Posted on 05/02/2018 9:12:40 AM PDT by Faith Presses On
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case in which a Michigan township changed its zoning laws to prevent a Christian school from entering the community.
“This is a deeply disappointing decision, not only because of what it means for our clients, but because it will embolden other cities and towns across the country to keep religious organizations from contributing to their community,” said Hiram Sasser, general counsel to First Liberty, which represents Livingston Christian Schoolin the case against Genoa Charter Township.
“We are extremely disappointed the Supreme Court will allow this terrible precedent to stand.”
For a case to be heard, it must have the support of at least four justices.
The decision came after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it isn’t a burden on religious exercise for a “city to use its zoning laws to prevent a religious school, church, synagogue, or mosque from moving into town.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Also:
The secular media has covered this dispute in the past, but I don’t see any articles on this Supreme Court move.
Zoning laws are of themselves of questionable Constitutionality.
Why do I think if this were a mosque, this case would have turned out very differently?
There are only three decent ones on the court.
We have to wait for more.
Maybe this will provide a precedent for towns to keep out mosques and madrassas
I’m praying for more openings. Not too worried about HOW they become open.
They need to press the gas peddle down and end up with many Christians in the slammer-the whole Christian Persecution laid out on the streets.
WND is lying, zoning wasn’t changed to block the school. The school applies for a special use permit, and was denied due to traffic concerns. The school might be justified in their complaint, but there no reason to overblow this story, which is just small town nimby politics, not part of some greater narrative of Christian oppression.
Imagine zoning prohibited a muslim mosque.
[[For a case to be heard, it must have the support of at least four justices.]]
What is this rumor i’ve heard that our supreme court is now conservative? The case couldn’t find 4 justices to agree to hear the case?
I think that is the point. If this was OK then we’d see Mosques spring up all over the place - They are the ones building now; certainly not churches and synagogues
Some of the most repressive, despotic and tyrannical government can be local. Most of what is done is usually secretive and rarely of any true representation of citizens. Even when people object by plurality the a-holes do what they want anyway. I see it all the time especially in the Socialist Republic of NJ and the “Free”holders.
How do you know that three justices voted to take the matter up?
If this were about a Mosque.......
So-called "progressives" of both Parties in recent times, portray themselves as the "intellectual" elite, although they may be totally bereft of any real knowledge or understanding of the great ideas which were the seedbed of Ameria's successful 200-year experiment in liberty.
Today's so-called "progressives," with all of their domination of academia and Far Left politics, seem to fit into a category described in an essay by T.S. Eliot on Virgil:
"In our time, when men seem more than ever to confuse wisdom with knowledge and knowledge with information and to try to solve the problems of life in terms of engineering, there is coming into existence a new kind of provincialism which perhaps deserves a new name. It is a provincialism not of space but of time--one for which history is merely a chronicle of human devices which have served their turn and have been scrapped, one for which the world is the property solely of the living, a property in which the dead hold no share."(Bold added for emphasis)
Without intellectual anchoring in the enduring ideas which provided the philosophical foundation of America's Declaration of Independence and Constitution, their vain imaginations of superiority only expose their limited world view.
Yet, the America which rose from obscurity to greatness, from crude hoes and axes to putting a man on the moon, and from oppression by King George to a symbol of liberty for millions all over the world--that America provides shelter for them, even as they attempt to "change" her into something unimagined by the Founders, and ungrounded in Constitutional principles.
If they are allowed to succeed in their own little provincial experiment, their posterity never will know the "blessings of Liberty" proclaimed by the Preamble to America's Constitution.
See excerpts: The Anvil that Has Worn Out Many Hammers
By Editorial Staff
Published December 22, 2007
Nineteenth century writer H.L. Hastings once forcibly illustrated the unique way in which the Bible has withstood the attacks of skepticism:
“When the French monarch proposed the persecution of Christians in his dominion, an old statesman and warrior said to him, ‘Sire, the church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.’ So the hammers of infidels have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they die and the book still lives.”"(End excerpt)
Now, read an excerpt from John Quincy Adams's Jubilee Address, delivered in April 1839, in New York City, which recaps the real history of the founding of America and the framing of its Constitution:
Excerpts: “The motive for the Declaration of Independence was on its face avowed to be "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Its purpose to declare the causes which impelled the people of the English colonies on the continent of North America, to separate themselves from the political community of the British nation. They declare only, the causes of their separation, but they announce at the same time their assumption of the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, among the powers of the earth.“Thus their first movement is to recognize and appeal to the laws of nature and to nature's God, for their right to assume the attributes of sovereign power as an independent nation.
“The causes of their necessary separation, for they begin and end by declaring it necessary, alleged in the Declaration, are all founded on the same laws of nature and of nature's God - and hence as preliminary to the enumeration of the causes of separation, they set forth as self-evident truths, the rights of individual man, by the laws of nature and of nature's God, to life, to liberty, to the pursuit of happiness. That all men are created equal. That to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuits of happiness, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. All this is by the laws of nature and of nature's God, and of course presupposes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and of government. It avers, also, that governments are instituted to secure these rights of nature and of nature's God, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of THE PEOPLE to alter, or to abolish it, and to institute a new government - to throw off a government degenerating into despotism, and to provide new guards for their future security. They proceed then to say that such was then the situation of the Colonies, and such the necessity which constrained them to alter their former systems of government.”
And if it was a mosque? I think the decision is good just for that reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.