Trinity Lutheran vs. Comer

[dbackjon]

Big Deal. There are what, 4 High Schools in Montana?

5, you populationist!

Educationist! Get it right.


Actually, looks like AA has 14 high schools - well done, Capital High Brownies!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... in_Montana

[BDKJMU]

Nice snap!

Talk **** all you want, but "we" won 3 straight AA football titles from 2006-2008.

Against who?

These 9 maps and charts show where college football players come from
http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... s-rankings

MAPPING EVERY COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER’S HOMETOWN
January 7, 2017

[Grizalltheway]

Talk **** all you want, but "we" won 3 straight AA football titles from 2006-2008.

Against who?

The Patriots.

[andy7171]

Nice snap!

Talk shit all you want, but "we" won 3 straight AA football titles from 2006-2008.

The tennis team? Nice!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I like Missouri's chances here.

As a small-government guy, I don't think the Feds should be doling out taxpayer-funded goodies to private, secular groups either. But there's no Constitutional prohibition.

And money is speech.

I don't think there's really any Constitutional prohibition on doing something like this. Giving rubber pellets to a religious organization for its playground is not Congress or any other legislative body making a law with respect to the establishment of religion. We're where we are because of the whacky ways in which courts over the years have "interpreted" things. It's not even really interpretation.

I mean really. If you just really ask the question in an intellectually honest way and get rid of all the "court precedent" bullshit that led us to this place there is no way what's being described is a law made by Congress respecting the establishment of religion. That's just objectively not the case and it's ridiculous that anyone would even argue that it is. Yet that's what's done because of the absurd edifice our Judiciary has created over the years.

[kalm]

I like Missouri's chances here.

As a small-government guy, I don't think the Feds should be doling out taxpayer-funded goodies to private, secular groups either. But there's no Constitutional prohibition.

And money is speech.

I don't think there's really any Constitutional prohibition on doing something like this. Giving rubber pellets to a religious organization for its playground is not Congress or any other legislative body making a law with respect to the establishment of religion. We're where we are because of the whacky ways in which courts over the years have "interpreted" things. It's not even really interpretation.

I mean really. If you just really ask the question in an intellectually honest way and get rid of all the "court precedent" bullshit that led us to this place there is no way what's being described is a law made by Congress respecting the establishment of religion. That's just objectively not the case and it's ridiculous that anyone would even argue that it is. Yet that's what's done because of the absurd edifice our Judiciary has created over the years.

I'm guessing there's some sort of law, somewhere on the books, authorizing the funding of grant money in this instance. I've spent some time reviewing the Revised Code of Washington (state) and the City of Spokane Municipal Code, and trust me, they don't fart without first codifying it.

When they give it to one church, they are establishing a religion.

[cx500d]

Isn't that pretty close to the Griz uniform colors during the Dave Dickenson glory years? You might want to return to those colors, the maroon and silver aren't doing it for you.

http://missoulian.com/sports/college/mo ... f887a.html

Doesn't change the fact Wyoming has bathroom colors.

No it doesn't. So does my high school.

[kalm]

I don't think there's really any Constitutional prohibition on doing something like this. Giving rubber pellets to a religious organization for its playground is not Congress or any other legislative body making a law with respect to the establishment of religion. We're where we are because of the whacky ways in which courts over the years have "interpreted" things. It's not even really interpretation.

I mean really. If you just really ask the question in an intellectually honest way and get rid of all the "court precedent" bullshit that led us to this place there is no way what's being described is a law made by Congress respecting the establishment of religion. That's just objectively not the case and it's ridiculous that anyone would even argue that it is. Yet that's what's done because of the absurd edifice our Judiciary has created over the years.

I'm guessing there's some sort of law, somewhere on the books, authorizing the funding of grant money in this instance. I've spent some time reviewing the Revised Code of Washington (state) and the City of Spokane Municipal Code, and trust me, they don't fart without first codifying it.

When they give it to one church, they are establishing a religion.

States rights?

[GannonFan]

I'm with the church on this one - if this was going to a place of worship I think there'd be more of a case to ban the giving of money, but I don't think this threatens the chance of true Establishment simply because the church's playground could better qualify for the grant money than a non-religious supported playground could.

[Ivytalk]

I'm guessing there's some sort of law, somewhere on the books, authorizing the funding of grant money in this instance. I've spent some time reviewing the Revised Code of Washington (state) and the City of Spokane Municipal Code, and trust me, they don't fart without first codifying it.

When they give it to one church, they are establishing a religion.

States rights?

There's a case pending in DE right now where the plaintiff argues that a state constitutional provision concerning the appointment of judges violates the Federal constitution.

[Ibanez]

I'm with the church on this one - if this was going to a place of worship I think there'd be more of a case to ban the giving of money, but I don't think this threatens the chance of true Establishment simply because the church's playground could better qualify for the grant money than a non-religious supported playground could.

I'm confused...you're with the church but think there'd be a case if it went to a place of worship? Are Lutheran churches not places of worship?

[andy7171]

If there are state regulations in play to deem a playground safe, they should get money like any other school. If not the church/school should raise it themselves.

[kalm]

If there are state regulations in play to deem a playground safe, they should get money like any other school. If not the church/school should raise it themselves.

Should the state pay for the construction of new church too as long as they follow the building codes?

[andy7171]

If there are state regulations in play to deem a playground safe, they should get money like any other school. If not the church/school should raise it themselves.

Should the state pay for the construction of new church too as long as they follow the building codes?

No

[kalm]

Should the state pay for the construction of new church too as long as they follow the building codes?

No

Well at least you're consistent.

[Grizalltheway]

Isn't that pretty close to the Griz uniform colors during the Dave Dickenson glory years? You might want to return to those colors, the maroon and silver aren't doing it for you.

http://missoulian.com/sports/college/mo ... f887a.html

No it doesn't. So does my high school.

Not really. But I suppose NDSU made a pretty good case for ass-ugly uniforms being a key to success.

[GannonFan]

I'm with the church on this one - if this was going to a place of worship I think there'd be more of a case to ban the giving of money, but I don't think this threatens the chance of true Establishment simply because the church's playground could better qualify for the grant money than a non-religious supported playground could.

I'm confused...you're with the church but think there'd be a case if it went to a place of worship? Are Lutheran churches not places of worship?

No, you're missing the point. I'm with the argument that the money is for improving the safety of the ground on which the playground is built on. It doesn't carry a religious meaning, it's not money being used to do any work on the church proper, and if a religious entity didn't own this thing it wouldn't even be a question that they would get the money. I buy the argument that in this case, giving out grant money to improve the safety of playgrounds should not be restricted simply because the owner is a religious entity.

[Ibanez]

I'm confused...you're with the church but think there'd be a case if it went to a place of worship? Are Lutheran churches not places of worship?

No, you're missing the point. I'm with the argument that the money is for improving the safety of the ground on which the playground is built on. It doesn't carry a religious meaning, it's not money being used to do any work on the church proper, and if a religious entity didn't own this thing it wouldn't even be a question that they would get the money. I buy the argument that in this case, giving out grant money to improve the safety of playgrounds should not be restricted simply because the owner is a religious entity.

I see what you're saying.

[Skjellyfetti]

It doesn't carry a religious meaning, it's not money being used to do any work on the church proper, and if a religious entity didn't own this thing it wouldn't even be a question that they would get the money.

I agree with this.

And, it's also why I think that churches shouldn't be wholly tax exempt.

[Pwns]

I'm confused...you're with the church but think there'd be a case if it went to a place of worship? Are Lutheran churches not places of worship?

No, you're missing the point. I'm with the argument that the money is for improving the safety of the ground on which the playground is built on. It doesn't carry a religious meaning, it's not money being used to do any work on the church proper, and if a religious entity didn't own this thing it wouldn't even be a question that they would get the money. I buy the argument that in this case, giving out grant money to improve the safety of playgrounds should not be restricted simply because the owner is a religious entity.

The only way I could see you making any real case for the state of Missouri is if you think states ought to be able to take restrictions on public money going to religious institutions even farther than the federal government does. But if we're using the same criteria the federal government uses, this is not a gray area, and Missouri is in the wrong.

Like I said, private religious colleges get public research grants in which part of goes to pay the salaries of faculty. Never heard anyone screaming "church-and-state!" about that...

[kalm]

I'm confused...you're with the church but think there'd be a case if it went to a place of worship? Are Lutheran churches not places of worship?

No, you're missing the point. I'm with the argument that the money is for improving the safety of the ground on which the playground is built on. It doesn't carry a religious meaning, it's not money being used to do any work on the church proper, and if a religious entity didn't own this thing it wouldn't even be a question that they would get the money. I buy the argument that in this case, giving out grant money to improve the safety of playgrounds should not be restricted simply because the owner is a religious entity.

How about government funds government playgrounds and private entities (churches, neighborhood organizations, etc) fund their own?

BTW, this group might enjoy some government help updating their playground...

[GannonFan]

It doesn't carry a religious meaning, it's not money being used to do any work on the church proper, and if a religious entity didn't own this thing it wouldn't even be a question that they would get the money.

I agree with this.

And, it's also why I think that churches shouldn't be wholly tax exempt.

I agree with that too - the tax exempt thing is weird when it comes to property tax. But again, that will likely also have to be weighed against tax exemption for other private entities as well, including cases where the exemption is grandfathered in. It's no small issue to sort out.

[GannonFan]

No, you're missing the point. I'm with the argument that the money is for improving the safety of the ground on which the playground is built on. It doesn't carry a religious meaning, it's not money being used to do any work on the church proper, and if a religious entity didn't own this thing it wouldn't even be a question that they would get the money. I buy the argument that in this case, giving out grant money to improve the safety of playgrounds should not be restricted simply because the owner is a religious entity.

How about government funds government playgrounds and private entities (churches, neighborhood organizations, etc) fund their own?

BTW, this group might enjoy some government help updating their playground...

I think if Missouri didn't give out any money at all to private entities for playground safety then I think they'd be in a much stronger position in this case. Of course, they do in fact give it out to other private entities, just not any that profess any religious basis, hence the court case.

From a legislative standpoint, though, I'm not sure it would be in the best interests of the citizens of Missouri, or any other jurisdiction, to draw a firm line between public and private. Of course there are caveats and issues with having private entities get government funds, but there are too many positives to eliminate it altogether. It's just an area that would need constant attention to make sure it's not abused.

[cx500d]

Isn't that pretty close to the Griz uniform colors during the Dave Dickenson glory years? You might want to return to those colors, the maroon and silver aren't doing it for you.

http://missoulian.com/sports/college/mo ... f887a.html

Not really. But I suppose NDSU made a pretty good case for ass-ugly uniforms being a key to success.

Not sure what you meant, but I like the old griz colors better than the current. Bison colors have been green and gold for more than 40 year; not sure before that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

How about government funds government playgrounds and private entities (churches, neighborhood organizations, etc) fund their own?

BTW, this group might enjoy some government help updating their playground...

I think if Missouri didn't give out any money at all to private entities for playground safety then I think they'd be in a much stronger position in this case. Of course, they do in fact give it out to other private entities, just not any that profess any religious basis, hence the court case.

From a legislative standpoint, though, I'm not sure it would be in the best interests of the citizens of Missouri, or any other jurisdiction, to draw a firm line between public and private. Of course there are caveats and issues with having private entities get government funds, but there are too many positives to eliminate it altogether. It's just an area that would need constant attention to make sure it's not abused.

Tough to argue with what you've said here. Dammit!