A victory for religious liberty at SCOTUS

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of congregation in Missouri church-state case



This photo taken Jan. 26, 2016, shows the playground at Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Mo. (Annaliese Nurnberg/Missourian via AP)




WASHINGTON • The Supreme Court has ruled in a Missouri case that churches have the same right as other charitable groups to seek state money to pay for new playground surfaces and other non-religious needs.

The justices on Monday ruled 7-2 in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Mo. The church sought a grant to put a soft surface on its preschool playground, but was denied any money even though its application was ranked fifth out of 44 submissions.

Chief Justice John Roberts said for the court that it "is odious to our Constitution" to exclude the church from the grant program. Roberts said that's true even though the consequences are only "a few extra scraped knees."

The case is Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia vs. Carol S. Comer, the director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. At issue was a 19th-century state constitutional amendment that prohibits state resources from going to religious institutions.

Trinity Lutheran Church applied for a grant with Missouri's Scrap Tire Program. The grants buy recycled tires to resurface playgrounds. The grant program is funded solely by a fee collected on the sale of new tires. Trinity said the playground at its Learning Center was for children who attended the church's daycare. It also was used by neighborhood children after hours. Trinity was one of 44 applicants in 2012. The state awarded grants to 14 applicants.

The state denied Trinity's application, citing an amendment that states, "no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion." The Blaine Amendment, which critics say developed from anti-Catholic sentiment, is in effect in Missouri and 37 other states.

Alliance Defending Freedom took up the cause for the church and fought the state's decision in court. The church lost in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. During oral arguments, justices saved their sharpest questions for James Layton, who was representing the state’s previous position — that a “bright line” should be maintained prohibiting state funds for state aid such as that sought by Trinity. In fact, justices asked, didn’t other state funds, such as police and fire protection, also benefit religious institutions?

In April, Gov. Eric Greitens, a Republican, announced he would allow religious institutions to apply for the same kind of state grants that were denied Trinity, and which formed the basis of the church’s case against the state.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
That's the dumbest f'ucking thing I have ever seen in my life...the state funding a religious organization...and obvious violation of the US Constitution.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
That's the dumbest f'ucking thing I have ever seen in my life...the state funding a religious organization...and obvious violation of the US Constitution.

LMAO. SCOTUS just ruled 7-2, with 2 far left libs joining the majority and you claim it is unconstitutional?

You have never read the Constitution or even history. You do know that Christianity was taught in public schools after the Constitution was ratified, right?. Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptist Church was solely meant to calm their nerves that the Federal Government would not establish a national church, like the Church of England. The Framers never intended for religious expression be removed from the public square. They would be appalled how far the country has moved in that direction.
 
Last edited:

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63
The Framers never intended for religion expression be removed from the public square. They would be appalled how far the country has moved in that direction.
Okey dokey. [eyeroll]
 

bornaneer

Senior
Jan 23, 2014
30,216
844
113
That's the dumbest f'ucking thing I have ever seen in my life...the state funding a religious organization...and obvious violation of the US Constitution.
So according to you....if a human is in need of medical/law enforcement/fire protection in any religious funded entity ......those requests should be denied?
 

Keyser76

Freshman
Apr 7, 2010
11,912
58
0
I assume the madrassas will have your approval too when they spend your tax money, lol.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
The state shouldn't be building facilities for religious institutions.

Here is how farcical your argument is. First of all, they are not building a building for a religious institution; in this case (they are putting the rubber from destroyed tires onto the playground). Secondly, the playground is not a religious institution as SCOTUS found. It is a playground.
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,573
756
113
That's the dumbest f'ucking thing I have ever seen in my life...the state funding a religious organization...and obvious violation of the US Constitution.
The violation was so obvious the supreme court didnt see it. The dumbest fuking thing I have seen is the moron declaring a supreme court ruling unconstitutional.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
The violation was so obvious the supreme court didnt see it. The dumbest fuking thing I have seen is the moron declaring a supreme court ruling unconstitutional.

On a 7-2 vote no less.
 

Popeer

Freshman
Sep 8, 2003
21,466
81
0
U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of congregation in Missouri church-state case

WASHINGTON • The Supreme Court has ruled in a Missouri case that churches have the same right as other charitable groups to seek state money to pay for new playground surfaces and other non-religious needs.
I never saw this case as having anything to do with religious freedom, despite the trumpeting from the Right and the church itself. The state's original policy - changed before the ruling - was wrong, unless the pre-schoolers are getting Lutheran doctrine along with their playground time.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
I never saw this case as having anything to do with religious freedom, despite the trumpeting from the Right and the church itself. The state's original policy - changed before the ruling - was wrong, unless the pre-schoolers are getting Lutheran doctrine along with their playground time.

The Missouri law was an anti-Catholic law (I am not Catholic). It was a ridiculous law and clearly unconstitutional. Now the law in moot, which is a good thing.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Reading comprehension, try it. Dumb ***.

They weren't building facilities for a church. This was a playground. Do you know what a playground is? 7-2. Two far left libs agreed. This is a rather stupid argument to engage in since SCOTUS has ruled and you called in unconstitutional. You've lost before you started.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
They weren't building facilities for a church. This was a playground. Do you know what a playground is? 7-2. Two far left libs agreed. This is a rather stupid argument to engage in since SCOTUS has ruled and you called in unconstitutional. You've lost before you started.

A playground is a facility. You're a dumb ***.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
A playground is a facility. You're a dumb ***.

A playground is not a religious institution. This is not hard. 7-2.

As a prior poster pointed out, is a church not entitled to police protection? To fire protection? All using public money.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
The playground is owned by Trinity Lutheran Church, a religious institution. Again, you're a dumb ***.

But the playground as SCOTUS ruled is not religious. It is a playground. You can't be this stupid, can you? 7-2. Two libs, far left libs, ruled in favor of the playground and against an unconstitutional state law.

I notice you did not respond to the police or fire question. I wonder why?
 

Popeer

Freshman
Sep 8, 2003
21,466
81
0
The playground is owned by Trinity Lutheran Church, a religious institution.
And? Show me how the playground is related to either the establishment clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. I agree with the Court's ruling, just not the basis for it - if the daycare center were to be shut down, the church would go on.
 

bornaneer

Senior
Jan 23, 2014
30,216
844
113
The state shouldn't be building facilities for religious institutions.
State funds are used for the services I mentioned. BUT...in the case of the playground program.....it appears it no State collected tax revenue was used in this grant program. The grants were 100% funded by the sale of tires. The SCOTUS was correct with their ruling.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
And? Show me how the playground is related to either the establishment clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. I agree with the Court's ruling, just not the basis for it - if the daycare center were to be shut down, the church would go on.

The state shouldn't being paying for facilities that are owned by a religious organization. That is clearly endorsing an organized religion. On the flip side, I could start an atheist organization and ask the state to pay for part of my facilities. I'm sure you all would object.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
State funds are used for the services I mentioned. BUT...in the case of the playground program.....it appears it no State collected tax revenue was used in this grant program. The grants were 100% funded by the sale of tires. The SCOTUS was correct with their ruling.

The way I read the ruling, it did not matter if state funds were used or not. SCOTUS viewed this as a playground and only a playground and thus not religious.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
The state shouldn't being paying for facilities that are owned by a religious organization. That is clearly endorsing an organized religion. On the flip side, I could start an atheist organization and ask the state to pay for part of my facilities. I'm sure you all would object.

From Justice Breyer (far left liberal):

Breyer argued that preventing a Lutheran church from participating in a playground pavement program was like preventing it from participating in public police and fire protection.

“The court stated in Everson that ‘cutting off church schools from’ such ‘general government services as ordinary police and fire protection…is obviously not the purpose of the First Amendment,” wrote Breyer.

“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,” he said. “I see no significant difference.”
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,692
1,764
113
The state shouldn't being paying for facilities that are owned by a religious organization. That is clearly endorsing an organized religion. On the flip side, I could start an atheist organization and ask the state to pay for part of my facilities. I'm sure you all would object.
I wouldn't care.

JFC, some kids got a playground, relax Francis.
 

bornaneer

Senior
Jan 23, 2014
30,216
844
113
The state shouldn't being paying for facilities that are owned by a religious organization. That is clearly endorsing an organized religion. On the flip side, I could start an atheist organization and ask the state to pay for part of my facilities. I'm sure you all would object.
When I attended St. Francis Catholic Elem School years ago in Morgantown.....I rode a Mon County school bus to get there. Whats the difference?
 

PriddyBoy

Junior
May 29, 2001
17,174
282
0
The violation was so obvious the supreme court didnt see it. The dumbest fuking thing I have seen is the moron declaring a supreme court ruling unconstitutional.
Commieroad89 is simply exercising the first amendment. A person has the right to be _____ in public.
Good thing country was born here, would never pass the written test for citizenship.
 

PriddyBoy

Junior
May 29, 2001
17,174
282
0
And a green one to boot.
I don't know about that. Have any studies been done? Ground up tires are likely to have carcinogens. Not sure I want our children wallerin' around in that stuff. IMO, we should stick to what God gave us. It's called 'the ground' not 'the ground up stuff.'
 

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
I don't know about that. Have any studies been done? Ground up tires are likely to have carcinogens. Not sure I want our children wallerin' around in that stuff. IMO, we should stick to what God gave us. It's called 'the ground' not 'the ground up stuff.'
And it will take a few kids of insurance rolls. Win, win.