The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

[Skwim]

What about the opposite? Atheists do not want tax money going to a religious entity. But what about money going to atheists organizations?

Are you talking about public funds?

Religious people may not like it but it happens all the time.

If you're talking about public funds going to atheists organizations how about some actual examples.

.

 

[columbus]

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

“If this separation [of church and state] means anything, it means that the government cannot … tax its citizens and turn that money over to houses of worship,” Sotomayor wrote. “The Court today blinds itself to the outcome this history requires and leads us instead to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.”

Is this the part you meant? It seems the salient part to me.

If I, as a taxpayer, am now required to subsidize the church where is the separation of church and state? What other expenses might a church expect us taxpayers to cover?
Anti-gay political action? I am already subsidizing the Mormons when they bought anti-gay advertisements in California, supporting Prop 8. Why do I, as a taxpayer, have to keep giving money to churches that despise me and fight against my basic civil rights?
Tom

 

[sun rise]

The world is coming to an end because I basically agree with @Revoltingest in this specific instance. There was a specific non-religious benefit that had a societal purpose. The mere fact that there's a church involved should not be an automatic disqualification. I do have a concern that this could be taken too far, but this particular case does not bother me.

 

[columbus]

The mere fact that there's a church involved should not be an automatic disqualification.

It isn't the "mere fact that a church is involved".
It's the fact that the church doesn't pay any taxes and that the church's funds are already tax deductible. The church has every possible advantage, taxwise.
Why don't they pay for the children's safety equipment out of all that, instead of hitting me up for even more money?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

What I want is that the Constitution be the law of the land.
If government can flout it, there's no limit to their power.
So the USSC should rule according to it.

Meh....my tax money is already used to subert my interests
all the time, wasteful wars. Playgrounds aren't so bad.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is different because fire and police protection of structures and parishioners also serve community safety needs.

It's not different.
The money, like fire & police resources, already exists, & is allocated where needed.
Churches get the services without regard to their church status.
Money isn't different.
Moreover, it's to be spent in a very specific way for a secular function.

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.

Let's hope such give-away programs don't proliferate.

 

[Thief]

I don't see the harm in money going to property
churches often move congregation
the building left to stand for a new owner

I draw the line.....the building is not the church

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Like what? The Brights?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I suppose it would depend on the playground itself and its terms of usage.

If it's public access, I'd have no issues in the granting of public monies. If the playground is exclusive to church members only, then it would be inappropriate for the public funding.

 

[Mister Emu]

it must now also actively feed it taxpayers' money because it's a religious institute.

MO must now no longer use religion as a determining factor in it's decisions regarding applications for grant aid for secular purposes.

There is a far, one might say impossible to bridge, gap between that and what you've said.

 

[Nous]

If the Missouri policy had prohibited Jewish or Muslim or atheist non-profit organizations from receiving grants for the Scrap Tire Program, I am certain that everyone here would understand such a policy as violating the Free Exercise Clause. The Free Exercise Clause protects against the government discriminating against all religions just as it protects against the government discriminating against one particular religion. This is among “the fundamentals of our free exercise jurisprudence” that the Court recounted in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, and which the Court recounted again in the instant case:

A law, we said, may not discriminate against “some or all religious beliefs.” 508 U. S., at 532. Nor may a law regulate or outlaw conduct because it is religiously motivated. And, citing McDaniel and Smith, we restated the now-familiar refrain: The Free Exercise Clause protects against laws that “‘impose[] special disabilities on the basis of . . . religious status.’” 508 U. S., at 533 (quoting Smith, 494 U. S., at 877); see also Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U. S. 793, 828 (2000) (plurality opinion) (noting “our decisions that have prohibited governments from discriminating in the distribution of public benefits based upon religious status or sincerity” (citing Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995); Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U. S. 384 (1993); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263 (1981))).​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf

Frankly, nothing more really needs to be said in this case. It was a policy that violated the very purpose of the Scrap Tire Program, which was to increase access to playgrounds to all children by making the surface ADA-compliant; to make playgrounds safer for children, and to improve Missouri’s environment by reducing the number of discarded tires in landfills. And allowing religious non-profits to receive the Scrap Tire Program grants could hardly be construed as violating the Establishment Clause or any other provision of the Constitution.

 

[Nous]

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 safer playground surfaces for all the children of that community (who were allowed to use the playground), making playgrounds ADA-complaint, and reducing discarded tires in landfills also "serve community safety needs." As Justice Breyer noted:

The Court stated in Everson that “cutting off church schools from” such “general government services as ordinary police and fire protection . . . is obviously not the purpose of the First Amendment.” 330 U. S., at 17–18. Here, the State would cut Trinity Lutheran off from participation in a general program designed to secure or to improve the health and safety of children. I see no significant difference. [. . . ] The sole reason advanced that explains the difference is faith. And it is that last-mentioned fact that calls the Free Exercise Clause into play. We need not go further.​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf

 

[Nous]

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

No, he didn't. Justice Gorsuch joined the majority in full except for footnote 3; he joined Justice Thomas' concurrence, and filed a concurrence of his own, which Thomas joined. Only Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Go on welfare, run a farm and get paid to not grow certain crops. Oil subsidies... There's lots of ways to get your hands on taxpayer money. Now if they are teaching kids to hate folks, I suspect that would disqualify them from the funding. If there were some truth to that, then yes I'd say you have a issue, but just saying it doesn't make it so.

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

I don't know what they teach about you. If you have some evidence of what you claim about this group, then I'd agree, they shouldn't be eligible for the fund. The court said you can't block funding simply because they are a religious organization, but you can for other reasons, like if they are promoting hate.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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

That seems like an important distinction - would you expand on that?

MO must now no longer use religion as a determining factor in it's decisions regarding applications for grant aid for secular purposes.

There is a far, one might say impossible to bridge, gap between that and what you've said.

What do you think is erroneous with what I said?

 

[Augustus]

That seems like an important distinction - would you expand on that?

As I interpreted it, had they been a non-religious organisation, there would have been no problem receiving the subsidy for the work on the playground.

The govt said 'no, you can't get it because you are a Church'.

The court said, that is discriminatory if you are preventing them from receiving money granted to countless other organisations as part of the same program simply because they are religious. That the playground is owned by a church doesn't disqualify it from a general policy regarding improving children's playgrounds across the state.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

Please discuss.

I'm okay with this approach, but only across the board: I look forward to the day when the state is blind to the religious nature of an organization and treats it like any other on its merits.

However, the situation now is that churches qualify for all sorts of special benefits that are off-limits to non-religious organizations. Getting rid of the rare cases where churches don't qualify for a benefit makes this situation worse... at least in the short term.

In the long term, I think that this ruling is going to be trouble for religious organizations. I could see it as being a useful precedent for, say, a challenge to the parsonage exemption, or for the many cases where churches are exempt from normal rules.

I haven't read the actual text of the decision yet, but if it really says that you can't single out churches for special treatment, then churches are in a world of trouble.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I interpreted it, had they been a non-religious organisation, there would have been no problem receiving the subsidy for the work on the playground.

The govt said 'no, you can't get it because you are a Church'.

The court said, that is discriminatory if you are preventing them from receiving money granted to countless other organisations as part of the same program simply because they are religious. That the playground is owned by a church doesn't disqualify it from a general policy regarding improving children's playgrounds across the state.

IIRC from looking at the list of grant recipients before, it even included some for-profit companies... presumably private schools, apartment owners, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

MO must now no longer use religion as a determining factor in it's decisions regarding applications for grant aid for secular purposes.

I look forward to the day when religion is no longer used as a determining factor by governments for *any* purpose. If this ruling sets the US down that road, it will be worth the increase in inequality that it has created for the moment.

 

[Underhill]

The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

Please discuss.

It makes me think I need to get into the whole religion gig. Anyone up for joining the Church of the Holy Orgasm? We believe divine inspiration is only found through the copious indulgence of our baser desires.

I think it could be bigger than the Mormons. More fun too.