They paved Paradise, and put up a parking lot . . .

Or at least, that’s what they want to do.

I remember that during the controversy over the Ten Commandments display on the Texas State Capitol grounds some atheists asked, “why not put this monument up on church grounds? Then no one can tell you that you can’t put it up.”

Well, actually they can. Texian Weblog commented last year on the stunningly horrendous Kelo decision from the Supreme Court. It’s one of those decisions that’s so bad, it makes me wish I knew more adjectives to describe just how bad it is.

After that post, Texian Weblog commented on an article from Christianity Today that warned of the threat the Kelo decision posed to churches.

CT’s fears seem to be coming true. The New York Times reports that the City of Sandy Springs, OK plans to pave over a deteriorating neighborhood that includes Centennial Baptist Church, then sell the land to a private developer who will build retail space (NRO reported on the same issue, so you know it’s true, even though it comes from the NYT). Quite literally, they plan to pave Paradise and put up a parking lot. And, thanks to the Court’s decision, government feels empowered to do so. The NYT reports,

Strengthened by a United States Supreme Court ruling last summer that approved the condemnation of private property by New London, Conn., for resale to other private interests for what the court called "public purpose," municipalities around the country are considering similar forced takings, to a chorus of opposition by local interests and state legislators.

Now, from that quote, you should be able to see what’s wrong the Court’s decision, even without having to go back and read our previous posts on it. The Constitution never uses the phrase “public purpose” in the context of eminent domain. Amendment V contains what is called the Takings Clause, and it says, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

There’s a big difference between “public use,” and “public purpose.” The Constitution demands that if government is going to use its power to take private property away from a citizen, then government must actually put that property to public use, such as building a highway or school. Selling the land to a private developer to build a Home Depot is not a public use. It is a private use that may have a public benefit, such as increased tax revenue. But, this is not permitted under the Constitution, and the Sandy Springs, OK issue is an excellent example of why this is not permitted. Without this restriction, the government is free to take any citizen’s property in an effort to increase tax revenue.

Government’s expanded power now threatens religious liberty. The cold truth is that churches don’t pay taxes, and so greedy city governments are always trying to limit, or in this case eliminate, church property within the city.

This is why Christians become so very concerned when they see growing hostility toward Christianity in government. Sure, it might not mean much to our religious liberty if the Supreme Court forces the State to remove a Ten Commandments monument. But, the increased hostility we see in government, coupled with government’s extreme powers, frightens us. And rightfully so.

The NYT article notes that Texas is one of a growing number of states that have passed legislation to prevent such forced takings. Texas, at least, is still the land of the free.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Texian Weblog © Copyright 2006, Jason E. Heath