If there's one thing the Conservative Christians hate more than atheists it's a liberal church!  Sometimes I sneak over to Bruton Parish Episcopal on Sundays.  They might not be liberal but they're certainly amongst the more, shall I say, enlightened churches around.

It's stunts like this that make me think the Attorney General shouldn't be elected, but rather should undergo the same process as, say, judges.  Hey - when was the last time a member of the Cabinet in Richmond made daily decisions based on what would win him/her a party nomination for governor?  I thank God I wasn't as politically aware when Kilgore was AG.  Please don't even tell me the sort of crap he tried to pass off as "enforcement of the law."

For your information --

In Virginia, the Attorney General has broad powers when the interests of charitable organizations are involved.  Churches are charitable organizations.  See, for example:

_____________________
"This Court long ago recognized the common law authority of the Attorney General to act on behalf of the public in matters involving charitable assets." 255 Va. at 451, 499 S.E.2d at 842.

____________________
§ 2.2-507.1. Authority of Attorney General regarding charitable assets.
A. The assets of a charitable corporation incorporated in or doing any business in Virginia shall be deemed to be held in trust for the public for such purposes as are established by the governing documents of such charitable corporation, the gift or bequest made to such charitable corporation, or other applicable law. The Attorney General shall have the same authority to act on behalf of the public with respect to such assets as he has with respect to assets held by unincorporated charitable trusts and other charitable entities, including the authority to seek such judicial relief as may be necessary to protect the public interest in such assets.
__________________

However, I cannot find a similar case in which the attorney-general intervened.

A talented lawyer can usually find legal justification for what he wants to do.  But how does he determine which side of this case the public interest requires him to favor?

And lest we forget, J. Fiorelli, the pornography-disgraced former Henrico
County School board member works in the AG's office.  Fiorelli graduated from Pat Robertson's "Taliban" law school in Tidewater.

How many more fourth-tier law school scholars work in that office?

Virginia MUST find someone to beat this guy for governor.  McDonnell will be a disaster on par with Gilmore.

"Stop buying the shiny stuff and turn off the television!"

"The Constitution permits multiple methods of resolving church property disputes," McDonnell argues, and does not require the state to defer to denominational leaders.

This is a dispute among private parties, who are quite capable of representing their own interests.  It does not involve "the state," other than the judge who will decide this private dispute.  The A.G.'s authority to protect charitable/non-profit assets is a different issue; that's to ensure that private parties don't ignore the interests of the intended beneficiaries of the property.  So McDonnell could intervene if someone decided to turn charitable property reserved for a particular use into a Burger King.  That's not what's happening here.

And how about the contention that the Constitution "does not require the state to defer to denominational leaders."  Defer?  How is the state involved in this dispute in the first place?  What is its standing?  What right does "the state" have to stick its nose into this private matter?  And exactly how is this particular office of this particular branch of "the state" involved?

Here, the two private parties claim ownership and control of private property.  That's a matter of looking at the property records and applying the law, a judicial, not an administrative branch function.  "The state," in the form of Pat Robertson's boy Bob McDonnell, has no business interfering in this matter.  While we're at it, though, maybe Bob McDonnell can explain how his buddy Pat wound up with the money from the Family Channel without "state" interference?

I found five cases construing Va. Code section 57-9, the statute whose constitutionality Bob McDonnell claims he is defending.  All of them had facts and issues similar to the Episcopalian dispute -- a church split, or split from a denomination, who owns the church property and assets?  All five cases said that this is a matter of interpreting the original records regarding the ownership of the property.

The Attorney General did not intervene in any of those five cases.  Is this case different than the other five, or is it just the Attorney General who's different?

Like many conservatives, McDonnell is against government intervention in private affairs -- except when he's in favor of it.

For those interested, the Diocese of Virginia has posted
the relevant court documents here:

 http://www.thediocese.net/News...

McDonnell's actions here are grandstanding, pure and simple:
the commonwealth has no standing to intervene.