[Alberta's Child]

I agree with you. The Supreme Court may be right on the law, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for a church to accept public money.

If a religious organization can't pay for their own playground, then they shouldn't have a playground.

The only exception I might make to this is if the public money is aimed at addressing areas where the state has a legitimate public safety interest. If there was a state program to retrofit old buildings to meet current fire safety standards, for example, then I would have no objection if a church wants to avail themselves of these resources.

[nwrep]

Please read the case. Public safety is exactly the issue here, same as your example...

[TexasGator]

“If a religious organization can’t pay for their own playground, then they shouldn’t have a playground. “

This was a state-wide program to upgrade playgrounds at non-profits.

[LS]

Correct. Victory on the law.

Divest from ALL gubment money if you’re a church.

[Kazan]

If a religious organization can't pay for their own playground, then they shouldn't have a playground.

That wasn't the issue. The issue is whether the government can treat religious non-profits differently than other non-profits. Doing so was blatantly discriminatory.

If taxpayers don't want money on playground safety, then they and their elected representatives can choose not to spend it on any non=profit and only public schools or public playgrounds.

[Mears]

What about the city/town providing school buses for kids that attend parochial schools?

.