LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY thedemonprist)

Here's a nice big festering crock of you-know-what, courtesy of the New York Times(registration required)

Ruling on Property Seizure Rallies Christian Groups

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: July 11, 2005

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."

A column distributed via e-mail by the evangelical self-help group Focus on the Family said, "Churches located in prime areas should be especially concerned."

In an interview, Jay Sekulow, a Christian radio host and the chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, said the case had touched a nerve.

"We have had more response to this case than we have had to the decision on the Ten Commandments - how about that?" Mr. Sekulow said. "I think it ranks up there with any case we have ever had in showing that the court does, in fact, impact your life."

Many other legal experts dismiss the threat to churches. They note that a federal law, many state laws and the First Amendment make it virtually impossible to focus on religious institutions for condemnation, to say nothing of political resistance to tearing down church buildings.

"I think it is paranoid," said Prof. Thomas W. Merrill of Columbia University's law school.

But Mr. Sekulow said that the Supreme Court ruling could reopen some previously settled issues for churches. And in the atmosphere of the anticipation of a Supreme Court confirmation battle, the idea of a new judicial threat to churches quickly took off.

The Christian opposition to eminent domain shows how the often opposed religious and limited-government wings of the conservative movement have come together for the expected court fight. At a moment when the White House is urging its Christian allies to tone down their talk about abortion, school prayer or other cultural issues, others in the movement applauded their Christian counterparts for pulling together.

"If you are Jerry Falwell, it is probably wise to spend some of your time reminding the head of the chamber of commerce why he and you are on the same team," said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform.

The notion of cities seizing churches seems like "a far-fetched scenario," but it resonates for many conservative Christians, said Lyman Kellstedt, an emeritus professor of political science at Wheaton College, an evangelical school in Illinois. The image captures the feeling that the evangelical vision of society is losing ground, often because of court decisions, he said. "From this community's perspective - and I am part of it - the culture is moving in a direction that is bad."

The reaction began on June 23 when the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not preclude the City of New London, Conn., from using eminent domain to make room for an office complex by displacing homeowners in the name of development. In a dissent, Justice O'Connor said the majority opinion implied an "absurd argument" that, among other things, "any church might be replaced by a retail store" in the name of economic uplift.

The next day, conservative groups convened for conference calls to plan strategy for an expected vacancy on the Supreme Court, and lawyers on the calls urged the groups to warn their supporters about what they said were the implications of the decision.

"It was partly just a meeting of minds across the right," said Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a group founded to support the president's judicial nominees. The issue gave conservatives a chance to rail against powerful interests on behalf of "the little guy," Mr. Rushton said. "There was an instant recognition that decision was so bad that it's good, from our side's point of view."
Unlike social issues that divide people of different religious faiths or worldviews, the fear of losing a home is nearly universal. Some liberal groups, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Congressional Black Caucus, criticized the ruling as a threat to black or low-income neighborhoods.

The idea that economic development is a threat to churches dates at least to 1981, when Detroit used eminent domain to take over the Poletown neighborhood, including its two Roman Catholic parishes, so General Motors could build a plant there. One of the two churches protested the move and drew national attention. (The Michigan Supreme Court later overturned its 1981 ruling in support of the Poletown project, making another similar condemnation unlikely).

But in the Poletown case, the Archdiocese of Detroit had authorized the takeover of the churches. It supported the development project as a boon to the city. In an interview, Bishop Walter A. Hurley of Detroit said the project "was a very positive thing for the community."

The threat to churches resurfaced in Washington conservative circles two years ago when the Institute for Justice, an opponent of eminent domain use, issued a report including the headline "Houses of Worship: Just Another Tax Liability." It listed a handful of religious institutions that had fought with local governments over condemnations in the previous five years, and some involved potential new locations. Some were averted or unresolved.

In 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which addressed complaints about local opposition to the construction of mega-churches by requiring evidence of compelling government interest for any land-use regulations that inhibited a religious group.

Cottonwood, a 6,000-member church, was among the first to test the law. In the late 1990's, the church bought a 15-acre plot in Cypress, Calif., to build a new facility, but before construction began the town condemned the land so that the retailer Costco could build a store.

The church sued the town, citing the land-use law and the First Amendment. Courts had ruled that the First Amendment's protection of free expression also protected pornography shops from targeted condemnation. In 2003, the church won a preliminary injunction from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, leading to a lucrative settlement for the church.

Jared Leland, a lawyer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty who helped represent the church, acknowledged that the Cottonwood case was a better example of protections for churches than it was of the risks they face. "Unlike private homes, religious institutions still have the First Amendment, federal law and state law to lean on," he said.

Still, Mr. Leland argued that letting cities use eminent domain to increase their tax base nonetheless increased the vulnerability of tax-exempt churches. "The decision will inevitably draw the bulldozers toward religious institutions first," he said.

Sorry, but I don't buy that classic "O NOZ ALL TEH CHURCHz0rZ R GOING BAI BAI" fearmongering. It's been my observations that developers go after prime farmland and older housing areas first, rather than attempt to mess with the can of worms that church property entails. And seeing as how my area is currently experiencing some serious growth, if anything, even the churches are getting into the development business and expanding their operations on fields that were once open plains. I know of at least two churches who have slated future buildings for such land sites.



Dear [name of pastor],

I'm writing to you because certain events concerning the roles of religion and government in our country have been really worrying me lately, and I'm interested in hearing your views about them. Although I don't know you very well, I've always enjoyed your sermons, and I’m impressed by the commitment your leadership has influenced towards sharing Christ’s love. I felt it would be better to write this out so that it would give you some time to think over and (if necessary) research the topics I cover, and I hope that as your time permits you would be able to reply, as I understand that your schedule can be often busy.

As you may have noticed in recent months, there has been a good deal of controversy surrounding several topics - for example, the Terri Schiavo case. It seems to me that several powerful figures in government are attempting to play God in such instances when they shouldn't be, and have no clear authority to do so. They appear to be pandering to extremist manipulations, rather than representing their constituents' views, as elected officials are supposed to do.

During the last year, I've had to sort of 'step back' from organized religion in general, both because of some unresolved personal issues of my own, and because the un-Christ-like behavior exhibited by those aforementioned people who claim to be champions of the so-called Christian Right (though they act like anything but) has completely turned me off. I believe that Jesus had some rather harsh things to say about those who publicly paraded their self-professed faith around as if it was a shiny status symbol, but who did not practice the actual tenets of that faith (except in cases where it suited them to do so as they stood to benefit in some way from the attention).

Needless to say, I'm disgusted and enraged by the hypocrisy, ignorance, and downright cruelty of those in positions of power, both secular and religious, who behave as if they have an open mandate to do as they please, without regard for an individual's personal circumstances or for the word of God - which mandates that we are to treat others as we ourselves would want to be treated. Christ Himself laid down the law as "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart" and "You shall love your neighbor as yourself". How do we show love and respect towards God? Not just through private worship (and in fact, Jesus said that the ideal private worship consists of “...go into your room and shut the door, and pray in secret, and your Father who lives in Heaven will hear you...”), but through our actions towards our fellow human beings, because we are all children of God, all creations of His.

I grew up with a basic understanding of Jesus Christ's principles, though I did not have any formal religious teaching until I joined your church in early 2001. I did so because at the time I was going through a hard depression that caused me to think deeply about some things, and because I was curious to see what church would be like - suffice to say that prior to joining I had had no idea of what to expect, and unfortunately carried at the time a minor stereotype of how a church service would be (in a word, boring). I am pleased to say that in the short time I have been a member, I have felt that this church is a good place. I believe that the biggest reason - aside from God - people go to church is to share in the company of their fellow human beings. We were created to be social creatures; God knows this and that is why there is such a saying as "strength in numbers."

Unfortunately there are also some malignant groups who know the value of this saying as well, and they are diligently eating away at our foundation of humanity. I am a member of several Internet groups whose purpose is to promote discussion of religious values, and I have done much reading of online texts. What I have read has chilled me, and in my estimation would chill other Americans if they were more aware of the menace - a virulent form of religion claiming as its core tenet an aggressive "dominionism" mindset which must be instilled on this earth, preferably by forced coercion - that is trying to pass itself off as legitimate Christianity. Not only that, but as someone who wishes to live life in accordance with the values taught by Jesus, I am deeply offended that such hatefulness dares to call itself righteousness and is attempting to dictate through stealth manipulation of American legal systems what people may and may not do with their personal lives. Anyone who openly stands up to such bigotry is painted as "unpatriotic," "liberal," "anti-family," or worse.

God said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "Vengeance is mine." The religious extremists that I speak of use Scripture selectively, and don't seem to care for the parts of Jesus's message that said "treat others as you would want to be treated" and "love God/your neighbor as yourself." Take the case of Randall Terry, founder of the violence-endorsing/advocating anti-choice group Operation Rescue, who proudly travels the nation preaching nuggets like this:

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed."

The latter quote is in reference to homosexual people, and it is also interesting to note that Randall Terry has a son who is gay, and that they are (for obvious reasons) estranged. How sad and sick is it that people both preach this kind of hatefulness and believe in it, even encourage it? Regardless of how one personally feels about homosexuality, I think we as followers of Christ can at least agree that people who are gay deserve to be treated with kindness and respect, no less than we would a heterosexual person, and that final judgment is best left to God, who knows all about a person's true heart.

When Jesus was brought the adulterous woman, he pronounced the judgment "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Yet the extremists who seem to be buying their way into government (and did not Christ say that it is harder for a rich person to enter His kingdom than it is for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle?) appear only too happy to lob accusations at others and cry discrimination when they are called on their hypocritical tactics. For them to claim that they exclusively know what God's will is (which is really their own view on how God should act), and to attempt to force that narrow view on everyone else, is arrogant and blasphemous.

This, I believe, is what is meant as "taking the Lord's name in vain." Somehow I don't think that God would be too pleased with people profiting off His name at the expense of others and using Him to bully and intimidate other people. Faith is not something that can be forced; neither can love coexist with fear. And it's worth noting that about the only time I can ever remember Jesus flying into a true fit of justified rage was when He saw His Father's holy 'home' (the temple) being desecrated by those who loved wealth more than they loved God and their fellow humankind - a sin which Christ expounded upon in many a sermon, much more than He ever lectured on the so-called 'evils' of feminism and liberalism.

For instance, another hot topic is reproductive rights. I think that most if not all rational people can agree on two things: first, that contraception is a necessity for which we can be thankful that God has granted us the intelligence to invent, and second, that abortion is something to be avoided as much as possible (exceptions being cases of rape/incest and when the woman's life is endangered by carrying a pregnancy to full term). Extremists are trying to trick people into equating birth control with abortion (birth control does *not* cause abortions, any legitimate doctor will tell you that), and trying to interfere with the patient/doctor private relationship by joining pharmacies for the very purpose of denying legitimate birth control prescriptions.

To bring you an idea of how close to home this is hitting, right here in Illinois there was a recent case in Chicago where a customer was denied a legitimate prescription, spurring our governor to sign into effect emergency legislation stating that all Illinois pharmacies *must* either fill the prescriptions they are presented with, or find someone else on duty who will fulfill the requirements of their job.

The hypocrisy is galling. These people say that they want to stop abortion - yet they want to deny women the very thing that would *prevent* most abortions in the first place. Also, many women take birth control not just for contraceptive purposes, but for other medically sound health reasons such as polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), or to regulate menstrual cycles. Where is their outrage over all the children already here who are horribly abused (often by the very people who are supposed to protect them - their parents)? Why do they spend so much time and energy trying to find ways to 'crucify' women who are sexually active, instead of trying to help people make informed decisions about sexual matters (which would increase the chances that 1) more people will decide to wait on having sex rather than rush prematurely into it, and 2) that those who do choose to be sexually active will take steps to prevent disease transmission and unwanted pregnancy)?

This should be alarming to anyone because birth control is not the real issue: the right to decide who receives medical treatment and who does not is what's really at stake. Consider: how long will it be before someone is denied their necessary medications - legitimately prescribed by a doctor - for a mental illness such as depression, or attention deficit disorder? How long will it be before someone is denied their medications for diabetes, or cancer, or AIDS? "I will not dispense that medication because it's against my personal beliefs" or "I don't dispense that medication because I think it's God's will that you're supposed to suffer" are not acceptable excuses for refusing to serve someone when you work in a public healthcare facility. In some states, such as Michigan, there are already “conscience clause” laws in effect; they are worded in such a way that they have the potential to be abused, allowing medical personnel to refuse treatment to anyone on “moral grounds.” Someone in the medical field who has malignant intentions can easily interpret such a law as allowing for discrimination against a person he or she does not personally agree with in regards to private background (ex. faith, nationality, etc.). That is *not* Christ-like behavior (seeing as how Jesus laid His hands on a leper and cleansed him) as far as I'm concerned.

Moreover, we are called to be good stewards (i.e., caretakers) of what God has given us, including the earth and its resources. Nowhere in the Bible do I remember reading that it is OK to recklessly pollute the very environment that we all as human beings depend upon for survival. The dominionism that I speak of holds as one of its beliefs that destroying the environment is a good thing, because only then can Christ return to rule the earth. Their real secret behind their professed wishing for God's return is this: they don't care about sharing in God's loving presence, they don't care about sharing in the love of humanity, they *want* the world to be destroyed simply for the selfish and unholy glee they would like to take in seeing everybody they hate - 'foreigners,' homosexuals, women, non-Christians, conservatives, moderates, liberals, etc. (basically anyone who does not share their extreme dominionist views) - be condemned to eternal suffering, both in this world and the next.

This is not only dangerous for us all in the long run but blasphemous as well. Saying that God "cannot" return, or that He does or doesn’t do certain things, is in essence saying that God is dependent upon human beings for existence, which means that such people disbelieve the power and sovereignty of God. Such people are truly the Pharisees of our time, whom Jesus warned of - people more concerned with unnecessarily strict laws and appearances rather than how we treat our fellow humans.

These modern-day Pharisees have, in my view, hijacked both God and the government and are using both as tools with which to dominate (hence the word "dominionism") and control the public as they see fit. I, for one, am sick of this kind of manipulation, and yet I don’t know what to do about it, except to go about my life as I usually do and try to treat others as Christ would. The reason they have gotten so far is because theirs is a ‘stealth movement’ which has cunningly operated under the public “radar" for a long time (it’s estimated that this movement has been around for at least the past thirty years), so as to avoid attracting too much attention to their true goal of installing in this wonderful country a ruinous dictatorship-theocracy that shows none of the common sense and compassion of true Christianity as exemplified by Jesus, but plenty of hostility and ignorance that is anathema to the fostering of a healthy, loving relationship with God and life.

Some internet links you may find helpful in researching this are as follows:

http://www.theocracywatch.org/ – Describes the self-professed “Religious Right’s” agenda and how they’re working to install it.

http://www.reandev.com/taliban/ - Quotes from some of the well-known ‘leaders’ of major religious groups that are actively involved in politics. (The hatefulness in many of these is astonishing.)

http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/ - A blog keeping tabs on dominionist-style tactics.

http://rainbowsendpress.com/exposed/solution.html - Ideas on how we can prevent future deliberate misuse of our Constitution and legal system.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050502-111313-2664r.htm and http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050501-124025-3104r.htm - Two Washington Times articles on a recent conference in New York City concerning religion and politics.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/29/features-ireland.php - An L.A. Weekly article on the new blacklisting of companies that don’t meet neoconservative groups’ standards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/opinion/23thu2.html?ei=5090&en=285b3c805d5b2107&ex=1277179200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print and http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1074105-1,00.html – A New York Times op-ed article and a Time magazine article, respectively, about the reports of inappropriate religious proselytizing in the Armed Forces (specifically, the Air Force).

http://www.christianalliance.org/site/c.bnKIIQNtEoG/b.592941/k.CB7C/Home.htm – Christian Alliance For Progress: An organization of people, both Christian and non, who want to work together to neutralize the dominionist threat. (Many Christians – moderates, conservatives, progressives, and liberals alike, are also starting to speak out against the deliberate misuse of Christianity)

I could go on, but there is so much more out there that it would take forever to describe. So I am interested in hearing your opinion on this, how you perceive the situation, and what we can do not only to stop this tide of darkness, but to fill its void with something good that gives worthwhile purpose and meaning to our lives as people of God. God does indeed help those who help themselves. It's up to us to 'serve and protect' each other from vocal but minor groups that would divide and conquer based on superficialities and outdated prejudices. I believe that nothing less than our collective future depends on our affirmation and actions as faithful stewards of God, those who not only oppose evil but who encourage the sharing of Christ's eternal love. "Blessed are the peacemakers," indeed.

Sincerely, [my name]

I'm going to print and mail this sucker out sometime Monday, but before I do, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on it (i.e., does it say what it should say, or does it need some more editing before I mail it out?).