The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

... when we look at this one issue in isolation.

In the wider context, churches are treated like other charities in many ways, get preferential treatment in many ways, and are disadvantaged in only a small handful of ways, with the net effect being that churches get a substantial net benefit from their unequal treatment. This ruling gives even more advantage to already advantaged organizations.

Yes, singling out religions for special treatment is discriminatory, but this ruling doesn't get rid of this double standard across the board.

My first choice would be no special treatment on the basis of religion at all, but as long as churches get special benefits, I don't have a problem with giving them special disadvantages occasionally.

 

[Underhill]

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.

Private entities, who do pay taxes, do not have to worry about church and state seperation.

The primary reason a church pays no taxes is to maintain separation of church and state. How does the government giving them money, for any reason, maintain that separation? The whole point is that money changing hands creates a path to the church gaining power over the government or the government gaining power over the church. So what is the difference, from that perspective, between a church paying taxes, or getting money from the government? It blurs that line and opens the door to a host of other issues.

 

[Nous]

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.

Trinity Lutheran's dayschool was open to everyone, not just church members, and its playground was open to everyone during non-school hours. Religious non-profits run food banks, thrift stores, hospitals and all manner of other organizations that help all people in the community, not just members.

One is working for a common good, the other is working to increase it's membership.

Obvioiusly you view religious non-profits through your animus toward religion.

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

The laws are not supposed to reflect your prejudices.

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 have no idea how any of that is supposed to address my question and challenge to you:

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.​

It's only a perverted prejudice toward religion that would make one think that religious non-profits have some sort of evil intent.

 

[Nous]

... when we look at this one issue in isolation.

In the wider context, churches are treated like other charities in many ways, get preferential treatment in many ways, and are disadvantaged in only a small handful of ways, with the net effect being that churches get a substantial net benefit from their unequal treatment. This ruling gives even more advantage to already advantaged organizations.

Yes, singling out religions for special treatment is discriminatory, but this ruling doesn't get rid of this double standard across the board.

My first choice would be no special treatment on the basis of religion at all, but as long as churches get special benefits, I don't have a problem with giving them special disadvantages occasionally.

This "special treatment" and "substantial net benefit" that religious non-profits allegedly receive is mostly your fantasy. Regardless, it doesn't justify discriminating against non-profit organizations merely because they are religious, which is unconstitutional.

 

[Nous]

The primary reason a church pays no taxes is to maintain separation of church and state.

Really?

What is "the primary reason" non-religious non-profits "pay no taxes"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Trinity Lutheran's dayschool was open to everyone, not just church members, and its playground was open to everyone during non-school hours.

Their school is open to anyone for a fee.

Religious non-profits run food banks, thrift stores, hospitals and all manner of other organizations that help all people in the community, not just members.

Some do, certainly.

It's only a perverted prejudice toward religion that would make one think that religious non-profits have some sort of evil intent.

Many religious charities do very good work; most churches function more as social clubs than charities. There's nothing wrong with social clubs - I belong to a car club myself - but I don't think that someone's "god club" is intrinsically more beneficial to society than my car club. And yes, some churches - charities in the eyes of the law - do some pretty awful things.

But here's the thing: if we drop "advancement of religion" from the list of allowable charitable purposes, those religious charities that do lots of wonderful work will still qualify.

 

[Underhill]

Trinity Lutheran's dayschool was open to everyone, not just church members, and its playground was open to everyone during non-school hours. Religious non-profits run food banks, thrift stores, hospitals and all manner of other organizations that help all people in the community, not just members.

Okay then there should be some distinction between religious groups then. As I read this, the same principle would apply to any religious groups.

Obvioiusly you view religious non-profits through your animus toward religion.

The laws are not supposed to reflect your prejudices.

I have no idea how any of that is supposed to address my question and challenge to you:

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.​

It's only a perverted prejudice toward religion that would make one think that religious non-profits have some sort of evil intent.

Where did I say evil? If a hospital or school caters to everyone equally and is not indoctrinating it's customers, then why is it called a religious non profit? It is simply a non profit. If they are indoctrinating people (as many religious schools do) then it should not be getting public funds. It isn't about good and evil, it's about separation of church and state.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This "special treatment" and "substantial net benefit" that religious non-profits allegedly receive is mostly your fantasy.

If the parsonage exemption is fantasy, someone should really tell Rick Warren.

Regardless, it doesn't justify discriminating against non-profit organizations merely because they are religious, which is unconstitutional.

I think you've confused two different issues. I was speaking to the issue of fairness... of what the law ought to be, not necessarily about what it is now.

It seems to me that the Court ruled in accordance with the Constitution. I look forward to the day (though I'm not holding my breath for it) when the Court applies the same logic to strike down religious qualifications for special benefits as well.

 

[Underhill]

Really?

What is "the primary reason" non-religious non-profits "pay no taxes"?

Why then do you think they pay no taxes? They own property. They have income. They are not a public institution. They do not (always) benefit the public.

But I will go farther.

"In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion."

Why don't churches pay taxes?