So,this is a court case coming up.
It’ll be the first major case that comes before the new court with Gorsuch.
Apparently, it’s a bit contentious.
To summarize, the church applied for reimbursement for rubberizing its playground to the state, and the state denied it because it was a religious institution, and it said that it does not give grants to religious institutions.
I’m of mixed minds about this myself.
On the one hand, I don’t disagree that tax dollars should go to more secular activities, and of course, the fact that the church pays no taxes itself makes me feel a bit more disinclined to side with them.
On the other, it’s a playground, not a sanctuary or narthex, and they claim it is open to the public (a claim I am interested in knowing more information on, as the church down my street has a playground that they claimed was open to the public, but it is fenced in with “no trespassing” signs).
The state claims that paying for the playground would be promoting the church, and therefore a religion, the church claims that this would not be the case.
I don’t know, kinda a week OP, I’m sorry, but I am interested in this, and am not finding all that much information about the specifics, and kindof surprisingly, no one else has started a thread about it (that I could see, anyway). Like, are private parks eligible, and how public is the church’s park?