Trinity Lutheran v. Comer
There is a ban on government funding for church properties restricting religious liberties. Many people are unaware of how complex this issue is and how it impacts our rights as americans and in particular, our religious freedoms. The question many may ask is, what is religious liberty and should it be controlled by the government? In dictionary terms, religious liberty is the freedom of religious opinion and worship. The problem is there are several gray areas that tend to be overlooked and in some cases, the idea of their religion is held against them. In the court case Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, many will see these gray areas come to light and how such practices can lead to an infringement on the liberties that …show more content…
The First Amendment states,“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The church claims they were in dire need of a new playground for the children and the DNR offers playground scrap tire surface material grants for qualified organization, but they were turned down because they were a religious organization. During the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer case, Trinity Lutheran argued it is unconstitutional for government funding to be banned just because the occupant has religious background. The Trinity Lutheran Church is more than a church: it is a non-profit organization where kids can be cared for and express themselves. In contrast, Comer argues that because Article 1, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution states, “No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion.” This shows how they believe that the Trinity Lutheran Church should be banned from the grant. The question is, why should their orientation ban them from creating a playground that benefits the community? Is not …show more content…
Why are religious organizations suffering the consequence of faith? It should not matter whether the organization is faith bound. If the organization has the means and has met all the other requirements they should have a chance for the grant as well as any other organizations that are not faith bound. What one could also say is that, although the Trinity Lutheran is a church, their program caters to the needs of the community and improves it. This organization takes care of children in the community. Evenmore, the playground is outside of the church, making the playground a public place area that is free of religious pressures. Because most playgrounds are open to the public there would be children that are not religious that would be playing on the equipment too. The grant should be given to the Trinity Lutheran Church because it is not specifically tied with the church.
In this court case, the argument that arose most often was the Constitutional freedom of religion. The Trinity Lutheran Church petitioned for the grant to be reconsidered. Trinity Lutheran is not claiming any entitlement to a subsidy. The claim was, it is not the money that counts it is the purpose behind it. The Free Exercise Clause protects against indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion not just outright
There is a ban on government funding for church properties restricting religious liberties. Many people are unaware of how complex this issue is and how it impacts our rights as americans and in particular, our religious freedoms. The question many may ask is, what is religious liberty and should it be controlled by the government? In dictionary terms, religious liberty is the freedom of religious opinion and worship. The problem is there are several gray areas that tend to be overlooked and in some cases, the idea of their religion is held against them. In the court case Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, many will see these gray areas come to light and how such practices can lead to an infringement on the liberties that …show more content…
The First Amendment states,“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The church claims they were in dire need of a new playground for the children and the DNR offers playground scrap tire surface material grants for qualified organization, but they were turned down because they were a religious organization. During the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer case, Trinity Lutheran argued it is unconstitutional for government funding to be banned just because the occupant has religious background. The Trinity Lutheran Church is more than a church: it is a non-profit organization where kids can be cared for and express themselves. In contrast, Comer argues that because Article 1, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution states, “No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion.” This shows how they believe that the Trinity Lutheran Church should be banned from the grant. The question is, why should their orientation ban them from creating a playground that benefits the community? Is not …show more content…
Why are religious organizations suffering the consequence of faith? It should not matter whether the organization is faith bound. If the organization has the means and has met all the other requirements they should have a chance for the grant as well as any other organizations that are not faith bound. What one could also say is that, although the Trinity Lutheran is a church, their program caters to the needs of the community and improves it. This organization takes care of children in the community. Evenmore, the playground is outside of the church, making the playground a public place area that is free of religious pressures. Because most playgrounds are open to the public there would be children that are not religious that would be playing on the equipment too. The grant should be given to the Trinity Lutheran Church because it is not specifically tied with the church.
In this court case, the argument that arose most often was the Constitutional freedom of religion. The Trinity Lutheran Church petitioned for the grant to be reconsidered. Trinity Lutheran is not claiming any entitlement to a subsidy. The claim was, it is not the money that counts it is the purpose behind it. The Free Exercise Clause protects against indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion not just outright