In a surprise visit to the Missouri House last Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt summed up the U.S. Supreme Court case argued the same day challenging Missouri’s Blaine Amendment.“The issue is probably a whole lot bigger than the playground program using shredded tires,” Blunt told lawmakers.Yes it is, namely an examination of the prohibition against using public money for religious purposes that is firmly embedded in the Missouri Constitution — perhaps a little too firmly.At the heart of the case is Missouri’s Blaine Amendment, which voters inserted into the state Constitution in 1875 as part of a nationwide anti-Catholic movement to ensure tax money was not used to fund Catholic schools. Similar laws are in effect in 38 states.The relevant provision specifically provides that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion.”The state Department of Natural Resources used the provision to deny a Lutheran Church’s request for recycled tire scraps through a program administered by the Department of Natural Resources’ Solid Waste Management Program.As far as test cases go, the facts aren’t good for the state. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Mo., wanted to use the scrap material to provide a safer playground for children who attended its day care and for neighborhood children who use the playground after hours — a purely secular matter.In fact, Trinity’s grant application ranked fifth out of 44 applications in a grant cycle where a total of 14 projects were funded. But the state denied Trinity’s application solely on the grounds it was a religious organization under a strict reading of its Blaine Amendment.Although courts have previously upheld Missouri’s Blaine Amendment, they have also suggested it requires a degree of separation between church and state that is probably higher than that required by the First Amendment.Critics of the Blaine Amendment contend it is too broad and too rigid and its strict application, as in this case, leads to absurd results. We agree.Taken to its logical extension, the state in theory could deny police or fire protection to a church under the “indirect” public aid language. Of course, that is ridiculous and hasn’t happened but it illustrates the difficulty in harmonizing the Blaine Amendment’s intent with the restrictive way it is drafted.We understand the fears of those who believe if the court strikes down the prohibition it will create a slippery slope and lead to things like school vouchers.But if the court were to rule that way, the wall between church and state would still stand strong — buttressed by the Establishment Clause and all its progeny.But this case proves, like Blunt and others have argued, that the Blaine Amendment has “outlived its time, if it ever had a time.”