Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Radical Nuns Lose in Court, Continue to Use Natural Gas

Constitution Pipeline - Tom Shepstone ReportsTom Shepstone
Shepstone Management Company, Inc.

 

Radical nuns enticed into opposing the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline as a publicity gimmick lose in court but get to continue to hypocritically use natural gas.

The radical nuns known as the Adorers of the Blood of Christ were apparently drawn into the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline controversy by Lancaster Against Pipelines group that just happens to be led by a religious studies professor who studies such things. They were willingly drawn into a phony chapel fiasco intended to create celebrity type publicity for the pipeline opponents, apparently thinking no one would notice they’re natural gas users who even promote the energy source on their website but would deny it to others. Many did notice and, reportedly, it even came up in court when they challenged Atlantic Sunrise’s right to place the pipeline under their cornfield. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons they lost.

radical nuns

Note vent bringing gas heat into nuns’ lifecare community

Federal District Circuit Judge Jeffrey Schmehl issued a decision earlier in the week after hearing the case of the radical nuns (and others) against the Atlantic Sunrise. Addressing their argument and those of others as well, it was a model of common sense reasoning. It also adhered to the law and exposed the political sham behind the phony chapel (emphasis added):

Defendant Adorers argue they will suffer harm that implicates their fundamental rights to free exercise of religion and ownership of property if Transco is granted immediate possession. Adorers claim that they “exercise their religious beliefs by, among other things, caring for and protecting the land they own,” and that their efforts to “preserve the sacredness of God’s Earth” are integral to the practice of their faith. However, the Adorers have failed to establish how Transco’s possession of the right of way on their land will in any way affect their ability to practice their faith and spread their message. They have not presented one piece of evidence that demonstrates how their religious beliefs will be abridged in any way. Clearly, the harm alleged by Transco outweighs this harm alleged by the Adorers.

Readers will, I expect, agree that’s pretty clear. There was nothing to this whole stunt. It was as fake as that cemetery other fractivists set up. It was all political pretense under the veil of religion, except these nuns mostly don’t wear habits or use veils. They’re all about making statements of a different sort and they wore thin. I’m guessing the fact they were documented users of natural gas and even promoted it on their lifecare community website didn’t help. Hypocrisy doesn’t wear well with religion either. But, like so many trust-funder fractivists, they still have the natural gas they say others shouldn’t have. They gave up nothing to signal their virtues as if pride wasn’t the first sin.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Digg thisFlattr the authorShare on RedditShare on YummlyShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on TumblrBuffer this pagePin on Pinterest

3 thoughts on “Radical Nuns Lose in Court, Continue to Use Natural Gas

  1. Evidence? What’s that? The antifracking pipeline folks don’t need a shred of it as far as many reporters and editors and editorial boards are concerned it seems, no? Interesting that a judge can see clearly where others cannot.

  2. The nuns likely had nothing to do with the fuel used at the facility. The southern half of the main building and all but one of the “cottages” existed before 1992 (the oldest view on Google Earth’s historical imagery slider). The northern addition to the main building was added between 1999 and 2004. The architects were probably hired by local diocese or the nun’s mother order and either expanded the fuel used at the original building or gas was specified by the architects, if the new building needed it’s own heating system.

    All of the above predates the nun’s 2005 decision to regard natural gas as counter to their idea of stewardship of the Earth. I don’t think they were right and am glad the court decision went against them, but if you don’t or can’t or won’t understand what they did over a decade ago, that is YOUR problem, not theirs. There is nothing new about religiously motivated opposition to economic and social issues; we need to counter them with methods that expand our base, not just reinforce the opinions of existing supporters.

    What is encouraging is Transco’s reaction to the inevitable and predictable opposition to the pipeline, unlike the inept bungling by others on the Constitution pipeline.

    • The point is not that these particular nuns had nothing to do with the decision to put gas in their building but, rather, that they promote it today and would deny it to others. Moreover, they aren’t just opposing natural gas, but doing so in a thoroughly demagogic manner. One would think, given their own promotion of their gas, they’d be more open-minded, willing to listen and able to discuss the issue and make their position known without such theatrics. I otherwise largely agree with your observations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


 Powered by Max Banner Ads