• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

By Scott Weiser, Boulder

Lifebridge Christian Church critic Richard Juday objects to the Longmont church’s development plans because it might become a “religious enclave” that wouldn’t “integrate into the social fabric of the city.” (“Church’s Union plan dividing Longmont,” July 20 and “Petition tries to undo Longmont church’s plan,” Aug. 30.)

Even if true, so what? Who cares? I’m not a religious person, but I believe in the First Amendment, the rule of law, and tolerance for diversity of belief, and I welcome the church to the community.

It’s fashionable to marginalize, demean and taint religion, as if it is a shameful thing to express one’s faith in public. But what those who do so ignore is that — just as the Constitution’s Establishment Clause forbids the government from establishing a state-sponsored religion — its Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from engaging in religious oppression, especially through zoning.

Some scholars claim that the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses require a “benign neglect” of religion by government, neither favoring nor disfavoring it. But in fact, government has an affirmative obligation to actively protect the rights of religionists against religious oppression by anyone. This duty outweighs all of the petty aesthetic or “character of the neighborhood” canards trotted out by objectors to the church’s plan. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act codifies and ratifies the affirmative obligation of local zoning authorities to actively facilitate religious freedom.

The right of the people to freely assemble and freely exercise their religion is a fundamental right and root precept of our entire system of law and society. This includes the inviolable right to establish “religious enclaves” for the defense of religious practice against those bent on oppression and the destruction of constitutional rights.

Scott Weiser is a resident of Boulder.

READER COMMENTS

Why would Lifebridge invite Angie Paccione? They aren't putting in a trailer park.

Of those 317 house, a LOT of em are $1 million +

Pretty pricey for 'humble servants of God'

How would Jesus xeriscape?

This whole 'annex' is a thin tissue of lies and it's not going to hold up.

If you live in Longmont, sign the Referendum petition:

http://www.whatsinitforlongmont.org/wp/petition-signing-locations/

Above is the quintessential "They are persecuting us" argument.
This church, LifeBridge, in 1998 got their church elder, Glen Vaad, elected as county commissioner in Weld County. A few weeks after that they bought the property. He won re-election and within two weeks LifeBridge went for rezoning. He was the commisioner for that district, district 2. If a corporation had done this there would have been a huge outcry. There is much behavior by this "church" which speaks of abuse of status. LifeBridge had Marilyn Musgrave address the congregation - Angie Pacconie got no such invite. Do they have a political wing and agenda?
There is having a right and there is the abuse of a right.
The reason Longmont is upset is because it is going to cost the city a pretty penny to supply services into an area that could by legal precedents being set around the county be tax free. This could literally be a 1/2 million to a million dollar a year services subsidy for the church. I believe somewhere in the constitution it says that the government shall not favor one religion over another. Should we be subsidizing all churches? Is this the affirmative action you expect of government toward churches?
This is not a case of religious oppression. It is a case of oppressive religious abuse.

"But in fact, government has an affirmative obligation to actively protect the rights of religionists against religious oppression by anyone"
---
what?

So we should allow churches to fleece our cities? Compromise our economic security?

Sorry, that's madness.

I'm all for TURNING the other cheek, just not SPREADING them.

"Their proposal includes 317 houses, apartments and condominiums; 57 acres of religious and civic space; 40 acres of mixed-use commercial, retail and office space; and a 150,000-square-foot sports arena used for worship services. " according to the DP 8/14/07 edition. Thats quite a chunk of land and considering its a "church" that means quite a chunk of TAX FREE land. I have no problem if LifeBridge Christian Church wants to build its own compound or cult haven as long as it pays taxes like ever other business in the United States. If LifeBridge Christian Church makes a profit, and I don't see why they would do this without making a profit, they owe the city and uncle sam its due.

POST A COMMENT

• Voters betrayed by Ref C shell game
• The reality of single payer
• Heed the voice of classroom experience
• Five overlooked truths about education
• Single payer would attract businesses, growth
• Let annexation for church stand
• Back on course/Great Outdoors Colorado is on the rebound, but the Division of State Parks ...
• A lesson from our heritage