say that providing a playground for children on the property that one purchased is rather charitable. God knows American children need exercise and fresh air, as most of them are on their way toward video-game-playing obesity.

I have fond memories of playing on the playground under the screen of my local drive-in movie theatre as a child. Should we consider this drive-in a charity? It has a playground.

 

[Nous]

No, because it has a charitable purpose. They explicitly state it in their IRS filings:

Financial Information | American Atheists

“Promotion and education with respect to issues regarding atheism and separation of church and state.” Except for an irrational animus toward religions, why would you say that that is any more of a "necessarily charitable purpose" than the charitable purpose of churches--especially those that provide playgrounds for the community's children, food banks or thrift stores?

I have fond memories of playing on the playground under the screen of my local drive-in movie theatre as a child. Should we consider this drive-in a charity? It has a playground.

Children trespassing on a property does not make it a playground, especially an ADA-compliant one, nor does it make the property owners charitable. It sounds like your community could have benefited from a religious non-profit like Trinity Lutheran.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

“Promotion and education with respect to issues regarding atheism and separation of church and state.” Except for an irrational animus toward religions, why would you say that that is any more of a "necessarily charitable purpose" than the charitable purpose of churches--especially those that provide playgrounds for the community's children, food banks or thrift stores?

Regardless of your opinions of American Atheists, the IRS deemed their charitable purpose acceptable.

A church that really did devote itself to food banks and thrift stores should have no problem getting charitable status like any secular organization that operates food banks and thrift stores, should it choose to apply.

Remember: we're talking about special treatment based solely on whether an organization is religious or not. Please try to keep your focus on that. An organization that happens to be religious but does substantial amounts of legitimately charitable work would not be a case of special treatment solely on the basis of religion.

Children trespassing on a property does not make it a playground, especially an ADA-compliant one, nor does it make the property owners charitable. It sounds like your community could have benefited from a religious non-profit like Trinity Lutheran.

Why on earth would you assume we were trespassing? My parents bought tickets for us like normal people. We'd arrive early to get a good spot, then my sister and I would play on the playground with the other kids while waiting for the movie to start.

 

[Nous]

Regardless of your opinions of American Atheists, the IRS deemed their charitable purpose acceptable.

A church that really did devote itself to food banks and thrift stores should have no problem getting charitable status like any secular organization that operates food banks and thrift stores, should it choose to apply.

Remember: we're talking about special treatment based solely on whether an organization is religious or not. Please try to keep your focus on that. An organization that happens to be religious but does substantial amounts of legitimately charitable work would not be a case of special treatment solely on the basis of religion.

Your first claim about the alleged unfair benefits that religious non-profits receive was that they get "tax-exempt charitable status without necessarily having a charitable purpose (other than 'advancement of religion')." If you were consistent in your complaints, you would be saying the same about American Atheists, Inc. (and many other non-religious non-profits). One can only assume it's your animus toward religion that makes you inconsistent.

Why on earth would you assume we were trespassing? My parents bought tickets for us like normal people. We'd arrive early to get a good spot, then my sister and I would play on the playground with the other kids while waiting for the movie to start.

Then I guess you should have tried to convince the owner that s/he/they were running a charitable organization, and that you shouldn't have to pay money for tickets. What do you think the owner would say to that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your first claim about the alleged unfair benefits that religious non-profits receive was that they get "tax-exempt charitable status without necessarily having a charitable purpose (other than 'advancement of religion')." If you were consistent in your complaints, you would be saying the same about American Atheists, Inc. (and many other non-religious non-profits). One can only assume it's your animus toward religion that makes you inconsistent.

American Atheists' charitable purpose is education. Do you understand the difference between promotion of religion and education?

Just so we're clear, this is what I'm talking about:

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.

Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)

If "religious" was dropped from that list, American Atheists would still have charitable status but the average church wouldn't.

American Atheists and a church claim charitable status on different bases. I'm not objecting to a religious organization using "education" as its charitable status (as long as that's really its purpose).

Then I guess you should have tried to convince the owner that s/he/they were running a charitable organization, and that you shouldn't have to pay money for tickets. What do you think the owner would say to that?

Seems like you're having trouble remembering your own posts. You were the one arguing that playgrounds are necessarily charitable, remember?

But if you want one with no fee (though where you got the idea that charities can't charge money, I don't know): more often than the playground at the drive-in, I played at the one near my house. It was owned by the condo corporation (we lived in a condo townhouse at the time), but it was accessible to anyone who wanted to use it. Should that condo corporation be considered a charity by virtue of its playground?