Thursday, September 15, 2011

Sacred Spaces and Religious Freedom

The corresponding video can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA5C2l8hq40

9/15/2011 12:45 pm (et) Moderator: logs in on 9/15/2011 12:45 pm (et).
9/15/2011 12:45 pm (et) LauraGomez: private message to Moderator: logs in on 9/15/2011 12:45 pm (et).
9/15/2011 12:51 pm (et) Susan: private message to Moderator: logs in on 9/15/2011 12:51 pm (et).
9/15/2011 12:56 pm (et) Megan E: private message to Moderator: logs in on 9/15/2011 12:56 pm (et).
9/15/2011 12:56 pm (et) Bill Aiken: logs in on 9/15/2011 12:56 pm (et).
9/15/2011 12:56 pm (et) Laura S: private message to Moderator: logs in on 9/15/2011 12:56 pm (et).
9/15/2011 1:00 pm (et) Moderator: Welcome! This is Rebecca from the InterFaith Conference (IFC) and I will be your moderator. As this is still new, let me explain how this will work. On the right, you will see a video playing of our current topic to get the conversation going. If you have a comment and/or question send it along to me, the moderator. As long as I deem it appropriate, the comment will be posted to everyone and the speaker will have the opportunity to answer your question.
9/15/2011 1:00 pm (et) sheaya: private message to Moderator: logs in on 9/15/2011 1:00 pm (et).
9/15/2011 1:00 pm (et) Moderator: Today, our topic is ‘Sacred Spaces and Religious Freedom.’ The reflection is from Mr. Bill Aiken, Chair of IFC's Board and Executive Director of SGI Buddhist Culture Center here in Washington, DC. He has also written a piece on the subject in our bi-monthly e-newsletter that is being disbursed this week.
9/15/2011 1:00 pm (et) Moderator: As always, I would like to remind you of the rules of our engagement. This is a respectful place where we come together to learn more about the religions of the world. Whether you agree or disagree, we welcome your comments and questions that are posed in a respectful manner. Please no profane or offensive remarks, they will not be posted. Also, this is a place of learning, so please refrain from ‘soapboxing.’ If there are any issues or questions about this, they can be submitted along with the comments pertaining to our topic. I am here to make this a pleasant and educational experience for all, so enjoy and remember there are no stupid questions, just hostile ones!
9/15/2011 1:01 pm (et) Moderator: You can now view the beginning comments on the right. As you listen, please feel free to start sending questions or comments (YES, we want your comments). Also, the video will remain within the sidebar, so feel free to return to it as you wish. Our chat window automatically refreshes to keep the flow going, but if you wish to view the whole of the conversation, just hit the archive button. And lastly, PLEASE do not use double quotes as it leads to some issues.
9/15/2011 1:02 pm (et) Clark Lobenstine: logs in on 9/15/2011 1:02 pm (et).
9/15/2011 1:08 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: Where do you think the line is, deciding what is included under these laws and what is not?
9/15/2011 1:09 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: And how would we decide where the line is?
9/15/2011 1:10 pm (et) Bill Aiken: The RLUIPA says that if any local laws place a "substantial burden" on religious exercise, then the state must prove a "Compelling interest" and that it is using the least restrictive means of advancing that interest.
9/15/2011 1:10 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: also have to get at any possible underlying ulterior motives for complaints - are they really legitimate complaints?
9/15/2011 1:10 pm (et) Bill Aiken: As with most issues, the history of court cases gives us the guidelines for knowing where the lines are. It's nt a perfect system, but it moreor less works.
9/15/2011 1:11 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: Those are such vague terms...and I guess we could say a religious building is also vague...
9/15/2011 1:11 pm (et) Bill Aiken: It is sometimes hard to know if complaints are driven by legit concerns or fear of the other.
9/15/2011 1:11 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: I mean we could even extend it to the idea of sacred ground, but that sounds almost like the arguement used against Park 51
9/15/2011 1:11 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Do religions have MORE rights than other places (due to protection under first amendment rights)?
9/15/2011 1:12 pm (et) Bill Aiken: YEs, with the RLUIPA the strict scrutiy adopted in the law gives a higher level of protenction for religious use.
9/15/2011 1:14 pm (et) Bill Aiken: There are a lot og grey areas with this. AS in most cases you hope to work it out among the concerned parties. Otherwise we look for the courts to decide.
9/15/2011 1:15 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: Laura, would you think noise is a legitimate objection?
9/15/2011 1:15 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: Bells? The call to prayer?
9/15/2011 1:17 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: If noise is an issue, that's no reason to prohibit the space existing, only to use the 'least restrictive' means to keep the noice levels down
9/15/2011 1:17 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: So, a mosque, for instance, typically cannot broadcast their call to prayer out into the neighborhood but may only broadcast it inside the building (over a PA system, for instance)
9/15/2011 1:18 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: similarly, I imagine that if people complain about bells from a church, to be fair, the same rules must apply - no bells that can be heard throughout the neighborhood = equal treatment
9/15/2011 1:18 pm (et) Bill Aiken: Regarding bells and calls to prayer, a religion would need to prove that an ordinance prohibiting them was placing a substantial burden on an important part of their religios practice.
9/15/2011 1:18 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: Yes, I was thinking abotu a conversation I had with an imam, he says they can't broadcast the call to prayer outside the building, but that it does lose some of the sentiment because of that
9/15/2011 1:18 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: Bill, then the question would be, what is substantial?
9/15/2011 1:19 pm (et) Bill Aiken: Exactly. proving substantial burden is not always easily done, especially when it relates to areas that may or may not be essential. Again we wind up leaving it to the courts.
9/15/2011 1:20 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: As a Catholic myself, I do find the bells to be important. In considering the liturgy of the hours, the 12 and 6's are a time to take a moment from life and the bells remind me of that, I can assume the Muslim call to prayer acts in the same way...
9/15/2011 1:21 pm (et) Bill Aiken: In DC a Presbyterian Church appealed an ordinance limiting their soup kitchen. They appealed successfully saying that feeding the poor was essential to their faith and preventing them was placing substantial burden. The courts agreed.
9/15/2011 1:22 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: I guess moving out of DC somewhat, or a lot, the minaret ban going around Europe is an interesting topic I think
9/15/2011 1:22 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Got an example where the religious institution LOST the argument?
9/15/2011 1:23 pm (et) Bill Aiken: Unfortunately, none come to mind at the moment.
9/15/2011 1:23 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: If they are going to ban minarets, then they ought to apply the same principle to church steeples (they are equivalent structures)
9/15/2011 1:24 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: They make a point in saying the minarets are not essential to Islam, but it is a part of the culture for the Muslims practice. I assume culture and religion affect one another
9/15/2011 1:24 pm (et) Bill Aiken: I think this type of ban is precidely the kinid of thing that RLUIPA would protect. In Europe this amounts to a 'cultura' issue or historic preservation.
9/15/2011 1:25 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: IOW, they can't single out one religion for prohibition (though Susan's example is one in Europe where they may not have the same constitutional protection of religion that we have in America)
9/15/2011 1:26 pm (et) Moderator: Megan E said: I'm curious, is there a legitimate reason that a community might have for banning minarets?
9/15/2011 1:26 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Who are 'they' to say what is and is not 'essential' for a given religion? Shouldn't we let the religion speak for itself on such matters?
9/15/2011 1:26 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: That would be a sticky situation though, wouldn't it Laura? Where is the end of the line then?
9/15/2011 1:26 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Megan, I suppose one might argue that it destroys the city skyline
9/15/2011 1:27 pm (et) Bill Aiken: YEs, I think so. But it raises an interesting question. If there was a ban on new religious structures over x', then a Mosque would first have to prove that the absence of a minaret was a substantial burden. Only then would the state have to defend their action as advancing a compelling government interest.
9/15/2011 1:28 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Ah, Susan, then we are back to the question of 'is it a religion' that then deserves this extra protection
9/15/2011 1:28 pm (et) Bill Aiken: On the other hand a ban on minarents without a ban on new church steeples would be so blatantly discriminatory on the face that it would not fly in the US.
9/15/2011 1:29 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: what about when a small religious group wants to meet in members homes? What sort of issues has that raised?
9/15/2011 1:29 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: But would it, Bill? There are times when people try to ban mosques, but don't worry about churches?
9/15/2011 1:30 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: I imagine parking might be one such issue. But how might that be different from when a person holds a party at their house?
9/15/2011 1:31 pm (et) Bill Aiken: This has raised a number of issues. There are sometimes parlking limits, etc. However the courts have ruled in the case of a rabbi holding a service in his home that this is protected use under RLUIPA. As long as the primary use of the place was a residence and not a church/temple, etc.
9/15/2011 1:31 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: a zoning issue?
9/15/2011 1:33 pm (et) Bill Aiken: There are indeed times when people try to ban mosques and not churches. This is why RLUIPA exists. But sometimes the cases stiull get messy.,
9/15/2011 1:33 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: Park 51 anyone
9/15/2011 1:34 pm (et) Bill Aiken: There is a case of a church in PG County that cannot get a permit for construction. It became a RLUIPA case. Even after the court ruled in the churches favor it took a long time for the PG CO govt to even begin to move.
9/15/2011 1:34 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: But then again, going back to the question about what is sacred space, because a lot of language dealing with the sacred has been used with Ground Zero
9/15/2011 1:35 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: what sort to complaints were wages against building that church?
9/15/2011 1:36 pm (et) Bill Aiken: While Ground Zero may be considered sacred space to some, it is now a public monument like the Liberty Bell. It falls under that type of zoning definition. IT is not a church.
9/15/2011 1:36 pm (et) Bill Aiken: The complaints had to do with its proximity to a local stream, but the real issue (as it often is) was traffic and parking.
9/15/2011 1:37 pm (et) Bill Aiken: mainly traffic.
9/15/2011 1:39 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: I wonder is parking and traffic were even the REAL real reason. What if it were going to be a store? Do you suspect that they really were just looking for a legitimate reason to keep that church from their neighborhood (what denomination was it?)
9/15/2011 1:39 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: But when we talk about those communities not in the DC area, or not in the city area in general, can that really be a complaint?
9/15/2011 1:40 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: I bet these can turn into issues not even religiously related, but ethnic as well, which I am sure complicates the issue
9/15/2011 1:41 pm (et) Bill Aiken: The church is a Seventh Day Adventist Church. I do believe that people in suburban locitons especially really do not want more traffic. I learned here in the District while going through some conflicts with our neighbors over our building permit, that the only thing neighbors hate more than a church coming in is a school or day care center.
9/15/2011 1:41 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: the phrase 'not in my backyard'
9/15/2011 1:41 pm (et) Bill Aiken: Exactly.
9/15/2011 1:43 pm (et) Bill Aiken: There are some real inconveniences that a church (or school) can create for a neighborhood. This is also why there is a law to protect the religious use, so that the church does not need to be popular to win approval.
9/15/2011 1:43 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: I imagine the differece between a building being a store vs a religious building is a matter of what percentage of the surrounding population will be served by it. The store would serve everyone but not a religious structure for a specific religious group
9/15/2011 1:43 pm (et) Bill Aiken: I think that is a good point.
9/15/2011 1:43 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: If the structure will serve many, then traffic and parking can be overlooked as a reasonable sacrifice
9/15/2011 1:43 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: But then again, a church or religious building, for the most part pops up in areas where it will cater to the people.
9/15/2011 1:44 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: A mosque is built where it is easily accessible to a good number of a Muslim community, an Orthodox synagogue must be built within walking distance of those who go there
9/15/2011 1:45 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: If someone is trying ot build it, there must be an audience for it already?
9/15/2011 1:45 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Susan... or where it will cater to the hope of attracting the local people (thus a concern that the new religious group might be seeking to convert the residents)
9/15/2011 1:45 pm (et) Bill Aiken: I agree
9/15/2011 1:45 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: I don't think that concern is well-founded though
9/15/2011 1:47 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: For the most part people are looking to worship, building structures take energy and money...
9/15/2011 1:47 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: or, perhaps a more likely concern, once the new religious place is there, they will then attract more of 'their kind' into the neighborhood and the people there don't want the demographics of their neighborhood to change
9/15/2011 1:48 pm (et) Bill Aiken: Yes, there is almost always an existing community to be served, but it may not be in the same neighborhood where the church is built
9/15/2011 1:48 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: Yea, that sounds very plausible, it's like wanting to make sure no Mexican restaurants pop up in Little Italy (sorry just an example my sister shared from Philly)
9/15/2011 1:49 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: so we look for all sorts of reasons - more or less legitimate - to delay the inevitable of changing religious and cultural demographics
9/15/2011 1:49 pm (et) Bill Aiken: BUt I think there are MExican (and Vietnamese) restaurants right around the corner from the ITalian MArket in Philly ;-)
9/15/2011 1:50 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: Yea, my sister has told there were some old timers who aren't so happy about it....
9/15/2011 1:50 pm (et) Bill Aiken: Change is never easy.
9/15/2011 1:50 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Restaurants are different from relgious places because Americans love all sorts of cultural foods. But only Muslims would go to a mosque, or SDA to an SDA church, etc.
9/15/2011 1:51 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: you don't have to be Mexican to go to a Mexican restaurant or Chinese to go to a Chinese restaurant... you get it
9/15/2011 1:52 pm (et) Bill Aiken: Which is why the additional protection is needed. YOu rarely need protection for that which is popular.
9/15/2011 1:52 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: So the laws are meant to bring religious buildings on par with other establishments?
9/15/2011 1:53 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: to 'level the playing field'
9/15/2011 1:53 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: More like an affirmative action for buildings
9/15/2011 1:53 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: and for the people who will use those buildings
9/15/2011 1:54 pm (et) Bill Aiken: It it really to protect religious expression from being burdened by other governmnetal concerns.
9/15/2011 1:54 pm (et) Bill Aiken: That is other concerns that are not compelling.
9/15/2011 1:54 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Bill, in the title of the Act, what does 'Instutionalized Person's' refer to?
9/15/2011 1:55 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: What if one says that your religious institution is being comprimised by another in the area?
9/15/2011 1:55 pm (et) Bill Aiken: INstitutionalized PErsons refers to those being held by the state -- usually prisoners.
9/15/2011 1:55 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Susan, the rights of one group infringing on the rights of another simply by being close to the other?
9/15/2011 1:56 pm (et) Bill Aiken: The law seeks to provide basic protection tp their religious expression.
9/15/2011 1:56 pm (et) Moderator: Susan said: I don't really know of a situation, but I am sure it has been claimed
9/15/2011 1:56 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: It seems odd to me that both groups are covered by the same act. What's the connection between 'religious land use' and 'institutionalized persons'?
9/15/2011 1:57 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: OK, never mind
9/15/2011 1:57 pm (et) Moderator: Alright everyone, we have just a couple of minutes keft so please finish any lingering thoughts
9/15/2011 1:57 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Bill, is RLUIPA a local or national law?
9/15/2011 1:58 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: (protection)
9/15/2011 1:58 pm (et) Bill Aiken: It actually goes to the legislative history. But these are two areas (land use and prisoners) where the state has a need to regulate but the ones being regulated have rights to be protected. there
9/15/2011 1:58 pm (et) Bill Aiken: RLUIPA is a federal law
9/15/2011 1:59 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: when was it enacted?
9/15/2011 1:59 pm (et) Bill Aiken: Sep 2000
9/15/2011 1:59 pm (et) Moderator: Thank you for your participation today. Next week our chat is a ‘Reflection on the High Holidays,’ with Mr. Simeon Kriesberg, At-Large Member of IFC’s Board. We hope to see you there! If you would like to contact or guest, please contact me at rebeccac@ifcmw.org.
9/15/2011 2:00 pm (et) Bill Aiken: Thank you everyone.
9/15/2011 2:00 pm (et) Moderator: Also, this is a new effort on our part so we welcome your feedback! Any comments will be helpful. If you have any suggestion please feel free to email me at rebeccac@ifcmw.org.
9/15/2011 2:00 pm (et) Moderator: This moderated chat room is just one example of the many programs which the InterFaith Conference is doing. If you are able and willing to financially support the InterFaith Conference’s vital year-round work, please donate now using the donate button on our website – www.ifcmw.org. You can also find out more about us and sign up for our bi-monthly newsletter.

No comments:

Post a Comment