THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY

Is the Supreme Court right support state funding for churches?

Court should not merge church & state

The ruling prevents religious discrimination

 Getty: Alex Wong / Staff

The Supreme Court deciding that a Michigan church should have received state funding for a playground on its property breaches the gap between church and state, write Perry Grossman and Mark Joseph Stern for Slate. The Constitution prohibits this, which will create a precedent that opens the door for further churches getting access to public funding. Conservative judges like Gorsuch and Thomas, in particular, pushed for this result, seemingly based on personal beliefs. Taxpayer money should be reserved for secular purposes only; the Supreme Court is allowing a religious institution to use it for its own purpose. 

Keep on reading at Slate

The recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of a Michigan church, which requested state funding, is not about taxes financing a religious institution but freedom of religion, holds Kyle Sammin of The Federalist. This issue stems from withholding funding from a church due to the sole fact that its religious. The request was for making a children’s playground safer, which is a matter entirely separate from religion. Discriminating against any entity or person due to religion is a violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court understood that funding repairs in no way sponsors the church’s religious teachings.

Keep on reading at The Federalist
60.0%
Where do you stand?
40.0%
SHOW COMMENTS
Write a response...
See what else you’re missing
single