The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

[Thief]

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.

any exchange of monetary sums will get you busted for prostitution

be careful

 

[sayak83]

The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

Please discuss.

I like public money being used for resurfacing playgrounds if all children of the community have access to it. Do they? If so, the court decision is correct.

 

[sun rise]

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.

That to me said a lot. It was not a typical left vs right decision but 7-2 which to me makes it must more likely to be a good decision.

 

[Nous]

That to me said a lot. It was not a typical left vs right decision but 7-2 which to me makes it must more likely to be a good decision.

Yes, decisions are more reassuring when they are not the product of a partisan split. Actually, for the past few decades, a majority of Opinions each term has been either unanimous or 8-1. Justice Roberts seems to have been particularly concerned with building consensus in decisions. Nevertheless, there are several decisions of the past few years where I agreed with the lone dissenter, and at least one where I disagreed with a unanimous Court.

 

[Nous]

I like public money being used for resurfacing playgrounds if all children of the community have access to it. Do they?

Yes, the playground is open to all during non-school hours.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Bet ya we'd trade. No money to atheist orgs (whatever that means) OR religious orgs.

But basically I'd prefer same rules for all, regardless of religion, both in taxation, and in receiving public grants.

 

[Mister Emu]

What do you think is erroneous with what I said?

You said "[Missouri] must now also actively feed it taxpayers' money because it's a religious institute." This decision did not say that Missouri, or any other state or local government, must give taxpayer money to any religious institute; only that an institution that meets all criteria for a grant cannot have its application denied purely on the basis of its religious nature.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

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.

"We believe divine inspiration is only found through the copious indulgence of our baser desires. "

That describes nearly every religion out there. Religion is nothing but masturbating the ego.

 

[Underhill]

any exchange of monetary sums will get you busted for prostitution

be careful

Who is exchanging funds? The orgasms are at the behest of our deity, who has yet to reveal himself.

 

[Underhill]

"We believe divine inspiration is only found through the copious indulgence of our baser desires. "

That describes nearly every religion out there. Religion is nothing but masturbating the ego.

Amen brother.

 

[Underhill]

Bet ya we'd trade. No money to atheist orgs (whatever that means) OR religious orgs.

But basically I'd prefer same rules for all, regardless of religion, both in taxation, and in receiving public grants.

It sounds to me like a nonsensical argument. There are very few "atheist" groups and the number receiving public funds has to be minuscule, if they even exist at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

It sounds to me like a nonsensical argument. There are very few "atheist" groups and the number receiving public funds has to be minuscule, if they even exist at all.

Atheists have little reason to associate in a manner which would entitle us to slopping at the government trough.
Getting us together is like herding cats.
So I don't see us being discriminated against regarding public funding of playground or other subsidies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You said "[Missouri] must now also actively feed it taxpayers' money because it's a religious institute." This decision did not say that Missouri, or any other state or local government, must give taxpayer money to any religious institute; only that an institution that meets all criteria for a grant cannot have its application denied purely on the basis of its religious nature.

... which doesn't necessarily mean a disadvantage for religious organizations overall, since there are many benefits that religious organizations qualify for based purely on their religious nature.

I think the problem here is the ruling's narrow focus: when we preserve the double standard where it benefits religious organizations but eliminate it where it disadvantages them, the result isn't equality; it's just maximizing the benefit to a class of organizations that already have a substantial advantage over other similar organizations in terms of their treatment under the law.

If the ruling gets applied more broadly so that governments can't base any decisions solely on the basis of religion, then it will have helped to create a fairer, better situation.

 

[Underhill]

After some thought I have concluded that I disagree with the courts.

The reason I disagree is a simple one. Religious groups tend to be a closed loop. Sure, they may offer services to the community, but the ultimate goal is usually to convert them (look it up, it's in their holy books). Offering money for a project like this, so a church can be more enticing to those with young kids, is wrong. And, just like their corporate cousins, churches are not people. You cannot discriminate against the individual members of the congregation, but discriminating against a religious group, not just because they are religious, but based upon their practices as part of that religion, is not.

This is all part of that same mess they started by claiming that corporations are people.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

How does that apply in this case? These laws have nothing to do with establishing or prohibiting religion. It does not infringe on their rights to assemble. It does not infringe on their right to petition congress.

These laws simply disallow state money from going to religious organizations whose agendas are their own.

 

[bobhikes]

After some thought I have concluded that I disagree with the courts.

The reason I disagree is a simple one. Religious groups tend to be a closed loop. Sure, they may offer services to the community, but the ultimate goal is usually to convert them (look it up, it's in their holy books). Offering money for a project like this, so a church can be more enticing to those with young kids, is wrong. And, just like their corporate cousins, churches are not people. You cannot discriminate against the individual members of the congregation, but discriminating against a religious group, not just because they are religious, but based upon their practices as part of that religion, is not.

This is all part of that same mess they started by claiming that corporations are people.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

How does that apply in this case? These laws have nothing to do with establishing or prohibiting religion. It does not infringe on their rights to assemble. It does not infringe on their right to petition congress.

These laws simply disallow state money from going to religious organizations whose agendas are their own.

In reading through I don't believe the Supreme Court ruled based on religious rights but on the rules for issuing government grants. There is no legal way to issue a grant and exclude only churches. You can block all non-profit based charities, which would include Fire departments, YMCA and such that also had playgrounds but you can't just block one organization and allow the others legally.

For eligibility of Grants they break it up into. Taken from Grants.gov
Government Organizations
Education Organizations
Public Housing Organizations
Non-profit Organizations
For-profit Organizations
Small Businesses
Individuals
Foreign Applicants

None of these would only block churches.

 

[Underhill]

In reading through I don't believe the Supreme Court ruled based on religious rights but on the rules for issuing government grants. There is no legal way to issue a grant and exclude only churches. You can block all non-profit based charities, which would include Fire departments, YMCA and such that also had playgrounds but you can't just block one organization and allow the others legally.

For eligibility of Grants they break it up into. Taken from Grants.gov
Government Organizations
Education Organizations
Public Housing Organizations
Non-profit Organizations
For-profit Organizations
Small Businesses
Individuals
Foreign Applicants

None of these would only block churches.

Okay, but why not?

Just like each of those designations, they operate under a mandate. If the government can differentiate between a small business and a non profit organization, how much different is it with a religious organization? It has always bothered me that churches are treated like every other non profit. They operate for the good of their members, not the community or some lofty goal like curing cancer.

Organizations like the Moose or the Elk have to supply records of charitable donations in order to receive tax free status. At the very least churches should face similar requirements.

What I am getting at is this. There is nothing in the constitution that says churches are protected. It says the individual is protected. As is their right to gather. But this notion that churches have a constitutional right to some special status is so much hogwash.

When churches were granted tax free status, as with these other organizations, it was with certain caveats, many of which they are not keeping. Pastors are electioneering for candidates. I've seen rallies held at churches. Quite simply we treat them as off limits in every way because they are churches. But where does it say that a church has to be treated in the same manner as any other charity or organization?

 

[bobhikes]

Okay, but why not?

Just like each of those designations, they operate under a mandate. If the government can differentiate between a small business and a non profit organization, how much different is it with a religious organization? It has always bothered me that churches are treated like every other non profit. They operate for the good of their members, not the community or some lofty goal like curing cancer.

Organizations like the Moose or the Elk have to supply records of charitable donations in order to receive tax free status. At the very least churches should face similar requirements.

What I am getting at is this. There is nothing in the constitution that says churches are protected. It says the individual is protected. As is their right to gather. But this notion that churches have a constitutional right to some special status is so much hogwash.

When churches were granted tax free status, as with these other organizations, it was with certain caveats, many of which they are not keeping. Pastors are electioneering for candidates. I've seen rallies held at churches. Quite simply we treat them as off limits in every way because they are churches. But where does it say that a church has to be treated in the same manner as any other charity or organization?

Under each category you can not discriminate. For individuals or small business's, non-profit organizations or etc. the government can't not disallow based on sex, race, religion ... Its the same problem Trump is having with his travel ban. The government is not allow to discriminate based on religion.

 

[Nous]

Religion is nothing but masturbating the ego.

Wow, what a mature understanding of religion! You should give that line back to the 12-year-old you stole it from.

 

[Nous]

It sounds to me like a nonsensical argument. There are very few "atheist" groups and the number receiving public funds has to be minuscule, if they even exist at all.

Atheists have little reason to associate in a manner which would entitle us to slopping at the government trough.

American Atheists, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. Financial Information | American Atheists So this organization "slops at the government trough" just like you accuse religious no-profits of doing.

So, if a state law specified that no atheist non-profit organization can recieve a grant that the state offers to all other non-profits, would you understand that as discrimination?

 

[Nous]

After some thought I have concluded that I disagree with the courts.

The reason I disagree is a simple one. Religious groups tend to be a closed loop. Sure, they may offer services to the community, but the ultimate goal is usually to convert them (look it up, it's in their holy books). Offering money for a project like this, so a church can be more enticing to those with young kids, is wrong. And, just like their corporate cousins, churches are not people. You cannot discriminate against the individual members of the congregation, but discriminating against a religious group, not just because they are religious, but based upon their practices as part of that religion, is not.

This is all part of that same mess they started by claiming that corporations are people.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

How does that apply in this case? These laws have nothing to do with establishing or prohibiting religion. It does not infringe on their rights to assemble. It does not infringe on their right to petition congress.

These laws simply disallow state money from going to religious organizations whose agendas are their own.

So, you've reached your conclusion on this issue just by sitting and thinking about stuff? You would not consider trying to read and understand the case law or the parties' arguments?

Do you believe that courts should use your process in deciding cases?