The Village of Chestnut Ridge is a community of single family homes located in New York, that has made controversial zoning laws which the Citizens United to Protect our Neighborhoods (CUPON) disagrees with. The old zoning laws in this community have required a place of worship to have a permit and be built on land that is more than five acres, and at the time there were places of worship present. The new laws were created with the Orthodox Jewish Coalition (OJC) and categorized zoning laws as either a “residential gathering place”, “neighborhood places of worship”, or “community places of worship”. The “residential gathering place” section allowed for the use of a single family home for religious purposes, by obtaining a permit. Many Orthodox Jews can benefit from this new law because they gather in a place of worship on their sabbath day and are not able to drive, which can often cause a burden to them. Thus, being able to gather in their home would be much more convenient for them. CUPON, which is an organization that advocates for fair zoning laws, does not agree with the new zoning laws. They argued that the community made these new laws with the OJC in secret so it is not a facially neutral policy, and having an unkown, potentially large number of places of worship will change the nature of the community.
The issue at stake here is; Is this new zoning law, specifically the category of “residential gathering place” a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? The court held that this is not a violation of First Amendment rights because CUPON lacks standing. In order to have standing in cases regarding Establishment there must be issues regarding taxpayer money being used for religious purposes, religion causing direct harm, or religion causing denial of benefits. CUPON argued that their taxpayer money was used to hire someone to approve of the new zoning law. The court needed a measurable amount of money to determine if this burden was substantial, however CUPON was unable to supply this number, so this point was deemed invalid. They also argued that the construction of houses and religious structures will be a constant reminder of the new zoning law, thus causing direct harm and in turn enforcing Orthodox Jewish beliefs on them. In order to be directly harmed, residents must be in direct contact with religious expression. Residents will only be surrounded by construction, not religious expression, thus this is also invalid. Lastly, CUPON is unable to prove they have not been denied any benefits by the new zoning law, thus they lack standing and the court is in favor of the village. Furthermore, CUPON’s organizational activities were not affected nor were they forced to not do certain activities by putting this law in place. Residents of the community are not faced with a substantial burden by the new zoning laws.
I agree with the court in this case. I do not think the fact that the village made the zoning laws with the OJC matters much. There were no restrictions on other religions doing the exact same thing and coming up with new laws in their favor. Orthodox Jews were only pushed more to do this because of the fact that they have to gather weekly for prayer and cannot use cars on their sabbath day. Thus, it is just easier for these groups to gather in the comfort of their own or a friend's home. I disagree with CUPON in saying that this law is not facially neutral. Any group of any religion is able to register their home to be a religious place of worship, and the law does not only apply to Orthodox Jews. Residents are not at all harmed by this new zoning law and CUPON does not have standing to argue that they are burdened by these new laws. What do you think? Do these zoning laws have effect on others in the village and is meeting for religious purposes a violation of Establishment?
4 comments:
I agree that this new zoning policy does not create an issue regarding establishment. Any religious group still has to secure a permit in order to gather, and all religious groups are able to request a permit. While it may have been a Jewish group that lobbied for this, it does not mean that zoning laws create an establishment. I also disagree that there will unwanted beliefs forced upon anyone, as people gathering in the privacy of their own homes is simply for their own benefit, not a way to force conversion of beliefs.
I agree with the ruling of the court in this case. Allowing these homes to be used as a gathering place for religious worship if registered, does not force the religion upon anyone else living in the community and does not require them to believe or practice that religion. In addition to this, Orthodox Jews aren’t the only religious group to benefit from these new zoning laws, but any religious group is allowed to apply for this permit and use their homes as a gathering place for religious worship on their sabbath day. Since this law applies to everyone neutrally and does not force religion upon anyone, I agree with the court’s ruling that this law does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
I believe the new zoning law doesn’t violate the Establishment clause. Worshippers of all religions, as you said, are free to register their homes as a place of worship. Therefore the law is neutral in practice. Additionally, the law isn’t creating any additional burden on any other religions or any other members of the community choosing not to participate because the worshipping is happening inside the private homes, so no one would even know when it is occurring if they are choosing not to participate in it.
I agree with the court in their decision that the new zoning laws do not violate the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. CUPON tried making the argument that the new zoning laws are not neutral when Orthodox Jewish communities are able to have bigger and more places of worship. However, there are no laws saying other religious groups cannot apply to have more or bigger places of worship for their respective groups. If other religious groups applied for zoning laws to be made in order for their respective religions to have more places of worship and got denied, then this law might not seem neutral, but that does not seem to be the case. In terms of finances, it is clear that the Orthodox Jewish community is responsible for funding the new building of the places of worship and there does not seem to be any money being allocated to their community that will benefit the spread and teachings of their religion.
Post a Comment