Conservative Classifieds

Add Some Zip to Your Web Site! Have your own web site? Pick up a web sticker to direct your readers to information on legislation, congressional votes, candidates, elections, and more! Just choose your favorite sticker, and copy the code for easy installation.

Printer-Friendly Version

(CNSNews.com) -- There is disagreement over whether the U.S. Supreme Court's recent eminent domain decision endangers the property rights of churches, synagogues and other religious institutions. Some argue that the First Amendment and existing laws may offer adequate protection, while others worry that the decision will open the door to a political assault on the property of people of faith.

The Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London ruling, could mean that "religious institutions that are, by nature, non-commercial and, by law, tax exempt, would be the first to be targeted by the bulldozers because of their alleged lack of economic contribution to the community," according to Jared Leland, media and legal counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

The Becket Fund filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of Susette Kelo and the other homeowners' property rights in the Kelo case. On June 23, the nation's high court expanded the definition of "public use" in eminent domain cases, ruling that the city of New London, Conn., could seize property owners' homes for private development that might generate jobs and increased tax revenue.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor described the slippery slope she believes the court's majority created with its decision.

"[T]he Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use," O'Connor wrote. "It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public -- such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure."

O'Connor voiced another concern, one that resonated with groups advocating on behalf of religious rights. She warned that in expanding the definition of "public use," the majority had come close to embracing "the absurd argument that ... any church that might be replaced with a retail store ... is inherently harmful to society, and thus within the government's power to condemn."

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, agreed with O'Connor's assessment.

"She's absolutely correct, especially since churches are, of course, tax exempt," Sekulow warned. "I think we've got a risk here that's significant."

Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy Institute, told Cybercast News Service that the threat doesn't stop with the potential for taking away property a religious entity already owns.

"A church might want to purchase a property in a high-growth area and, because city planners and developers know that churches don't bring anything to the table in terms of tax revenues, I think that there's a tremendous potential for all kinds of barriers being set up to prevent a church from acquiring property," Palmer explained.

He also fears the ruling might be used to punish churches that are active in promoting political issues involving morality.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2

Copyright © 1998-2005 CNSNews.com - Cybercast News Service