In God’s Name (4)

So we are getting to the end of my discussion on the first of a series of articles in the New York Times about how religious groups in America are using special exemptions to get extra goodies. The last part continues from the previous post about zoning laws and how various religious organizations are trying to get around them.

As I presented in the previous post, there is a law from 2000 that various religious groups are using to contest zoning laws, and one specific case in Boulder County is being investigated.

There are many critics of this law. They argue that the First Amendment itself has long prohibited religious discrimination in zoning. Therefore the decisions being challenged would be just as successful in court if the law had never passed. The article presents one point here:

When Congress considered the law, “what was actually being discussed was ‘How do we make sure churches don’t get discriminated against,’ ” said Marci A. Hamilton, a law professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in Manhattan and the author of “God vs. The Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law” (Cambridge University Press, 2005), which calls for closer scrutiny of some religious exemptions, especially those affecting land use and family law.

Professor Hamilton is advising Boulder County in this case. She adds:

Unfortunately, the answer was to give such an expansive remedy that not only are they not getting discriminated against, but they are now capable of discriminating against all other landowners.

Whether it is the Rocky Mountain Christian Church or other growing churches, the financial stakes a high. In Boulder, under the 2000 law, if the county loses, it will have to pay not only its own legal bills but also those of the church.

If the church loses, it will sacrifice the money it spent on not just legal fees. Money was spent on architectural and public relation fees (of course). What is interesting is that unlike the county, the church could have taken free legal help from various religious advocacy groups. But it has not done so yet.

Yet the stakes is not just about money. If the county wins, this may provide a template for other local governments to use when defending against similar challenges. But if the county loses, then some lawyers fear then most other local governments will also fail. The key element here is that Boulder County has a long history of careful land-use planning and its voters are environmentally demanding. If Boulder loses then successfully arguing that preserving open spaces is a “compelling public interest” may not work elsewhere.

The deputy county attorney David Evan Hughes is quoted as asserting in the county’s filings:

Religious institutions have realized that land-use authorities are vulnerable to the threat of litigation.

Greater clarity from the courts is necessary else the new law’s reach:

will expand to the point where religious institutions are effectively dictating their own land-use regulations.

The article ends with something that echoes the posts I did on the paradox of America and being a Christian nation. In Boulder County, several church members say they cherish the open spaces preserved by the county’s past land-use decisions. But, of course, they think the county is wrong in rejecting the church’s proposal.

The article turns to Lanny Pinchuk, a church member who had formerly served on the county planning board. Whereas he praises all of what the county has done to preserve the environment, when it comes to the church’s plan, he is quoted as saying:

But you can’t keep people from coming to the religious institution of their choice.

Then he adds:

I feel that is just, well, un-American.

Now the church leaders and members have said that their current proposal is the “forever plan”. This would be the last expansion the church would make on this site.

Yet it is important to remember that over its 33 year period, the church has expanded the original building 5 times. And I don’t see this megaplex church being any different that others. Especially since Pastor Ahlgrim is eying the expanding subdivisions from other counties.

It is simple to say “this is it” but in reality, who is to say? Can they really guarantee that in a few years they won’t need more room for other facilities, parking spaces and a large worship area. What happens when this “forever” building if full.

The article ends with Gerry Witt, a founding church member. He is quoted as saying:

At some point, we’re going to have to say we can’t accommodate any more; I mean, we’re not going to have a 100-story building over there

The article ends with:

“So is there any limit?” He thought a moment, then answered his question. “Yes,” he said. “There’s God’s limit. When he says, ‘You’re at your limit,’ that’s when we will stop.”

But what is interesting, he and his wife have put their house on the market so they can more to a less-populated place in the area.

We have more posts on how religious organizations are using loop-holes, the courts and other legal aspects to get advantages others can’t. But I will spend a little time ending these four posts. Which will be echoed in the next series of posts.

For me, it is critical that there is a separation of church and state. A theocracy is dangerous for the average person. It is no different that having a dictatorship. It is important for those of a smaller faith to have protection against a large, dominant one.

Yet the conservative Christians in America has come to dominate various levels of the American governing system. More and more they are dictating American policy. And it threatens groups be it Muslims, Sikhs or Wiccans.

American was founded on Christian values, since the majority of the settlers were Christian. But the Founding Fathers knew that all the sects that came over to America had to be protected. And as America grew, it had to be extended to the faiths of those who immigrated there.

That is why I am spending time on all of this. More and more, America is starting to sound like a theocracy. Conservative Christians get up in arms when a non-Christian takes offence to the Christian language found in secular, government areas. They see it as an attack on their religion.

But for a Muslim or Jew, the signs and details of Christianity in court houses or schools echoes a long history of how Christianity tried to remove them from the world. Be it the pogroms of Europe to the Crusades, Christianity has a long history of trying to get rid of non-Christians. And for a Jewish child standing in a class, having to listen to other children recite the Lord’s Prayer, it reinforces this attempt to destroy or convert.

The other point I am getting from these series is the idea of being a good citizen, be it corporate or private. The government is designed for the whole population, not just a small group. The laws are supposed to be for all.

But when a religious faith, not just Christianity, wants to place itself above the laws, it worries me. In the New Testament, the words of Jesus does not tell followers to go against the government.

Christians are supposed to be good citizens. They are supposed to pay taxes. There are aspects like serving in an army which is not a problem. Even atheists have the right to be an objector and not serve.

But I worry when any faith, be it Christian, Muslim or Jewish, try to separate themselves from society. There are rituals and aspects of each faith that cannot be denied. But they are still members of the society at large, and should appropriately remember that. Not everyone follows the same faith.

With this article and subsequent ones, it strikes me is the selective gleaning of the Bible by many of the Christians out there. They want their cake and eat it too, damn the other people around them.

Yet we have just begun. There will be more posts on this. But for the next couple of days, I am going to take a break so I and you gentle reader can read about something else.