Neighborhood synagogue: Nuisance, or no big deal?

[MckinneyOwnr]

Originally Posted by TX75007

Allow? LOL. The dark side is strong in this one.

Let's see if I understand you. We should not allow black people to marry white people .. that's why we have proper neighborhoods where the races can live unmixed.

MY maternal grandparents are Jewish. My dad's side is Baptist. According to both, where you are is where the Church is. I can pray in my home or in the street or in my mind anywhere else I happen to be. Care to try to stop me? Islam and Hinduism would tell you the same thing.

The distinguishing issue here is one of public nuisance vs being able to sign away your basic rights. You cannot do either.

No, you do not understand me. The ignorance is strong in this one.

Comparing segregation to this issue is going to be the dumbest thing I read all day. Yep, I have no problem proclaiming that, even though it's only 9:22. Good job.

[MckinneyOwnr]

Originally Posted by Big G

Wow. Just wow. This thread really saddens me.

The thread started off with what seemed to be an invitation to a debate of the merits of both sides of the case. That didn't last long.

Ya know, it's possible to offer up coherent, logical arguments in favor of the synagogue.

But why bother, when it's easier to whip out character assassinations?

Miscegenation laws? More like Godwin's law.

You're not going to find a coherent logical argument for this among the supporters. I'm still laughing at 75007 for completely failing to understand what's going on and comparing it to a policy of segregation.

[TX75007]

Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr

No, you do not understand me. The ignorance is strong in this one.

Comparing segregation to this issue is going to be the dumbest thing I read all day. Yep, I have no problem proclaiming that, even though it's only 9:22. Good job.

The First Amendment predates the Civil Rights Act by almost 200 years.

[TX75007]

Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr

You're not going to find a coherent logical argument for this among the supporters. I'm still laughing at 75007 for completely failing to understand what's going on and comparing it to a policy of segregation.

Here is a quote from the article citing religious freedom.

Congregation Toras Chaim is protected under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law designed to protect religious liberties from zoning rules

[TX75007]

Here is another similar case.

Blog: Judge Hammers San Diego County Zoning Against Church

During oral arguments, District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller was so appalled by the legal facts and history of the case he called the county’s actions “draconian.”

I think these cases are not motivated by anti-religion as they are by the Archie Bunkers in our community who just don't like anyone different than they are.

They hide behind "zoning" and "proper use" and then make fun of those of us who stand up for the weak and unfranchised.

[Big G]

Well, whether they are or are not protected by that act is precisely what's before the court. It's far from cut-and-dried.

The devil is in the details.

[Saintmarks]

My personal thoughts on the matter and there is some conflict within them:

As an evangelical Christian, I appreciate our constitution and the freedoms provided in it for religious expression. May I never take for granted our founders who sought to ensure these freedoms for us future generations.

As for the rights of the assembly, scripture is multifaceted in this: While the Judeo side of my history had houses of worship, the Christian side, at least from the book of Acts, did not own houses of worship. Scripture states that they (the early Christians) met daily in homes for worship and fellowship. Paul and Peter did preach in synagogues in Judea as well as on their missionary journeys to Greece and Asia Minor, but there is no reference of any of these bodies of believers owning a "Christian" house of worship.

Here is the flip side, and maybe it is from my evangelical leanings (we are part salesmen in our makeup as the name implies). My brand of evangelicalism believes in the need to preach the gospel to the world but more in lifestyle and in the way we live our lives. The start-up churches I have been a part of WANT to be good neighbors. We feel our message is diminished if we are not good neighbors.

So on one hand, I agree that the congregation has a right under our constitution that should elevate it above picayune HOA laws, but why would a group want to fight its neighbors? While the congregation may win on legal grounds, I must ask, by fighting this, what are they winning in the end?

[Big G]

Anyone remember this case? Good times.

Judge to Euless: Santeria Priest Can Sacrifice Goats | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

A court case forced a Santeria priest to reveal some of his religion’s secrets. Its ritual of animal sacrifice, he revealed on his own. | Dallas Observer

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr

So living next to a Mormon church is completely out of the question (even though it's on land actually zoned and intended to be a church and not a residence) but a synagogue next door is perfectly ok.

Of course. It's not cool to be anti-Semitic in this day and age, but being anti-Mormon is totally acceptable.

[synchronicity]

OK, obligatory "get religion out of the way first" bit - I'm a baptized but unconfirmed Roman Catholic, RC on my mother's side, but my father was Jewish and his parents were Holocaust survivors. My wife is Greek and we are connected to a Greek Orthodox Church (which, to echo Jules from Pulp Fiction, pretty much makes me Greek Orthodox), but my wife is also an on-again/off-again practicing Buddhist. So our family is rpetty much a comparative theology course.

From my view, the point would come down to impact on the community regardless of whether it's a church or synagogue or meat packing plant or football training camp or whatever. it's been awhile since I took Con Law, but in general alws that specifically target protected groups or activities (such as practicing religion) must pass strict scrutiny (they must be necessary to further a compelling government interest) but there are laws that might impact a protected activity but are generally content/activity neutral, for lack of a better term. For example, a law against double parking is not invalidated because someone says they double-parked in order to attend church.

If there are laws, and/or HOA restrictions restricting traffic (pedestrian and otherwise) into/out of residences in the area, or restrictions against ALL non-residential use, orsimilar restrictions, then I'd say the "synagogue" in this case is in trouble. If not...well, then there you go.

I'd note that all of this is a different issue from whether or not the use is a good idea, or would upset the nieghbors or whatever.

Last, I'll note that there are times when laws are passed that purport to be content/activity neutral but in fact have a disproportionate impact on constitutionally protected rights or groups or whatnot. This, however, does not appear to be the case here.