Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
Quote | Reply
Interesting case to kick off Justice Gorsuch's tenure on the Court. In summary, Missouri denied a Christian church's application for public grant money that would resurface their playground with a more child-friendly surface, on the grounds that the state constitution prohibits it ("no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion.")

Seems to me a reasonable outcome, given that, if I'm not mistaken, they are free to discriminate on religious grounds in terms of who they allow to use the facility. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and if Gorsuch determines the outcome.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It seems like a decision that was in accord with Missouri's state constitution. I'm not sure it was entirely reasonable.

Why discriminate against religious schools? Why privilege non-religious schools?








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't see any mention in your post if this is a church playground or a playground that the church operates at a school they run or a daycare. Could you elaborate? I went to a "private school" run along religious lines however anyone was free to use the playground outside of school hours. We once were offered a gov't grant to improve our playground but when the school society found out the grant came from lottery money they declined it. In the tradition I come from independent (of gov't) schools are generally run by parents rather than the church even if run along religious lines. If the grant is for a playground one could argue that it is not promoting a particular religion.

sphere wrote:
Interesting case to kick off Justice Gorsuch's tenure on the Court. In summary, Missouri denied a Christian church's application for public grant money that would resurface their playground with a more child-friendly surface, on the grounds that the state constitution prohibits it ("no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion.")

Seems to me a reasonable outcome, given that, if I'm not mistaken, they are free to discriminate on religious grounds in terms of who they allow to use the facility. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and if Gorsuch determines the outcome.

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ultimately it comes down to tax dollars being given to a private religious institution. I think it would be reasonable to include nonreligious private institutions among those who don't qualify, as well, though religious institutions are afforded the right to discriminate whereas private nonreligious institutions are not. Religious entities should retain that right, IMO, but not while using taxpayer dollars to fund renovations.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [len] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't know the answer to that question.

I don't believe that allowing grants to go to religious schools would run afoul of the Establishment clause, provided that all religions are treated equally in the process.

The issue is complicated by the fact that daycare centers likely constitute a large minority, if not majority, of recipients of the grant, and the vast majority of them are for-profit private enterprises. So I'm not sure the public versus private distinction is useful in this matter, though I believe the religious discrimination concerns reinforce why state constitutional prohibitions on diverting tax dollars to religious institutions are reasonable--or, requirements that religious institutions that opt in play by the same rules as non-religious institutions.

Or, at least, as vitus would argue, perhaps useful, but not particularly reasonable.

Trinity takes the public grant, and refuses to enroll a transgender kid, or a kid from a same-sex marriage, claiming religious objections. Regardless of how one feels about those issues, I think most people would agree that's problematic. There may be another way to accommodate all parties and not bar religious schools from receiving public grants, but the states that do prohibit it certainly won't have that particular problem to deal with.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Last edited by: sphere: Apr 18, 17 19:58
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Would a similarly situated non-religious private institution be denied the grant? If no, then that is discriminatory on religious grounds. Also a literal reading (I have not bothered to see how it has been interpreted) of the clause would mean that a grant is permissible in that it is not for religious purposes.
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
If no, then that is discriminatory on religious grounds.


That's essentially what the pending case will, hopefully, finally rule on. National Review has a brief but informative legal overview of the case.

Quote:

In Trinity Lutheran, the Court will decide whether explicitly excluding religious options from public-aid programs violates the First Amendment’s free-exercise clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection clause. In other words, having determined in Zelman that states are constitutionally permitted to include religious schools in school-choice programs, the Court will now decide whether states are prohibited from discriminating against religious schools when providing public services.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/...ase-trinity-lutheran


That's kind of a big deal.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Last edited by: sphere: Apr 18, 17 19:57
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, just a little bit of a big deal. ;-)

I'll chime in with my 2 cents tomorrow. It's an interesting case, to say the least.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
the Court will now decide whether states are prohibited from discriminating against religious schools when providing public services.

On that point, I think it's fair and necessary to draw a distinction between inherently religious activity and providing a nonreligious public service. Prohibiting grant money from funding a feed-the-homeless initiative run by a Catholic charity, at which no religious services or ministry occurs, is different from providing grant money to a church-run daycare at which religious instruction is inherent to the service provided, regardless of what non-religious activities occur there. I have no objection to the former, but oppose the latter; the former is a public service, while the latter is an inherently religious activity that serves members of the religion.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's a hell of a slippery slope that could lead to the denial of federal funding to all religion-based institutions from kindergarten to higher education. I went to Jesuit law school and never heard God or Jesus mentioned once.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Although it is often difficult to clearly distinguish between the two. I guess that is where it gets kind of murky. Some jurisdictions in Canada provide partial support to schools that have a religious character I guess on the grounds that alot of what they do is similar to public school ie teaching math, spelling etc. I appreciate that religious institutions get a taxable deduction status and think maybe we are better off not taking public grants and being able to retain our religious character. But I guess my viewpoint is a bit skewed because I have an above average income. Those with lower incomes find it more of a struggle to send a kid to a religious school.

sphere wrote:
Quote:
the Court will now decide whether states are prohibited from discriminating against religious schools when providing public services.


On that point, I think it's fair and necessary to draw a distinction between inherently religious activity and providing a nonreligious public service. Prohibiting grant money from funding a feed-the-homeless initiative run by a Catholic charity, at which no religious services or ministry occurs, is different from providing grant money to a church-run daycare at which religious instruction is inherent to the service provided, regardless of what non-religious activities occur there. I have no objection to the former, but oppose the latter; the former is a public service, while the latter is an inherently religious activity that serves members of the religion.

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Prohibiting grant money from funding a feed-the-homeless initiative run by a Catholic charity, at which no religious services or ministry occurs, is different from providing grant money to a church-run daycare at which religious instruction is inherent to the service provided, regardless of what non-religious activities occur there.

I hear what you are saying but don't see the connection to the current case. I thought the grant program, and the application at issue, was to make playground surfaces safer and better for kids, not to provide funding for religious instruction. Or is there some reason that kids that get religious instruction should not have safe playgrounds?

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Setting aside the constitutional question, it's a compelling argument. It also brings to mind the Planned Parenthood predicament. I think it's reasonable to prohibit them from receiving taxpayer dollars so long as they're in the abortion business, even though tax dollars don't go directly to those services.

I may be wrong, but at least I'm consistent.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't think it would be reasonable to prohibit planned parenthood from applying for a grant to buy, for instance, a mammogram machine.

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
Setting aside the constitutional question, it's a compelling argument. It also brings to mind the Planned Parenthood predicament. I think it's reasonable to prohibit them from receiving taxpayer dollars so long as they're in the abortion business, even though tax dollars don't go directly to those services.

I may be wrong, but at least I'm consistent.

Why? What part of the constitution separates the feds from abortion?
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
None. Refer to my first sentence in your quote.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
H- wrote:
I don't think it would be reasonable to prohibit planned parenthood from applying for a grant to buy, for instance, a mammogram machine.

I'd be curious to hear how anti-PP conservatives would feel about that.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
That's a hell of a slippery slope that could lead to the denial of federal funding to all religion-based institutions from kindergarten to higher education. I went to Jesuit law school and never heard God or Jesus mentioned once.

Trinity is providing an explicitly religious education, unlike your Jesuit law school and my Methodist graduate school. Nothing in my medical training had any relationship to religion whatsoever, either. I take your point. I also took out federal loans and received a small federal grant to attend that school. At the bottom of that slippery slope lay a prohibition on both, I suppose.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
JSA wrote:
That's a hell of a slippery slope that could lead to the denial of federal funding to all religion-based institutions from kindergarten to higher education. I went to Jesuit law school and never heard God or Jesus mentioned once.

Trinity is providing an explicitly religious education, unlike your Jesuit law school and my Methodist graduate school. Nothing in my medical training had any relationship to religion whatsoever, either. I take your point. I also took out federal loans and received a small federal grant to attend that school. At the bottom of that slippery slope lay a prohibition on both, I suppose.

What is the purpose of the program: further a school or provide safer playgrounds? I feel it's the latter and therefore impermissible to deny them the funding.
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
What is the purpose of the program: further a school or provide safer playgrounds?

Further the school BY providing a newer/safer playground.
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't know the merits on which the case will be decided, but in principle, I don't really disagree, provided the grant is used exclusively and verifiably for that purpose.

OTOH, if the church was planning to make those playground improvements regardless of the grant, and now the money it won't spend on the playground is now available to invest in religious-specific improvement or expansion, then we're back at the anti-PP fungible funding predicament, where (as it pertains to Trinity) tax dollars are being effectively steered to a religious institution for religious purposes.

The implications of the ruling are significant, to put it mildly. It could change the education funding landscape dramatically and, essentially, permanently. It also validates the position that it literally doesn't matter if you vote a potted plant into the White House, so long as that plant can be counted on to appoint a like-minded Justice to the Supreme Court. Today may well be the strategic voter's jackpot payday.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
Quote:
What is the purpose of the program: further a school or provide safer playgrounds?

Further the school BY providing a newer/safer playground.

That is illogical. If the purpose was to further the school it wouldn't involve the play ground.
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
I don't know the merits on which the case will be decided, but in principle, I don't really disagree, provided the grant is used exclusively and verifiably for that purpose.

OTOH, if the church was planning to make those playground improvements regardless of the grant, and now the money it won't spend on the playground is now available to invest in religious-specific improvement or expansion, then we're back at the anti-PP fungible funding predicament, where (as it pertains to Trinity) tax dollars are being effectively steered to a religious institution for religious purposes.

The implications of the ruling are significant, to put it mildly. It could change the education funding landscape dramatically and, essentially, permanently. It also validates the position that it literally doesn't matter if you vote a potted plant into the White House, so long as that plant can be counted on to appoint a like-minded Justice to the Supreme Court. Today may well be the strategic voter's jackpot payday.

It's a preschool. My brother and I went to different nursery schools that weren't Catholic, the religious portion was the fact they were in church basements. I'd feel your argument would be stronger if it was a grade school or high school (though I don't quite agree with it) than a preschool. At the end of the day religion is a parental thing and a school's religious aspect in my and several people I know who attended Catholic schools all the way through (i went to public HS so can only speak to grade school) experience is de minimis compared to parental input.
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
Quote:
What is the purpose of the program: further a school or provide safer playgrounds?

Further the school BY providing a newer/safer playground.

Right, that would be one way to play the argument. In separate Planned Parenthood threads, some folks made the argument that even if Planned Parenthood is prohibited from using federal funds for abortions, those funds free up other resources that Planned Parenthood could then devote to abortion, and thus there is still in direct support from the government for abortion purposes. Seems like a similar line of reasoning could be argued in this case. Although the playground non-religious in nature, if the school does not have to spend its resources on the playground because it is supported by a government money, they can then use the money saved for other religious purposes.
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [wimsey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wimsey wrote:
oldandslow wrote:
Quote:
What is the purpose of the program: further a school or provide safer playgrounds?

Further the school BY providing a newer/safer playground.

Right, that would be one way to play the argument. In separate Planned Parenthood threads, some folks made the argument that even if Planned Parenthood is prohibited from using federal funds for abortions, those funds free up other resources that Planned Parenthood could then devote to abortion, and thus there is still in direct support from the government for abortion purposes. Seems like a similar line of reasoning could be argued in this case. Although the playground non-religious in nature, if the school does not have to spend its resources on the playground because it is supported by a government money, they can then use the money saved for other religious purposes.

I personally don't think they're analogous. In one case there is discrimination due to religion and the other is denial of funding to a secular organization. Perhaps the funding is fungible, but what is the purpose of the program? It is to promote safety. Would you deny fire or police protection to the preschool? No officer friendly or stop drop and roll programs?
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's largely beside the point, though: Trinity's curriculum is explicitly religious, and specifically, Christian.

Would you hold the same opinion were the plaintiff an Islamic madrasa? I'm not suggesting you wouldn't, just adding context to the question.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And the purpose of the vast majority of PPs' service is to promote health and safety. On that point, it's a direct equivalence.

Edit: intended reply to wimsey

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Last edited by: sphere: Apr 19, 17 7:00
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[quote windywave][quote wimsey][quote oldandslow][quote]
What is the purpose of the program: further a school or provide safer playgrounds?
[/quote]

Further the school BY providing a newer/safer playground.[/quote]

Right, that would be one way to play the argument. In separate Planned Parenthood threads, some folks made the argument that even if Planned Parenthood is prohibited from using federal funds for abortions, those funds free up other resources that Planned Parenthood could then devote to abortion, and thus there is still in direct support from the government for abortion purposes. Seems like a similar line of reasoning could be argued in this case. Although the playground non-religious in nature, if the school does not have to spend its resources on the playground because it is supported by a government money, they can then use the money saved for other religious purposes.[/quote]

I personally don't think they're analogous. In one case there is discrimination due to religion and the other is denial of funding to a secular organization. Perhaps the funding is fungible, but what is the purpose of the program? It is to promote safety. Would you deny fire or police protection to the preschool? No officer friendly or stop drop and roll programs?[/quote]

I think making it an intent based analysis is challenging. In the Planned Parenthood example, the stated intent is that federal funds should be used for noncontroversial things like mammograms. Personally, I think both Planned Parenthood and the religious school should be able to receive the funding
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
And the purpose of the vast majority of PPs' service is to promote health and safety. On that point, it's a direct equivalence.

Edit: intended reply to wimsey

Agreed
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
JSA wrote:
That's a hell of a slippery slope that could lead to the denial of federal funding to all religion-based institutions from kindergarten to higher education. I went to Jesuit law school and never heard God or Jesus mentioned once.


Trinity is providing an explicitly religious education, unlike your Jesuit law school and my Methodist graduate school. Nothing in my medical training had any relationship to religion whatsoever, either. I take your point. I also took out federal loans and received a small federal grant to attend that school. At the bottom of that slippery slope lay a prohibition on both, I suppose.

Trinity is not providing any religious education on the playground. The MO program was created for two purposes: (1) to dispose of old tires and (2) to protect children. The program has strict reporting requirements that ensure the grant awarded only goes towards the surfacing of the playground. The application process is neutral. Trinity was ranked 5th out of 44 applications submitted, meeting all the criteria. Even though 14 grants were given out, Trinity was omitted once its identity was revealed.

The resurfacing of the playground has no correlation to the teaching of religion. No religious classes are held on the playground and there is no mention of religion at all. The surface of the playground does not promote religion of any kind. Thus, the funds would not, and could not, be used for religious study.

In a 2004 SCOTUS case, Locke v. Davey, the Court upheld the decision by Washington (the state) to deny scholarships to students pursuing theology degrees. The Court laid out the test that the manner in which the funds are used is what must be considered, rather than the recipient of the funds. If the funds were tied to the teaching or pursuit of religion, they could be denied. If they were not specifically tied to the teaching or pursuit of religion, the recipient is irrelevant.

I don't know how SCOTUS will decide. But, if they follow prior precedent, Trinity should prevail, because of the narrow and specific facts in this case.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
That's largely beside the point, though: Trinity's curriculum is explicitly religious, and specifically, Christian.

Would you hold the same opinion were the plaintiff an Islamic madrasa? I'm not suggesting you wouldn't, just adding context to the question.

Same fact set just make it Islamic instead of Lutheran? No change whatsoever in my stance.
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
That's largely beside the point, though: Trinity's curriculum is explicitly religious, and specifically, Christian.

So what? See my earlier response to you. The playing surface of the playground is wholly unrelated to religious teaching.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a legal argument, just expressing and defending my preference. It seems they acted in accordance with the state constitution, though it may well be that the Court rules that prohibition unconstitutional (or that they misapplied an otherwise constitutional prohibition?).

I'm expecting this to go Trinity's way, 5-4. I'm less concerned with Trinity resurfacing it's playground on the taxpayer dime than I am with the implications of the potential ruling that allows it, though, obviously.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a legal argument, just expressing and defending my preference. It seems they acted in accordance with the state constitution, though it may well be that the Court rules that prohibition unconstitutional (or that they misapplied an otherwise constitutional prohibition?).

I'm expecting this to go Trinity's way, 5-4. I'm less concerned with Trinity resurfacing it's playground on the taxpayer dime than I am with the implications of the potential ruling that allows it, though, obviously.

Well, then you are going to be disappointed, regardless of the results of this case. Last week, Missouri announced it had changed the parameters of the program and will now allow religious institutions (including not only schools, but churches) to compete for these and other state grants.

As to the case, here is a key part of the oral argument:

James Layton, who is now an attorney in private practice but was the solicitor general of Missouri when the state filed its briefs in the case last year, argued on behalf of Missouri. Layton told the justices that the state had barred funding from going to religious institutions because it wanted to avoid the appearance that it was both choosing among different churches and making physical improvements to churches.
Layton’s argument did not seem to resonate with most of the justices. Citing a variety of federal programs that provide funding that could flow to religious institutions – for example, a Department of Homeland Security program to improve security near high-risk targets like synagogues or mosques and a program to repair buildings damaged by the bombing at the federal building in Oklahoma City – Alito pressed Layton on whether the state’s policy would bar similar programs. Layton held firm, telling Alito that it would because state money cannot be used for religious institutions.


Layton's argument isn't going to fly. If you accept Layton's position, then no public roads should be built or maintained around churches and other religious institutions. No snow plowing, no garbage collection, no water or sewer lines. No police protection, no fire protection, no ambulance or other first aid.

That position will fail.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
H- wrote:
I don't think it would be reasonable to prohibit planned parenthood from applying for a grant to buy, for instance, a mammogram machine.


I'd be curious to hear how anti-PP conservatives would feel about that.

Does that mean you'd like the thread to move in a a new direction having seen that you were mistaken in your OP in seeing the two positions as consistent.

Why should anyone care who anti-PP conservatives feel? Is public policy based on emotion or on reason?

As someone who is himself an anti-PP conservative, I'll tell you how I'd feel. I'd be a little unhappy and suspicious of PP getting a grant for mammogram machines. However, unless I had good reason to believe PP was being fraudulent and had no intent of starting to provide mammogram services, I believe it would be immoral for me to oppose the grant. Mammogram services (in accordance with current medical protocol) are a good. Opposing a good on speculative claims that "money might be freed up for abortion" etc, would be wrong.

A grant for a specific capital project that is good is much different than general or even specifically targeted operational funding.

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Does that mean you'd like the thread to move in a a new direction having seen that you were mistaken in your OP in seeing the two positions as consistent.


Was that a statement or a question? Your punctuation is puzzling.

If I wanted to change the subject, I'd abandon the thread and start a new one. I'm asking the question because there is a clear similarity between the scenarios: Is it OK for taxpayers to support an organization they don't believe should be receiving taxpayer funds, even if the funds are to be used by that entity for things they are in favor of?

Quote:
Why should anyone care who anti-PP conservatives feel? Is public policy based on emotion or on reason?


I wasn't asking as a means to an end of shaping public policy or opinion. I was simply curious.

Quote:
As someone who is himself an anti-PP conservative, I'll tell you how I'd feel. I'd be a little unhappy and suspicious of PP getting a grant for mammogram machines. However, unless I had good reason to believe PP was being fraudulent and had no intent of starting to provide mammogram services, I believe it would be immoral for me to oppose the grant. Mammogram services (in accordance with current medical protocol) are a good. Opposing a good on speculative claims that "money might be freed up for abortion" etc, would be wrong.


Ok then. Thanks. I don't disagree with that position at all. I think it's an entirely rational viewpoint.

But, back to my hypothetical: if the church received those taxpayer dollars and maintained a policy against allowing certain taxpayers' children to use it, on the religious grounds that they do not allow people in alternative nontraditional families admission, do you think that's an acceptable outcome? Prohibition of directing tax dollars to religious organizations obviates that problem entirely, though as I wrote previously, that constitutional prohibition may be an unnecessarily blunt tool for a condition that would benefit from precision, and I'm entirely open to other alternatives.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Last edited by: sphere: Apr 19, 17 12:15
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
But, back to my hypothetical: if the church received those taxpayer dollars and maintained a policy against allowing certain taxpayers' children to use it, on the religious grounds that they do not allow people in alternative nontraditional families admission, do you think that's an acceptable outcome? Prohibition of directing tax dollars to religious organizations obviates that problem entirely, though as I wrote previously, that constitutional prohibition may be an unnecessarily blunt tool for a condition that would benefit from precision, and I'm entirely open to other alternatives.

The problem you keep running into is where to draw the line.

In the case of the MO playground surface case, the intent of the MO grant was twofold: (1) get rid of old tires and (2) protect children. Those goals are furthered by issuing the grant to Trinity school. It's religious affiliation is irrelevant.

In each case, we must determine the purpose of the federal funding and ask whether it is furthered by issuing the funds to the religious institution. If the goal is furthered, then the recipient is irrelevant. If the goal is not furthered, then the grant should not be issued, regardless of recipient. This is not just limited to religious institutions, but to all institutions receiving tax dollars.

Federal funds are used for all sorts of purposes people are against from war to welfare to etc. In each case, the questions have to be asked - what is the purpose of the expenditure and is that purpose furthered by granting the funds in this case?

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
some other examples of state aid (maybe not in MO), are providing eye exams, hearing tests, speech services to children at religious schools. You could say the school benefits, but I think the state sees it as way to provide services no matter if they attend public, private, or religious schools. Religion is not furthered by any of those activities.
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
sphere wrote:

But, back to my hypothetical: if the church received those taxpayer dollars and maintained a policy against allowing certain taxpayers' children to use it, on the religious grounds that they do not allow people in alternative nontraditional families admission, do you think that's an acceptable outcome? Prohibition of directing tax dollars to religious organizations obviates that problem entirely, though as I wrote previously, that constitutional prohibition may be an unnecessarily blunt tool for a condition that would benefit from precision, and I'm entirely open to other alternatives.


The problem you keep running into is where to draw the line.

In the case of the MO playground surface case, the intent of the MO grant was twofold: (1) get rid of old tires and (2) protect children. Those goals are furthered by issuing the grant to Trinity school. It's religious affiliation is irrelevant.

In each case, we must determine the purpose of the federal funding and ask whether it is furthered by issuing the funds to the religious institution. If the goal is furthered, then the recipient is irrelevant. If the goal is not furthered, then the grant should not be issued, regardless of recipient. This is not just limited to religious institutions, but to all institutions receiving tax dollars.

Federal funds are used for all sorts of purposes people are against from war to welfare to etc. In each case, the questions have to be asked - what is the purpose of the expenditure and is that purpose furthered by granting the funds in this case?

It's a compelling argument, but from a legal perspective, how does a compelling argument stack up against a state constitutional prohibition? From a purely logical perspective, they should be allowed to receive the grant. The state constitution ostensibly prohibits it. Which party has claim to the overriding interest, and if Trinity prevails, what becomes of that provision in the state constitution?

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
JSA wrote:
sphere wrote:

But, back to my hypothetical: if the church received those taxpayer dollars and maintained a policy against allowing certain taxpayers' children to use it, on the religious grounds that they do not allow people in alternative nontraditional families admission, do you think that's an acceptable outcome? Prohibition of directing tax dollars to religious organizations obviates that problem entirely, though as I wrote previously, that constitutional prohibition may be an unnecessarily blunt tool for a condition that would benefit from precision, and I'm entirely open to other alternatives.


The problem you keep running into is where to draw the line.

In the case of the MO playground surface case, the intent of the MO grant was twofold: (1) get rid of old tires and (2) protect children. Those goals are furthered by issuing the grant to Trinity school. It's religious affiliation is irrelevant.

In each case, we must determine the purpose of the federal funding and ask whether it is furthered by issuing the funds to the religious institution. If the goal is furthered, then the recipient is irrelevant. If the goal is not furthered, then the grant should not be issued, regardless of recipient. This is not just limited to religious institutions, but to all institutions receiving tax dollars.

Federal funds are used for all sorts of purposes people are against from war to welfare to etc. In each case, the questions have to be asked - what is the purpose of the expenditure and is that purpose furthered by granting the funds in this case?


It's a compelling argument, but from a legal perspective, how does a compelling argument stack up against a state constitutional prohibition? From a purely logical perspective, they should be allowed to receive the grant. The state constitution ostensibly prohibits it. Which party has claim to the overriding interest, and if Trinity prevails, what becomes of that provision in the state constitution?

Article IX, Section 8 of the Missouri constitution was written in 1875, right around the same time Missouri instituted Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, which prohibited the state from emancipating slaves and prohibited "free negroes" from from entering and settling in the state.

So, you are on really rocky ground if you want to argue the power of a state's constitution to impose such a restriction.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So how does this typically play out, presuming Trinity prevails? Does the State Constitution require a rewrite, or do they rule that the statute cannot apply to the present situation?

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
So how does this typically play out, presuming Trinity prevails? Does the State Constitution require a rewrite, or do they rule that the statute cannot apply to the present situation?

Well, first, remember MO changed the grant plan last week to include churches and other religious institutions in the grant process. So, as it pertains to the playground surface grant, it is now moot. However, if Trinity prevails, MO will likely be required to provide a grant to Trinity.

As to the larger issue, depends on how the decision reads. Courts strive to limit their decisions to the extent necessary to resolve the immediate issue before them. If they adhere to that, the Court will likely find the issuance of the playground surface grant to Trinity does not constitute the furtherance of religion by the state. Therefore, the Court could merely order MO to consider matters like this outside the state constitution's prohibition, rather than directing that any portion of the state constitution violates the federal Constitution and needs to be changed.

My personal view is that the Court will find MO's constitutional provision to be over-broad and, therefore, in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution, thus invalidating the MO constitutional provision to the extent it is over-broad. To correct the provision, MO would be forced to amend the provision to prohibit funding for the furtherance of religious education/practice only.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Update:

Quote:
The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

Trinity Lutheran v. Comer is the first-ever case to hold that governments have to provide money directly to a house of worship.


The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the state of Missouri cannot deny public funds to a church simply because it is a religious organization.

Seven justices affirmed the judgment in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, albeit with some disagreement about the reasoning behind it. The major church-state case could potentially expand the legal understanding of the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is also the first time the Supreme Court has ruled that governments must provide money directly to a house of worship, which could have implications for future policy fights—including funding for private, religious charter schools.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/trinity-lutheran/531399/

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Last edited by: sphere: Jun 26, 17 10:24
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
Update:

Quote:
The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

Trinity Lutheran v. Comer is the first-ever case to hold that governments have to provide money directly to a house of worship.


The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the state of Missouri cannot deny public funds to a church simply because it is a religious organization.

Seven justices affirmed the judgment in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, albeit with some disagreement about the reasoning behind it. The major church-state case could potentially expand the legal understanding of the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is also the first time the Supreme Court has ruled that governments must provide money directly to a house of worship, which could have implications for future policy fights—including funding for private, religious charter schools.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/trinity-lutheran/531399/

The italics is a bit misleading and IIRC wrong.
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bigger news is it was 7-2 Kagan in concurrence
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kagen in particular, or just that an Obama appointee would side with them? I'm not all that surprised either way.

Quote:
“The result of the State’s policy is nothing so dramatic as the denial of political office,” (Roberts) wrote. “But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”


I take the point, but Church has historically held itself out as other, as exemplified by their tax-exempt status. I wonder if that same status applies to their function as a school, and if so, I think Sotomayor makes an obviously concerning point. Should an entity that defines itself as other at the same time pay no taxes while receiving tax dollars for improvement to their infrastructure, regardless of its use?

Quote:
The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.


It should go without saying that I would have that same concern regarding any entity that would enjoy that same zero-pay-in, benefit-recipient status, religious or secular. But, of course, nothing around here can go without saying.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Last edited by: sphere: Jun 26, 17 10:43
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
sphere wrote:
Update:

Quote:
The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

Trinity Lutheran v. Comer is the first-ever case to hold that governments have to provide money directly to a house of worship.


The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the state of Missouri cannot deny public funds to a church simply because it is a religious organization.

Seven justices affirmed the judgment in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, albeit with some disagreement about the reasoning behind it. The major church-state case could potentially expand the legal understanding of the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is also the first time the Supreme Court has ruled that governments must provide money directly to a house of worship, which could have implications for future policy fights—including funding for private, religious charter schools.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/trinity-lutheran/531399/


The italics is a bit misleading and IIRC wrong.

No kidding! This is why you cannot trust media reports of court cases. The Court did NOT rule "that governments must provide money directly to a house of worship." Wow.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
First of all, money was not given directly to a church. That did not happen at all. We need to start with Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution, which reads as follows:

"That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship."

See the bold section.

In this case, public funds were available for playground surfaces. The intent of the program was two-fold: (1) protect kids and (2) get rid of old tires. Trinity qualified for the playground surface. But for it being affiliated with a church, the school would have received the surface. It was discriminated against because it is affiliated with a church. In addition, providing the surface to the playground promotes the two goals of the program and does not foster religious teaching because it is a playground.


Here is another key point from page 11 of the decision:

"Trinity Lutheran is not claiming any entitlement to a subsidy. It instead asserts a right to participate in a government benefit program without having to disavow its religious character."

Exactly.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:

It should go without saying that I would have that same concern regarding any entity that would enjoy that same zero-pay-in, benefit-recipient status, religious or secular. But, of course, nothing around here can go without saying.

So, what are you saying here? Because the church is tax exempt, it should not get any funding from the government, like in this case?

Hmmmmm. Public schools do not pay income taxes or property taxes. So, why should the state of MO provide this playground surface to any public school in the state that enjoys a "zero-pay-in" status?

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
In this case, public funds were available for playground surfaces. The intent of the program was two-fold: (1) protect kids and (2) get rid of old tires. Trinity qualified for the playground surface. But for it being affiliated with a church, the school would have received the surface. It was discriminated against because it is affiliated with a church. In addition, providing the surface to the playground promotes the two goals of the program and does not foster religious teaching because it is a playground.




Just a playground....Righhhttttt.



Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 "Public schools do not pay income taxes or property taxes."

Because they are payed for by taxes.
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [Tibbsy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tibbsy wrote:
"Public schools do not pay income taxes or property taxes."

Because they are payed for by taxes.

And? What does that have to do with my response to sphere?

Teachers pay income taxes. Guess where their salaries come from ...

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
And? What does that have to do with my response to sphere?

Public schools are a public resource, paid for by public tax dollars. Churches are private resources funded by private contributions, conspicuously existing outside of the tax revenue stream.

I'm not saying that warrants a different ruling, just pointing out the obvious differences, since apparently that was necessary.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What Sphere said. Thanks Sphere.
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I wonder where the line would be for this Court, if one exists.

If a state's building code was updated for safety reasons, and a public grant was available to retrofit gathering places at risk, should the church be able to participate in that program, even though it was built and maintained for explicitly religious activities? Should that be viewed differently from a church's playground that is arguably not used for religion-related purposes?

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ThisIsIt wrote:
sphere wrote:
Setting aside the constitutional question, it's a compelling argument. It also brings to mind the Planned Parenthood predicament. I think it's reasonable to prohibit them from receiving taxpayer dollars so long as they're in the abortion business, even though tax dollars don't go directly to those services.

I may be wrong, but at least I'm consistent.


Why? What part of the constitution separates the feds from abortion?

The Hyde Amendment prohibits the federal government from funding abortion activity.
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
I wonder where the line would be for this Court, if one exists.

If a state's building code was updated for safety reasons, and a public grant was available to retrofit gathering places at risk, should the church be able to participate in that program, even though it was built and maintained for explicitly religious activities? Should that be viewed differently from a church's playground that is arguably not used for religion-related purposes?

To me that's a no brainer they should be able to participate strictly on a public safety argument
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
Kagen in particular, or just that an Obama appointee would side with them? I'm not all that surprised either way.

Quote:
“The result of the State’s policy is nothing so dramatic as the denial of political office,” (Roberts) wrote. “But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”


I take the point, but Church has historically held itself out as other, as exemplified by their tax-exempt status. I wonder if that same status applies to their function as a school, and if so, I think Sotomayor makes an obviously concerning point. Should an entity that defines itself as other at the same time pay no taxes while receiving tax dollars for improvement to their infrastructure, regardless of its use?

Quote:
The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.


It should go without saying that I would have that same concern regarding any entity that would enjoy that same zero-pay-in, benefit-recipient status, religious or secular. But, of course, nothing around here can go without saying.

I grant Kagan is not as politicized of the two but I expected her to vote against based on some previous works. The fact she concurred fully (instead of judgement only) leads me to respect her as a jurist more in that in this case she's not a political animal
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
Quote:
And? What does that have to do with my response to sphere?


Public schools are a public resource, paid for by public tax dollars. Churches are private resources funded by private contributions, conspicuously existing outside of the tax revenue stream.

I'm not saying that warrants a different ruling, just pointing out the obvious differences, since apparently that was necessary.

Then you need to explain your earlier post. You said:

sphere wrote:
It should go without saying that I would have that same concern regarding any entity that would enjoy that same zero-pay-in, benefit-recipient status, religious or secular. But, of course, nothing around here can go without saying.
It certainly appears your position is - churches don't "pay-in" to the "system" by way of being tax exempt. Because they don't "pay-in," then they should not be a "recipient" of government funds.

Well, public schools do not "pay-in" either. They contribute nothing to the revenue stream. So, why should they be a "recipient" of this public program when they do not contribute to the revenue stream?

The funding for this MO program comes from tax payers all over the state. Childless individuals and couples pay a large portion of those taxes. Having no children, they receive no direct benefit from the public schools. But, they do enjoy the identified benefits of the program, which are: (1) removal of waste, i.e., the tires and (2) safety to children, i.e., all children, including those on Medicaid benefits that, if injured, would consume tax dollars. It does not matter whether those two objectives are applied to a public school or Trinity Lutheran. Those two goals/benefits are still met.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [Tibbsy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tibbsy wrote:
What Sphere said. Thanks Sphere.

Doesn't answer the question. See my response to sphere.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
I wonder where the line would be for this Court, if one exists.

If a state's building code was updated for safety reasons, and a public grant was available to retrofit gathering places at risk, should the church be able to participate in that program, even though it was built and maintained for explicitly religious activities? Should that be viewed differently from a church's playground that is arguably not used for religion-related purposes?


Read footnote 3 on page 14:

This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity
with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious
uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.



That answers your question.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Last edited by: JSA: Jun 26, 17 14:43
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fuck! Shit that burn.
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
It certainly appears your position is - churches don't "pay-in" to the "system" by way of being tax exempt. Because they don't "pay-in," then they should not be a "recipient" of government funds.

Well, public schools do not "pay-in" either. They contribute nothing to the revenue stream. So, why should they be a "recipient" of this public program when they do not contribute to the revenue stream?


Public schools don't pay into the system, because they are the system--an intrinsic component, a direct recipient of tax funding, by design. They're not other, as are religious institutions that explicitly set themselves apart from the state.

Quote:
The funding for this MO program comes from tax payers all over the state. Childless individuals and couples pay a large portion of those taxes. Having no children, they receive no direct benefit from the public schools. But, they do enjoy the identified benefits of the program, which are: (1) removal of waste, i.e., the tires and (2) safety to children, i.e., all children, including those on Medicaid benefits that, if injured, would consume tax dollars. It does not matter whether those two objectives are applied to a public school or Trinity Lutheran. Those two goals/benefits are still met.


I understand that, and I don't strenuously object to the ruling. I referenced the building code scenario because this ruling seems to tread on the slippery slope, and leaves open the question of where the line should be drawn with respect to directing tax dollars to religious organizations. Windy seems to think it would be a "no brainer," that a church should be able to receive tax dollars to make structural upgrades to their sanctuary if it provides for, or improves "public safety" even though it's a private, tax-exempt, religious institution. I suspect the court might disagree with him, there, but now, who really knows.

I mean, isn't building or fortifying a place of worship what most reasonable people would agree is not the business of the state?

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Last edited by: sphere: Jun 26, 17 18:51
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
Quote:
It certainly appears your position is - churches don't "pay-in" to the "system" by way of being tax exempt. Because they don't "pay-in," then they should not be a "recipient" of government funds.

Well, public schools do not "pay-in" either. They contribute nothing to the revenue stream. So, why should they be a "recipient" of this public program when they do not contribute to the revenue stream?


Public schools don't pay into the system, because they are the system--an intrinsic component, a direct recipient of tax funding, by design. They're not other, as are religious institutions that explicitly set themselves apart from the state.

Ok, so what did you mean by "pay-in?" There are a shit-ton of tax exempt organizations that have no religious affiliation. They do not "pay-in" either. So, is it your position they should be barred from state programs such as this one in MO?

See, e.g.,: https://www.irs.gov/...itable-organizations


sphere wrote:
Quote:
The funding for this MO program comes from tax payers all over the state. Childless individuals and couples pay a large portion of those taxes. Having no children, they receive no direct benefit from the public schools. But, they do enjoy the identified benefits of the program, which are: (1) removal of waste, i.e., the tires and (2) safety to children, i.e., all children, including those on Medicaid benefits that, if injured, would consume tax dollars. It does not matter whether those two objectives are applied to a public school or Trinity Lutheran. Those two goals/benefits are still met.


I understand that, and I don't strenuously object to the ruling. I referenced the building code scenario because this ruling seems to tread on the slippery slope, and leaves open the question of where the line should be drawn with respect to directing tax dollars to religious organizations. Windy seems to think it would be a "no brainer," that a church should be able to receive tax dollars to make structural upgrades to their sanctuary if it provides for, or improves "public safety" even though it's a private (not public, as is the case with the playground), tax-exempt, religious institution. I suspect the court might disagree with him, there, but now, who really knows.


Well, I pointed you to Footnote 3, which effectively shuts down your concern. Did you read it?

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What you cited seems to suggest they limited the scope of their ruling to the narrow specifics of this case. How does that address my broader concern? Perhaps I misread.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
What you cited seems to suggest they limited the scope of their ruling to the narrow specifics of this case. How does that address my broader concern? Perhaps I misread.

You said the case has the potential for creating a slippery slope. It appears SCOTUS feared the same thing, so they expressly stated their decision cannot be read to apply to a broader situation.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ah. You're misunderstanding me.

I'm not saying this establishes precedent. I'm saying this plots a point on a slippery slope (IMO; reference windywave's response) of how and when tax dollars can justifiably be used to benefit religious entities and their congregants. My question was about how they might rule on a separate but related question, and the footnote you provided gave no indication one way or the other, because of the limited focus of their ruling.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
Ah. You're misunderstanding me.

I'm not saying this establishes precedent. I'm saying this plots a point on a slippery slope (IMO; reference windywave's response) of how and when tax dollars can justifiably be used to benefit religious entities and their congregants. My question was about how they might rule on a separate but related question, and the footnote you provided gave no indication one way or the other, because of the limited focus of their ruling.

I don't read it that way. When SCOTUS drops that footnote like this, it does suggest how they would rule on a broader question or on different facts. This says, "yeah, we voted this way on playground surfacing, but don't think for a moment we would vote this way on another set of fact" like, perhaps, your question regarding building repairs on the actual church building.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:

You said the case has the potential for creating a slippery slope. It appears SCOTUS feared the same thing, so they expressly stated their decision cannot be read to apply to a broader situation.


What set of facts or circumstances distinguishes playgrounds from other infrastructure or services? What about other "secular" infrastructure," e.g. the cafeteria, the library? I don't see the rationale for carving out this "exception."
Last edited by: trail: Jun 27, 17 7:44
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
JSA wrote:

You said the case has the potential for creating a slippery slope. It appears SCOTUS feared the same thing, so they expressly stated their decision cannot be read to apply to a broader situation.


What set of facts or circumstances distinguishes playgrounds from other infrastructure or services? What about other "secular" infrastructure," e.g. the cafeteria, the library? I don't see the rationale for carving out this "exception."

The Court mentioned a few things that sets this apart. First, they pointed out the two goals of the MO program: (1) get rid of old tires and (2) protect kids on playgrounds. They pointed out that these goals were met in the case of Trinity. Second, they looked at prior SCOTUS cases and asked, is this being used for a religious purpose or merely given to a religious institution. They held the paving of a playground was not to further a religious purpose. Trinity used the funds in the exact same manner as any public school. Finally, they noted that the playground does not promote religious training/education/etc.

So, these are items the Court recognized.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I don't read it that way. When SCOTUS drops that footnote like this, it does suggest how they would rule on a broader question or on different facts. This says, "yeah, we voted this way on playground surfacing, but don't think for a moment we would vote this way on another set of fact" like, perhaps, your question regarding building repairs on the actual church building.

Given your experience in these things, I'll take your word for it.

What would be the deciding factor in the scenario I referenced, involving grants for structural retrofitting as it pertains to a synagogue's primary structure, presuming they would, as you imply, uphold a ban on their inclusion in the program? Primary use?

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm pretty liberal but at the same time am aware that churches provide one of the most affordable pre-school options in many communities. I see no reason why they should not be able to apply for grants like other pre-schools. If they are the best candidate based on need, availability and services provided I see no reason they should not be able to get their playground resurfaced. As long as their programs are open to the public- rather than limited to church members.
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
Quote:
I don't read it that way. When SCOTUS drops that footnote like this, it does suggest how they would rule on a broader question or on different facts. This says, "yeah, we voted this way on playground surfacing, but don't think for a moment we would vote this way on another set of fact" like, perhaps, your question regarding building repairs on the actual church building.


Given your experience in these things, I'll take your word for it.

What would be the deciding factor in the scenario I referenced, involving grants for structural retrofitting as it pertains to a synagogue's primary structure, presuming they would, as you imply, uphold a ban on their inclusion in the program? Primary use?

In the Trinity Lutheran case, SCOTUS distinguished this case from prior similar cases. They used, for example, a case involving a scholarship program that denied a scholarship to an applicant who wanted to use it to pursue a divinity degree (Locke v. Davey). SCOTUS pointed out the scholarship could have been used at a religious institution to pursue a non-religious degree. But, the State of Washington was not required to fund a divinity degree. SCOTUS looked not at who the applicant was, but what the applicant wanted to do with the funding.

If we apply that analysis here, I can see a situation in which SCOTUS would uphold a decision to withhold funds from a church to repair the church b/c the funds would go to a structure used in the furtherance of religious practice. I believe the majority of SCOTUS sees this potential issue, which is why it included Footnote 3.

So, I believe the analysis would focus on primary use, as you suggest. Now, here is where we run into a grey area - what about the roof of a parochial school? That would be a tougher decision. Obviously, the school provides non-religious education. But, it also provides religious instruction. What about a parking lot of a parochial school that also has a church attached? What about a parking lot of a parochial school that does not have a church attached? Those would a much closer arguments which would depend heavily on the facts and the express terms of and purpose of the grant programs.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Can't speak of the legality, but from a philosophical perspective, I don't really have a problem with this provided that this kind of funding is doled out in a fair manner. I don't see why a religious group should have any less access to playground rubber than any other group. Now if the Christians were getting all the rubber and the Jews were getting none, etc. it would be a problem.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply