Support NeoGAF

[Nokterian]

Separation between state and church? Nah off course not..fuck democracy and the first amendment right?

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can't exclude religious organizations when distributing grant funding for state programs.

The ruling came in a 7-2 decision, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor reading her dissent, which was also signed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, from the bench.

The court sided with Trinity Lutheran Church in the case challenging Missouri's decision to bar it from receiving funds in a state program that reimburses nonprofits for resurfacing their playgrounds with recycled rubber tires.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court...s-churches-are-eligible-for-some-public-funds

 

[Amir0x]

Gross Kagan

 

[entremet]

The non-profit tax breaks aren't enough?

 

[Aselith]

As long as they don't favor one kind of church over another, this doesn't violate separation of church and state imo. A Satanist temple needs to apply for Grant money and watch the chaos.

 

[marrec]

A perfectly reasonable ruling in my opinion. The language they use means any funding will be extremely limited, as it should be.

 

[Nirolak]

The scope seems to apply to universally available programs.

If any other organization can get reimbursed for resurfacing playgrounds with recycled tires, I don't see why you would deny a church on the basis that they're religious.

 

[AbsolutBro]

As long as chruched are NPOs, I do not see how you justify treating them as any different from secular NPOs.

 

[Amir0x]

A perfectly reasonable ruling in my opinion. The language they use means any funding will be extremely limited, as it should be.

I am straining to think of why religions should be able to use public funds. Bad enough tax exempt while boldly defying law on endorsing and preaching about political candidates.

Religions ARE different,as far as I'm concerned.

 

[djplaeskool]

Ehh, the scope of fund availability makes this a decent decision. However, without proper oversight, this could get abused.

 

[j_k_redtail]

The scope seems to apply to universally available programs.

If any other organization can get reimbursed for resurfacing playgrounds with recycled tires, I don't see why you would deny a church on the basis that they're religious.

Agreed.

 

[GulAtiCa]

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Big Blue]

Not all churches preach fear-mongering bigotry OP. Just sayin'. Also this doesn't mean that churches are favored over other religious institutions.

 

[IAmAnAgnostic]

This specifically only applies to fixing playgrounds..

I see no issue.

 

[zeemumu]

I don't really see the problem.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

When I saw this hitting the SC, to be honest, I didn't really have a problem with it.

Still don't. I don't mind if religious schools get state funding intended for all schools.

 

[Amir0x]

Not all churches preach fear-mongering bigotry OP. Just sayin'. Also this doesn't mean that churches are favored over other religious institutions.

Most do, in some form. Even if it is relatively innocuous form of saying something is a sin but I'll love you anyway. Rare indeed a religion is devoid of any of this, except the real fringe faiths.

Religions already don't get treated the same as other groups, and there are all sorts of laws for these groups. I don't see why they need to get the benefit of public funds too.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Since legislation should never consider the terms "religion" to begin with, this is fine. Can't sanction people or groups for beliefs, you can sanction them for expression or action. The notion of religion needs to be removed from law so at to end privileges granted based on beliefs.

Separation of church and state was about the institution of religion.

 

[Jeremy]

Not all churches preach fear-mongering bigotry OP. Just sayin'. Also this doesn't mean that churches are favored over other religious institutions.

#NotAllChurches

Got that foot in the door!

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

InB4 trump trying to ban public funds going to Islamic institutions.

 

[marrec]

I am straining to think of why religions should be able to use public funds. Bad enough tax exempt while boldly defying law on endorsing and preaching about political candidates.

Religions ARE different,as far as I'm concerned.

Which is fine, but I think allowing a church to use state funds to resurface playgrounds isn't exactly going to be a slippery slope toward a state sponsored Church dystopia.

The separation of Church and State is not eroded by this ruling.

 

[eagledare]

The problem is churches don't pay taxes. So they're going to be sucking government funds away from the tax pool to repair/update religiously-sponsored locations that aren't giving back to the system.

So pastor McBadass gets to cruise around in a gold-plated Ferrari while the state pays to fix his church's playground.

 

[theepicoftyler]

There are a lot of programs designed to improve health and safety and provide funds for institutions to do that (removing underground storage tanks for example). I don't think we should utilize separation of church and state to remove that incentive when the goal is overall health and safety for the general public.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The problem is churches don't pay taxes. So they're going to be sucking government funds away from the tax pool to repair/update religiously-sponsored locations that aren't giving back to the system.

So pastor McBadass gets to cruise around in a gold-plated Ferrari while the state pays to fix his church's playground.

Non-profits also don't pay taxes and also get money from the government.

 

[MIMIC]

This is a perfectly reasonable ruling. The state can't favor or disfavor based on religion. And here, they were disfavoring because of religion.

 

[Amir0x]

Which is fine, but I think allowing a church to use state funds to resurface playgrounds isn't exactly going to be a slippery slope toward a state sponsored Church dystopia.

The separation of Church and State is not eroded by this ruling.

It is hardly a slippery slope, but I think due to the nature of religious organizations who already abuse privileges we grant them as a country they don't need another route to siphon money from public funds which could be used by organizations actually deserving.

It is not worth losing sleep over clearly, but I'd rather them not be granted any more open doors.

 

[Anion]

Now we need musjid to apply and get this. Let's see how the racists react then their funds go to build minarets haha

 

[marrec]

Non-profits also don't pay taxes and also get money from the government.

And, this pool of available funds is specifically for nonprofits anyway, so it's not taking money away from anything really.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

This is disappointing, but I can see a certainly see the plausibility of the legal argument the ruling used.

The main problem is the "the funds must not be used for religious purposes" legal test most likely doesn't apply to some of the number one ways religious schools indoctrinate children - it's often not about what they teach, but about what they do not teach (e.g., evolution is real, climate change is real, women are human beings, etc.)

 

[TS-08]

The problem is churches don't pay taxes. So they're going to be sucking government funds away from the tax pool to repair/update religiously-sponsored locations that aren't giving back to the system.

So pastor McBadass gets to cruise around in a gold-plated Ferrari while the state pays to fix his church's playground.

Do you think such funds should be similarly denied to all tax-exempt non-profit organizations?

 

[Somnid]

If it's applied evenly I don't mind. Like if a mosque applied they should get it too. I'm guess that the actual issue was probably due to favoritism but as a by the books ruling it seems legit.

 

[marrec]

It is hardly a slippery slope, but I think due to the nature of religious organizations who already abuse privileges we grant them as a country they don't need another route to siphon money from public funds which could be used by organizations actually deserving.

I get your passion, but don't let it blind you to application of constitutional law. It would simply be spiteful and well outside the intention of church and state separation to disallow nonprofit funding like this.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Tax breaks should not be granted based on beliefs.

I am straining to think of why religions should be able to use public funds. Bad enough tax exempt while boldly defying law on endorsing and preaching about political candidates.

Religions ARE different,as far as I'm concerned.

So if I have an organization that does exactly the same as non-religious one, but we believe that the color blue is holy and bananas are a gift from the creator alien race on planet Mugumu, everything else is the same, we can't get funding?

The law shouldn't take into account beliefs, it should look at actions and their impacts. Otherwise you get stupid rules like a person being able to wear a hat because their justification is that their beliefs are privileged whereas someone else's is not, which is completely unjust.

Or you know, tax breaks for believing an old man created the world instead of believing in science.

 

[Amir0x]

I get your passion, but don't let it blind you to application of constitutional law. It would simply be spiteful and well outside the intention of church and state separation to disallow nonprofit funding like this.

Oh i am spiteful here, because religious organizations have been openly defying clear laws to their benefit for ages, and it is getting worse recently. IRS hardly even pursues reports of such abuse. So yea I'm not comfortable these organizations are being given yet another path to do do.

Read Sotomayers/RBG dissent though, if you have time. Probably be interesting to see an argument against this from a far more intelligent legal mind.

 

[QuantumBro]

This is disappointing, but I can see a certainly see the plausibility of the legal argument the ruling used.

The main problem is the "the funds must not be used for religious purposes" legal test most likely doesn't apply to some of the number one ways religious schools indoctrinate children - it's often not about what they teach, but about what they do not teach (e.g., evolution, climate change, women are human beings, etc.)

I'm sad to live in a world where preschoolers are not taught about global warming and climate change. It's just too unfair.

 

[xfactor99]

As long as they don't favor one kind of church over another, this doesn't violate separation of church and state imo. A Satanist temple needs to apply for Grant money and watch the chaos.

relevant

Free Speech Can Get Awkward, a Small Town Discovers
Belle Plaine, Minnesota, wanted a Christian memorial in a town park. Now it's getting a Satanic one too.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...speech-can-get-awkward-a-small-town-discovers

 

[Duxxy3]

Bit of a slippery slope.

 

[Monocle]

End the tax exempt status of all churches and this becomes marginally easier to justify.

 

[Lazy vs Crazy]

End the tax exempt status of all churches and this becomes marginally easier to justify.

But the whole point is this grant went to nonprofits. So the church would be excluded anyway if it were a taxable entity.

 

[IAmAnAgnostic]

Bit of a slippery slope.

Nah. The statement specifically says this applies only to churches and them fixing their playgrounds, and that it is not a ruling in any way to comment on state religious funding in general.

 

[JP_]

The scope seems to apply to universally available programs.

If any other organization can get reimbursed for resurfacing playgrounds with recycled tires, I don't see why you would deny a church on the basis that they're religious.

Slate's Amicus podcast covered it well: http://www.slate.com/articles/podca..._and_the_power_of_the_federalist_society.html

IIRC:

Basically, allowing churches to utilize public funds like this means churches will potentially play a larger part in lobbying in the future -- and there were even other churches arguing against it, suggesting it would give governments more control over church decisions through funding incentives.

Part of this was that Missouri had a stronger separation clause in their state constitution that went beyond the united states constitution's separation of state -- so this is also about states rights.

And one of the arguments from the church was that the playground material was intrinsically secular, which is kind of ridiculous -- this wasn't a public playground, it was a church's playground that serves to help reach children. The guest posits: what's next? The bricks used to build the church are secular bricks?

 

[Monocle]

But the whole point is this grant went to nonprofits. So the church would be excluded anyway if it were a taxable entity.

I admit I skimmed the OP. I'll take any opportunity to protest tax exempt churches.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

I'm sad to live in a world where preschoolers are not taught about global warming and climate change. It's just too unfair.

Yes, obviously I'm aware the case brought forward was a preschool and is intended to be limited in scope, but you're naive if you don't think this emboldens the push for state funded religious institutions especially given the current attitude of the Department of Education.

edit: Other posters have stated it more concisely - I understand the legal reasoning for this case, I'm concerned about the precedent. I grew up in Louisiana, I'm familiar with the worst of the worst of what private schooling is capable of teaching.

 

[whyamihere]

The scope seems to apply to universally available programs.

If any other organization can get reimbursed for resurfacing playgrounds with recycled tires, I don't see why you would deny a church on the basis that they're religious.

Yup.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yup.

Indeed

It's less this ruling and more the precedent that might be forming that is disconcerting.

 

[Briarios]

Nah. The statement specifically says this applies only to churches and them fixing their playgrounds, and that it is not a ruling in any way to comment on state religious funding in general.

That doesn't stop it from being a slippery slope ... It's this sort of ruling where it begins. This will now be cited for all manner of reasoning to get get public find to support religious organizations.

 

[off duty ninja]

As long as churches are considered non profit organizations then this is the correct ruling. Now whether or not churches should be allowed non profit status is another argument altogether.

 

[The Albatross]

The decision, as argued from the court, seems very reasonable and does not suggest that states have a compelling interest barring churches from seeking public funds for projects that other non-profit organizations would receive.

This isn't a violation of the first amendment, in fact, the opposite: The first amendment specifically protects organizations from discrimination on the basis of religion.

"The free Exercise Clause ‘protects religious observers against unequal treatment' and subjects to the strictest scrutiny laws that target the religious for ‘special disabilities' based on their religious status[.]"

(...)

Apply that basic principle, this court has repeatedly confirmed that denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that cant be justified only be a state interest ‘of the highest order.'"

I agree with the court here.

If the court rules otherwise, then imagine that churches would not be able to receive state or federal grants on something like solar panels, either, which are available to for profit corporations, private citizens, and other tax-exempt non-profits. It doesn't seem like this ruling would change anything in regard to tax incentives, as churches (and other non-profits) are mostly institutionally tax exempt, so they still wouldn't get a "Tax rebate" for a tax they're not paying, this is just for grants that are available to other organizations regardless of tax status. In this case, I agree with the court, if a grant is available to other non-profit tax exempt organizations, then you shouldn't be able to discriminate based on religion.

 

[boiled goose]

Since legislation should never consider the terms "religion" to begin with, this is fine. Can't sanction people or groups for beliefs, you can sanction them for expression or action. The notion of religion needs to be removed from law so at to end privileges granted based on beliefs.

Separation of church and state was about the institution of religion.

I agree with the idea that government shouldn't be deciding what is a religion and what isnt

That said, religious institutions shouldn't be given non profit status for just being religious then

 

[typist]

They can receive government support, like a business?
Okay, tax them like a business too then. They're providing a service in exchange for a commodity

 

[KHarvey16]

That doesn't stop it from being a slippery slope ... It's this sort of ruling where it begins. This will now be cited for all manner of reasoning to get get public find to support religious organizations.

If those funds are used to reimburse an organization for performing a public service, what's the issue?