The Supreme Court May Soon Decide if Taxpayers Have to Fund Church Renovations

[phands]

Xtians have no respect for the constitution...and I wonder how much money a mosque or synagogue might get....also hope Kavanaugh isn't on SCOTUS when this happens....

The Supreme Court may decide how much taxpayer money churches can receive if they take up a case that has already been settled in New Jersey.


You may recall that, earlier this year, in a unanimous ruling from the New Jersey Supreme Court, the judges said taxpayer dollars could not be used to help repair or maintain churches. It was a major victory for church/state separation advocates and one that would save taxpayers in the state millions of dollars that would otherwise have gone to promoting religious dogma.




The case involved more than $5.5 million in “historic preservation grants” that were given to a dozen churches in Morris County between 2012 and 2015. They were presumed legal because they didn’t directly promote faith.


But giving churches money for general maintenance is promoting faith since it frees up funding that goes right back into worship.


That’s why plaintiff David Steketee and the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit in 2015 saying the grants were illegal.


Unfortunately, a judge ruled against them in January of 2017. If the decision wasn’t appealed, there was a good chance other churches would’ve taken advantage of the loophole, taking whatever money was in their budgets for maintenance, repair, and other structural issues and putting them into programming, knowing that they could just replete their accounts courtesy of state taxpayers.


FFRF appealed the decision and it eventually landed in front of the state’s supreme court. In April, thankfully, all seven of the justices overturned the earlier decision.

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...if-taxpayers-have-to-fund-church-renovations/

 

[Jobar]

I do think there are churches which qualify as historical buildings, which should be preserved for architectural reasons, or because they had some significant part in American history. But as long as they are being used for worship services, I think that wall of separation forbids that we grant them any government funds, even if the place is falling apart.

Now, if they were *not* being used for regular worship- if the church signed the building over to local, state, or national jurisdiction- I might support putting some tiny percentage of my taxes to keeping them from ruin. But I don't expect that's going to happen...

 

[RavenSky]

I do think there are churches which qualify as historical buildings, which should be preserved for architectural reasons, or because they had some significant part in American history. But as long as they are being used for worship services, I think that wall of separation forbids that we grant them any government funds, even if the place is falling apart.

Now, if they were *not* being used for regular worship- if the church signed the building over to local, state, or national jurisdiction- I might support putting some tiny percentage of my taxes to keeping them from ruin. But I don't expect that's going to happen...

^^^ that

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I do think there are churches which qualify as historical buildings, which should be preserved for architectural reasons, or because they had some significant part in American history. But as long as they are being used for worship services, I think that wall of separation forbids that we grant them any government funds, even if the place is falling apart.

Now, if they were *not* being used for regular worship- if the church signed the building over to local, state, or national jurisdiction- I might support putting some tiny percentage of my taxes to keeping them from ruin. But I don't expect that's going to happen...

Precisely. If it is owned and controlled by a religious organization than it should not receive any money from public coffers. If it becomes public property then it can receive public funding.

In my area many small churches have been sold off simply due to demographics. None that I am aware are public buildings. If the owners wanted to apply for funds for upgrades because it is in the public interest I would not oppose that. Some of the buildings have been turned into breweries, great halls, gymnasiums. No one worships there.

I can see how a conservative supreme court would allow public funds to flow to churches. I hope that does not happen. If it does I will feel invited and welcome to "attend services." Might be kinda fun. "Don't mind me, carry on with your sermonizing and worshiping, I'm just admiring the stained glass, taking a few pictures and making a few calls."

 

[Worldtraveller]

I do think there are churches which qualify as historical buildings, which should be preserved for architectural reasons, or because they had some significant part in American history. But as long as they are being used for worship services, I think that wall of separation forbids that we grant them any government funds, even if the place is falling apart.

Now, if they were *not* being used for regular worship- if the church signed the building over to local, state, or national jurisdiction- I might support putting some tiny percentage of my taxes to keeping them from ruin. But I don't expect that's going to happen...

Precisely. If it is owned and controlled by a religious organization than it should not receive any money from public coffers. If it becomes public property then it can receive public funding.

In my area many small churches have been sold off simply due to demographics. None that I am aware are public buildings. If the owners wanted to apply for funds for upgrades because it is in the public interest I would not oppose that. Some of the buildings have been turned into breweries, great halls, gymnasiums. No one worships there.

I can see how a conservative supreme court would allow public funds to flow to churches. I hope that does not happen. If it does I will feel invited and welcome to "attend services." Might be kinda fun. "Don't mind me, carry on with your sermonizing and worshiping, I'm just admiring the stained glass, taking a few pictures and making a few calls."

Time for the Satanic Temple to move into a nice old historic building somewhere.

 

[Jobar]

Not quite a Satanic Temple; but still.



https://i.imgur.com/rW6HBzZ.png, if the image doesn't display.

Atlanta Freethought Hall is a former Primitive Baptist Church, built in 1866.

Though I no longer attend, I was a member when AFS bought that old church. It still had the pews, the altar, the organ, and the three throne-like chairs you see in Baptist churches everywhere. Nice old building, with a large cemetery right across the street from it.

 

[Sarpedon]

What are the thrones for? I guess I've never seen them!

 

[Jobar]

Some churches have only two, but the one I grew up attending had three- for Father, Son, and Holy Ghost- and were never sat in during any service.

 

[Sarpedon]

How does a Ghost sit? Is that why some leave his chair out?

 

[southernhybrid]

How does a Ghost sit? Is that why some leave his chair out?

How would we know? Ghosts are invisible.