The Supreme Court Will Decide a Major Church State Separation Case
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- The Supreme Court Will Decide a Major Church State Separation Case
Hemant Mehta (www.friendlyath..., / hemant , / friendlyatheist )
www.patheos.com...
The Supreme Court now has a new justice not named Merrick Garland, and the appointment of Neil Gorsuch may have huge implications for church/state separation.
One of the first cases heard by the full bench recently involved that issue and it's worth talking about that case so you understand what's at stake.
It involves the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia in Missouri. The church runs a Christian preschool and wanted to renovate the playground. Instead of gravel on the ground, where kids always scraped their knees and elbows, they wanted to replace it with rubber made from recycled tires. Makes a lot of sense, and as it turned out, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources had a special program offering money for just that reason. Literally. They were giving away money to renovate playgrounds with safer rubber surfaces.
So the church applied for a grant in 2012. There were 44 applicants that year, but the state only had cash to fund 14 of them and the church didn’t make the cut… but reports later came out that the church ranked 5th out of the 44 applicants. On merit, they should've gotten the money.
So why didn't they? Well, the Program Director Sara Parker Pauley told church officials that the reason they were denied the grant was because the state wasn’t allowed to give money to churches.
She cited Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution, which says “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion.”
To no one’s surprise, the church felt this was an injustice and filed a lawsuit against the state. They said it was wrong for the state to deny its application just because they were religious. This was a playground, after all, not like a pastor training program. They literally said, "Seeking to protect children from harm while they play tag and go down the slide is about as far from an ‘essentially religious endeavor’" -- to quote the legal term -- "as one can get.”
There were some other technical problems with their case, but the end result was that the lawsuit failed.
So the church filed an appeal… and that, too, was decided in favor of the state in May of 2015. The judges basically said, in a 2-1 vote, that of course the state didn’t have to fund a church playground, just as the state wasn’t on the hook to fund the training of pastors. It all went back to how the state shouldn't be supporting a church.
The church filed another appeal, asking the entire Eighth Circuit to consider the case, and they did. But the judges were split, 5-5, so the earlier decision stood.
Point is: The church lost. Many times.
But they had one last option: Asking the Supreme Court. The church leaders and their lawyers argued that there was no compelling reason for the state to exclude churches from applying for an otherwise neutral program. It's just a playground, they argued.
That's true... but think about this: Let's say the state gave them $10,000 for the playground instead of asking the church to use its own money. Now the church has an extra $10,000 in its bank account. What are they going to do with that money? Probably use it to promote Jesus. So funding a church playground is, in an important, indirect way, like promoting religion.
And there are conservative Christians who don't like that line of logic -- they'll say it's unfair -- but it's the exact same argument they make against taxpayer money funding anything Planned Parenthood does, even if it's not abortions.
They say funding mammograms or cholesterol screenings frees up money for abortions, therefore no taxpayer money should be given to the organization.
Gotta love that religious hypocrisy.
In any case, the church asked the Supreme Court to review their case. That is always a long shot since the Court hears less than 1% of the requests it gets, but it worked. At least four justices, including, presumably, Justice Antonin Scalia right before he died, said they wanted to hear this case. That's all you need! And while church/state separation groups may have felt some relief with an 8-person Scalia-less court, Gorsuch's confirmation means we're right back to where we started.
We have a Supreme Court that may rule in favor of the church. And that ruling could essentially say that secular aspects of religious institutions can be funded with public money. So if, say, Liberty University wanted to build a new gym on campus (which, on paper, would be open to the public), taxpayers could theoretically pay for it.
Get the church to pay for it themselves. They do not have to pay taxes so they should have the funds. If not, too bad.
Sounds good 👍
Yeah and they get loads of donations from church members it’s so unfair that they are tax free and tax the people ten percent of what they earn
Why couldn't the church use the $300,000+ they paid in legal fees for this case, to build a badass playground.
They be hypocrites.
No that can't be it. People who run churches are always the most virtuous and true of honest citizens.
macuss87 because they want tax payer money
Because it's not about churches. It's not about playgrounds. It's about the clergy regaining power over the majority of people.
macuss87
They probably got a couple religious firms to do it pro bono.
" If churches want access to taxpayer money, then churches should pay taxes." Simple, honest, straight forward.
o0Avalon0o I absolutely agree with you the state should not be funding anything for a church
such a good quote
thats 1 good point. another one would be that considering the churche's reputation with children, more specifically young boys, I wouldnt want them building ANYTHING that has to do with children. In fact, stay away from ANY child!
Phillip Hickman - Did you listen to the video or read the quote? No one said force them to pay. If a religious organization wants tax exemption status, they can qualify like any other non-profit would; by having open books, by demonstrating they're performing a valuable service for the public good, they can qualify as a charity, etc. That doesn't discriminate against religions, they can still apply and qualify, but giving it to them just because they're a large organized religion, that's a violation of the first amendment. By NOT taxing them, it puts the government in the business of sanctioning religions. Because when you go to apply for the tax exempt status, if you're a RECOGNIZED religion, it's given easily. If you're not one of the recognized religions, then you have to make a demonstration that you should be, which means the government is now in the business of determining which religions should be sanctioned and therefore gain tax exemption, and which shouldn't, and that is the clearest violation of the first amendment that I've ever seen.
Taxing them on their income would not be prohibiting the free exercise of religion. All it would be doing is saying you have to pay your own way. Religions are some of the wealthiest organisations on the planet.
Your final sentiment is one with which I resonate. I'm disconcerted that they even took the case.
This whole thing is stinky... I wonder how many people that start churches or Religious institutions are just doing it for the tax cuts.
DarkMatter2525 I like your videos
DarkMatter2525 Love you, bro. You converted me and freed my thought. I gotta thank you for that.
Indian Athiest Same
I love seeing people I sub, sub people I sub!!
You know what is sad about this case?
All the lawyer fees to get this case appealed probably cost them more money than the cost of the rubber for the playground.
you really think the church was gonna spend the money if they got it?? just another Bentley for the pedos at the top
Ethan Reilly they spen around 300,000 dollars i heard
not completely sure
Could have been taken pro to low bono?? I'm sure there are lots of Christian attorney's that would love to be associated with a case exposure potential such as this.
If the playground was associated with a mosque, would they consider the case?
That's....actually an interesting question. Let's have one of them try the same thing and see what happens.
J. Graham no they would not because it's still a religious section the imaginary war on Christianity does not exist
Ziot, did you watch the video? Perhaps English is not your first language?
J. Graham yes I did, so?
He was asking whether the Supreme Court would have even considered hearing the case if the church in this situation was replaced with a mosque.
And do they think that church isn't going to be brainwashing the kids in that playground? Plus, I believe all religious places should pay all taxes. Not paying is the same as being subsidized by the government. Love and Peace
So you want to abolish secularism.
JudgeGrimm Taxing religious places wouldn't abolish secularism, which is just keeping religion out of government. Our constitution is secular, our government barely is. Love and Peace
If the playground is declared "secular", do I have the right to go on that property and preach secularism?
according to their logic, yes.
God didn't help them on this! lol
He's (she's) apparently working on it.
When we chose to exclude churches from taxes we automatically chose to subsidize churches...
I think the real bickering is what church 'type' will we feel comfortable subsidizing openly.
Would they give the same attention to a Muslim school with a gravel playground? Would a Muslim schools application of the same nature to the American Supreme Court be heard?
Why should the state give money to any organisation that says it'll renovate playgrounds? Where the hell's the guarantee that they'd actually do it?
I wouldn't necessarily be against giving the church the money to subsidize its playground renovation, but I think that in order to receive any subsidy, you need to prove that you couldn't afford the projectotherwise. Based on what I know about churches, I presume that this particular church can in fact afford the renovation, but besides that, since churches don't share their finances with anyone, the church would be hard-pressed to actually show evidence that it wouldn't be able to afford the renovation even if it actually couldn't.
But he did make a great point that "now the church has an extra 10K$ in their bank account, what are they gonna do with that money? Probably using it to promote jesus"
RafaAnto Agreed but really who knows what they'll use it for.I say it's unfair to assume that they'll use it for religion.They could use it for other things tbh.
I understand the reasoning but it still relies on an assumption.
I got to disagree with OP here....
The church in USA is already receiving government aid in the form of tax exemption so they are technically already on a stat funded program (given that they can still get the services like road maintenance, trash collection, police enforcement and medical attention if needed but don't pay for it) and are now asking for even more despite the separation of church and state being a thing in effect in USA.
They are not in a position to be asking for funds to their projects even if the stat has specific program to help in that specific sort of projects as it is, they would need to start paying taxes before they should even be considered for the program.
derpion derpson you know...you're right.you shouldn't ask for tax money if you don't give it in the first place.My question is is why they can't get donations from their members.Just my two cents on that.
Jo Vonn Reasonable yes,unfair also yes.Its a perfectly reasonable assumption,but it's just unfair to say that they will do that.Most likely they will but they may donate it to other organizations,give it out to the poor.Though I guess that may rely on the assumption that good churches exist so I guess it isn't unfair.Meh.
If the public money can now fund all the church amenities like playgrounds, gyms, sounds systems, new roofs, parking lots, social halls, then they can use these amenities to recruit members to their church to use those amenities that the state has paid for, giving the church more money to pay pastors and evangelize.
That's the agenda, and it's working.
My main gripe is can non church members attend this playground? Because now it should be public property and such since the public paid for it now. I don't think the church has the right to get this money as each of the prior courts have ruled.
I hope the Supreme Court rules in favor of the constitution like they're supposed to do.
I'd say let them get the money ONLY for the playground, nothing else in any way.
Oh, if were only that simple.
There are churches in Montreal, Canada, going through the EXACT same thing. The municipality is trying to charge property tax on churches that have buildings/spaces that are NOT being used for worship purposes. For example, one church has an adjacent building that it uses for summer camps, feeding homeless people, and other community programs, but because of the taxing, the churches are forced to use any donated money to pay off the tax bill, and the programs have to be shut down. The other issue is that when the church is in the process of hiring a new minister after the previous leaves, the church building itself is getting taxed because it is NOT being used for worship when the church is in between ministers. As much as I want to see separation of church and state, the municipality is clearly conducting a cash-grab
Idk.This is a hard one.Like on one hand I can say yeah sure it's a playground,but on the other I can see they would use the leftover money to support their church.Indirectly that is supporting a religious intuition and goes against the Establishment clause.The state cannot fund religions of any sort,nor can they prevent religious activities.
And not funding a playground certainly isn't preventing religion.
Definitely one of those issues that needs to be discussed.
I don't get why they did this, plenty of Christians would be willing to donate, the church should've just held a fun raiser of something and get the money itself.
Thanks for bringing this important issue to light, excellent point about the dangers of setting a precedent. I'll be curious to see the results but agree that the SC should never have taken this case to begin with. Concerning times.
the world needs more calm people like you
a voice for reason and truth. thank you mr mehta
It ripped you a new one, that is for sure. 🤗
Praise God for his mercy and kindness!
Which god? You don't mean the one that drowned countless millions? Careful which god you praise.
It's times like this I'm glad I don't live in the US. You got it though, people.
Where do you live so we can join you.
6:32 Uhh..... I thought you were like "the most informed" atheist....... THE GOVERNMENT ALREADY DOES PAY FOR VOUCHER PROGRAMS
Wow... this case should have been closed a long time ago! I can't believe the Supreme Court is going to hear this case. I bet if it was a Jewish playground or a Muslim playground, people wouldn't have thought twice about saying no, but since it's Christian, the majority is suddenly for it. I really hope America doesn't take five steps back, into a time where the Church actually has more power and influence in government.
the constitution would overrule the court
That's the problem, the US Constitution is ambivalent regarding the issue of separation of church and state and is why court cases have to determine the founding father's intent, if any.
GIMMME MONEYZ, I WANTZ YOUR MONEYZ!
Come on,
come on,
love me for my moneyz,
love me for teh monryz
listen to the money talk!
Can you hear teh moneyz?
Trust in GAWDDDD!
When money talks, BS walks.
I'm willing to let churches skate on paying takes if, and only if, they can show that 100 percent of their income, minus a cost-of-living income for the pastor and upkeep of the church, goes to charity. One PENNY outside that, and they should pay the same kinds of taxes any business have to pay. ESPECIALLY the megachurches.
You're using the "money is fungible" argument-which is commonly used against Planned Parenthood (pretty much the same people you're arguing against...). For the record, I think it's a valid argument. (Though insufficient against PP, of course.)
The best point he made:
If a [religious organization] wants access to tax-payer dollars, *then pay taxes as any other would.*
*REMOVE the tax-exempt status from ALL religious organizations* (and make it retro-active for no less than least 10 years!).
A church is already fully exempt from all taxes because the state wants to fully stay out of anything that deals with a religious institution and they need to stay out of this too. The law specifically states any funding "directly or indirectly." I sure hope they are denied their funding again. Like you said...where would "secular" activities end. Bottom line, if the property is owned by a religious institution then the government is poised to completely stay out of it. We don't tax them, we don't give money, and we don't say what they can and can't do with that property. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
Hemant Mehta, Gotta love that pro-abortionist hypocrisy. Your analogy, not mine.
Taxes should NOT pay for the rubber mats and anything where they preform abortions.
Ill stay subbed, because you do think about things. Thanks for your videos.
Why not create a go fund me page for financial assistance in the upgrading of their playground? That’s what I thought until I read a comment here saying “if they really can pay all those legal fees, they should have used that money instead on upgrading the playground instead of asking for government assistance.” I agree.
Thanks for sharing this topic. You are great, very professional, very impressive.
I think this could backfire on the churches though. That is, they might end up having to pay taxes. After all, not paying taxes is a way of promoting religion as much as giving government funds for anything they do. But if the trend will go toward complete separation of church and state, then tax payers should only support completely secular programs, though clearly. But if churches are denied tax breaks, probably they would just reorganize as a secular entity.
Thanks, again, for the topic.
Hmm.....part of me actually wants to side with the church. Maybe give them the money if they don't have enough and return any unused funds, as well as 100% transparency on the specifics of how the money is being used. Trying to find a reasonable compromise
If the church could apply (even if they were denied), does that mean private schools and other businesses could be accepted? Could McDonalds get money for their Play Place? Sounds to me that the program shouldn't have occurred in the first place. They should have been contacting public schools, not wait for applicants.
I'm skeptical of the reasoning around 3-4 minutes, which I agree has been used by people on both sides. To argue we shouldn't give schools money to build a playground because then it frees up money to do other things opens the floodgates to examples like: we shouldn't give our starving Christian neighbors a can of beans, because then they will have an extra 2 dollars to tithe with, which then aids the church. Taken to its extreme, we shouldn't give any food/medicine to people we disagree with ideologically, because once they recover they will spend their life preaching ideologies we find wrong.So I think this Church should be given the money for the playground, provided it is 100% transparent about how the money is spent. If they happen to have extra money to spend on other activities so be it, but I see no issue with getting the grant since they qualified for it.
In my opinion your only friendly to other atheist. Also please don't assume that because I am a Christian I am ignorant or stupid every human being has the right to believe whatever they want. Including you, let's be honest you can no more prove evolution 100% than I can prove creationism 100% and nether of us can disprove 100%. Let's stop arguing that and come together and fix some real problems.
This is why it was so important to keep a Republican out of the White House. We're gong to be stuck with extreme, right wing, pro-corporate, pro-Christian decisions for decades.
My two cents as a Christian (A Lutheran in fact.)
Churches are tax exempt. They should remain that way, it is a good thing. There is no better way to destroy religious freedom than to tax it. The other side of the issue, they are tax exempt. They don't pay taxes. Why should they have access to taxpayers money? This lawsuit is really silly, with the hundreds of thousands of dollars they are paying for legal fees (in a case they will inevitably lose, as it has no grounds to stand on.), they could have fixed the playground and done even more good.
The government isn't discriminating against you (at least in this manner), you are being paranoid.
if they want a playground, how about they ask another church to help them out. Maybe those televangelists who are living in mansions that could sustain a village. Ask Joel Osteen, for example.
Dude... It's a freaking playground for children. What the heck is wrong with you?
The most important bit, indeed, churches should pay taxes. As for the rest, if Google can get grants for something, then church should be able to get grants for the same thing. I don't have a problem with the church getting the grant for this particular purpose.
If a state constitution like that of Missouri chooses to be even more explicit and strict about the separation of church and state than the U.S. Constitution, it is constitutional as it doesn't violate anything on the federal level. Whether or not religious organizations should be allowed to use taxpayer money for non-religious purposes (such as resurfacing a preschool playground), and how we would regulate that if we did, is an interesting question. However, if Trinity Lutheran has an issue with the way the Missouri constitution bars giving religious organizations taxpayer money regardless of its usage, then that's something they need to take up with the state legislators, not the court.
If there's nothing wrong with giving money for non-abortion purposes to clinincs that provide abortions, wouldn't it logically follow that there's nothing wrong with giving money for non-religious purposes to institutions which provide religious services?
I agree with the final concluaion but disagree with the argument used :p
There's a congressman in my state who wants to change the name and mission of Planned Parenthood. In his proposal, it would be called 'Unplanned Parenthood,' which would compel pregnant women to bring their pregnancies to term. Abstinence training would be another major component of their programs.
Should be 9-0 against, but it won't be. Republican hypocrisy knows no limit.
I would question how much money it took to fight that battle. If the church had that money they could have done the work. They chose to fight in the hope it would force open the public's pocket book, for more overtly religious things.
How much money is being wasted on appeals? They could have built the damned thing by now.
This isn't about a playground.
If the land the playground is on is tax exempt because it's church property, then it's religious.
Religious freedom laws are pretty unconstitutional I noticed that I don't hear many people talking about that...but it also needs to be stopped. I feel as though we are not fully being protected from Religion since freedom of Religion is a double edged sword it protects ones Religion and also protects the individual from Religion.
The church can easily afford the costs, it sounds like they were going to pay for it outright before they learnt of the fund anyway.
Had they considered that if they got a portion of the fund that's easily in their means (it must ensure a fraction of the legal costs in this fiasco) then they would have elbowed out someone who probably couldn't afford the work without the grant? I doubt it.
I see where you are coming from but I wholeheartedly disagree. The only issue is if this only applies with churches and not other religious institutions. I feel as though it's a stretch to say that funding one aspect "frees up money" for an undesirable aspect (in regards to planned parenthood and this church). To me that sounds like saying you won't support welfare because it frees up money to buy frivolous things or drugs. This grant has nothing to do with religion, nor does it give the church any power over others in the state
Why don't they just protect the children with the power of prayer? That protects children very well when the Catholic church does it. Wait...
This could go either way. One bright spot maybe is that Gorsuch is such a stickler for the wording of the law that he won't be able to up end the state's law in his decision. He usually rules against the defendant anyway. Then you have to consider his conservative christian aspect and he just might feel moved to ignore the written law in favor of a christian church. Were it a mosque or other than christian church, I would not think he could be swayed to rule against state law. Will be interesting to see how he rolls on this one. It will tell us a lot about how he may go in the future.
Though I agree with the sentiment that the church shouldn't get this sort of money, the idea that Neil Gorsuch's appointment to the bench will hurt church-state separation is nonsense. In his prior decisions before his appointment to the supreme court he ruled in the same way as most other judges and is in terms of his legal philosophy, an originalist. He's stated time and time before that if there is a problem with the law, and its outcomes, then Congress should address it, and not the judges. As it's the judge's job to uphold the law as it is written. We'll get the results we need. I just don't see the need for the worry in this particular case.
I would be fine with this if churches payed taxes AND if the playground was open to the public at all times.
How many playgrounds could have been built with the money they've spent so far?
Look I'm am a hard line atheist but I can kind of see where the church is coming from, it's not for any religious reason however if that is what the state constitution says than they are just out of luck
u still needs Jesus
For what, exactly? It's possible that Jesus never existed or his role in Christian salvation is greatly embellished. I do know this; if Jesus were alive today and of voting age, I don't think he would have voted for Trump. Do you?
i think that the church was rigth on this one. you can't assume that they will save the money because if you start with that logic it will never end. i don't like the funding in general but if you do do it equally. if they were fifth then you should be concidered the fifth in place.
They are tax exempt, therefore they should not receive taxpayer monies. If one does not contribute, then one should not collect.
How about the state got the renovation done rather than give the money? This way, it can ensure it's money is used as it was supposed to be, and need not give surplus, and the playground got what it wanted.
I bet that church spent five times what it would cost to upgrade their damn playground in legal fees to fight this decision. it's easy to see where their priorities really are.
I agree, they make hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars a year! Beg your sheep for coins!
Hmmm more religious hypocrisy and entitlement. What a surprise.
Why do I feel like the money the church has spent on legal fees and appeals would have bought a whole new playground?
I'm embarrassed that Columbia, MO is my hometown…
There's nothing indirect about it. It's a separation of church and state issue. Period.
Oh I would love if point like that would be in constitution of my country :/.
i agree the state shouldn't support the churches under any circumstances except them paying taxes
the playground is of the church so no money for them it doesn't matter if its not for religious purposes its from a church
They should have to do a fundraiser. They don't even pay taxes.
They don't pay taxes, but they get all the benefits of paying taxes...
All that energy they put into the legalities they could have raised money for the damn tires
Better to have it where religions have no taxation and thus are not represented, than to have taxation and thus representation.
God could literally just make the money fall from the sky!
My gran hates seperation of church and state I however am all for it
can you make a video debunking reincarnation please? xo
Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention. I sure would love to get tax exempt status and suckle from the government... what can a citizen do to influence this Supreme Court decision with such long reaching financial implications.
It's called a Constitutional Amendment. It would never pass in the US as it is now. Keep an eye on the Johnson Amendment, Trump has plans for it, you'll see.
if u wanna go that way u damn well better be against capital punishment
I agree you
Churches think they don't have to go by the same rules
RUclips won't let me subscribe to this channel.
They should pray to there god for a new playground
RELIGON DESTROYED MY 34YRS OF LIFE ON THIS EARTH
If they are given an inch, the next will take a light year.
Is there something wrong with his mic or is it just me?
This could cause the US to become a lot like the time of King Goerge
How about Saudi Arabia and Sharia Law. Think something very similar can't happen here? Think again. It is happening now.
why do you always deny me my child..
Another reason to be anti theist
I'm with the church on this one
So what was the decision?
As an atheist, I need a tax break.
Where is this church getting the money to mount all these court cases?
pro bono
ok I'm an atheist but... I think you go a bit too far here. siding with the church on this one.
I think churches should be taxed like any other service. But childcare is a service and that money goes to helping kids.. not religion
First amendment just means government can't endorse a religion. Not that we can't help a child care place that happens to be run by a religious organization
* I WOULD RATHER LIVE MY LIFE AS A CHRISTIAN AND DIE TO FIND OUT THERE ISN'T A GOD, THAN LIVE MY LIFE AS AN ATHEIST AND DIE TO FIND OUT THAT THERE IS! *
If I'm wrong, what have I got to lose? I love going to church, reading my Bible, giving money and being a Christian. If you're wrong, you're facing an eternity in hell. Yes, we both think the other is wrong, but in the end, you will be facing serious consequences if I'm right.
What if you are worshipping the wrong god, or the right god in the wrong way? What makes you think your denomination has the single truth and all the ones contradicting it are doomed to Hell for no fault of their own?
What you lose if there is no God is what all those people do: effort, money, and probably the most prescious and limited commodity: time. Time you spend at church when you could be improving life for yourself and your peers. Effort wasted on unanswered prayers when you could've done something constructive instead. Money wasted on tithes that line the pockets of clergymen. Telling lies to your children, to friends, coworkers and complete strangers if you are proselytizing, and to yourself.
Not to mention obstructing social, medical and scientific progress by clinging to concepts and stories debunked and made obsolete decades ago.
Like I said, even if I am wrong, I have lost nothing. I love spending my time, money and effort on these things. You view it as wasted, I view it as well spent. I firmly believe that God answers prayer- I have seen it for myself.
Telling my children and friends to believe that this vast, incredible, incomprehensible universe came out of a spec, would be a lie- not that there is an intelligent designer that created it. I would sooner tell them that God created them, than that we are all coincidences with no real meaning to life because we evolved from apes.
The reason I believe my denomination speaks the truth is because we believe the Bible. If you're going to be a Christian, there is no point in believing half of what the Bible says, it doesn't make sense. Sure, you have your evidence to disprove the Bible, and I have evidence that proves it.
(Would write more but I have a physics exam in a few hours that I need to revise for)
Pascal's wager proves nothing. If you are worshiping the wrong god, you may go to hell anyway.
I don't know if that was supposed to scare me or what but I found it most amusing!
If you can succeed in presenting me with some evidence to back up what you believe, then by all means, I will convert. However, I am utterly convinced you will fail in this task as I know that what I believe is true.
Also, what religion is this you describe? Never heard of it
Bethan Owen Wait... YOU, a CHRISTIAN are asking for evidence? How fucking ironic!
I'm not an atheist but I actually wholeheartedly agree with you here. Unfortunately the Supreme Court made the wrong decision.
Churches that claim to be charities or serve other public functions not directly related to their religion should file for a separate non-profit organization that is held to the same standards as all the others. They shouldn't get the privileges of a non-profit while ducking behind the veil of religion to grant themselves special privileges too. If they want to cross that line, then they should have to tow that line.