Posted on 06/28/2005 7:37:31 AM PDT by rhema
Religious institutions may be more vulnerable to takeover through eminent domain after Thursday's (June 23) Supreme Court ruling that gives local governments greater power to seize properties for private economic development, according to some religious and civil rights advocacy groups.
Churches, mosques, synagogues and other nonprofit religious entities are considered especially at threat because they generate no tax revenue for cities, while developments like hotels or shopping malls are seen to be economic boons for urban renewal projects.
"Because all houses of worship are tax-exempt, they will continue to be attractive targets for seizure by revenue-hungry local governments," said Jared Leland, media and legal counsel of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
The Becket Fund is a nonprofit, interfaith legal organization that advocates for the free expression of religion.
The Becket Fund, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Rutherford Institute and many other groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of seven residents of New London, Conn., who were fighting the city's decision to raze their homes to allow private developers to build a commercial complex.
Leland warned that taking land and property strictly for economic interests is a dangerous slippery slope, and said religious organizations threatened by this decision offer communities services and aid that are immeasurable by monetary standards.
"Religion is something that may not have an economic impact on communities, but does have a tremendous social impact on communities." Leland said. "Religious institutions should be welcomed and protected in the land-use matter."
John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said public furor may protect some religious institutions from takeovers, but warned they still will be vulnerable.
"If push comes to shove, churches, synagogues and anyone who they don't consider tax-generating entities will come under this," Whitehead said.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
Would a liberal mayor or city council see it correct to remove more conservative churches this way? They cause division in their thoughts.
Wanna erally pee off the LIBS, go after the NYC Church of Scientology buildings!~}
Why not? They've locked people out using more "progressive means". Now they can use the RE "commercial development" ruling, and do it far more openly.
They cause division in their thoughts.
They always have caused great divisions -- this is what liberals do: Divide people.
Any time government is granted a new power, it is solely at the expense of the governed.
When they kick out your frontdoorThis could be an eye-opener for the liberal clergy. Unfortunately, I expect almost 100% capitulation.
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?
How much longer will that last?
There you go introducing relevant facts into a thread.
>>This is just another step in the the 'rats war against Christianity. They'll start siezing churches 'for the greater good.'<<
It is not a Democrat attack. It is BOTH parties. Our REPUBLICAN President and Congress have not shown absolute outrage on this at all, as would be expected if they actually represented American values, like the Founding Fathers, who would be in arms over this. The useless ones in both parties(99%+) have said nada.
His,
Bob Z>.
But........the "lesser of two evi9ls" party will still get the votes.
That's the key line. One would have thought that the homeowners in Connecticut had the Constitution and case law behind them. In fact, I'd expect a taking of church (or other tax-exempt) land to be the next eminent domain case before SCOTUS, and even money says that will enter the courts by Christmas this year.
Practicing, or CINOs?
Maybe this is a good reason to start taxing church properties. If they generate tax revenue, the same as any other entity, it will be harder to make a case that there will be a public benefit by seizing them for taxable development.
In any case, tax exemption for churches is a public subsidy for them. It's only a matter of time before the SCOTUS comes to the same conclusion.
Scientology comes to mind, but maybe that's because Tom Cruise's face is all over the supermarket checkout stand lately...
"""We religious folks can be pretty powerful when we're mad."""
And pretty mad when we're powerful.
Isn't it time SOMEONE applied a little madness in the fight on terror, thus making it go away?
GO BENNY GO !!! GO BENNY GO !!! GO BENNY GO !!!
I remember reading somewhere that the Church sought to buy the property in front of Saint Patrick's that is now occupied by Rockefeller Center but was blocked by local government hostile to the Church. True or false?
Carolyn
Haven't lived in NY for a long while so dont really know or care.
Sad but true. Where's the outrage from the Republicans? Nothing on the RNC's site, nothing on the White House's site.
That's outrageous. Failing to criticize this decision is to support it.
Trad Ang ping list?
Yes. I didn't click through, but this could be a threat. Although in my locale it's more likely the megachurches to be targeted. (Give me a couple more days, when I'm home, and the Trad-Anglican ping list will return to normal. I think newheart is traveling also.)
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.