A Tiny Chapel - And A Law Beloved By Evangelicals - Might Stand In The Way Of Trump's Wall

[Shabibilicious]

A tiny chapel — and a law beloved by evangelicals — might stand in the way of Trump's wall

 

At Monday’s campaign rally in El Paso, Texas, President Trump proudly proclaimed that construction of his border wall was moving full steam ahead.

“We’ve actually started a big, big portion of the wall today at a very important location, and it’s going up pretty quickly over the next nine months,” Trump said, standing beneath an enormous American flag flanked by two banners that read “finish the wall.”

While Congress did appropriate $600 million last March for construction of 33 miles of new barriers in the Rio Grande Valley, La Lomita, a tiny one-room chapel owned by the Diocese of Brownsville, stands in the path of the proposed new section. To try to block it from being built, the diocese is using a legal argument that should be quite familiar to Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence.

La Lomita chapel in Mission, Texas, on Jan. 15. (Photo: Suzanne Cordeiro/AFP/Getty Images)

 

“As we made pretty clear in our briefing filed on behalf of the diocese in court last week in McAllen, Texas, the diocese intends to assert its rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to fight any building of the wall there,” said Mary McCord, a lawyer at Georgetown University Law School’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who is representing the diocese.

“In other words, that act prohibits government actions that substantially burden the exercise of religion without the government establishing a compelling governmental interest and no other means of satisfying that interest,” McCord told Yahoo News.

The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a bill introduced by New York Rep. Chuck Schumer (now the Senate Democratic leader) was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. It was the basis of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that a corporation, following the religious beliefs of its owners, can deny employees health benefits for contraception.

After the Supreme Court ruled that RFRA did not apply to individual states, some states passed their own versions.

As governor of Indiana, Pence signed the state’s RFRA bill into law in 2015 over objections from those who said it effectively legalized discrimination against gays and lesbians. A massive boycott of the state ensued, leading Indiana lawmakers to add an amendment to protect LGBTQ residents.

Now, that same legal framework could thwart Trump’s plans in Texas for the swift construction of further miles of border wall, even though the section in question has been approved by Congress.

Christmas lights line the doorway of La Lomita Chapel in Mission, Texas, on Jan. 9. (Washington Post/Getty Images)

 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in an email that a contract to build “approximately six miles” of a border wall system along the Rio Grande Valley had been awarded in October and that construction was slated to begin this month.

The project “includes the construction and installation of tactical infrastructure including a reinforced concrete levee wall to the height of the existing levee, 18 feet tall steel bollards installed on top of the concrete wall, and vegetation removal along a 150-foot enforcement zone throughout the approximately six miles of levee wall system,” said a statement from Customs and Border Protection.

Based on the government’s plans, McCord said the wall’s design would “burden free exercise of religion” and “would be a physical barrier between those who seek to worship at the chapel, which dates back to the 1800s.”

The church is on the U.S. side of the border, a few hundred feet from the Rio Grande. It serves worshipers from both countries.

If the church doesn’t voluntarily sell the land where the chapel stands, the Trump administration would need to take it by eminent domain, a legal principle that allows governments to seize property, with compensation, for public purposes.

A judge ruled last week that the government could conduct a survey on the property for future construction, despite objections from Bishop Daniel E. Flores.

“Such a structure would limit the freedom of the church to exercise her mission in the Rio Grande Valley, and would in fact be a sign contrary to the church’s mission,” Flores said in a statement.

The Catholic Church is by no means the only stakeholder to object to the new section of wall. Numerous landholders fear their properties might be taken by eminent domain, including the National Butterfly Center a nature preserve in Mission, Texas, which asked a federal judge Monday to block new wall construction.

McCord argues that the impact of erecting a wall on La Lomita’s property would be severe for the community.

“There are people there every day who engage in prayer. There are services held there,” McCord said. “There’s been a novena going on for the last nine weeks to pray for no wall. There are palm Sunday celebrations, baptisms, etc. It’s in use.”

While McCord hopes that Congress will “prohibit use of previously appropriated funds for construction of a wall,” the case seems far from decided.

“If the government persists in its desire to take the property at La Lomita for the building of the wall, that will have to go through litigation,” McCord says.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/church-uses-religious-freedom-restoration-act-to-contest-trumps-new-wall-section-221341325.html

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited February 13, 2019 by Shabibilicious

[nstoolman1]

Pick the church up and move it a few hundred feet north. 

Pay the church for the land. 

Build a second church on the Mexico side.

Priest can go give two services, if he can cross over to Mexico legally.

Build the barrier. 

If your crossing the river illegally to go to church then get arrested.

No one's right to church is being stopped and no eminent domain issue.

The right of a sovereign nation is being exercised 

 

[Shabibilicious]

15 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

Pick the church up and move it a few hundred feet north. 

Pay the church for the land. 

Build a second church on the Mexico side.

Priest can go give two services, if he can cross over to Mexico legally.

Build the barrier. 

If your crossing the river illegally to go to church then get arrested.

No one's right to church is being stopped and no eminent domain issue.

The right of a sovereign nation is being exercised 

 

 

Those are all good ideas.....Along that line of thinking, in retrospect, what the baker should have done is make the Wedding Cake....sell it to the venue hosting the reception....and then the homosexual couple could simply buy the cake from the venue.....Baker gets paid without having to deal with "those" people, and everybody's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is fulfilled.  

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited February 13, 2019 by Shabibilicious

[nstoolman1]

Baker would have had to decorate it the way the couple wanted and baker would still have had to go against his position of faith. 

 

[patrickgold]

3 hours ago, nstoolman1 said:

Pick the church up and move it a few hundred feet north. 

Pay the church for the land. 

Build a second church on the Mexico side.

Priest can go give two services, if he can cross over to Mexico legally.

Build the barrier. 

If your crossing the river illegally to go to church then get arrested.

No one's right to church is being stopped and no eminent domain issue.

The right of a sovereign nation is being exercised 

 

There's always a solution and yours are great. 

 

The church should agree or lose it completely.  Trump is willing to make offers on all property that hinders the process of protecting our soil.  The church is not doing its due diligence on helping the needy.  Build a church on the opposite side and never lose its faithful followers, also, still do the works of Jesus Christ.   The Diocese does not have its hands tied to come up with a solution, and you (generally speaking) can't tell me they don't have the funds.    Sorry their argument is weak and has no ground to stand on to continue this charades.  Jesus Christ knows his true leaders of His church.. His word, teachings...and will bless those who follow.  A structure is not His church! We all know this, basic 101 of Christ's teachings.  WE ARE HIS CHURCH

[Indraman]

Quote: "Based on the government’s plans, McCord said the wall’s design would “burden free exercise of religion” and “would be a physical barrier between those who seek to worship at the chapel, which dates back to the 1800s.”" 

 

No where in that legislation did it say non US Citizens are considered governed under US law. If the church wants to evangelize in Mexico to NON-US Citizens, they should do like other religious organizations have done and set up facilities in the other country.

 

Indy

[bostonangler]

I find it interesting that the conservative side is now against the rights of a church.... Lordy lordy, what has become of the GOP... They are starting to sound like the left... LOL

Or they could just burn it down... Wouldn't that be a shocker... Like attacking cameramen doing their job. OR our president making fun of the handicapped. Things have gone amiss...

 

B/A

[Karsten]

I find it amazing that the Liberals here still spin everything to suit their reasoning......if the Liberals wanted something and the Church was in the way it would have declared and eye soar, condemned and torn down by now.....making way for a new Islamic Mosque.

 

Karsten 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

7 minutes ago, Karsten said:

I find it amazing that the Liberals here still spin everything to suit their reasoning......if the Liberals wanted something and the Church was in the way it would have declared and eye soar, condemned and torn down by now.....making way for a new Islamic Mosque.

 

Karsten 

I wasn't going to respond to this ridiculous article but you have given me the perfect opportunity. I am really becoming amazed at what 

the loony Democratic Socialist are reaching for now in response to Trump. I mean really does anyone actually think that an amicable solution for this church couldn't be solved? My Lord if I were President Trump and saw that the left was moving to stop my wall because of this I would give 200 acres around the church to Mexico and build my wall just north of that. BOOM problem solved. 

This shows us that two things are certain, 

The Democratic Socialist are on there last leg grabbing at ANYTHING to prove they are still relevant.

And that PRESIDENT TRUMP IS WINNING. 

[Indraman]

2 hours ago, bostonangler said:

I find it interesting that the conservative side is now against the rights of a church.... Lordy lordy, what has become of the GOP... They are starting to sound like the left... LOL

Or they could just burn it down... Wouldn't that be a shocker... Like attacking cameramen doing their job. OR our president making fun of the handicapped. Things have gone amiss...

 

B/A

 

@bostonangler

 

What are the enumerated rights that you feel are now being infringed by the Conservatives? Please elaborate so that I may correct this injustice.

 

Indy

[Muleslayer]

5 hours ago, bostonangler said:

Things have gone amiss...

yes agreed. on your birthday.

[Shabibilicious]

13 hours ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

I wasn't going to respond to this ridiculous article but you have given me the perfect opportunity. I am really becoming amazed at what 

the loony Democratic Socialist are reaching for now in response to Trump. I mean really does anyone actually think that an amicable solution for this church couldn't be solved? My Lord if I were President Trump and saw that the left was moving to stop my wall because of this I would give 200 acres around the church to Mexico and build my wall just north of that. BOOM problem solved. 

This shows us that two things are certain, 

The Democratic Socialist are on there last leg grabbing at ANYTHING to prove they are still relevant.

And that PRESIDENT TRUMP IS WINNING. 

 

Democratic Socialist?.....You mean the Catholic Diocese of Brownsville, Texas?  

 

GO RV, then BV

[MyLadiesDaddy]

WOW, and thank you for proving my point. I know you're elated that I gave you a response personally. Don't expect it again.

[Shabibilicious]

3 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

WOW, and thank you for proving my point. I know you're elated that I gave you a response personally. Don't expect it again.

 

The Catholic Diocese of Brownsville is indeed the organization raising the ruckus here.....not me.  I simply posted the interesting article.  I'm sorry you feel you need to escape again.....never my intention.

 

GO RV, then BV

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Your attempt to disparage my faith and my religion again is a vain attempt at winning a failed argument. Seeing as a Catholic Church is the largest religion in the entire world it only stands to reason that many of its members are of a Democratic Socialist View.

 

There are different levels of faith in all religion. It is not my place nor my desire to ever be the judge of another man. I merely seek the truth. And I know that truth is found only in Jesus Christ as revealed by the Holy Spirit. One must be willing to listen to the Holy Spirit more than their own opinions to be correct.

 

The term sidekick it's not a disparaging word in any form. It relates to someone's compadre, a person of like mind.

[Shabibilicious]

2 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Your attempt to disparage my faith and my religion again is a vain attempt at winning a failed argument. Seeing as a Catholic Church is the largest religion in the entire world it only stands to reason that many of its members are of a Democratic Socialist View.

 

There are different levels of faith in all religion. It is not my place nor my desire to ever be the judge of another man. I merely seek the truth. And I know that truth is found only in Jesus Christ as revealed by the Holy Spirit. One must be willing to listen to the Holy Spirit more than their own opinions to be correct.

 

The term sidekick it's not a disparaging word in any form. It relates to someone's compadre, a person of like mind.

 

Other than Mule, nobody has been more supportive of your faith and the varying faiths of others on this forum than me.....and I've been beaten down for it.  I had your back a number of times when people were coming after you for your religious beliefs.  Bad form, brother....bad form.

 

GO RV, then BV

[MyLadiesDaddy]

2 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Other than Mule, nobody has been more supportive of your faith and the varying faiths of others on this forum than me.....and I've been beaten down for it.  I had your back a number of times when people were coming after you for your religious beliefs.  Bad form, brother....bad form.

 

GO RV, then BV

I I'm well aware of your past defending of my faith. However, pointing out that it was the Catholic Diocese of Texas which has created this issue is seen as using my  faith  against me. I don't care what the faith anyone is, only that creating this situation with  this little church is as useless as it is wrong.  And yes, a Catholic can be wrong several times a  day. I know I am.

[coorslite21]

The Bible might help here with this....the Bible isn't political....just God's word....

 

The Bible speaks decisively to this issue. Romans 13:1-2 says: "Obey the government, for God is the One who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the law of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow."

 

CL

 

[Indraman]

13 hours ago, Indraman said:

 

@bostonangler

 

What are the enumerated rights that you feel are now being infringed by the Conservatives? Please elaborate so that I may correct this injustice.

 

Indy

 

@bostonangler

 

Just wondering if you could reply to my previous request?

 

I would really like to defend the actions of the Conservatives on this forum who have somehow violated the rights of this religious organization...

 

Indy

[Muleslayer]

15 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

Other than Mule

Oh Shite now you did it!