Mediaboss Marketing

It is Easter Sunday, and I cannot sit here on this most holy of Christian holidays without talking about the separation of church and state. More specifically, the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer and actions taken by our governor in an attempt to sway the court in favor of Trinity Lutheran.

For those of you unfamiliar with the case, here is the short summary: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has a program that provides chopped-up used tire rubber to non-profits to help make playgrounds safer for the kids through a grant process. In 2012 Trinity Lutheran Church preschool made application for such a grant, and though "qualified," were denied based on Missouri constitutional law.

"That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship."

Trinity Lutheran is suing on First Amendment grounds. The guiding principle of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause has been made clear in case law and in the writings of those who helped draft the First Amendment to our Constitution that every person has the right to worship the way they feel is correct and the state will not interfere or support any established religion.

According to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, "While the preschool has an open admissions policy, it functions as a self-described 'ministry of Trinity Lutheran Church.'" The DNR believed that because Trinity Lutheran is a religious institution and they expound religious teachings as part of the daily instruction at the preschool, allowing the grant would be in violation of Article 1,Section 7.

Trinity Lutheran's position was that the position taken by the DNR is in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution more specifically, the Establishment Clause. They enlisted the Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious right-wing legal counsel, to represent them in this case.

The alliance claims that 14 other Missouri 501(c)(3) non-profits were awarded the grant for their playgrounds and that Trinity Lutheran, also a 501(c)(3) non-profit institution and otherwise qualified for the grant, was unfairly excluded from the program.

The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Jeffrey Mittman,said of the case: "Its about settled constitutional law that protects individuals rights to practice their religion from government interference and ensures that tax payers are not forced to support any specific religion or religion over non religion."

Two federal courts have already ruled against the church. This week the case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, including the newly confirmed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. It will be his first test as a justice to see if he will follow longstanding precedent established by the court or arrive at some other position.

We know that he sided with the religious institutions in two other high profile cases: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell.

Here's the rub. Last week, Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens issued a directive that allowed "religious organizations to apply for state Department of Natural Resources grants," and in turn the DNR is to consider such applications without prejudice. This appears to be an attempt to circumvent the state's long-established constitutional position and the First Amendment. In other words, it's an attempt to influence the court in its deliberations.

Former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Mike Wolff believes it does. He told St. Louis Public Radio that because of Greitens' directive, the court may have nothing to decide, seeing that the position of the state has been reversed.

Nothing can be further from the truth. The governor cannot change the state Constitution simply with a wave of his pen.

This is not a question of anti-Christian sentiment. I am sure that the DNR would have come to the same conclusion if the application came from a Muslim or Jewish preschool that includes the teaching of religious principles as part of the curriculum.

This is a question of state constitutional law concerning an amendment that is clear and direct: There is to be no action by the state to financially support a religious institution.

Original post:
DAVID ROSMAN: Supreme Court must uphold the First Amendment - Columbia Missourian