Zoning and religion

Something that my best friend in college used to say that really totally pissed me off was "what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."

You hear all the arguments that conservatives assert about liberals as being "relativistic" thinkers, but the reality is that relativistic thinking is a method, that people develop commitments. (See the writings of William Perry on cognitive development.)

So commitment to the U.S. Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, ought to be "relatively" (a joke) absolute by all Americans, regardless of your political persuasion.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I think that the First Amendment is interesting, because it is a direct result of "problems" that resulted during the period in which the U.S. colonies were under British rule, and laws were more arbitrary--at least they seemed arbitrary if you didn't follow the official religion, or questioned the King or Parliament.

There are many examples of why the First Amendment has the freedom of religion clause, but one of those examples is from the Brookland area of what is now DC.

Last year, the Post ran a real estate feature, "Where We Live: Queens Chapel Terrace," on a neighborhood in DC that borders Prince Georges County, and is bounded on one side by Queens Chapel Road, speculating on the origin of the name of the road:

The origin of the name "Queens Chapel," also the name of the main street through the neighborhood, is unclear. Some think "Queen" must have been the surname of a land owner, others think it's connected to the Queens Chapel United Methodist Church in Beltsville or Queens Chapel Road in Hyattsville. Still others think it may have been inspired by the nearby monasteries.

Given that the neighborhood is also just minutes away from Trinity University and Catholic University, it would be understandable if the name originated from one of those institutions.

Regardless of how it got its name, residents say it's a friendly place. "It's about as safe as you could get in a city this size," he said.

I laughed while reading the article, because it showed how so many of us don't know our history.

In 1714, grandchildren of Richard Marsham, children with the last name Queen, received his land when he died. This land covered much of the area of Brookland, which was then part of Maryland. The family practiced Catholicism, but by this time, the Anglican religion had been deemed the official religion of the colony, even though the Colony of Maryland originally did not designate an official religion. The Queen family maintained a private, likely somewhat surreptitious chapel in one of their homes, where they could freely practice their Catholic faith. Hence the road in DC and Prince George's County that is named "Queens Chapel."

To me, this is one of the many stories of how people's experiences, real people with connections to us still (one of the Queen descendents is part of the Ruppert family that owns the Warehouse Theater), shaped the Constitution of the United States, and how its provisions reflect real needs and concerns.

Over the past 30 years, religion has become an increasing part of politics at the national and local and state levels (I was in Tennessee on business a couple weeks ago, in advance of their primary elections, and I was struck/shocked by one set of ads for one candidate for Governor, and how he emphasized the role of God and Judeo-Christian beliefs--even though a road or a library or a school or business development is far more about the here and now rather than the afterlife).

This has influenced zoning and historic preservation matters, because churches ask for exceptions from these rules based on the freedom of religion clause, when the law generally holds that building regulations are a matter of universal public safety and interest that are not related to the practice of religion.

Even so the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 was passed by the U.S. Congress to give "equal rights" to religious claims vis-a-vis local laws including building regulations. (Resource)

That wasn't true. The law was passed to give religious claims a superiority over local laws, and depending on the evenhandedness of the local federal circuit (DC is under a conservative judiciary at the federal level, especially at the Court of Appeals level), churches often have the upper hand.

I am agnostic at best, but attracted to religious architecture and elements (especially stained glass windows).

But my experiences as an involved urban revitalization activist have turned me off to many churches, because many have deliberate practices with regard to real estate that are deleterious to community improvement--although I recognize that this isn't the case with every religious institution. In fact, one of the keywords I use is "churchly blight."

Some examples are:

- churches buying abutting residences and letting them rot, which keeps a neighborhood down, and real estate prices down, which because prices remain depressed, allows the church to buy up more property, further crowding out more positive uses.

- churches tearing down properties for parking lots used a couple hours per week, but creating a hole in the street fabric and neighborhood that persists 24/7/365

- calls for exemptions from historic preservation regulations with regard to the maintenance of their properties

- plus "faux churches," usually storefront churches that are churches in name only--at least I can point to some where for years I have seen absolutely no activity--but because they are churches they are exempt from property taxes.

Note that there are many exceptions, many examples of churches doing good things in their communities and with regard to property management. But my focus is on the bad.

And interestingly, DC's local historic preservation laws derived in large part as a response to how the Capitol Hill Baptist Church tore down historic buildings they owned because they wanted more parking, and activists realized that just because a neighborhood was designated on the National Register of Historic Places, this meant nothing, that there were no protections against deleterious acts by non-federal government property owners or other entities.

My favorite Amendment to the Constitution is the 14th Amendment, and in particular the second sentence from Section 1 of the amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The laws of the land are supposed to treat all of us equally. Churches should have no more rights than anyone else. But that goes both ways.

If a church, in this case Islamic related, wants to build a facility close to the site of the World Trade Center, which was destroyed by Islamic extremists, so be it. There is nothing in the law that supports a particular religion from being banned from a particular location, no matter how badly wacked out conservatives ranging from Sarah Palin to Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer want to make it so ("Sacrilege at Ground Zero").

President Obama ("Obama backs mosque near ground zero" from the Post via AP) is right to say so--and this has nothing to do with his Islamic background.

And Mayor Bloomberg, while right to say that the Islamic church should not be restricted, is also right to reject the use of taxpayer funds (this is the flipside of the clause about the separation of church and state) to help the church locate somewhere else, as suggested by the Governor of New York State, David Paterson ("Bloomberg Brushes Aside Paterson Proposal for Mosque" from the NYT City Room blog.)

I hate how for so many people, the law is not "absolute" and supposed to treat everybody the same, but is something to be manipulated.

(Note that this predilection for manipulation of the law is the reason that the national and local are so "flawed." -- flawed is the other f word)

Martin Niemöller, a German Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last 7 years of Nazi rule in concentration camp is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.