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

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

[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

Agreed

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

Same fact set just make it Islamic instead of Lutheran? No change whatsoever in my stance.

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

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

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

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

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?



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



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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Update:

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

The italics is a bit misleading and IIRC wrong.

bigger news is it was 7-2 Kagan in concurrence

Kagen in particular, or just that an Obama appointee would side with them? I'm not all that surprised either way.



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?



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

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

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

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

Just a playground....Righhhttttt.