Ruling on Property Seizure Rallies Christian Groups

[UpInArms]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/politicsspecial1/11church.html

Conservative Christian groups seeking to galvanize support for a battle over a Supreme Court nomination are rallying around the unlikely symbol of a mega-church in Los Alamitos, Calif., one of a handful of houses of worship that have tangled with towns over the use of eminent domain to take their properties.

In the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling two weeks ago in favor of using eminent domain for development that increases a city's tax base, many Christian groups are warning supporters that the tax-exempt status of churches may make them targets, often citing the attempt to take a plot of land from the Cottonwood Christian Center in Los Alamitos.

Many legal experts say the fears are unfounded, and a federal appeals court ultimately blocked the condemnation of Cottonwood's property. But calling the decision evidence that the court is out of touch, several Christian groups have seized on the ruling as a potent new motivation to fight for a conservative to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring.

"Supreme Court decision threatens property rights putting homes, businesses and churches at risk!" the American Center for Law and Justice said in an e-mail bulletin to supporters. The American Family Association warned its members, "If the government decides a mall would produce more tax income than your home or a church, they can now take your home or a church."

...more...

[AX10]

1. This could be bad for us.

It was the liberal judges who ruled stupidly.

[jayfish]

11. How Many Time Must This Be Said?!

Only two justices on the court were appointed by Democrats. Somehow I don't think you care though.

Jay

[Igel]

17. It must be said until everybody believes that

adults can never, ever change his or her political beliefs, or can have a complex set of beliefs that make pigeonholing difficult.

[sandnsea]

20. Change state & local laws

The 'liberal judges' ruled to respect STATE'S RIGHTS and LOCAL CONTROL. The Constitution gives LOCAL AUTHORITIES eminent domain rights according to LOCAL LAW. I thought Republicans WANT locals to have the right to decide these things. All they have to do is WRITE NEW LAWS.

Gads.

[bluestateguy]

2. Unfortunatley they're right

Of course, one way to fix that is to end the tax exemption for churches/synagogues/mosques, etc., but the ruling in Kelo vs. New London is still an outrage that will allow governments to run roughshod over property rights and destroy the intent behind the power of eminent domain.

[DanCa]

3. I agree with bluestateguy (nt)

[Erika]

4. 7 of the 9 are Republican nominees

As in the Schiavo case, the court must determine that "State" law was followed and properly applied. The majority found state law had been properly applied. This was "Not" a constitutional issue and was quite a good ruling based on existing state law.

All the hyperbole has been histrionic.
Don't fall into that hole.

All that is necessary to remedy the ruling is to change the "state" laws.

[Bluerthanblue]

10. Wow....

i've finally found someone else who 'gets it'-

Thanks Erika- the justices 'ruled' on precidence and states rights.
Kelo vs Conn. was not the first 'taking' by local government for 'economic gain'-

And the decision filed by the SCOTUS, says RIGHT in black and white, as clearly as they could that STATES should work to pass laws making this very action illegal. They said if they had, this case would never have ended as it did-

They didn't MAKE law- they didn't even change it- they only looked at the law, the states case, and the precidents.

As distasteful as the law is, they ruled correctly-

And the hyprocricy of the 'christian' fear of having their property 'taken' makes me, as someone who loves Jesus Christ, very sad and ashamed- because it shows exactly 'where their treasure is'- and also where their hearts are- yet again.

We should all work to change the laws in our state, if we don't already have those laws in place- i think that there are 6 or 7 that already have those laws, obviously Connecticut isn't one of them.

(the military sub base closing, the military museum, and the Pfizer Pharmaceutical office park, being the 'major players' does bother me- but in all honesty i DO believe that the courts ruling was 'correct' even if it does seem ridiculous and unfair)

[Erika]

16. How many Christians pay 10% of their income to the poor

as the New Testament commands.

You make a good point.

[WhiteTara]

5. what a great idea!

Those church properties could make great money as bowling alleys! Yeah that's the ticket. Just take the properties from those pretend christians and take care of our towns and cities! The churches don't pay a cent in taxes and all towns and cities are breaking under the weight of freeloaders! Create city parks! Oh, I am excited now!
:bounce:

[dweller]

6. there are ways

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/10/wjudge10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/10/ixworld.html

the possibilities are endless.

dp

[WhiteTara]

8. yep, if developers can get Souter's house

then the fun will begin!
:evilgrin:

[Bluerthanblue]

14. it is a libertarian 'free state' stunt-

and i detest the motivation behind it-
and the 'mindset' of those who are 'signing on'-

Libertarians are not what they appear-
And Souter was singled out only because Mr. Darrow was intending to move here anyway as part of the FSP-

He won't make it- and Chip Meaney said that you can't send proposals to the 'building inspector' to build on land you don't even own yet-

Ignorance of the facts behind this ruling, and the truth that it has NOT changed anything that hasn't been going on for over the last 60 yrs- is rampant-

Read the SCOTUS ruling- it's eye-opening.

[PartyPooper]

7. Wow! I agree.

Tax those bastards into oblivion.

I hate tax cheats pretending to be (above-the-law) abiding citizens in the form of "churches" who preach demogoguery from the pulpit.

:bounce:

[DBoon]

9. Maybe if they started acting like real churches

they wouldn't have so much to worry about.

They should quit the political lobbying, get rid of the high-tech theatrics, and start helping the poor, the sick, and the homeless.

Maybe if they quit acting like mass entertainment and a mass political machine, they would be less likely to be redeveloped.

[Voltaire99]

13. Judging from the trends...

...these are the real churches.

The alternative you describe (apolitical, less showy) is becoming an anachronism. And perhaps that's a measure of its failure; all that tiresome solemnity doesn't seem to have prevented America going the way of Bush culture, has it?

No, I would say the mega-church is a fitting symbol for 21st century Americans. A people who drive SUVs belongs in a stadium-sized echo chamber, where the sound of their avarice and banality can be appropriately amplified.

[DBoon]

18. Then I'll (literally) be damned

if a palace of avarice and banality can expect to get tax breaks.

A palace of avarice and banality should have absolutely no complaint when the city takes their property to build an auto dealership. After all "greed is good". They preach it every week.

[Hardrada]

23. The problem is that the mainstream Prot churches

did not bother to educate their members about the truths of modern science and did not bother to put in place a theology which does not rely on 3rd Century AD metaphysics. They had a chance in the Sixties in the days of Bishop Pike and the "God is Dead" movement but dropped the ball with horrendous consequences.

[Voltaire99]

12. We need a Jesus tax.

Since wooly faith is the only growth industry in America apart from pornography, our future may depend on taxing it.

[DBoon]

19. That or make pornography tax exempt!

nt

[WCGreen]

15. The whole takings thing bothers the shit out of me...

What happens if a city rezones property right next to yours. say it was residential and now all of the sudden it becomes mixed commercial, lite industry which means just about anything short of a nuclear power plant...

They leave the zoning from your property on as it is. You are the line of demarcation.....

So say a muffler shop opens next door. That is a very loud and noxtious business to have next to your home...

Immediatley you try and sell. But the property is now worth 20% less than it was when you last had the property appraised...

Isn't that a form of taking.....

Who is going to reimburse you.......

[sandnsea]

21. Republicans like that shit

Republicans pushed a state law here that let's people use their land any way they want to, cuz that's Murican. The idiots didn't think about the scenario you just described. So when the Supreme Court upholdes the LOCAL LAW, somebody's going to blame liberal judges when the truth is they're just upholding local law. Supremes can't stop local people from writing stupid laws, only unconstitutional ones.

[Erika]

22. Good post n/t

[fasttense]

24. Seems to me they are being bitten by the monster they created.

The conservatives are in control of the judiciary system, just as they are in control of the legislative and executive branches. The religious fanatics helped put these conservative neocons into power. They get what they deserve.