NIMBY: A Mosque

[Jeff]

A hot topic in Vorhees, NJ right now is a plan for a Mosque. I've attached the article for your use.

All legal aspects aside, how would you feel if this was YOUR backyard?



Mosque Article

 

[Chet]

I would not have a problem with it. The opposition is obviously racially / ethnically charged. This is Joisey after all.

 

[Jeff]

Well as much as I feel I'm nice and accomodating to all....here's my take, and I'll take the "for instance" I heard on the radio this morning while driving in.

If I was reviewing the plan in an "official" capacity, I'd have to approve it if all requirements were met.

But.....now here's the "for instance" if the Mosque were say a "ballot question" of some sort at the polls yesterday, and nobody would ever know how I voted....I'd shoot it down.

 

[PlannerGirl]

I guess I have seen the same thing with a Temple, with the LDS etc etc Hate and bigots run wild no matter the group. If it meets the requirements let em build.

Ive had too many stones thrown at me for my own religious choices to cast one at someone else.

 

[SGB]

I'd have no problem with it.

Viva la differance!

 

[donk]

My only concern with living near a mosque would be the daily call out for prayer and noise associated with it. If it was as intrusive as church bells no problem , but any louder/longer then I'd have a problem.

 

[Repo Man]

Using the logic of some of these citizens, no Cathloic Church should be built either because it might attract pedophiles. The opposition is unjustified and prejudiced. I would think that the Board would approve it, or face a RLUIPA lawsuit.

 

[SkeLeton]

I'd have no problems with a mosque near my house, at least no more problems than I would have with other churches.
Too bad that here catholics would energically protest against it, just like they did when the protestant german inmigrants came in mid XIX century.

 

[el Guapo]

It will get built, and one of the tradesmen working on it will be a NSA operative installing listening devices. So go on, build, your mosque, your temple, your place of worship...the queens we use will not excite you.

 

[SGB]

...the queens we use will not excite you.

Huh?

 

[el Guapo]

www.google.com

 

[Cardinal]

Huh?

Murray (sp?) Head, One Night in Bangkok, from the horrible movie/play, Chess.


I would consider the mosque no differently that a church or synagogue. So long as its architecture did not clash with the neighborhood (I have seen some awful churches) and so long as the traffic, noise, and other impacts were not burdensome, go on and build it.

 

[H]

No

I would not like to live next door to a mosque nor a church nor a temple nor any place of worship. Not because of religion or bias, but because of traffic, crowds and people parking on the street in front if my home.

I lived in a house next to a church in ATL a few years back and one Sat there was a wedding and some car parked in front of my driveway and blocked me in. I didn’t call a tow because I didn’t need my car, and it was only there for like 30 minutes, but it made me mad. This is why I would not like to live next to a mosque…the sudden crowds.

 

[Chet]

Murray (sp?) Head, One Night in Bangkok, from the horrible movie/play, Chess.

MOD NOTE: That is a correct reference but beware Gooling that phrase from work. Porn fetish sites are top hits.

 

[el Guapo]

MOD NOTE: That is a correct reference but beware Gooling that phrase from work. Porn fetish sites are top hits.

Sorry - There I go again getting good planners in trouble. When will I ever learn?

 

[Rumpy Tunanator]

If it follows the ordinances and does not violate the land-use plan, or zoning map, how can it be denied. I think people are just scared of muslims after 911. Whats the big deal people?
-Remember Timmy McVeigh, we have our own homegrown terrorists here as well. Look at the pro-life people? Blowing up abortion clinics and shooting docters. Now they have even more of an incentive to pull violence against women choosing the right to do what they want with their bodies because of this latest ban.
-I'm predicting Bushy boy will be ousted in '04. And just for the fact that when he said they routed terrorists out of Buffalo, it was a great accomplishment. Hey jack-ass, it was Skankawanna (sorry skanks) and what about the other terrorists caught in Denver, Seattle, etc. Gives us another black eye why don't ya, its bad enough that your letting all of our manufacturing (and now service jobs) go to China and other countries. Oh wait I'd like to thank Clinton for that one as well, stupid. (oops sorry for ranting).

 

[BKM]

The biggest issue out here was a Sikh Temple. I'm sure that there were ethnic prejudices involved, but another problem was they moved into a site in our sacred agricultural preserve area. Eventually, the temple got to stay.


BIG, BIG OFF-TOPIC RESPONSE AND DIGRESSION

Gives us another black eye why don't ya, its bad enough that your letting all of our manufacturing (and now service jobs) go to China and other countries. Oh wait I'd like to thank Clinton for that one as well, stupid. (oops sorry for ranting).

I guess we need to get used to it. Here is one place where I won't "blame" Bushie, although he is certainly cravenly catering to the wants of his buddies. No president can stop the inevitable rush to the bottom of unconstrained modern capitalism.

You might try to encourage boutique environmental industries like Denmark and Holand are, but we are talking about a country of 300 million , often poorly educated people. Get ready for the continued erosion.

And, since our lifestyle is environmentally damaging, maybe that ain't bad either??? Maybe a return to 1950s levels of consumption isn't such a bad thing-although I am certainly not a good example for that. And, such a fall will have horrifying political consequences-after all, we all DESERVE the twin SUVs on a 1/2 acre lot lifestyle, don't we? Maybe the empire desired by the chickenhawk cabal can provide imperial administrative jobs for our brighter citizens-like the British Empire?

 

[BKM]

Another off-topic response.

I predict that there will be another major terrorist attack (Osama and Crew WANT George W to win again-he's their best recruiting tool) and W will be overwhelmingly reelected. Patriot II will quickly be passed, and we'll all happily join in the new era.

 

[Wulf9]

Test. Do you know the Constitution?

The ability to be NIMBY about churches has been preempted by Federal Law - the RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act).

If a jurisdiction denies a church, the church can sue. The jurisdiction is presumed to be wrong and is required to pay all legal costs if it loses the suit.

Okay. Now the test. What is the Constitutional basis for the RLIUPA?

 

[B'lieve]

I think RLUIPA's Constitutional basis is the second half of the religion clause in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I think it is considered to be extended to states and local governments (which, as was once pointed out to me, are creatures of their respective states), like the rest of the Constitution's amendments, by the 14th amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I emphasized "person" because from what I remember in history classes in high school and college the courts since the 1870s or '80s have interpreted organizations, such as corporations and churches, as equivelant to "persons" with the same right to due process and equal protection that individuals have. So if a church is denied permission to do build on a site that businesses or individuals would be allowed to build on, it's got a case that it's not getting equal protection and treatment.

On an off-topic note, the use of the word "persons" instead of citizens in those last two parts of that clause seems to be what immigrants' rights are based on.

 

[Wulf9]

Nope, it's not any of the religion clauses. (For Constitutional scholars, that leaves only one left)

A previous law based on the religion clauses was determined to be unconstitutional.

Equal treatment has a lot to do with the philosiphical basis of the RLIUPA, so that's a good call. In particular, Congress had several instances where a city would allow an assembly use (like an Elks Lodge) and would not allow a church. So they used that basis to override city zoning in virtually all circumstances.

 

[Wannaplan?]

A hot topic in Vorhees, NJ right now is a plan for a Mosque. I've attached the article for your use.

All legal aspects aside, how would you feel if this was YOUR backyard?

What if it's already there? You might find this interesting, from the Ann Arbor News:

http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1068478827322300.xml

Truck kills 2 U-M students

Monday, November 10, 2003

BY AMALIE NASH AND CHONG PYEN
News Staff Reporters

...The two women, identified by police as Teh Nannie Roshema Roslan, 21, and Norhananim Zainol, 20, were at the Islamic Center in the 2300 block of Plymouth Road when they began walking about 6:21 p.m., authorities said.

They crossed into the center lane of the five-lane roadway, then turned around and walked back into the path of a westbound Ford Ranger pickup truck, Sgt. Brad Hill said...

...Ismat Hamid, who is active within the Ann Arbor Islamic community, said he has always been concerned for the safety of worshippers at the center, particularly during Ramadan.

"There is no traffic light in front of the mosque. This is the only mosque in Ann Arbor, and we have great difficulty when we have an occasion, cars coming in and out, people walking across the street," said Hamid. "There must be some type of traffic (control)." ...

 

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Mike D. What was the Zoning Board's decision?

 

[Jeff]

Mike D. What was the Zoning Board's decision?

YES

 

[Wulf9]

Zoning Boards don't have much choice now that the U.S. has decided to preempt local zoning by requiring approval of certain land uses.

By the way, RLIUPA is based on the commerce clause of the Constitution. The Feds have required cities to allow churches and religious activities in order to promote interstate commerce.

 

[Jeff]

Can they shoot a church down b/c of traffic? The Vorhees case was trying that approach.

 

[Wulf9]

The RLIUPA specifies that a city may not apply a burden to a religious organization unless it demonstrates that (a) the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and (b) is the least restrictive way of furthering that interest.

In addition, the RLIUPA is written to presume that the city is wrong in applying that burden, and the religious organization is right. Cities are required to prove their case and are required to pay legal fees if they lose. Given the construction of the law, it will be hard for cities to win.

Courts have not yet fully defined what cities can and cannot do, given this bizarre presumptions of the law.

However, cities can apply CEQA to the fullest extent of the law. (You can process the application to a decision), and it is presumed that a city can place conditions on the religious institution. If the religious institution feels the conditions are too restrictive, they must sue to determine if those are the least restrictive as required by RLIUPA. And they will probably win.

Some of the interesting legal tests of the law are coming because churches are fronting for private developers on end runs around zoning. The other issues are mega churches.

 

[Jeff]

I'm going to start a market for churches with Starbucks and WalMart in the basement.

 

[ludes98]

I'm going to start a market for churches with Starbucks and WalMart in the basement.

New meaning to the term underground economy.