SomeDam Poet writes about the Supreme Court decision requiring the state of Missouri to pay for the resurfacing of the playground of the Trinity Lutheran Church:

At first, SDP was puzzled by the decision and asked,

“Is playing on the playground part of the Lutheran religion?

“Is that why refusing the Lutheran school public money for the playground resurfacing constitutes abridgement of free exercise of their religion?”

Today, SDP had figured it out and wrote:

“After sleeping on it, I think I now understand the logic in the Court’s decision.

“The playground is a place for children to exercise “religiously” (on a daily basis), right?

“And if the religious school did not get the money from the state — if they had to pay – to resurface the playground, then that exercise would not be free.

“So, by denying the church school the grant money, the state is abridging free exercise and thereby violating the Free Exercise clause in the Constitution.


“PS I also exercise religiously (at Planet Fitness) and as it stands now, I have to pay for that. I am not a lawyer, but given the recent ruling, I believe this may also be unConstutional. It certainly is not good for my constitution to not exercise.”