The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

[Nous]

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.

In what way are religions not "sticking with their end of the deal"? What deal? What did "religions" do? Why didn't the state argue that religions are engaged in wrongdoing in order to get safer, ADA-compliant and healthier playground surfaces?

 

[Akivah]

What is the source of this "principle of taxation"?

Me, from my decades of experience as a tax professional. You can quote me on that.

Not one of the Justices on the Supreme Court mentioned this "principle of taxation".

The Supreme court rules on conflicting laws and principles. In this case, they focused more on free speech and purported discrimination rather than the tax effects.

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?

I'm not against playgrounds, I against the Supreme Court creating unfair advantages for certain types of entities. A for-profit company would be at a disadvantage installing a playground as compared to an exempt company.

 

[Underhill]

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?

Not if it were universally applied to all religions. Why would a religious organization (which they are categorized as) expect money from the government which is not supposed to have ties to religion?

 

[Underhill]

In what way are religions not "sticking with their end of the deal"? What deal? What did "religions" do? Why didn't the state argue that religions are engaged in wrongdoing in order to get safer, ADA-compliant and healthier playground surfaces?

Well if you knew your history you might know what I am talking about.

Tax exempt status was granted to churches on the condition that they not engage in political electioneering. A massive number of churches have thrown that out the window. I've seen pastors endorsing candidates from the pulpit, heard politicians give political speeches at churches, and seen evening rallies held in church buildings.

The problem is, and they know it, virtually nobody is enforcing these rules.

 

[Underhill]

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.

All children? Where did you read that?

 

[Nous]

What is the source of this "principle of taxation"?

Me, from my decades of experience as a tax professional.

Which do you think would be the more intelligent thing for the Court to do: premise their decisions on the case law, or apply some new "tax principle" that an anonymous online poster has created out of the blue?

The Supreme court rules on conflicting laws and principles. In this case, they focused more on free speech and purported discrimination rather than the tax effects.

The Court is required to rule on the challenges that are presented, not on some irrelevant idea that no one has ever heard of before.

I'm not against playgrounds, I against the Supreme Court creating unfair advantages for certain types of entities. A for-profit company would be at a disadvantage installing a playground as compared to an exempt company.

The Court did not create any unfair advantage of any type of entity. Just the contrary. But ruling in favor of Trinity Lutheran is eliminated the unfairness of the state's policy that discriminated against relgious non-profits.

 

[Nous]

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?

Not if it were universally applied to all religions.

Is that supposed to be an answer to my question? What does it mean? Are you saying that you would not consider it discriminatory if the state policy disallowed only atheist non-profits from receiving grants?

Why would a religious organization (which they are categorized as) expect money from the government which is not supposed to have ties to religion?

I feel certain that no non-profit organization receiving this grant expected to handle any money from the state. I would imagine that the grant went directly to the contractor installing the playground surface.

In any case, as the complaint makes clear, the religious non-profit organization simply desired not to be the victim of a discriminatory policy, prohibited from receiving a grant for no other reason than that it was a religious non-profit.

 

[Nous]

Tax exempt status was granted to churches on the condition that they not engage in political electioneering. A massive number of churches have thrown that out the window.

Provide the evidence that Trinity Lutheran does not qualify as a religious non-profit organization.

Or are you asserting a "guilty by association" fallacy?

 

[Nous]

All children? Where did you read that?

In the Opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

You misunderstand.
Atheists still tend to not associate with other on the basis of being atheists.
We don't gather for worship or disworship.
Sure, you found an organization.
How many of us belong to it?
I certainly don't. I know no one who does.

And to be a tax exempt organization doesn't necessarily mean getting government money.
How much do you claim they take in grants for playgrounds, or for other free services to their
buildings they might or might not have? Driving thru northern Michiganistan today, I saw
church after church after church....but not one single atheist building. (Titty bars don't count.)

 

[Nous]

You misunderstand.
Atheists still tend to not associate with other on the basis of being atheists.
We don't gather for worship or disworship.
Sure, you found an organization.
How many of us belong to it?
I certainly don't. I know no one who does.

And to be a tax exempt organization doesn't necessarily mean getting government money.
How much do you claim they take in grants for playgrounds, or for other free services to their
buildings they might or might not have? Driving thru northern Michiganistan today, I saw
church after church after church....but not one single atheist building. (Titty bars don't count.)

What is or was your point?

You responded to Underhill's comment that there might not be any atheist non-profit organizations at all. You said, "Atheists have little reason to associate in a manner which would entitle us to slopping at the government trough." But there are atheist non-profit organizations that receive the same tax benefits as religious non-profits do. So what is the point of your comment? How is it supposed to relate to the topic?

I have asked the question numerous times, with no answer yet: If a state law specified that no atheist non-profit organization can receive a grant that the state offers to all other non-profits, would you understand that as discrimination?

 

[Revoltingest]

What is or was your point?

From post #52....
"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."

You responded to Underhill's comment that there might not be any atheist non-profit organizations at all. You said, "Atheists have little reason to associate in a manner which would entitle us to slopping at the government trough." But there are atheist non-profit organizations that receive the same tax benefits as religious non-profits do. So what is the point of your comment? How is it supposed to relate to the topic?

It still seems a clear response to that post.

I have asked the question numerous times, with no answer yet: If a state law specified that no atheist non-profit organization can receive a grant that the state offers to all other non-profits, would you understand that as discrimination?

Sounds like it would be.

 

[Underhill]

Is that supposed to be an answer to my question? What does it mean? Are you saying that you would not consider it discriminatory if the state policy disallowed only atheist non-profits from receiving grants?
I feel certain that no non-profit organization receiving this grant expected to handle any money from the state. I would imagine that the grant went directly to the contractor installing the playground surface.

In any case, as the complaint makes clear, the religious non-profit organization simply desired not to be the victim of a discriminatory policy, prohibited from receiving a grant for no other reason than that it was a religious non-profit.

Right, they felt discriminated against by the government for not giving them money they never planned on getting. Got it.

It's a dangerous game they are playing. We should be treated the same as everyone else when it comes to getting money from the government, but when it comes to paying taxes... not so much.

 

[Underhill]

Provide the evidence that Trinity Lutheran does not qualify as a religious non-profit organization.

Or are you asserting a "guilty by association" fallacy?

No, simply saying that if they are going to engage in such things, they should not keep their status.

I got off on a bit of a tangent with the tax issue, but the two are related for obvious reasons. I do not understand how an organization who wants to be separate from the government, who claims this as the reasoning for their tax free status, should expect grants from the same government they claim to what separation from.

 

[Underhill]

In the Opinion.

Even if it is for all children, it is obviously on church property. It benefits the kids who attend the church more than those who do not.

 

[Nous]

No, simply saying that if they are going to engage in such things, they should not keep their status.

You are advising that if religious non-profits want to want to participate in the same government programs as non-religious non-profits are allowed to do, the religious non-profits should just disappear, or disavow their beliefs? How is that consistent with the Free Exercise Clause? Cite the case law.

Why do you need such a ridiculous thing for your own personal satisfaction? Why can't you just be happy that the Court has disallowed states to unfairly discriminate against religious non-profits?

I do not understand how an organization who wants to be separate from the government, who claims this as the reasoning for their tax free status, should expect grants from the same government they claim to what separation from.

Why would non-religious non-profits want safer playgrounds that are accessible to disabled children?

If you are able to conceive of some reason, just transfer it to religious non-profits, who are, after all, not different animals.

 

[Nous]

Right, they felt discriminated against by the government for not giving them money they never planned on getting.

Your bitterness toward religions hopefully does not prevent you from understanding that the Court didn't base its decision on how anyone felt.

It's a dangerous game they are playing. We should be treated the same as everyone else when it comes to getting money from the government, but when it comes to paying taxes... not so much.

Do you have this animus toward all non-profit organizations, or just those that are religious?

 

[Underhill]

You are advising that if religious non-profits want to want to participate in the same government programs as non-religious non-profits are allowed to do, the religious non-profits should just disappear, or disavow their beliefs? How is that consistent with the Free Exercise Clause? Cite the case law.

Why do you need such a ridiculous thing for your own personal satisfaction? Why can't you just be happy that the Court has disallowed states to unfairly discriminate against religious non-profits?

You like to read an awful lot into other peoples post. There is an obvious difference between a church and a cancer association. One is acting for the good of all humanity, the other for it's members. One is working for a common good, the other is working to increase it's membership.

My entire point is that the law doesn't do enough to distinguish between the two.

Why would non-religious non-profits want safer playgrounds that are accessible to disabled children?

If you are able to conceive of some reason, just transfer it to religious non-profits, who are, after all, not different animals.

Of course they are. If a public park association wants to build a playground it makes sense for the public to pay for it. If a church is building a playground it does not. They are not public, they are a religious organization. The state should not be funding religious organizations even if it is for a positive cause. If the church cannot provide a safe playground then they should go raise the money among the members of the congregation who will be the primary beneficiaries.

 

[Underhill]

Your bitterness toward religions hopefully does not prevent you from understanding that the Court didn't base its decision on how anyone felt.

Do you have this animus toward all non-profit organizations, or just those that are religious?

What animus are you talking about?

I am simply making a valid point. Separation of church and state is not a new idea.

 

[Falvlun]

You like to read an awful lot into other peoples post. There is an obvious difference between a church and a cancer association. One is acting for the good of all humanity, the other for it's members. One is working for a common good, the other is working to increase it's membership.

My entire point is that the law doesn't do enough to distinguish between the two.

Of course they are. If a public park association wants to build a playground it makes sense for the public to pay for it. If a church is building a playground it does not. They are not public, they are a religious organization. The state should not be funding religious organizations even if it is for a positive cause. If the church cannot provide a safe playground then they should go raise the money among the members of the congregation who will be the primary beneficiaries.

I think the problem with your argument is that other non-profits (who don't pay taxes) and private entities (who are motivated by profits) were allowed to take part in this grant. To single out religious organizations in such company does appear discriminatory.