  Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 2900 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.215.245.97 |
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20060417/M ETRO/604170363/1003 American Atheists Inc. and some Detroit resident are suing the city and the DDA for allowing two churches to receive grants from the facade improvement program, claiming it violates both the US and state constitution. Question: since the basic idea behind the "separation of church and state" is that the government is neutral in regards to religious matters, wouldn't it be just as wrong to bar the two churches from the program based solely on their religious stature? | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1615 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
I aggree. As far as I know, an atheist club could have gotten a facade grant, as could a strip club. | ||
Pdtpuck Member Username: Pdtpuck Post Number: 9 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 208.251.168.194 |
what kills me is that the atheists are INCORPORATED!!!! | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3551 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
I don't agree with the extreme ideology of American Aetheist in regardes to separation of church and state, but to answer Steve's question, I can see their argument. What they are arguing is that tax-exempt religious groups (churches, whatever) should not be granted, or subsidized by, taxes. In other words, if you're not paying taxes, you should not be getting any money from the government in return. Where this group ideologies goes wrong is that there are levels of separation of church and state, and that an out-an-out separation would not allow state and national government from making such things as under-age sex, human sacrafice...and the like sometimes found in religion, illegal. That's why our current system lies somewhere in between, and compromises. As for the particular case, though, they may have a leg to stand on. (Message edited by lmichigan on April 18, 2006) | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 2904 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.215.245.97 |
But the program was not for support of the "religious groups" per se. The facade improvement program was for the support of buildings primarily. Why wouldn't it be just as wrong to impose a "religious use" test upon the building owners and then exclude only them? | ||
Bibs Member Username: Bibs Post Number: 486 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 192.85.50.2 |
The city provides police and fire protection to the church. Is that a violating the seperation of church and state? Perhaps, the church should incorporate and then ask for tax break! The church would be part of the SERVICE industry! | ||
Baliad Member Username: Baliad Post Number: 70 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 12.178.24.2 |
great comments here... thanks for sharing guys... | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 584 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.242.214.106 |
This is an interesting situation. I am a firm advocate of separation of church and state. I support the fight to keep religion out of our government. For example, I oppose state liquor laws banning alcohol sales on Sunday mornings and Christmas. IMO, this situation has nothing to do with religion. My understanding is that every building owner is eligible for facade improvement grants, regardless to the use of the structure. A church is treated the same as a strip club, party store, or office building. Unless the facade grants conflict with the tax exempt status of the church, I don't see a problem with these grants. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3557 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
Bibs, great example. Again, I'm not argeeing with them, but see their argument. The money is being transferred from the government directly to the church body with stipulations that the grants must be used to upgrade the church structure, but still going straight to the church coffers, nonetheless. I don't agree with their argument, but I can see where they may see an overlap. (Message edited by lmichigan on April 19, 2006) | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1505 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.61.197.206 |
What I don't like about this suit is the particular battle they chose. This is a ciity struggling to right itself, but they'd rather sue the city than focus on other issues that could be more relevant to prejudice against atheists. This suit shows me that they've lost their way and have nothing to offer but intolerance. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1584 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.215.246.115 |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the DDA financed by a seperate tax that is only imposed on property owners in the central business district. If that's true than, unless either of the Plaintiffs own property in the CBD, I doubt they have legal standing to bring this suit. | ||
Psewick Member Username: Psewick Post Number: 11 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 70.235.110.46 |
"Tax the churches." |
