Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not referring to a point of contention with ALL tax exempt groups, just churches. Whether or not an organization should or should not be tax exempt is another -- separate -- issue that I'm simply mentioning in passing here, not altogether directly related to the subject of this thread.
Particularly with churches, I think the fact that they are tax exempt is all the more reason to scrutinize occasions when they might benefit from tax payer monies. Not all tax exempt organizations warrant the same sort of scrutiny in my opinion, but again, that's another subject.
Sheesh. Seriously? I reported it as soon as the courts announced it and then posted follow up......days ago.
You can follow their rulings live.
Ha! Agreed. I am forever amused at some of the heartburn and criticism expressed by some folks in this forum, moderators too, who seem a little too "tightly wound" for a social forum like this. Three, two, one..., before this comment is also deleted for reasons often hard to figure...
Indeed. If the SC justices are reasoning that "churches cannot be excluded from eligibility for state funding just because they are religious organizations," then the concept of separation of church and state is meaningless. I am surprised that the ruling was 7-2 instead of closer to a tie.
I found this sentence from the majority opinion to be controlling:
"The State in this case expressly requires Trinity Lutheran to renounce its religious character in order to participate in an otherwise generally available public benefit program, for which it is fully qualified. Our cases make clear that such a condition imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that must be subjected to the "most rigorous" scrutiny."
Again, the Church, which wanted to participate in a state program to have its playground repaved with recycled tires, was found to be eligible for such program based on several criteria (the church ranked No. 4 on the list; if it was not a church, it would have received the money).
However, the State concluded that said criteria and ranking did not matter, for the playground belonged to a church, and no state monies were to go to the church. The Court said that this reasoning does not meet the 'most rigorous scrutiny' standard.
Here is an interesting paragraph found close to the beginning:
"The First Amendment provides, in part, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The parties agree that the Establishment Clause of that Amendment does not prevent Missouri from including Trinity Lutheran inthe Scrap Tire Program. That does not, however, answer the question under the Free Exercise Clause, because we have recognized that there is "play in the joints" between what the Establishment Clause permits and the Free Exercise Clause compels."
"Play in the joints". Interesting language. Think on it for awhile.
I am not referring to a point of contention with ALL tax exempt groups, just churches. Whether or not an organization should or should not be tax exempt is another -- separate -- issue that I'm simply mentioning in passing here, not altogether directly related to the subject of this thread.
Particularly with churches, I think the fact that they are tax exempt is all the more reason to scrutinize occasions when they might benefit from tax payer monies. Not all tax exempt organizations warrant the same sort of scrutiny in my opinion, but again, that's another subject.
You mentioned Pell Grants and the like, which are awarded to individuals who then decide where the funding they receive from the state will be used to pursue their education. This is a little different than tax payer money going directly to private religious schools as you describe, though of course the school ultimately receives those funds whether public or private, religious or not.
It's not just Pell Grants. They get government research grants, etc., too. And as I posted, Emory University, a private religious school, works closely with the CDC on various government-funded projects.
You mentioned Pell Grants and the like, which are awarded to individuals who then decide where the funding they receive from the state will be used to pursue their education.
If it's done at the college level, it can be done in pre-K through 12. Otherwise, it's age discrimination.
Would you prefer if our government put out a list of what our government representatives deem appropriate or based on their religious bias rather than attempt to remain secular and/or recuse itself from such subjective judgement?
Have you any idea what wrongs have come from government dictating what is art, for example?
If the decision is to use tax payer money to support the arts, the last thing you want to go along with that is some sort of government imposition that decides for us what is art and what is not. I mean, right?
We can't be perfect in these regards, and of course there are countless examples of how government does encroach on our personal freedoms, "infringe," and still more examples of what some would consider whacky forms of art and expression. Typically those examples expose where those "gray areas" arise when supporting our freedoms conflicts with other serious concerns that also need to be addressed, hopefully with some balance toward an optimum outcome or resolution for all concerned.
Often not an easy trick when strong competing interests are involved...
to get right down to brass tacks here, the federal government SHOULD NOT be funding 90% of what they are funding. its all crap and wasteful spending. once again 90% of what the feds are funding is actually the purview of he states.
The concern for states right is touching, I expect newly found and most assuredly disingenuous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilcart
it is not that some choose too fund religious schools, it is this new federal requirement Demanding that states fund them even if the state constitution says they should not or do not have to.
This is a two fold issue.
1 the legal requirement to fund despite the supposed separation
2 the federal government overriding states yet again.
Where is the outcry about state rights from the right? not hearing peep when it is a christian school getting money and a state taxes funding it under direction from our federal government.
I am aware that there has been funding of various groups but this is yet another step closer to a theocracy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
