On April 13, the Virginia Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a property dispute between the Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Virginia and nine churches in Loudoun and Fairfax counties. The Church of Our Saviour, on Oatlands Mill Road south of Leesburg, is one of the churches involved.
In 2006, the nine churches broke away from the Diocese of Virginia to join the Anglican District of Virginia. They wish to keep the property on which their churches are built. The diocese argued that the churches lost their rights to the properties when they broke away. In 2008, the Fairfax County Circuit Court ruled in favor of the breakaway churches.
TEC’s logic is very odd here. They’re claiming they do not want the state to get involved in church related issues. Yet they are being asked to be treated differently than when be the case under normal property law–after all, the VA churches have title to their properties–because they’re a church. Which is it?
Agreed, Dr. Witt.
But hey, who cares about logic? All TEC cares about is outcomes. But having shown that they don’t give a fig about their own canon laws, how could the leaders of TEC have any scruples about similarly seeking to twist the interpretation of the state laws of VA to their advantage. “[i]All’s fair in love and war[/i]” appears to be their motto, and especially in a church civil war.
I’m just glad that this seemingly interminable case is finally coming to an end. And I’ll venture a prediction that the VA Supreme Court will uphold Judge Randy Bellows’ meticulously crafted decision in favor of the departing churches. But at least the curtain will soon fall on these scandalous lawsuits initiated by the litigious PB and her nefarious chancellor.
David Handy+
Gentlemen, apparently you object to the First Amendment. Although not universally interpreted so, a great many scholars and judges, of all ideological stripes, believe that the Religion Clauses mandate both of the principles you complain about. State should regulate church as little as possible. And religious freedom does not permit the state to treat churches just like secular groups in all ways. In short, it’s a feature, not a bug.
But don’t let me sound a discordant note in the echo chamber here.
Yes, DavidH, states SHOULD regulate church as little as possible. But remember the genesis of these Virginia laws. Virginia was Anglican country from the getgo. That also opened eyes wide to the grab and giggle tendencies of a corrupt or at least oblivious far away hierarchy who made senseless policies to the detriment of the people of Virginia. Things haven’t changed that much, have they?
DavidH, Why shouldn’t our Anglican church receive the full protection of the First Amendment? Why shouldn’t ownership of real property be decided by the real property laws of the state?
There have been two important rulings – one in Michigan and one in California – which state that a church shouldn’t be allowed to defy hundreds of years of common law (the unilateral alteration of trusts) just because they are churches. The Anglican Curmudgeon wrote about one of the rulings.
DavidH,
Apparently you object to motherhood and apple pie? See how easy it is to commit the hominem fallacy rather than actually address the logic of an argument?
My point was that TEC’s claim to want the state not to be involved in church related issues is inconsistent insofar as their desire to be exempt from standard property laws is a desire for special treatment because they are a church. Your appeal to the first amendment is exactly the same inconsistency. Either insist that the state stay out of church related issues, in which TEC should be subject to the same property laws as everyone else, or argue that TEC should have a special status because of its uniquely religious position, in which the state is very much involved. But please make up your mind!
I wonder, how would you feel if the Roman Catholic Church were to appeal to the first amendment for warrant that Catholic priests should not be subject to the same criminal or civil penalties that would apply to anyone else in the current sex abuse scandals?
That’s ad hominem fallacy.
It would be terrific if the VA Supreme Court ruled in favor of the departing parishes. That would be 2 states with sense enough to realize to whom parish property rightfully belongs.
CanaAnglican, 5, you’ve been denied the protection of the First Amendment how exactly? Also, your second question makes no sense. Ownership will be decided by the law of Virginia; the question is which part of that law.
robroy, 6, since the Fairfax court did not apply common law of trusts, you’re off a bit in left field.
Dr. Witt, 7, you protest far too much — dismissing the criticism while repeating exactly the same fallacy. As I noted, many would say that the First Amendment mandates both of the positions you label as inconsistent. I don’t believe your summary of the two positions is accurate at all, but leave that aside for now. How is it consistent with either position for a state to pass a law that applies only to churches, not to everyone else, and that imposes or favors a specific method/kind of church governance? How is it consistent with either position for a state to say that property may be held in trust for any person or group except a diocese or denomination? There are many more questions that could be asked, but start with those.
Your Catholic hypothetical is about as different as one can get from the actual situation here.
I don’t think this is the place to start into a detailed discussion of the two main theories of constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion. Nor am I claiming to be the best person to explain them. Suffice it to say that ideology does not match up neatly with constitutional theory in this area, and that the soundbytes often found on Anglican blogs (on both sides) don’t really address the interesting and complicated issues involved in these cases, particularly the Virginia litigation.
DavidH, I did not say we have been denied First Amendment protection, or that property disputes in VA will not be settled by the real property laws of VA. I merely asked why this should not be the case. TEC has said that only they “are the church” here and the courts should not intrude to hear our plea. Further, TEC claims their rules, not those of the state, should settle any property dispute. I say “Nuts!”