"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

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

What Sphere said. Thanks Sphere.

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

The Hyde Amendment prohibits the federal government from funding abortion activity.

To me that's a no brainer they should be able to participate strictly on a public safety argument

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

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

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

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

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

Fuck! Shit that burn.

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.



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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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