Comparative Religious Freedoms - and Lack Thereof

Recently I wrote about Kelo v. City of New London (Conn.), which is currently before the US Supreme Court. At issue is the principle of “eminent domain”, a 5th Amendment right that allows municipalities to take private property away in the name of some public good. Now there are several illuminating commentaries on what’s going on: Mirror of Justice, Professor Bainbridge, and Claremont. The Becket Fund has written an amicus curiae which outlines the religious freedoms issues. Professor Bainbridge gets to the heart of the problem in quoting Russell Kirk:

[F]reedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth.

For its part, The Beckett Fund argues that at stake is the health of the primary providers of public goods, churches and religious organizations:

If tax and economic interests trump all, religious institutions will be the primary targets for the bulldozers in the name of greater tax revenues for municipalities. Land owned by religious institutions–our nation’s quintessential public good providers–risks being forcibly transferred to purely private commercial developers.

Looking northward, Angry in Great White North alerts us to a Globe and Mail story on the Ontario government’s decision on how churches and religious organizations are to handle the same-sex marriage issue. The government is changing its laws to amend the meaning of “spouse,” and assures churches that no church will be required to marry a same-sex couple of they don’t want to. However, AGWN observes that there’s an entire area of church/religious organization activities between the altar and street, and things look murkier on how churches and religious organizations will be affected. I quote at length:

So what constitutes “sacred” property? This is a complicated question. The Attorney-General may be under the impression that the Church building itself is “sacred”, but not, for instance, the Church Hall connected to it.

But what of a hall located in another part of town, managed by a lay organization, but ultimately owned by the diocese. Is that sacred? There are no relics of the patron saint, no altars, no tabernacle (the tabernacle is the little box to the side of the high altar in which the host is stored — it has a little curtain in front called a canopeum).

Doesn’t sound too sacred. No cool Latin words like “canopeum” seem to apply. But in Catholic tradition, properties were often left to the Church in the name of the patron saint. “To Saint Mark I leave…” and the parish or diocese takes secular ownership of the property in the name of the saint. In the eyes of the Church, it is ecclesiastic property. How about in the eyes of the province?

What about properties that are partly owned by the Church? If the Church owns more than 50% of the publicly traded shares, is that good enough? What about a plurality of shares?

What about a property that was not owned by the Church, but then becomes Church property by virtue of a purchase or a bequeathment? Can the Church then toss out gays and lesbians that were using the property for marriage ceremonies?

These are legitimate questions. For instance, I spoke with a leader of religious organization last week who told me that his organization has a pension plan regulated by the Alberta government, which has amended the meaning of “spouse” to accord with the new federal guidelines. This now obliges his organization to pay out pensions to same-sex partners even though the organization has a bona fides exception from human rights law that allows them not to hire people who do not fit with their mission statement. Does this mean that they must pay out a pension in case one of their employees suddenly reveals that he/she has a same-sex partner? How does this affect their bona fides exception in other areas?

The interface between churches/religious organizations and the public sphere is changing in both the US and Canada. Developments in the law in both countries suggest that while religous freedom will be protected, it’s getting harder for churches & organizations to breath.