# Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2017, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994 "2017-04-07T17:15:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/141 "2017-04-19T09:29:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You can’t make your case using only _half_ the equation-What about whether there are any benefits to the church? On another topic-Planned Parenthood-it is argued that even if government funds are not being used directly for birth control, it supposedly frees up money from the general fund to transfer for the use of birth control. Likewise, if the grant is used for this church project, it frees up church funds, that would otherwise be used for this non-secular purpose, to be used for a secular purpose instead. The two issues are different: the Planned Parenthood decision is simply one of social policy: the government is not constrained to either fund or not fund them. So it’s perfectly permissible to adopt the position that even if direct funding of abortion (not “birth control”) is stopped, it’s also a good idea to stop indirect funding. In other words, the government is free to decide, “We just don’t want to fund Planned Parenthood.” With the church playground, there are competing constitutional commands. The state constitution says that no money can ever go to a religious entity; the federal constitution’s words have been held to require a neutrality towards religion – but also to forbid an excessive entanglement. Those competing constitutional imperatives don’t exist with Planned Parenthood. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/142 "2017-04-19T13:38:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The two issues are different: the Planned Parenthood decision is simply one of social policy: the government is not constrained to either fund or not fund them. So it’s perfectly permissible to adopt the position that even if direct funding of abortion (not “birth control”) is stopped, it’s also a good idea to stop indirect funding. In other words, the government is free to decide, “We just don’t want to fund Planned Parenthood.” > > With the church playground, there are competing constitutional commands. The state constitution says that no money can ever go to a religious entity; the federal constitution’s words have been held to require a neutrality towards religion – but also to forbid an excessive entanglement. > > Those competing constitutional imperatives don’t exist with Planned Parenthood. Then what is the point of the Hyde amendment? I have seen quite a number of arguments (and I think from you, but I am not sure) that hinged on the idea the the monies going to planned parenthood are fungible, and therefore, any money that the govt pays to fund the 97% of PP that is not abortion “frees up” monies for the other 3% of their operations, and therefore, technically violates the Hyde amendment. I see this as the same thing. By giving them money to pay for their playground that otherwise would have come out of their budget, the government is subsidizing religious expenditures. If they win, and get a check cut out to them, and then buy a new cross or stained glass window with the money (as they can’t spend the money on the playground, as that is already done, and the money is already spent) how is that not the government supporting religion? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/143 "2017-04-19T14:35:05Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > There are lots of taxes aside from federal income taxes that even poor people pay such as sales tax and property tax (if they rent their share of the property tax is baked into their rent). The church does not pay such taxes. churches still pay payroll taxes don’t they? I don’t see what taxes paid to states and localities has to do with federal funding. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/144 "2017-04-19T14:48:24Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > churches still pay payroll taxes don’t they? > > I don’t see what taxes paid to states and localities has to do with federal funding. This case is about funding from the state. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/145 "2017-04-19T14:51:41Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Because money is fungible. > > Say the church has $1,000 and the government gives them $100 for the playground and they use it for that. They still have $1,000 in the bank instead of $900 if they had to pay for it themselves. > > Kind of like what Illinois did with its lottery proceeds. They said that all lottery proceeds would be used to fund education in Illinois. Great right? Well, the lottery funneled millions to education and the government just stopped putting millions in they had previously and spent it elsewhere. > > Plus, it seems to me if the state is paying to improve church property than it is defacto helping that religion (it is now a more attractive thing for potential converts). Under this rationale we should cut off all federal funding to all institutions that offer subsidized abortions. Just because money is fungible does not mean it is untraceable. If the funding is earmarked for a secular purpose, then what does it matter if that leaves them with extra money for other things that the federal government cannot fund? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/146 "2017-04-19T14:55:43Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, CarnalK has it right. The government denying you public money to do something is not the same as making it illegal to do something. > > If the government doesn’t give you money to buy a car, it’s not denying you the ability to own and operate a car. However it the government makes various documents like a license and a registration a requirement for owning and operating a car and then denies those documents to you, it’s preventing you from owning and operating a car. So then I would be OK if the government gave every hetero couple $5000 on their wedding day but didn’t give gay couples the same money? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/147 "2017-04-19T14:58:04Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Under this rationale we should cut off all federal funding to all institutions that offer subsidized abortions. That is _exactly_ what is being attempted right now by those who oppose choice. I believe it’s been all over the news for quite a while. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/148 "2017-04-19T15:10:31Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So then I would be OK if the government gave every hetero couple $5000 on their wedding day but didn’t give gay couples the same money? No, it would be more like the government gives $5000 to any couple that gets a marriage license, but does not give any money to a couple that is married ONLY in the church (without a state sanctioned marriage license). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/149 "2017-04-19T15:12:03Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Then what is the point of the Hyde amendment? > > I have seen quite a number of arguments (and I think from you, but I am not sure) that hinged on the idea the the monies going to planned parenthood are fungible, and therefore, any money that the govt pays to fund the 97% of PP that is not abortion “frees up” monies for the other 3% of their operations, and therefore, technically violates the Hyde amendment. The 3% statistic is misleading. Abortion accounts for somewhere between 15% and 40% of Planned Parenthood’s revenues. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/?utm\_term=.8f49ae823eeb](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/?utm_term=.8f49ae823eeb) With that said, the money is fungible argument isn’t valid in applying the Hyde amendment to the planned parenthood case as long as the money is earmarked for things that aren’t abortion. IIRC the money is mostly Medicaid family planning services. > [@](#): > > I see this as the same thing. By giving them money to pay for their playground that otherwise would have come out of their budget, the government is subsidizing religious expenditures. > > If they win, and get a check cut out to them, and then buy a new cross or stained glass window with the money (as they can’t spend the money on the playground, as that is already done, and the money is already spent) how is that not the government supporting religion? Because the money is repaying them for money they spent on the playground that they should have gotten a long time ago. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/150 "2017-04-19T15:13:27Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > This case is about funding from the state. Oh. In that case. WTF do food stamps have to do with the argument? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/151 "2017-04-19T15:16:52Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That is _exactly_ what is being attempted right now by those who oppose choice. I believe it’s been all over the news for quite a while. Not under the Hyde amendment it isn’t. We already have a law in place that prohibits federal funding of abortion. What is being contemplated is ANOTHER law that specifically targets Planned Parenthood for persecution for doing things that are perfectly legal (which seems pretty fucking fascist to me but YMMV). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/152 "2017-04-19T15:23:56Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > No, it would be more like the government gives $5000 to any couple that gets a marriage license, but does not give any money to a couple that is married ONLY in the church (without a state sanctioned marriage license). ISTM you are changing the analogy because you don’t like where it leads. The argument was that being presented was that being prohibited from marrying is a much more important thing than just being denied a government handout so that you can’t compare the two. So now I am providing an analogy where the gay couple is simply being denied a government handout based on their being gay. How is that different than denying a government handout based on the non-profit being religious in nature. And I don’t really see where you are getting the parenthetical in your revised analogy. Is there some sort of paperwork the church is not providing or filing that the other non-profits are filing? Aside from the religious nature of the non-profit, what is the difference between the church in this case and the other non-profits? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/153 "2017-04-19T15:31:42Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The 3% statistic is misleading. > > Abortion accounts for somewhere between 15% and 40% of Planned Parenthood’s revenues. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/?utm\_term=.8f49ae823eeb](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/?utm_term=.8f49ae823eeb) The 3% stat is correct because it is for percentage of services rendered, not percentage of revenue brought in(which is what your second stat is speculating on). ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/154 "2017-04-19T15:31:46Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > churches still pay payroll taxes don’t they? Not necessarily. Clergy can opt out of Social Security as outlined in Publication 517 from the IRS. I’m not sure if they can opt out of medicare, but I would guess so. I’d think Christian Scientists would. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/155 "2017-04-19T15:38:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because the Constitution sets out religion as a category in its text, and forbids the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It does not forbid the prohibition of free exercise of “non-religious” actions. But that means the government has to define what is and isn’t a religious act. Why is it religious to go and sit in a pew on Sunday morning and not to go play golf on a Sunday morning. Ultimately, you’re going to have to come down to "I know a religious act when I see it?’ type of argument and rule that country club is not a church. But once you do that, you’re on the slippery slope to that mosque is not a church, now that synagogue, now that Catholic church, and finally nothing but this one sect over there. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/156 "2017-04-19T15:46:57Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Abortion accounts for somewhere between 15% and 40% of Planned Parenthood’s revenues. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/?utm\_term=.8f49ae823eeb](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/?utm_term=.8f49ae823eeb) No, it’s between 3% and 37% of _non-government health service_ revenues. Since the whole point of the debate is what percentage of government funds are indirectly used for abortion services, counting only private funding doesn’t make sense at all. That’s especially true since government sources comprise PP’s largest funding source - 43% of all revenue. PP’s actual abortion revenue as a percentage of health services alone (it provides numerous non-healthcare services too) is therefore between 2% and 28%. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/157 "2017-04-19T15:49:53Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > But that means the government has to define what is and isn’t a religious act. Why is it religious to go and sit in a pew on Sunday morning and not to go play golf on a Sunday morning. Ultimately, you’re going to have to come down to "I know a religious act when I see it?’ type of argument and rule that country club is not a church. > > But once you do that, you’re on the slippery slope to that mosque is not a church, now that synagogue, now that Catholic church, and finally nothing but this one sect over there. Yes, and courts have done this for RFRA claims quite successfully. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/158 "2017-04-19T16:29:53Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Oh. In that case. WTF do food stamps have to do with the argument? I don’t know, why don’t you ask someone who brought them up last week. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > ISTM you are changing the analogy because you don’t like where it leads. The argument was that being presented was that being prohibited from marrying is a much more important thing than just being denied a government handout so that you can’t compare the two. > > So now I am providing an analogy where the gay couple is simply being denied a government handout based on their being gay. How is that different than denying a government handout based on the non-profit being religious in nature. So, there is no reason why you brought up marriage at all then. You are saying that it is unfair that a heterosexual couple gets money, and a gay couple does not. I would agree, to a very large extent, that that is not fair, but that has nothing to do, whatsoever, with a church not getting funds for its playground. > [@](#): > > And I don’t really see where you are getting the parenthetical in your revised analogy. Is there some sort of paperwork the church is not providing or filing that the other non-profits are filing? Aside from the religious nature of the non-profit, what is the difference between the church in this case and the other non-profits? Think polygamy. My point is, you can be married in some churches as a polygamist, but the govt will not recognize it. If the govt is giving away 5k to all the married happy couples, should the govt have to give away to the polygamists that were married in the church and “in the eyes of god”, but did not receive a valid state sanctioned marriage certificate. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/159 "2017-04-19T16:41:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, and courts have done this for RFRA claims quite successfully. Depends on whether you agree with their decisions. One might also say they have done this quite _often_. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/160 "2017-04-19T17:06:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, and courts have done this for RFRA claims quite successfully. You mean the RFRA that was held to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court when applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994.md?page=9)