Happy Easter folks, In todays Sunday Times magazine there is a nice long article on Mega Churchs. There is also a forum to discuss your views. Its free here, but you have to register. [/url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/magazine/327MEGACHURCH.html
Well I read all 11 pages. Good story. My conclusion is this; Whether the motive is to get rich or actually bring more people to Jesus, the common denominator for Megachurches is growth.
So why would CC proceed with an application to develop a property which legally and environmentally does not support growth? You would have to be either stupid or have faith in the future of the unconstitutional RLUIPA. I think our town officials know what is going on here (The old foot in the door trick). The board should do a case study on growth for megachurches and use this benchmark as part of the decision process.
In between the spin, CC's traffic expert said that traffic would get worse. So what happens when you factor in growth? What word comes after worse?
"So why would CC proceed with an application to develop a property which legally and environmentally does not support growth?"
------------
BR - the answer is very simple. The property legally and environmentally does support his growth! How come all of you keep forgetting that HE IS EXEMPT?? How come you folks forget that the property IS OVER 100 ACRES?? The property is perfect for him. There is plenty of space for him to do whatever the heck he wants to do. And right now, RLUIPA is the law of the land.
