Supreme Court Scheduled to Hear Important Freedom of Religion Dispute

[rug]

APR 16 2017, 6:43 AM ET
by PETE WILLIAMS

A plan to make a playground safer for preschoolers is at the center of one of the most important legal battles in decades over the separation of church and state, to be heard Wednesday by the U.S. Supreme Court.

But an 11th hour change in policy by the state at the heart of the dispute could blunt the impact of the case.

At stake are bans in well over half the nation that prohibit spending tax dollars to support churches.

The states say they're necessary to keep the government from meddling in religious affairs.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-scheduled-hear-important-freedom-religion-dispute-n746746

[itsrobert]

1. Church playground and 'care' are"not charity" but places to indoctrinate children into religion.

That is their motive.

[rug]

2. No one - as in no one - is making that argument.

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/2016_2017_briefs/15-577.html

[J_William_Ryan]

3. The religious right is consistent at being wrong.

‘"This religious exclusion wrongfully sends a message that some children are less worthy of protection simply because they enjoy recreation on a playground owned by a church," said David Cortman of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative organization representing Trinity Lutheran.

He argues that government should be neutral toward religion and that blocking the church from a widely available public program "imposes special burdens on non-profit organizations with a religious identity."

That amounts to "an undeniable hostility to religion," Cortman said.’

Nonsense.

That government should be neutral toward religion means that government should in no manner facilitate religion – including affording religious entitles public monies.

Keeping government out of the affairs of religion – including government involvement perceived to be beneficial to religious entities – is not to be ‘hostile’ toward religion.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.