KANSAS CITY, Mo. — In what some are calling a landmark ruling for religious freedom, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided in favor of a Columbia, Mo., church that had been denied state assistance to improve its playground. The high court’s 7-2 ruling in a suit known as Trinity Lutheran of Columbia v. Comer undoes a…
2 thoughts on “Supreme Court rules for Columbia, Mo., church in landmark religious freedom case”
Comments are closed.
New York, NY, June 26, 2017 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed disappointment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, which held that Missouri’s decision to exclude houses of worship, including Trinity Lutheran, from a program that provided direct grants to pay for playground resurfacing materials was unconstitutional discrimination against religion.
ADL had joined an amicus brief, with seven other groups, defending Missouri’s decision not to provide direct aid to a church because it violated its own “no-aid” state constitutional provision.
Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO, issued the following statement:
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent got it right – this case is about much more than a state program to use recycled tires to resurface a playground. Maintaining the separation between church and state has been a hallmark of American democracy since our country was founded. Although the decision is narrowly focused, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have taken a disturbing step back from this commitment today.
We will continue to maintain that compelling taxpayers to fund religious institutions with which they are not affiliated conflicts with core constitutional principles. Allowing churches and other religious groups to compete for direct government funds is bad for religion. States should not be in the religiously divisive business of choosing who, from among diverse houses of worship, should receive public dollars. Such a process also invites government oversight of internal operations of houses of worship and religious groups.
We are also disappointed that the court gave insufficient deference to Missouri’s constitutional no-aid clause, which is similar to those in 38 other state constitutions. These constitutional provisions serve significant government interests – leaving the support of churches to church members, while also protecting houses of worship against discrimination and interference from the government.
Other organizations signing the brief included Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Foundation of America, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, Jewish Social Policy Action Network, Union for Reform Judaism, and Women of Reform Judaism.
WASHINGTON – In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer to allow taxpayer dollars to flow directly to houses of worship, undermining the separation of church and state, Barbara Weinstein, Director of the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, issued the following statement on behalf of the Union for Reform Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis and wider Reform Movement:
“The Supreme Court’s (7-2) ruling today undermines core constitutional principles. In ruling for the first time that taxpayer dollars can be granted directly to a house of worship (in this case, for the purpose of playground resurfacing), the Supreme Court has weakened the separation of church and state. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has long been interpreted to bar direct government funding to houses of worship, with the understanding that such support amounts to government endorsement both of religion in general, and of specific religious traditions, denominations or communities.
“The Reform Movement has long opposed direct government funding for houses of worship because we understand that a strong separation between church and state enhances religious freedom, and is protective of both religion and government. For this reason, we were pleased to join a faith-community amicus brief in this case organized by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Religious communities will be constrained in fulfilling their prophetic mission and living openly and freely without fear of government infringement if they are competing against each other for government grants. Further, with government monies comes government rules, regulations and oversight as the government exercises its right to review the use of public funds.
“While there is disagreement from the justices in the majority on how broadly the ruling should apply to the issue of direct funding, this decision has opened the door for a major shift in the relationship between houses of worship and the government that would weaken both. The logic underlying this decision – that houses of worship should be treated the same as other eligible entities receiving government funds – threatens the special protections and exemptions that religious organizations have enjoyed under the First Amendment since our nation’s founding.
“It is precisely because of the long-standing American principles of separation of church and state and religious freedom that have fostered robust religious pluralism and ensured rights, freedoms and opportunities to religious minorities in the United States to an extent nearly unsurpassed in other nations. We remain committed to these ideals and we will continue to fight for a United States that values religious freedom and separation of church and state.”