Seems like an awfully frivolous claim to make, when religous persecution has and does occur in various places around the world with horrible consequences.

America is at its best when it guarantees freedoms; and at it's worst when it abuses those guarantees.

Matt, your artillery is aimed at the wrong target. Both the logic and and the very language to which you refer--"substantial burden," "compelling governmental interest," and "least restrictive means"--comes straight out of Sherbert v. Verner, a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that began a long line of cases privileging certain beliefs and activities of a "religous" nature.

Consequently, we could repeal all the statutes you like--federal, state, or local--and not even begin to touch the problem.

The problem is this: we have two lines of precedent emanating from the U.S. Supreme Court--one holding that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment requires strict neutrality in all governmental relations with religion; and another holding that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment requires a special accommodation of religious activity, so that no "substantial burdens" are imposed without a "compelling governmental interest" furthered in the "least restrictive" manner. It is difficult to reconcile these two streams of precedent because they are in a very deep way contradictory.

So, if you want to do something about this inconsistency, change the coordinates for your artillery to the Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings.

One correction: Sherbert v. Verner was decided in 1963, not 1969. The memory dims with age.

Just want to let you know that the article that you quoted from gives exaggerated, distorted, and just plain false information about the lawsuit in question. I am a long-time member of New Life Church and can tell you that the church has made every effort to be accommodating and friendly to our neighbors.
The subpoenas in question merely ask neighbors and people who have actively opposed the project to divulge any information they have that directly relates to the project.
The church honestly has no desire to "bully" or intimidate anybody. They simply wish to have a judge decide on their case, a reasonable request. According to the laws on the books, the church should have been able to build without any problems.
We may all peacefully disagree on how zoning laws should be interpreted without having any bitterness or anger between us.
The article gives a false impression. I thought you would want to know that it is more sensationalist journalism than honest fact-reporting.

Just want to let you know that the article that you quoted from gives exaggerated, distorted, and just plain false information about the lawsuit in question. I am a long-time member of New Life Church and can tell you that the church has made every effort to be accommodating and friendly to our neighbors.
The subpoenas in question merely ask neighbors and people who have actively opposed the project to divulge any information they have that directly relates to the project.
The church honestly has no desire to "bully" or intimidate anybody. They simply wish to have a judge decide on their case, a reasonable request. According to the laws on the books, the church should have been able to build without any problems.
We may all peacefully disagree on how zoning laws should be interpreted without having any bitterness or anger between us.
The article gives a false impression. I thought you would want to know that it is more sensationalist journalism than honest fact-reporting.

Subpoenas *are* offensive tactics and invasive procedures. There is no legal basis to subpoena the records and communications of individuals not directly involved in the legal procedings. Re: search, seizure and warrant. right to practice religion without oppression does not give the right to either oppress or seize without due cause.

Also, this is not very christian at all.

Furthermore, civil rights are not intended to protect the majority, but rather the minority who are unable to defend themselves against the desires and whims of the majority.

Also, one cannot leverage the right to practice religion (as peaceable assembly) to suppress freedom of speech, or to unlawfully seize without due process or probable cause.

The only "cause" here is the exercise of freedom of speech.

What we have here is an unchristian-like church leverage a lack of understanding of law to scare private citizens into keeping quiet. Frankly, the city should *not* have compromised.