Supreme Court justices show support for church, in Gorsuch's 1st high-profile case

[yuna628 9,676]

11 hours ago, ccneat said:

yeah but arent we talking about a jungle gym and rings for kids?  How is that establishing religion?

Well here's the thing: As a church (and the article does admit that it aims to do whatever 'non-profit' things it does with a religion centered message) how are you going to ensure that any sort of religious promotion and preaching to kids or families while on the playground property isn't going on? It's not a far stretch to also say that typically those that play on a church's playground, are going to be kids directly associated with the church to begin with - and not the general public at large. TBH, if it's a church's playground and it's on their property I really don't see why their members don't care about their own kids enough to raise the funds for improvements and why the government should be giving really anyone a grant for funds to improve it. A church has a significant benefit of fundraising power than other non-profits have (I have a problem with calling many churches non-profits as to some degree the money they collect gets used for profits but.. I digress). And once you provide funds to one church for this, other churches may step forward and request similar handouts for all this and other things. If the state denies one church but mysteriously accepts another (for legit or wrong reasons) churches could then litigate for discrimination (like in the court case of a Mosque that was discriminated against wanting a building permit vs a Baptist church). It's not that the church doesn't have some sort of an argument here, as Kagen does point out, but it's that you start down a sort of slippery slope. We already walk a fine line when we encounter funds going towards voucher programs and religious charter schools - or even religious homeschoolers that want to participate playing in city or state-run schools sports programs when they are not registered students there. The Constitution sort of prohibits things, and the state Constitution certainly prohibits it (their governor just ignored all that... and that's how they are now in court).

11 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I am not sure but I think we are agreeing on this issue sorta, but from different angles.  The constitution and precedent are  clear , the state constitution can not supersede a power reserved to the federal govt by the constitution. 

 

The state could not abridge free speech, by writing it into it's constitution. 

 

Now I am sure some layer may come along and set us all straight , with some fancy book werds.

We are agreeing yes. I just kind of think it shouldn't have reached a court case to begin with if the governor of the state had handled his job with it's checks and balances appropriately. The church can be all butt-hurt about it, but I think the church can come up with the money on their own to improve their own playground.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Well here's the thing: As a church (and the article does admit that it aims to do whatever 'non-profit' things it does with a religion centered message) how are you going to ensure that any sort of religious promotion and preaching to kids or families while on the playground property isn't going on? It's not a far stretch to also say that typically those that play on a church's playground, are going to be kids directly associated with the church to begin with - and not the general public at large. TBH, if it's a church's playground and it's on their property I really don't see why their members don't care about their own kids enough to raise the funds for improvements and why the government should be giving really anyone a grant for funds to improve it. A church has a significant benefit of fundraising power than other non-profits have (I have a problem with calling many churches non-profits as to some degree the money they collect gets used for profits but.. I digress). And once you provide funds to one church for this, other churches may step forward and request similar handouts for all this and other things. If the state denies one church but mysteriously accepts another (for legit or wrong reasons) churches could then litigate for discrimination (like in the court case of a Mosque that was discriminated against wanting a building permit vs a Baptist church). It's not that the church doesn't have some sort of an argument here, as Kagen does point out, but it's that you start down a sort of slippery slope. We already walk a fine line when we encounter funds going towards voucher programs and religious charter schools - or even religious homeschoolers that want to participate playing in city or state-run schools sports programs when they are not registered students there. The Constitution sort of prohibits things, and the state Constitution certainly prohibits it (their governor just ignored all that... and that's how they are now in court).

We are agreeing yes. I just kind of think it shouldn't have reached a court case to begin with if the governor of the state had handled his job with it's checks and balances appropriately. The church can be all butt-hurt about it, but I think the church can come up with the money on their own to improve their own playground.

OK don't judge me (not a pun) because I am not current on this cases particulars..but I don't things in life break down into such crisp lines. If we have government cheese to distribute and the food bank is in the basement if a church are we going to say"sorry folks gotta starve because of the separation of church and state"? At some point it becomes impossible to split the service provider from the associated group.  If I wheel my daughter into Sisters of Providence with a broken arm...I am not going to get hung up on the fact that the doctor was trained at a state school with federal funding or that there is a picture of the Pope on the wall..just heal the arm.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Maven is currently veryvery busy but will contribute her considered opinion in the next couple of days.

 

I sorta miss you weirdos. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

11 hours ago, ccneat said:

OK don't judge me (not a pun) because I am not current on this cases particulars..but I don't things in life break down into such crisp lines. If we have government cheese to distribute and the food bank is in the basement if a church are we going to say"sorry folks gotta starve because of the separation of church and state"? At some point it becomes impossible to split the service provider from the associated group.  If I wheel my daughter into Sisters of Providence with a broken arm...I am not going to get hung up on the fact that the doctor was trained at a state school with federal funding or that there is a picture of the Pope on the wall..just heal the arm.

I agree it is a very very muddy line. No real clear cut issue here.  I would lean toward keeping the firewall between religion and state clear, but iits not a slam dunk for me. 

Slam dunk government over reaches like United States vs jones are easy, but honestly I could be swayed in this one 

[yuna628 9,676]

11 hours ago, ccneat said:

OK don't judge me (not a pun) because I am not current on this cases particulars..but I don't things in life break down into such crisp lines. If we have government cheese to distribute and the food bank is in the basement if a church are we going to say"sorry folks gotta starve because of the separation of church and state"? At some point it becomes impossible to split the service provider from the associated group.  If I wheel my daughter into Sisters of Providence with a broken arm...I am not going to get hung up on the fact that the doctor was trained at a state school with federal funding or that there is a picture of the Pope on the wall..just heal the arm.

The Constitution isn't really written in a way that doesn't really get into specific and unique situations. The fear is once you overstep in one area even if is seemingly harmless, it opens a pathway for other situations which might be harmful. These are the sorts of questions the court has to consider, because yes at some point it becomes nearly impossible to split, as you mentioned -  a provider from the group. I like clearly defined boundaries, but life doesn't work that way of course... but still I'd want to know why the church cannot raise such funding themselves. I feel like the state has a responsibility to provide for it's own public infrastructure - and a church that has a clear separation should provide for it's own stuff too. I understand the argument on both sides... but it still puzzles me why the church decided to spend so much money litigating this... money that could have been spent improving the playground in the first place. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2016/10/31/when-can-state-tax-dollars-go-to-church-run-programs

Edited April 21, 2017 by yuna628