[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Supreme Court backs church in major religious rights case that will lift an outright ban on state funding Churches and other religious entities cannot be flatly barred public money even in states where constitutions explicitly ban such funding, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a major religious rights case that narrows the separation of church and state. The justices, in a 7-2 ruling, sided with a Missouri church that had been denied state funding for a playground improvement project. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court's majority, said that the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Missouri 'solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution.' In denying Trinity Lutheran Church access to a state grant program that helps nonprofit groups buy rubber playground surfaces made from recycled tires, Missouri cited the funding bar enshrined in its constitution. Its constitution prohibits 'any church, sect or denomination of religion' or clergy member from receiving state money, language that goes further than the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and state. Three-quarters of the U.S. states have provisions similar to Missouri's barring funding for religious entities. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer called it a 'significant victory for religious liberty and an affirmation of the First Amendment right of all Americans' during a briefing he held off-camera. 'The court recognizes the clear difference between the government supporting a particular religion and the government simply treating all people the same fairly regardless of their religion,' he said. 'This ruling reaffirms that the government cannot discriminate against individuals or organizations simply because they or their members hold religious beliefs.' Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion saying the court had swept away legal precedents that allow for limits on state funding of churches. Fellow liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented. 'This case is about nothing less than the relationship between religious institutions and the civil government - that is between church and state. The court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding for the first time that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church,' Sotomayor wrote. The ruling could help religious organizations nationwide win public dollars at least for certain purposes, such as health and safety. It also could buttress the case for using publicly funded vouchers to send children to religious schools rather than public schools. 'Our religious institutions must be able to contribute to education and the public good—that is part of their core mission,' House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement celebrating the decision. 'When the government places special burdens on churches specifically because they are religious institutions, that is discrimination, plain and simple.' A challenge to a 2015 court decision invalidating a Colorado voucher program was pending before the justices, awaiting the Trinity Lutheran case's outcome. Republican President Donald Trump's education secretary, Betsy DeVos, is a prominent supporter of such 'school choice' plans. DeVos said in a statement after the Supreme Court announced its decision that it was 'a great day for the Constitution and sends a clear message that religious discrimination in any form cannot be tolerated in a society that values the First Amendment. 'We should all celebrate the fact that programs designed to help students will no longer be discriminated against by the government based solely on religious affiliation.' The dispute pitted two provisions of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment against each other: the guarantee of the free exercise of religion and the Establishment Clause, which requires the separation of church and state. 'The Supreme Court's decision today affirms the commonsense principle that government isn't being neutral when it treats religious organizations worse than everyone else,' said David Cortman, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom conservative Christian legal group who argued the case. 'Equal treatment of a religious organization in a program that provides only secular benefits, like a partial reimbursement grant for playground surfacing, isn't a government endorsement of religion,' Cortman added. Trinity Lutheran, which runs a preschool and daycare center, wanted a safer surface for its playground. Trinity Lutheran argued that Missouri's policy violated its right to exercise religion as well as the U.S. Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law. Missouri argued there was nothing unconstitutional about its grant program, noting that Trinity Lutheran remained free to practice its faith however it wants despite being refused state funds. Just before the April oral argument, Missouri's Republican governor, Eric Greitens, reversed the state policy that had banned religious entities from applying for the grant money, saying it was wrong for 'government bureaucrats' to deny grants to 'people of faith who wanted to do things like make community playgrounds for kids.' Nonetheless, Missouri and the church both urged the justices to decide the case because of the important issues involved and because the governor's action was not irreversible. Trinity Lutheran sued Missouri in federal court in 2012. The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2015 upheld a trial court's dismissal of the suit. The church then appealed to the Supreme Court. Daniel Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's program on freedom of religion and belief, expressed disappointment in the ruling. 'Religious freedom should protect unwilling taxpayers from funding church property, not force them to foot the bill. The court's ruling, however, focuses specifically on grants for playground resurfacing, and does not give the government unlimited authority to fund religious activity,' Mach said. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
Not good. There is no free lunch, the bill will come due someday.
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|