Another Church and State Ruling Today...

[Lord Jim]

The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

Trinity Lutheran v. Comer finds that governments can’t discriminate against churches that would otherwise qualify for funding just because they’re religious institutions.

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.

Trinity Lutheran is a big case that hinges on mundane facts. In 2012, when Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri applied for a state grant to resurface its playground, it was ranked as a strong potential candidate for the program. Ultimately, though, Missouri denied the funding under a state constitutional provision that prohibits public money from going to religious organizations and houses of worship. “There is no question that Trinity Lutheran was denied a grant simply because of what it is,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in his decision for the majority. “A church.”

The case focused on whether this decision conflicts with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and specifically whether Missouri was violating the free-exercise clause by preventing Trinity Lutheran from participating in a secular, neutral aid program. On Monday, the court overwhelmingly agreed that the answer was “yes.”

“In this case, there is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice between being a church and receiving a government benefit,” wrote Roberts. “The rule is simple: No churches need apply.” While this case concerns Missouri, many states have their own versions of the constitutional provision Missouri used to deny money to Trinity Lutheran—they’re often referred to as “Blaine amendments,” based on their historical grounding in suspicion toward Catholics. This decision could open the way to widespread challenges to the application of these provisions.

Even though the facts of the case may seem inconsequential—the difference between a few knees scraped on a rough pea-gavel playground—the stakes of the decision were high, Roberts wrote. He compared Missouri’s actions to 200-year-old efforts in places like Maryland to prohibit certain individuals from running public office simply because of their faith. “The result of the State’s policy is nothing so dramatic as the denial of political office,” he 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.”

This was the key argument of the majority opinion: Trinity Lutheran faced discrimination because of its identity as a church. Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Elena Kagan, Roberts included a caveat intended to limit the scope of the decision—it’s about who is getting the money, not how the money is used. “This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing,” he noted in a footnote. “We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.”

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas were skeptical of this distinction. “The Court leaves open the possibility a useful distinction might be drawn between laws that discriminate on the basis of religious status and religious use,” Gorsuch wrote in a brief dissent to the footnote. “Respectfully, I harbor doubts about the stability of such a line. Does a religious man say grace before dinner? Or does a man begin his meal in a religious manner? Is it a religious group that built the playground? Or did a group build the playground so it might be used to advance a religious mission?” Outside of their “modest qualifications” to the majority decision, though, Thomas and Gorsuch both affirmed the majority.

While Justice Stephen Breyer concurred with the judgment of the court, he was eager to limit its finding. The court had previously ruled that governments can’t deny general services like police and fire protection to houses of worship, he wrote. “Here, the State would cut Trinity Lutheran off from participation in a general program designed to secure or to improve the health and safety of children. I see no significant difference.” [That pretty well sums up my thinking about this.]He agreed that the court should find in favor of Trinity Lutheran, but “I would leave the application of the Free Exercise Clause to other kinds of public benefits for another day,” he said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... an/531399/

[Scooter]

Not having read the scope of the whole ruling, I don't have any problem with its application in this case. The funds are not being put to any religious use. I would have a problem if, as intimated in the article, the ruling were to be extended to, for example, government grants to religious schools, because I don't believe that it is possible in such cases to segregate the religious nature of the institution from the purpose for which the grants are to be spent.

[Big RR]

This is an interesting case and I will try to read the entire opinion. Personally, I think a government has no business in handing over tax dollars to a religious institution except to the extent that it provides a secular service, and this is one step closer to providing tax dollars to pay for religious schools.

Scooter--as I said, I haven't seen the entire opinion, but so far as I can see, this is a private playground on church property; I have no business in asking the government to pave the swing set area in my yard either (even if I let neighborhood kids play on it). And anything a religious intatitution does should, IMHO, be seen as inherently religious.

[Scooter]

Again, not having read the ruling, my take would be that if the funds were available to any other not-for-profit organization operating a playground, they should not be refused to a church for the same purpose. If the playground is being used for some organized programming connected with the church and with a religious flavour, that would be a different story.

[Lord Jim]

I think the headline of the Atlantic article I posted in the OP:

The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Barrier

really overstates the scope of the decision here...

If you look not just at what Breyer said, but what Robert's said writing for the majority:

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Elena Kagan, Roberts included a caveat intended to limit the scope of the decision—it’s about who is getting the money, not how the money is used. “This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing,” he noted in a footnote. “We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.”

I think the Court issued a prudent and deliberately limited ruling. I don't see how there can be much question that using government money to improve the safety of a children's play area (funds that the locality has chosen to make available to non-religious schools) serves a secular purpose, just as providing street crossing guards at government expense for kids at the beginning and end of the school day does.

[Big RR]

Jim--I have to disagree; everything a religious institution does is for a religious purpose; if this playground is made available to the local children is done so precisely to expose them to the church's message and religion. they are bringing peple to the church's property where they will inevitable see religious symbols and messages, put there in the hope that some may come to inquire further and maybe even join them. Nothing sinister there, but I just don't think public funds should be dedicated to this (and I imagine if this was the Church of Satan (or even a mosque) I'd bet that the majority would have found quite differently).

Indeed, re the distinction you raised, Gorsuch and Thomas dismissed that as problematic, stating " Is it a religious group that built the playground? Or did a group build the playground so it might be used to advance a religious mission." I do not think it is possible to divorce what a religious institution does from an inherently religious purpose.

Personally, I have no problem with public funds being used for safety off school grounds (like crossing guards).

Scooter--but a church is not just any other not for profit; it enjoys special status under the constitution and exists to promote its religious message.

[Lord Jim]

I do not think it is possible to divorce what a religious institution does from an inherently religious purpose.

Well, I don't see us coming to any agreement on that...

What if instead of resurfacing a playground the issue had been providing money to install low flow toilets? Is it your position that bathrooms located at religious institutions also serve "an inherently religious purpose"?

[Scooter]

The closest analogy I can draw is something I have seen here - there is a dearth of affordable day care spaces in this city, and there are government subsidies available to assist not-for-profit day care providers to make their services affordable to parents who need them. Some churches have opened day cares in their basements or other suitable non-worship spaces, and they are very attractive options for low income families, because their rates only need to account for staffing and other direct costs of running the day care (the costs for the space being covered by other means i.e. usually the building is already paid for, building utilities are not allocated to the day care program, etc.). Is there any intrinsic difference between a day care space provided by these churches and those provided by non-religious organizations, simply because they are located in a church building? I would say no, and apparently governments here agree, since they are eligible for government subsidies.

[Big RR]

I agree with that as well Scooter, it is then the church allowing its building to be used by others for a secular purpose. However, I would imagine there would be a very different if the church ran the day care/nursery school itself.

Jim--aren't toilet used to keep the pews fresh-smelling?

But seriously, they are not public conveniences but for use when in the church. there may possibly be some public benefit that would be served if everyone changed their toilets to suit the sewer system, but absent that I would not support replacing the church's toilets at public expense either. And FWIW, I would think many churches would oppose getting the public monies because this could also involve the government intruding into how they use their space (no crosses within 100 feet of the playground or rest room, no religious posters or messages, etc.). it's better to keep the church and the government very separate so neither tries to control the other.

[Crackpot]

I know I save all my proselytizing for the playground

[Big RR]

There's an oft-quoted statistic in Christian churches that if you don't "get" them by the time they're 10 or so (some say 12) you've lost them. The playground plays right into this.

Kind of like the Salvation Army giving drunks donuts--there's an alterior motive.

[RayThom]

There's an oft-quoted statistic in Christian churches that if you don't "get" them by the time they're 10 or so (some say 12) you've lost them.

The Hitler Youth Corp was founded on the same principle.

[rubato]

The catholic church used to kidnap Huguenot children for that same reason. Maybe that is why they kidnapped and sold 50,000 children under Franco, oh, wait, no that was just for the money.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's an excellent argument for allowing only atheists to have contact with children.

[Bicycle Bill]

That's an excellent argument for allowing only atheists to have contact with children.

It would have been nice if you had included a sentence or two to let us know just what the pie chart was supposed to be representing.

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

Another survey -- by the International Bible Society -- indicated that 83% of all Christians make their commitment to Jesus between the ages of 4 and 14, that is, when they are children or early youth. The Barna Research Group surveys demonstrate that American children ages 5 to 13 have a 32% probability of accepting Christ, but youth or teens aged 14 to 18 have only a 4% probability of doing so. Adults age 19 and over have just a 6% probability of becoming Christians.
This data illustrates the importance of influencing children to consider making a decision to follow Christ.
Because the 4-14 period slice of the pie is so large, many have started referring to the "4-14 Window." Many people serving as career cross-cultural missionaries have testified that they first felt God calling them to missionary service during that 4-14 age period.

Good point, Bill. Oversight on my part.

[Lord Jim]

Gee, a thread about a limited Supreme Court ruling regarding re-surfacing of a playground area has somehow come to involve Huguenots and Franco...

Don't forget the Spanish Inquisition...