In 2017 land in Lancaster Pennsylvania was seized by the government and given to Transco, a privately owned natural gas company, in order for them to build an 183 mile extension to the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline. While many people in the community had complaints about this seizure of land especially as it wasn’t going towards building a road or something for the general public good and for/by the government the Adorers of the Blood of Christ a womans catholic ministry chose to protest and pursue legal action about this seizure of land.
The Adorers of the Blood of Christ have locations in various parts of the world and across the US. As part of their faith they believe that the Earth must be protected due to it being God’s creation. In 2005 the sisters created a land ethic that bid them to recognize the earth as sacred and commit themselves not to harm the earth in their use of their land as part of their Catholic faith. In 2015 the Pope made a similar decree for all those of Catholic faith.The creation of a natural gas pipeline has multiple negative effects on the earth, including of course the fact that natural gas is one of the leading causes of climate change as it is a fossil fuel. Some of the land seized in Lancaster belonged to the Adorers local congregation. To protest this seizure and to try and prevent the land from being used for the pipeline the Sisters chose to build an outdoor chapel. In addition they also chose to pursue legal action against Transco based on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act(RFRA) was a bill passed to ensure that interests in religious freedom are protected. For the Adorers their main argument that they are trying to bring to court is that their faith as Christians calls them to ‘protect creation from desecration.' Sister McCann from the leadership council in St Louis explained that the sisters actively practice to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and that “When a violation is done to one part of creation, it hurts all of us.” For the Adorers their argument centers on the fact that by allowing this pipeline to be built, especially on their property, they are having their ability to practice their faith infringed upon.
The initial 2017 case was overturned in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals but the Adorers have since gone back to court in order to try and have their voices heard. This is not the first time that cases of eminent domain have been challenged on the basis of religious freedom, most notably the desecration of Native American religious sites and burial grounds such as the Dakota Access Pipeline, or Slockish v U.S. Federal Highway Administration. Unfortunately for the Adorers and others who protest eminent domain on the basis of religious freedom there tends to be a poor track record for ruling for minority religious groups.
While I sympathize with the Adorers and their cause I do not think their argument will stand up in court. One of the main reasons for this is because the chapel was built in retaliation to the pipeline’s extension being announced as opposed to an existing chapel being seized by eminent domain. In addition, their belief is rather broad in its design and as opposing counsel has brought up, a nursing home run by the Adorers is powered with natural gas and other of their practices run contrary to this professed belief. These discrepancies can be used to judge the sincerity of their belief. In the initial 2017 ruling Judge Schmeal ruled that the Sisters had not brought up enough evidence that this pipeline violated their religious beliefs and also stated that they had not gone through proper measures to appeal the seizure of their land which is why in part, in 2019 the Supreme Court declined to hear their appeal. The current lawsuit utilizes RFRA in order to seek damages that also intersect with provisions offered by the Natural Gas Act.
While the current suit will not overturn the building of the pipeline or restore the land to the Adorers it may bring them some financial compensation with which they can more freely practice their commitment to doing good for the earth and preventing more damages from being done.
5 comments:
I also agree with the comments of the author towards the end of the blog post. While I also see the destruction of land for purposes that will harm the environment as morally wrong, I believe that the court will not see the Adorers beliefs as significant and will argue this limitation of their ‘free exercise’ is justified. Being that there are little tangible things on the land, other than a chapel that was recently built, the court may be less considerate compared to other cases where religions have sacred and long established artifacts on land. The limit on the Adorers free exercise, I believe, will be burdened and the government will take the land through the court.
I agree with the author in this case, mainly given the extent of their limitations of their Free Exercise (ie. I do not think it is enough of an infringement to backtrack on the original decision). The fact that the chapel was built in retaliation to the pipeline's extension shows that this gesture was more symbolic, rather than the full, original extension of their religious beliefs and obligations. Also, I think Lily brings up a good point, that their beliefs in this area are rather broad, and seemingly not thorough, given that one of their nursing homes uses natural gas (in opposition to their beliefs).
I also agree with the author that there is not enough evidence to side with the Adorers. Their is nothing about the expansion of the pipeline that prevents them from practicing their beliefs, and their beliefs are so broad it is hard not to argue that everything people do violates their beliefs. I also think it is interesting that they built their chapel as a form of retaliation against the plan. Lastly, in this case there is a compelling state interest in building this pipeline to meet the energy demands of the nation. While I think we need to move away from fossil fuels it is still unrealistic to believe we could cut them out entirely overnight. Maybe in 50 years if we are less reliant on fossil fuels it could be argued that there is not a compelling state interest to create this pipeline, but as it stands we need pipelines such as this to keep our country running.
I agree with the author and the other comments on this case. The reasoning for the lawsuit is not going to stop the expansion of the pipeline. I think that if the Adorers had a chapel on the land prior to the government seizing it, they would have a stronger case. I also found it interesting that the Adorers seem to pick and chose the times they care about the environment. This weakens their case and makes their beliefs seem less authentic.
The main component of this case that I feel is essential, is the evaluation of a substantial burden. Though the Adorers seemed to have taken action in relation to the development it is important to distinguish this as evidence of a lack of a substantial burden rather than a lack of evidence of the religious significance. It is difficult not to think about religious legitimacy in this case especially when viewing it in light of other cases for Native American religious freedom. The details are different and distinguish this case in a way that allows us to see the burden on their free exercise to be "broad" and not substantially overrule state interests.
Post a Comment