Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Slippery slope? Nope, it's a bobsled ride.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Slippery slope? Nope, it's a bobsled ride.

    Supreme Court Likely to Rule Against Missouri in Church-State Battle


    A clear majority of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed inclined Wednesday to rule in favor of a Missouri Lutheran church in one of the most important legal battles in decades over the separation of church and state.

    Based on their comments during courtroom argument, most of the justices appeared to favor the legal position of Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Missouri. It sued the state after it was denied money from a state program to help non-profits cover their gravel playgrounds with a rubber surface made from recycled tires. The church wanted to improve the playground at its preschool and daycare center.

    The state rejected the application, citing a provision in the Missouri constitution that says "no money shall ever be taken from the treasury, directly or indirectly, in any of any church, sect, or denomination of religion."


    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...battle-n748391


    I can't wait for mosques to start applying for state funding.

  • #2
    If they did, they'd be a lock, right?

    Comment


    • #3
      Because of the vast librul conspiracy to turn the country mooslim and destroy the white power base?

      You're gonna miss Bill, huh?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DandyDon View Post
        [B]"no money shall ever be taken from the treasury, directly or indirectly, in any of any church, sect, or denomination of religion."

        Can somebody translate that quote into English?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Flew View Post

          Can somebody translate that quote into English?
          Translation: Fuck churches.

          Interesting case. They meet or exceed every state requirement, including care for special needs children, but cannot get any form of state assistance.
          It's definitely not what is meant by a separation of church and state, so it will likely be killed by the SCOTUS.
          The government has to operate on a fair practice method. Here are the guidelines. If you meet this criteria, you qualify. Simple as that.

          Comment


          • #6
            Maybe the court is protecting the children. That ground up tire shit has been removed from playgrounds here in Florida as some kind of bio-hazzard.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by on2muchcoffee View Post
              Translation: Fuck churches.

              Interesting case. They meet or exceed every state requirement, including care for special needs children, but cannot get any form of state assistance.
              It's definitely not what is meant by a separation of church and state, so it will likely be killed by the SCOTUS.
              The government has to operate on a fair practice method. Here are the guidelines. If you meet this criteria, you qualify. Simple as that.
              Wow so states rights only matter to you when you agree with the state. Lol like we didn't know that already.

              Comment


              • #8
                Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship
                Refusing to provide aid available to similar institutions on the grounds of their religion sounds like discrimination based on it to me.

                If it were something like state aid to purchase textbooks being applied to buy bibles for sunday school, that would cross the line because it's directly tied to religious teaching. Resurfacing a playground is neutral, they should have access to the funds on the same terms as anyone else.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by posthuman View Post

                  Wow so states rights only matter to you when you agree with the state. Lol like we didn't know that already.
                  State's rights only matter if they don't directly conflict with the Constitution.

                  Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any person of color.

                  Just to make it easier for you to understand.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by AnalHamster View Post

                    Refusing to provide aid available to similar institutions on the grounds of their religion sounds like discrimination based on it to me.

                    If it were something like state aid to purchase textbooks being applied to buy bibles for sunday school, that would cross the line because it's directly tied to religious teaching. Resurfacing a playground is neutral, they should have access to the funds on the same terms as anyone else.
                    That makes no sense. Churches are tax exempt for a reason. Taxes should not be used for their benefit.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by on2muchcoffee View Post

                      State's rights only matter if they don't directly conflict with the Constitution.

                      Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any person of color.

                      Just to make it easier for you to understand.
                      Gonna be fun hearing you say people of color are tax exempt, too so it's all the same argument.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by posthuman View Post

                        That makes no sense. Churches are tax exempt for a reason. Taxes should not be used for their benefit.
                        This is funding available to non profits. They're all tax exempt aren't they? Should taxes not be used for the benefit of charities and poor people?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by on2muchcoffee View Post
                          Translation: Fuck churches.

                          Interesting case. They meet or exceed every state requirement, including care for special needs children, but cannot get any form of state assistance.
                          It's definitely not what is meant by a separation of church and state, so it will likely be killed by the SCOTUS.
                          The government has to operate on a fair practice method. Here are the guidelines. If you meet this criteria, you qualify. Simple as that.
                          Unless one of the guidelines or criteria is that you're not a Church lol

                          Either we want the states tax dollars to be used to support church programs or we dont. You cant act surprised that given the current system they would balk at providing the Church with this type of support. What youre essentially saying is that you get to pick and choose what constitutes the proper separation of church and state. Some tax dollars should subjectively be able to be applied when others shouldnt. And as has already been insinuated...you can measure how laughable this sentiment is by how quick people would shit if these funds were being provided to anything other than a Christian Church. Amazing how fast a sympathetic story about helping kids would turn into material support for muslim terrists lulz.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by AnalHamster View Post

                            This is funding available to non profits. They're all tax exempt aren't they? Should taxes not be used for the benefit of charities and poor people?
                            When you apply for non-profit status you explicitly define yourself as religious or non-religious. If the church members want to form a non-profit that doesn't promote a religion, they can have the same benefits.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by posthuman View Post

                              That makes no sense. Churches are tax exempt for a reason. Taxes should not be used for their benefit.
                              Oh, so I guess we need to pull funding for all non-profits.
                              Ok. Let's go with that.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X