Experts Warn Houses of Worship at Risk After Court Ruling

Christianity Today ^ | 6/27/05 | Yogita Patel

[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.

[CDHart]

Well, we know what's happening to our other rights -- I imagine this one will go down, too. I am so disgusted with the way things are going in this country.

Carolyn

[Ulysses]

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.

Kind of mixed feelings on this issue...

I'm an evangelical pastor. Of course, our church enjoys the "subsidy" of no property taxes on our buildings. Of course, we feel we provide services and positive benefits for our community.

But on the other hand, if we paid our "fair share," no one could tell us to shut up, we could have a real voice in the affairs of the community, etc.

It is absolutely true...whoever pays the band gets to call the tune.

[USF]

Thanks for the ping.

I hope this seriously backfires on not just Justice Souter, but the rest of them too...

[Happy2BMe]

Wonder is Souter is paid up on his property taxes?

[RonF]

Private schools would also be affected in this fashion.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Alia]

I hope someone is investigating too. I wonder if Mayor Menino has worked out a behind the scenes deal with Saudi monied interests. This move is tooo blatant, IMHO. Nope, hadn't heard about it. Thanks for posting.

[Siobhan]

Blatant, but then that hasn't stopped the House of Saud.

[Ciexyz]

I attended a town hall meeting conducted by my local state representative (PA), and I was surprised by the opinions expressed at this meeting against tax-exempt properties who expect to benefit from municipal services. Ex: "If churches won't pay taxes, tell them the fire truck isn't coming."

[reflecting]

dear pastor, you are mistaken on this issue, our not paying taxes is not a subsidy any more than and money you do not give to the government is a subsidy.

The reason the government does not tax the church is because, at an earlier time, people understood that the church was not under the authority of the government, ....while you individually are, the church is not....but alas that was a long time ago before we began to see everything/one as an entity subservient to government.

[KateatRFM]

If the Church were spending the revenue it does not pay in taxes to help God's Children, that would be a good reason to keep the exemption. When the Church is spending the money creating political uproar, encouraging people to march in the streets demanding that the Government "Feed My Sheep" (not at all what Jesus commanded), buying up prime real estate and traveling the world to conferences denouncing Israel, I think it becomes harder to justify letting them have a free ride.

Remember the saying "He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules"? If the Church won't join the community in carrying the taxation cross, why should it be allowed to sit back in air conditioned comfort and demand that the proletariat carry that cross?