The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

[Nous]

The discussion here makes it completely understandable how Trump got 60 million Americans to vote for him. He would have only needed a D behind his name to get 60 million more.

 

[Akivah]

The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

Please discuss.

I'm against it because the ruling violates a principle of taxation. Normally being subject to taxes, enables one to receive tax (i.e. government) benefits. And being exempt from tax, meant that benefits couldn't be received. Simply not paying tax is not the same thing as being exempt from tax. For example, someone that didn't pay tax due to low income, would still be subject to tax if their financial circumstances improved.

But this court ruling states that a tax exempt entity can now receive government benefits. This is a one-way street giving too much advantage to religious groups, over for-profit groups. They can now get the benefits without incurring any of the costs.

 

[Akivah]

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.

It bugs me because it is a tax exempt entity receiving benefits that are derived from taxes. This church already has more money than a secular organization doing the same thing, because the church is exempt from tax. If they want government benefits, then they should pay government taxes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Offering money for a project like this, so a church can be more enticing to those with young kids, is wrong.

The money is being offered to the church to divert tires from landfills, not to entice kids.

 

[Nous]

I'm against it because the ruling violates a principle of taxation. Normally being subject to taxes, enables one to receive tax (i.e. government) benefits.

What is the source of this "principle of taxation"? In your mind, why has no one with any legal education every heard of this "principle of taxation"? Not one of the Justices on the Supreme Court mentioned this "principle of taxation".

The Missouri Scrap Tire Program (which is not unlike such programs in other states) provides grants to non-profit organizations to resurface playgrounds, in order to increase acces for disabled children, to provide a safer playground surface for all children, and to reduce the number of discarded tires in the environment. Why shouldn't a state be able to do such good works?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm against it because the ruling violates a principle of taxation. Normally being subject to taxes, enables one to receive tax (i.e. government) benefits. And being exempt from tax, meant that benefits couldn't be received. Simply not paying tax is not the same thing as being exempt from tax. For example, someone that didn't pay tax due to low income, would still be subject to tax if their financial circumstances improved.

But this court ruling states that a tax exempt entity can now receive government benefits. This is a one-way street giving too much advantage to religious groups, over for-profit groups. They can now get the benefits without incurring any of the costs.

I'm not aware of any such principle. It's common for governments to give money to tax-exempt organizations (e.g. infrastructure grants to lower levels of governments, research grants to public universities, operating subsidies to charities that provide services to the community).

 

[Underhill]

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?

Sure, but I see no evidence that they ever have. They are an atheist non profit (which I know exist) but I've never heard of one getting a grant for anything.

 

[Underhill]

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?

This is a discussion about opinion. I am no lawyer. Do not claim to be. I don't care what the law says or how it handles the case. I was very clear that I was giving my opinion.

I know what the constitution says on the subject. Beyond that I do not claim any expertise.

 

[sun rise]

Sure, but I see no evidence that they ever have. They are an atheist non profit (which I know exist) but I've never heard of one getting a grant for anything.

For federal tax purposes, atheists are a religion

Feds say OK to atheists on religion tax break

The federal government wants to give Annie Laurie Gaylor a tax break for leading an atheist group. Gaylor, head of the Madison, Wisc.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, wants to stop them.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/20/atheist-religion-tax-breaks/2678367/#

 

[Underhill]

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.

But there is a wide grey area there. If a religion does something against our laws, they cannot claim exempt status.

I realize it isn't illegal, but my point is there are exceptions.

If that playground is used for indoctrination or recruitment of kids, should the government be paying money to help fund the cause? After all the government is also not supposed to be in the business of supporting or establishing religion either. So the question becomes, which is more important, not discriminating based on religion or government not funding religion?

 

[Underhill]

For federal tax purposes, atheists are a religion

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/20/atheist-religion-tax-breaks/2678367/#

Okay... I'm not sure how that is relevant.

 

[Underhill]

The discussion here makes it completely understandable how Trump got 60 million Americans to vote for him. He would have only needed a D behind his name to get 60 million more.

Condescend much?

 

[Underhill]

For federal tax purposes, atheists are a religion

Feds say OK to atheists on religion tax break

The federal government wants to give Annie Laurie Gaylor a tax break for leading an atheist group. Gaylor, head of the Madison, Wisc.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, wants to stop them.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/20/atheist-religion-tax-breaks/2678367/#

I agree that it should be treated like a religion as that is the closest fit.

I don't even have an issue with tax free status for religions, only with the fact that they aren't sticking with their end of the deal.

 

[sun rise]

Okay... I'm not sure how that is relevant.

Assuming that held up, it means that atheists can treated the same as your local Christian church for government programs while having the same kind of tax break churches get.

 

[Nous]

Sure, but I see no evidence that they ever have. They are an atheist non profit (which I know exist) but I've never heard of one getting a grant for anything.

If American Atheists, Inc. had a asphalt or unpaved playground, it would be eligible to recieve one of Missouri's grants through the Scrap Tire Program.

So, you didn't address the question I asked: 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]

I don't care what the law says or how it handles the case.

I wonder then why you believe your opinion is worthwhile? How is what you've said different than someone saying: "I don't care what physicists say about quanta or how they handle the evidence. I have arrived at my position about what's right and what's wrong by sitting and thinking about it"?

 

[Nous]

But there is a wide grey area there. If a religion does something against our laws, they cannot claim exempt status.

I realize it isn't illegal, but my point is there are exceptions.

If that playground is used for indoctrination or recruitment of kids, should the government be paying money to help fund the cause?

If you were to read and understand the Opinion, you would discover that, for obvious reasons, the state didn't make any such argument to try to justify its exclusion of religious non-profits from the Scrap Tire Program.

 

[Nous]

Condescend much?

I was stating the fact that Americans are dumb and proud of it. This thread is an excellent example of it.

 

[bobhikes]

. So the question becomes, which is more important, not discriminating based on religion or government not funding religion?

If that is the question than I will always side with not discriminating.

 

[Nous]

So the question becomes, which is more important, not discriminating based on religion or government not funding religion?

That question is an excellent example of the fallacy of false dilemma. By not discriminating against religious non-profits the government is not "funding religion". In the instant case, the state is funding safer, ADA-compliant and environmentally responsible playground surfaces for all children to use.