BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws

Subject: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:12 PM

This is going to be a highly controversial thread. What do we do when freedm of religious practice clashes with local zoning regulations ? As an example, I am going to use my local residential area which is the Town Of Ramapo located in Rockland County,N.Y. Most of the earlier residents moved up here from New York City to escape from the hustle & bustle of crowded city life, and have houses built on land parcels of one acre or larger. They have enacted strict zoning ordinances against high density housing and multi-family dwellings, in order to protect this high quality of life that they hold so dear. Some have even gone so far as to form separate independent villages within the town, such as Wesley Hills, New Hempstead, Airmont,and Montebello, in order to have even more control over their zoning future. The other side of the coin is that in the last 25 years, there has been a tremendous influx of Orthodox Jews,and Hassidic Jews in particular that have come up here from Brooklyn. The first problem occurred when the Orthodox Jews started to build neighborhood synagogues. As you know, our religion prohibits us from riding on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays. Therefore, we require synagogues that are within easy walking distance of our houses. The town and local villages would not let us locate houses of worship within the local residential area. Residents went to court with the village of Airmont over this issue, and the case went to the Supreme Court. The Jews won the case and the village of Airmont had to pay out over one million dollars in legal fees. Now another issue has arisen. Many of the Hassidic families have as many as 10 or 15 children. When the children grow up and marry, they all want to live in the same community within proximity of their parents. There are now several lawsuits pending against the Town of Ramapo and the various villages,which say that the zoning laws which forbid high density and multi-family housing are discriminatory against Orthodox Jews. I would like to get the input of some of my fellow Mudcatters on this issue which is now a very hot potato in local politics. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:29 PM

Rabbi, I think one reality in this situation is that sometimes, law and due process will have to be involved-- lawsuits challenging local ordinances as has been described above.

Longer-term options include electing people into office and onto boards who will represent the WHOLE community, not just the majority. Where local coalition-building can be done, effective allies can be won and candidates supported.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:39 PM

Susan, Right now the community is totally divided and polarized. You have the Orthodox Jews on one side, and the secular non observant Jews allied with the Gentiles on the other side. Our Town Supervisor, the Honorable Christopher St. Lawrence (who is obviously not Jewish), is trying very desparately to reach a compromise. He is however being accused of favoring the Orthodox position and of taking payoffs from builders who want to build the new housing. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Once Famous
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:47 PM

Rabbi-Sol, as a reform Jew who is far from secular and is part of the greater Chicago Jewish community, I'm afraid compromise is going to be your best bet.

Flexibility is a mitzvah.

Good luck with the red tape.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:55 PM

I have no problem with locating a shul in a residential neighborhood. However, this seems to be a very different issue. As you express it, the problem is that children, as they become adults and establish their own households, want to live in the same community within proximity of their parents. I do not make any claim to be an expert on Orthodox Judeism, and especially not on Hassids, but I don't think that there is any requirement that adult children be able to visit their parents on the Sabbath (walking, of course) or that they attend the same synagogue.    It would be nice, of course, but they may have to settle for living elsewhere, bringing the grandchildren over on Sunday, and waiting for a house to become available in their neighborhood of choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:58 PM

Martin,
          We are willing to compromise. It is the other side that is not willing to see their suburban quality of life get flushed down the latrine. Tempers at all public hearings are running high and anti-semitic remarks are sometimes blatant.

                                              SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:04 PM

I bought a house in a country village. On a Sunday morning I am often woken up by the church bells. I am not a Christian, should I sue?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:06 PM

You are right artbrooks. It is not a religious requirement that the children live in proximity to their parents. However, they are approaching it from another legal angle. Being that these people are poor and can not afford the expensive single family dwellings, they claim that the laws were specificly crafted to keep them out. Their claim is that the Town & Villages have a legal obligation to set aside areas for low and middle income housing, and failure to do so constitutes discrimination. That is the issue currently before the courts. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:09 PM

I would submit that while it is inconvenient to abide by the zoning laws, it is not discriminatory aginst Jews in the usual sense. Any law could be said to be discriminatory against anyone who felt inconvenienced by it. The remedy is usally to get the law changed. Preferably by persuasion of the board, rather than by claiming to be victimized by a condition which is innocent of any intent to victimize.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:10 PM

Guest, It is interesting that you mention this. There is a case currently before the courts in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn, N.Y. One synagogue has a siren on its roof that sounds on Friday afternoon, right before sundown, to signal the onset of the Sabbath. The neighbors are in court trying to silence this siren. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:19 PM

Well, I find that nmost people who make a difference in the world experience a range of successes and blockages, and they don't all run on the same timeline. In other words, the short term view is you describe is a tense, difficult, probably dangerous situation, certainly an unfair one. One can pick one's battles, though, with the short, medium, and long ranges in mind.

The ADL, for instance, can get involved in the blatant anti-semitic features descibed above, while others can work on the other aspects, in a more longterm mode--simultaneously, quietly, one relationship at a time. That's where the deeper difference has to be built, because it will be about hearts and minds, not ordinances; hopefully the ordinances of the future will arise from that level of community-building.

Our culture, no matter how much we who are religious hope to remain separate from it, seems always to seek the instant solution, and our culture is also predisposed right now to polarize individuals along lines of perceived "fairness." Sometimes it's good to look not so much at the fairness side of the issue, but at the practical one-- to decline the urgencies shouted by the polarized of both sides, and listen to the deeper, quieter voice within?

If discrimination against a group as Jews per se is at issue, the best source for allies historically has been groups advocating for members of other groups similarly targeted. Has anyone from the NAACP, for instance, tried to view properties for sale, to document patterns of discrimination in the area?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:28 PM

Amos. Our opponents are trying to get the law changed. At present, in addition to the Town Supervisor, we have 3 town councilmen who are elected at large, by the whole town. They are trying to institute a ward system, by which councilmen are elected to represent specific areas and villages within the town. They want to increase the town board from 3 to 7. In this way, they are hoping to dilute the Orthodox bloc vote. Supervisor St. Lawrence is opposed to this and has denied their petition. They are appealing his denial to the courts. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:36 PM

A siren? That does sound pretty loud and intrusive. But is it? How long does it sound and what is the sound? Was it built after the houses that the occupants are complaining live in? I wouldn't want a factory to be built near enough to me, and then blast a siren at sundown just as the kids are trying to get to sleep. But maybe it isn't that loud or near? Could you describe it please.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:51 PM

Susan,
       There is really no racial discrimination of any significance in our area. There are many African American families living in our midst. Of course, being that they are homeowners they are not really classified as poor. One of the Town Councilmen, (or woman in this case), is Fran Hunter who is an executive in the NAACP.

Also, the anti-semitic remarks have been made by various individuals, not by any organized group.

The ADL can not get involved because some of the people opposing us are secular Jews, who feel more akin to the Gentiles than they do to their Orthodox brethren,
                                           SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:02 PM

Guest,
         The siren sounds for all of 5 seconds. It is not any louder than the fire engines that regularly pass by there. It was built after the houses that already exist there which are all pre- World War 2 construction.    SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:06 PM

Doesn't sound anything wrong with that then. Some folks just love to complain I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:24 PM

Well, think about what you have said, Rabbi. The reason you moved to this area is because it was attractive from a density viewpoint. Others who have bought in that area probably feel very much the same. Now you want to change that density to allow your neighborhood to become something more in lines of what you left to escape the hustle and bustle? Hmmmmmm? I mean no disrespect here but it seems that if you liked the neigborhood for it's lower densities then you have no right to make a stink to change it...

It's kinda like a guy buying a house next to an adult book store then complaining to the governemnt about it...

I'd advice you to leave the neighborhood as you found it if you now wnat to develope or redevelope it to meet your changed needs.

Again, I mean no disrespect but it would appear that you may be disrespecting the neighborhood that you choose to move to.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:24 PM

Well, Rabbi Sol---as you said at the outset--- a.highly controversial thread. But surely interesting and one that opens many areas of thought.

I say, at the outset, that I live in the same county. Different area though.

In my area there are areas zoned for the larger residences---as you stated and also there are areas with zoning for a higher density. Our problems have come from higher density senior citizen housing. This goes to show that such problems are inherent in any community for a variety of reasons.

Being a bit cynical I would suppose that your town supervisor--St. Lawrence (who I undrstand to be a fine gentleman) is looking at the bottom line as most politicos do.   Moreso he is looking at votes---probably a more accurate statement than the last one.

As to the children of Hassidim living in proximity of their parents, etc; Frankly, were zoning laws changed for that purpose it would, to me, smack of favoritism. We all would like our children (if they want) nearby. How many grown children have moved ( in this area) some 50 or 60 miles north because of the lower prices. Prices here have risen astronomically. Is it not then a bias if zoning were changed for that reason for a given community?   

As an aside I offer an anecdote that I personally witnessed many years back. A neighbor (Jewish)--and one I know well---organized a protest against an Orthodox group that wanted to buy a house to use as a place of worship that was within their walking distance. He organized Jews, Christians, you name them. Well, he won. To me he was a true study in hypocrisy since none of this would have had any effect on him===other than the house in question was 3 away from his. The point here is that, as in you area, people are worrying about property values rather than the "bucolic" things to which they refer.

A final (well, almost) thought. I must say--and you know that I am nominally a co-religionist--that some areas of (all others please excuse the local references here) Kiryas Joel (Hassidic), New Square (Hassidic) are surely comparable to the Southern shantytowns in their appearance and upkeep.   

I do not mean this as a "knock". Rather as an observation as to why, perhaps, there is some opposition.

But, in synopsis, children do not have to live near their parents even though it would be nice---our economy, sadly, precludes this many times. Zoning should benefit the community and politicians will always go where the vote is.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:45 PM

Bobert,
         If you look at the history of our country every big city and urban area started out as a small village with low population density. Eventually, as the area becomes more attractive and desirable to live in, you get an influx of people. It is called progress, and you can not stand in the way of it. The only thing you can hope to do is to control the growth so that the surrounding infrastructure and services (i.e. sewers, water, roads. etc.) keeps up with the housing boom. But to say that I do not want a certain type of people here because they look different, dress different, or worship different, or have more children than others, is not the proper way to control that growth. Supervisor St. Lawrence has developed a master plan for the town that calls for "controlled growth" including certain areas that are set aside for Parks, that can never be used for residential or industrial development. However, the opposition does not want to compromise at all on this issue. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:50 PM

The allies do not have to live in the affected area to join the effort, Rabbi. Allies are everywhere, but they are often somewhat in hiding and have to be found via relationship. Please, remain open to seeing them beneath their disguises, even in these trying circumstances. I wish I was there to stand with you.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:56 PM

Sounds bloody silly. When the town I live in was built, as one of the New Towns back in the 50s and 60s, there was specific provision made for sites for religious buildings scattered around throughout the residential areas. Even before they had any idea what sort of religious buildings they were going to be.
And any time it became clear there was a need for an extra church, meeting house, synagogue, mosque or whatever, planning approval on a suitable site has never been any sort of problem, and it never will be.

It sounds to me as if there's some kind of idolatry of private property rights going on in Ramapo.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 08:12 PM

issues of this type are part of the reason that the Amish choose to live in areas where their 'different' practices do not conflict with others......and yet, they get complaints about slow buggies blocking traffic and such. Muslims have dress requirements for women that conflict with some school or work dress codes. In Texas, I understand, there is a town where Mormons who practice polygamy have established an 'enclave' close by, and are looking for favorable school and tax rulings.

It is indeed a fine line we walk between discrimination and simply having rules that are generally fair for all.

In this case, I would think that those who choose to move to a community with already established covenants should NOT expect the rules to be altered specifically to accomodate them.

I don't see any short term solution, and LONG term only works if one group has a large majority....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 08:19 PM

No, Sol, you are not entirely correct. There are plenty of places who have actively kept out growth. You argument that spawl is the American way of life and therefore an acceptable model for each and every community is not convincing.

Let me give you an example. I own commercial property in Leesburg, Va and am right in the middle a similar issues and, in this case, am pro *re*development and increase densitity as it fits with the ideals of the existing residents. If the plan that my group has been working on for the last two years to redelepoe some 20 acres inside the town is met with stiff resistence then I will rethink the plan...

But that's not the example...

Now, if you bother to look it up, you will find that Loudoun County. Va. is the fastest growing county in the nation yet just 4 miles west of Leesburg, which is the county seat, there is a village called Waterford. Now I'm not sure how Waterford matches up to your neighborhood but it has old homes, nice sized lots and low density. Not one new home has been build in that village over the last 20 years and I would doublt that there will be a new one built in the next 20. Sprwl is *not* inevitable and saying it is not going to win over any of the folks who may be opposing your *new* vision for your neighbothood...

Sorry, you said this mnight be controversal, and it is. All I am saying is that you're going to have to come up with better arguments if you expect to win over the folks you you now think as obstructionists. It might serve you well to think how you might react if one of your neighbors was trying to get a zoning change to allow them to put an adult book store next door to you.

Don't shoot the messenger here. You asked. Your argument isn't with me but I can certainly help you emphathize with those who do not want you (and "yer kind"... jus' funnin') messing with where they and their parents and grandparents have lived going back over 100 years... Melodramic? Well sure. But it's what you will have to overcome to suceed...

"But, Mrs. Smith, it's enevitable! You want some fat cat to come in and do it 'er let me and my folks do it" arguement is a deadend.

Think dollars here. People like 'em and don't like having to leave the home they have been in for 45 years because some rich folks came up from the city and messed up everything and now they can't afford to pay the increased taxes. Denisity is costly. More schools, hookups, etc... The locality has to put out more than they get back for many years to come... Mr & Mrs Smith's get shafted and end up living their "golden years " in crappy old folks joints because they can't afford the taxes 'caused by sprawl... Yeah, they thought they would be able to stay in the home where littel Jimmy and little Johnny were born and wetre raised and played baseball (sniff) right down the street where you want to put up a church, 'er house, 'er whatever...

So, Sol, there are two ways to succeed and one of them does not resemble success: force folks to acdept your vision or...

... find ways for your vision and theirs to become a *new vsiion*..

You "force" it and God won't like you one danged bit.

Get my drift?

I've been at this stuff fir a long time now and if it ain't win-win then it's lose-lose...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST,Fieldvole
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 09:03 PM

Rabbi-sol, sorry but I'm with Bobert on this one,

These people, whatever colour or creed they were, moved to this
location for the benefits that the location AND zoning laws offered
them. They enjoyed these benefits for many years, (in the process no
doubt stopping others doing what they wanted by invoking these laws).
They now want to overturn these zoning laws because it suits them
to do so, for their own benefit, and are using their religion as a
weapon.

Laws are laws, they are made for the community as a whole, not just
a small (or maybe not so small, it doesn't matter) group of them.

Also to expect other people within this community to give up what
they have enjoyed for many years for someone elses religious beliefs,
(which are nobody elses business but their own, as they would be the
first to tell you if you tried to interfere with them) is totally
wrong!

No, if these people want more houses, churches, whatever, then they
must abide by the laws that are in existance, take what they can get
within the law as it stands, and, if they can't get enough then they
should move to where they can get what they want. NOT impose
THEIR rules on other people.

When it comes down to it, religion has very little to do with it,
this is just a question of one group trying to force their ideas on
a community which made laws to *prevent* what they are trying to do.
(and who shouldn't be put in the position of trying to defend themselves against this sort of thing).

Best wishes

Fieldvole

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: John Routledge
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 09:11 PM

Thanks Bill D, Bobert and Fieldvole.

Nice to see logic and fairness prevailing in what is admittedly a delicate subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 09:43 PM

Bobert,

         The people who are opposing us are not those who have lived here for 3 or more generations. Most of them have come up here from the city themselves, maybe 20 or 15 years before we did. They came up here to escape from us in their old neighborhoods and now they have to deal with us again in a new venue.

As far as the schools go, our people pay the lion's share of the school taxes in the East Ramapo Central School District. However, we all send our children to Jewish parochial schools (Yeshiva), where we have to pay expensive tuition. We have no benefits from the public school taxes that we pay, other than school bus transportation. This is perhaps the only public school district in the United States where 75% of the children attend parochial school. But we still have to pay the public school taxes.

Despite what people think, property values here have gone way up and not down. 20 years ago, I purchased my house for $200,000. If I wanted to sell today I have been offered in excess of $800,000, an increase of over 4 fold. With all the new expensive houses being built here, the tax base has gone way up so the tax rates do not have to increase as much. We are pouring a lot of money into the town tax coffers, to the benefit of those who are opposing us. So the argument that the locality has to put out more than they get back to support us does not hold water. We are paying the bulk of the taxes.

Our people make up the majority of the all volunteer local fire department as well as the local all volunteer ambulance corps.

The argument of our opponents is not so much based upon what development takes place. They are more concerned with who is doing the developing. The zoning laws are just an excuse to keep us from becoming the majority here, which we soon will be. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:08 PM

Bill Hahn,
            I understand and respect your position. The situation in Orangetown where you live is quite different from that here in Ramapo.
Orthodox Jews do not have a very visible presence there, and the majority of the residents favor keeping the zoning laws the way they are. For somone to come in and want to change them against the will of the majority would be wrong. However, here in Ramapo, where we have a very large and highly visible orthodox community, our needs must be taken into account. Supervisor, St. Lawrence, though he may be politicaly motivated realizes this fact and is trying to deal with it fairly. I agree with you that in some Hassidic communities such as New Square, the residents do not keep up their properties the way they should. Kiryas Joel in Orange County does keep up the village in a presentable manner. My father in law goes their quite regularly and can attest to that fact. However, any change in zoning law must come with strict penalties for those who do not maintain their property according to code. I am very proud of my neighborhood and would not want to see it deteriorate into a slum. The zoning changes proposed by the Master Plan would be limited to certain areas only and would not impact the entire Ramapo. But the opposition does not want to give an inch on this, even though most of them live far away from the proposed density zones. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:19 PM

Sol:

Go back and reread yer response to me...

Seems like its less about density than the contractor who is gonna get the contract. Is that what you are concerned about?

I'm having trouble getting a fix on your sitaution. It seems to go from visions, to densities to bucks...

Tell ya' what, Sol. If you are capable of makin' the case that the "opposition" is making then maybe I, or someone here, might have some advice to offer you that you might find helpful.

But, based on yer story up to now which seems to chnage with every new post, I will warn you that I might just find myself on the side of the opposition...

But we won't know unless you come clean with the issues that sepaerate your side from the "opposition"...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:29 PM

Bobert,
       When I say who is doing the developing, I am not referring to the contractor. What I mean is "What kind of people will be moving in to these developments" ? If it is people like them there is no problem. If it is people like me (beard and yarmulke), they suddenly have a problem. By the way, our side is being represented legally, pro bono by The Rutherford Institute of Virginia who takes on all    " Freedom Of Religion Cases". SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:48 PM

Sol,

Like I said earlier, irregardless of law suits, there are only two ways that these things are solved: win-win or lose-lose (perhaps thought to be win-lose but win-lose is in the big picture lose-lose).

I am less impressed with what legal firm is going to represent you than your ability to argue the other sides case. If you can not do that than this thread is bogus..

Think about it...

I'm trying real hard here. I've gotten you to the water. Drinking it is your choice.

Unless you are capable and willing to look beyond *your* side then you are allready in the loser category in my book. I mean no disrespect here but life isn't about winning law suits but being able to find common ground or selling visions.

If you just want to argue *your* side, count me out. I'm not into that when it come to land use... That ain't me...

But if you want some advice that I've learned the *hard way* about getting along with your neighbors than argue *their* case... and we'll go from there...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:10 PM

Their side is a very simple argument. We came up here from NYC to get away from the urban life and have some peace and quiet. We passed certain zoning laws to protect our new found life style. Now you want to come up here and spoil that peace an quiet by urbanizing this town. We are going to stop you by using the zoning laws that we passed. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:17 PM

Rabbi SOL...in your original post, you state clearly that the current problem is that current zoning laws make it difficult for orthodox Jews to live 'the way they want to', that is, in large, extended families, often in the same house, I gather.

Then, by the latest post it is " If it is people like me (beard and yarmulke), they suddenly have a problem". So, which is the problem, zoning laws, or prejudice? I have NO doubt that prejudice exists, but prejudice by itself does not necessarily justify changing zoning laws.
Theoretically, it seems, these people 'could' live nearby without high-density exceptions to the laws, especially since they won the suit to allow houses of worship within walking distance.

I, myself, do not care for restrictive covenants, but I simply can't judge whether the current zoning laws are for the general good, or whether they violate basic human rights.

You DID ask for opinions...now you need to ask yourself if any of the opinions you have gotten make any sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:32 PM

My contention is that the zoning laws were created specificly to keep Orthodox and Hasidic Jews in particular out of the area. The lawsuit that was won in Airmont dealt specificly with Synagogues in residential areas. The issue of high density housing is an entirely new one that has yet to be decided by the courts. In starting this thread, I was not looking for everyone to agree with my position. I am looking for opposing views as well, that might shed some additional light on this issue. Bobert has been very helpful in this regard. I said at the outset that this issue is going to be very controversial. I meant it. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 12:06 AM

well, that (prejudice embodied in zoning laws) will be a hard thing to prove. A good lawyer will show cases where similar laws exist without Hasidic Jews trying to get in...etc...

I hope it can be resolved comfortably for everyone, but these things seldom are, hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 06:26 AM

My contention is that the zoning laws were created specificly to keep Orthodox and Hasidic Jews in particular out of the area.
I do not live there, Rabbi-Sol, nor even in the same country but I find this statement very hard to swallow.

In your opening post you stated quite clearly They have enacted strict zoning ordinances against high density housing and multi-family dwellings, in order to protect this high quality of life that they hold so dear. Does that really sound like a policy to exclude Jews of any sect?

You could reallisticaly say it specificaly excludes ANY group that holds the extended family close but surely that would include the devout Catholic and any other faith that holds the family dear?

I'm sorry, Rabbi-Sol, but this should not turn into an anti-semitic issue surely? Make it an elitist issue or a fight to bring (or exclude!) low cost housing to the area. Playing the racist card at every opportunity is a very dangerous move to make. Remember the boy that cried Wolf?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 06:50 AM

A fascinating argument, and not really one susceptible to a compromise solution. Identical, morally, to the "gays in church" ongoing controversy. One side saying "you can't chuck us out, it's discrimination, you mus change your rules"; the other side saying"we've always done it this way, why try and join if you don't like it. Go and start your own". In this case Rabbi Sol is adopting the "let the gays in" position.
There are two fundamentally opposed principles here. Things will only settle down when one side voluntarily loses the will to pursue its case. Which side that will be is not currently guessable.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 07:22 AM

I think that if you move into a neighbourhood where there are rules already in place you are obliged to accept the established rules of the community. People have rules for a reason and I do feel that communities ought to be respected and allowed to evolve according to the wishes of those living there. I have had the experience of living in a community that had rules, these rules were ignored by new comers and the neighbourhood became just another urban blight..I moved.
   I guess we just need to do our homework and find out what the community by laws are before we move in..if they do not suit us, we should reconsider.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 07:58 AM

Sol, it seriously sounds as if you are contending that "the powers that be" would permit a varience to the zoning laws if those wanting high-rise apartments (or whatever) were party-hardy college students or a non-religious minority. If true, you have a case. If not, you don't. Sorry, but that's my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Davetnova
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 08:50 AM

This sounds like a situation that has happened before. If we substitute Palestine for Ramapo and Europe for New York.
Perhaps see how the situation there works out.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 09:22 AM

1. Would the zoning laws permit or deny the construction of a Catholic church or a Kingdom Hall or a Mormon stake or a mosque in the neighborhood, as well as a synagogue? If so, I don't see that the law is discriminatory. If, on the other hand, it would deny a synagogue but permit a Druidic grove or a cathedral, the law is discriminating.

2. If you want to have 15 kids and four grandparents living in the same house as mom and dad I don't see where the State gets off in telling you you can't. On the other hand, the government has a legitimate interest in controling the density of use of land. Out here, lots of members of the LDS Church have lots of kids -- they build a big house; but the city ordinances prohibit more than three unrelated people from sharing an apartment (and students still sublet half their bedroom!). There are sewer, water, fire, health, and parking considerations as well.

Just the two cents' worth from someone raised Catholic and living in Idaho (where the Jewish population is admittedly rather small).

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 09:38 AM

I have to say that I kind of agree with the faction that says You moved here because you liked it the way it was; if you want it to be different, you have the freedom to move again.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Tinker
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 10:20 AM

Just to ad a piece of law to the mix. New Jersey has a wide spread problem with the provision of low and moderate income housing. My own community has increasing problems with children being able to afford living in the community. It is not based on race or religion but sheer economics. Each community has been charged with providing housing, but interpretation of the law has varied over time. Some communities have actually contracted with other communities to provide the low and moderate income housing that they should otherwise need to provide within their own borders.

Mount Laurel Ruling

I think the resistance to economic diversity is often much stronger than religious or racial intolerance; although, the combination of both factors is almost guaranteed to be explosive.

Tinker

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 01:31 PM

Rapaire,
          There is no problem with a Catholic church or another Religion's House Of worship. It does not have to be located in the immediate residential area, because people can get into their cars and ride to it. An Orthodox Jewish synagogue on the other hand must be located within easy walking distance because Orthodox Jews are prohibited from riding on the Sabbath, which is the day that Synagogue attendance is at it's highest. This problem is unique to Orthodox Jews and does not exist in any other religion. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 02:04 PM

A new wrinkle has been added to this controversy.

During the Clinton Administration, Congress passed a bill know as RUILPA (Religious Use Institutional Land Permit Act). According to this law, local jurisdictions must set aside land for religious institutional use, and can not use zoning laws to exclude them entirely. Orthodox Jewish Yeshivas and Rabbinical Seminaries in Ramapo are taking advantage of this by building housing for married students, teachers, and their families on the grounds of these schools which are located in residential areas. The housing on these tracts of land will by necessity be high density & low income units. Supervisor St. Lawrence and the Town Board has set aside 3 tracts of land where these institutions will be located. It was the opinion of the Town Attorney, Michael Klein, that the Town must take this action in order to comply with Federal Law. Failure to do so can open up the possibility of lawsuits, not only against the Town, but against the Board Members and Supervisor personally, as has been done in other parts of the country. The opposition has accused the Town Board of running scared and has urged them to take the Feds to court and challenge the constitutionality of RUILPA. They have filed their own lawsuit against the Town to try to force them to challenge the law rather than comply with it. All in all, it is a big mess with tempers flaring everywhere. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 02:07 PM

So if my religion demands that I have to walk to a folk club on Saturday nights, Stoke City Council has to allow me to build one by my house? This thread is geting weirder and weirder.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 03:03 PM

That is right Greg. If Folk Music is your religion, it is protected by our Constitution, assuming we still have one if "W" gets 4 more years. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 04:02 PM

And if sex is your religion they should be allowed to build a whorehouse!

Well, maybe in Nevada.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 05:16 PM

Well, Rabbi Sol, I can believe almost anything about America, but I refuse to believe that you have a constitution that says you can do whatever you like, as long as your religion says you should.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 05:40 PM

I think the misunderstanding here lies in what is perceived as "constitional"-and what is local zoning ord.The Constitution gives freedom of speech, religion and more. It does NOT, however, say what Greg thinks it says---"...do whatever you like,etc;" Bigamy, for one thing, is outlawed in the country---the Mormons notwithstanding.   

RUILPA to which Sol refers --and I am not familiar with it--is law passed by Congress and different from a Cositutional Right. If I read what Sol wrote correctly it mandates a place must be made for a religious edifice in a given area. In my town there are churches and synagogues---as there are in Ramapo. The problem arises in the desire of having it in such proximity that it is within walking distance.   

It seems that Mr. St Lawrence--to whom Sol refers is trying to broker a happy compromise.   The "within walking distance" matter is not something that is mandated by any law I know of. I refer to my earlier posting wherein I described the--rather unfair--disallowing of an Orthodox Synagogue in my town because it was in a private home and was fought by both Jews and Christians.   The reasoning,and the legal issue involved ,is that it was not zoned for that use and that there was a synagogue 1/4 mile away---albeit not Orthodox

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 06:08 PM

Rabbi, Why are you not allowed to ride on the Sabbath? And is there no room for this to be updated a little to reflect the changes in society re distances and transport needs.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 06:20 PM

Rabbi, when I was growing up our parish church was located four blocks away. We walked to it every Sunday, weather permitting (and cold wasn't an excuse!). On those days when the weather was frightful, we took the car (or if it was REALLY bad, stayed home).

I am familiar with the Orthodox walking to synagogue, having seen it often in Silver Spring, Maryland.

Is there a distance beyond which walking to Synagogue on the Sabbath is impermissible? I realize that for some (the aged, for example) a long(ish) walk would be a hardship, but I assume that some arrangements are made in these extraordinary cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 06:42 PM

Can't you have house synagogues, the way some Christians have house churches? Or the way Catholics will sometimes have masses in private homes? I've never heard that anyone has to ask permsision for those kinds of things - and after all in this case you can't by definition have problems about excessive parking causing a nuisance, since cars aren't used on the Sabbath by the Orthodox Jews involved.

That's all a very different issue from restrictions on the density of houses in a neighbourhood. In any neighbourhood there is going to be some upper limit for density, and being a good neighbour involves respecting that.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 07:19 PM

McGrath: Interesting you should mention this.   My point exactly from the earlier post.
          That was the problem which I thought unfair---and I am not Orthodox--some Orthodox were going to use a private home. The protests from neighbors---Jewish and Christian (organized by a Jewish person I know---not a friend surely) got the authorities to stop it. As you say ---parking was not a problem. No cars. Strangely that is the issue---among a few others--they presented to the authorities. Auto congestion. Truly a red herring---whatever that expression means.
          It all comes down to people and property values. With any type of understanding left somewhere out in the cold. I do not believe it is bigotry in anyway---but I do have to say it is sad when one Jewish person gathers his co-religionists and people of other faiths to protest use by some that are, he feels infringing on his property value.

          I would say, parenthecally, the same about any faith that would do something like that. Let us face it---nobody's hands are all that clean---and, perhaps, religion, rather uniting us, divides us.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: HuwG
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 08:26 PM

I believe that about ten years ago or thereabouts, the Jewish community in Golders Green (north London, UK), declared part of that area to be an "eruv". Naturally, I don't fully understand any part of Jewish teaching or folklore, but I think it meant that it was an area where the strict letter of the law did not apply.

(The measure was originally meant as a benefit to those confined to a wheelchair, as they could be otherwise held to be "riding" on the Sabbath).

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 10:21 PM

I reckon religon ought to move with the times a bit.
I'm no expert on this exact travel to synagogue by feet only thing [and there is a similar rule in Islam ie you should walk to the mosque], but I was told that the original rule was brought in to give animals a rest, ie , thousands of years ago folk would ride everywhere on donkeys horses etc every day, nowadays we have cars, buses, bikes, motobikes etc, none of these things existed when the rules where made up.

Also other stuff, like in Islam all alcohol is banned, but recent medical research has proven that a little bit of alcohol is better than none at all, ie 1 pint or 1 glass of wine a day.

And them lot waht won't have blood transfusions, ie in the olden days drinking blood was stupid, as there were no fridges, and you would get ill.
And when blood transfusions was first invented, they didn't know about blood groups etc, so people died, but nowadays its all put in groups and tested, and heated up to kill germs etc.

If I was in charge of religon, i would relax the rules a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 11:40 PM

jOhn, when I become Emperor of the Universe, you can be my representative for Earth...I, too, would 'relax the rules a bit'....

but my friends who practice these religions tell me they really do not WISH the rules relaxed. The feeling seems to be that certain hardships or rules that test resolve and committment are good for us, and are a part of the routine.

The problem, as we see, comes when YOUR rules require accommidation on MY part.

I wonder just how serious Rabbi Sol's reply was to greg stephens rhetorical question about "folk music" being a religion? It would be fun to see THAT tested in court!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 01:19 AM

I have been doing a lot of musical work recently at Rook How in Cumbria, a Quaker Meeting House in Cumbria, which doubles as a hostel where we take asylum seekers for musical weekends away from the lousy dump in Stoke they normally have to live in. Anyway,Rook How was built by the Quakers miles from anywhere to serve as a central point for Quakers to meet from all over the southern lake district.(it is 2 miles from a pub and 5 miles from a shop). And they used to walk in for meetings from fifteen miles away. This does not add anything constitutional to the arguments, but it does show that if you make a little effort, you can walk to services quite a distance from home.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 07:19 AM

The zoning laws are just an excuse to keep us from becoming the majority here, which we soon will be.

I see, it's about winning and you want the opposition to give in as soon as possible.

The idea of freedom of religion seems to go very far in the USA. It is one of several constitutional rights in Germany and in some cases these rights clash with each other. Then the freedom of religion has to stand back sometimes. For instance, several church bells have to be silent at night time, for that interferes with the right of the citizens of no bodily harm done to them. And a several times interrupted sleep can lead to bodily harm. It's a matter of compromise, however, and nobody over here would be able to stop the midnight bells at Christmas with that argument, for Christmay only comes once a year.

Tolerance and compromise is two-sided. What would you offer as a compromise, Rabbi Sol?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: HuwG
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 07:39 AM

A little belatedly, here is a web site dealing with the North-west London Eruv.

I really should have looked at this before posting earlier, no doubt Rabbi Sol will be rolling his eyes at my fleeting glimpse of the blindingly obvious. In particular, there are many such areas already in the US, though they are a comparatively recent innovation in Britain.

The visible signs of the NW London eruv are small marker posts and wires or tapes (which I believe are secured to buildings); they are certainly not obtrusive and do not in any way affect the activities or access of non-Jewish people in the area.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 08:38 AM

I dont see a willingness to compromise on either side here, which is possibly why you are in this position, life is full of compromises.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST,freda
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 09:08 AM

i just typed up a big response to this one, which went into a black hole when mudcat went down! but thanks to mudcat's back door, here i am to try again!

(back door? try..http://207.103.108.105/threads.cfm)

i worked in the housing co-op movement in nsw for many years. i live in an inner city artists co-op in sydney, which we designed and created ourselves, selecting architects and builders to create the community we wanted. our co-op spans between two streets, we have a huge open back yard, and a communal laundry, office and small hall.

There are around 50 co-ops in city and rural areas in NSW with between 5-30 dwellings per co-op. Some co-ops are located in one building while others live in separate houses within one suburb.there are several warehouse conversions in the inner city. Co-ops here have been formed by people from a range of backgrounds as diverse as the Hmong from Laos, South Sea Islanders, people from Latin America, Arabia, India, Vietnam, and the Philipines. we have co-ops for older people, co-ops for students, co-ops for singles, co-ops for families.

i have been involved in pushing for planning which allows for different groupings, more connections and less isolated, nuclear forms of living. there has been a lot of negotiation with different councils over time. the inner city council that assisted us has since been amalgamated into a much larger one. but the local council was good, and worked positively with us and our architects. as we live in an area of high density housing, we managed to get what we had hoped for, with some concessions on both sides.

in my co-op, we each have our own self contained apartment, except for the laundry. in my experience, communal living works best when people have as few rules as possible to restrict them. Some set ups ive seen include families buying houses a street away - close, but not too close, or people with adjoining back yards who open it all up (we've done this here). you would be surpised how people who have the same philosophy can interpret that very differently.

here in Oz, we call people who are opposed to innovative housing NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard) - i guess thats probably an international term. i look forward to a century of better housing in all ways, both in building design and in creative planning. Rabbi-Sol, there are so many architects who want to work with people to design more creative forms of living. but when youre dealing with pushing for different styles of living, what you experience as a religious or cultural issue, others are interpreting as a planning issue. ít is also worth looking at the restrictions, and seeing what can be achieved within them. We achieved a great community by playing a few games, not challenging certain things, but achieving them without confrontation. another group of artists never made their community happen, because they werent prepared to compromise.

good luck with it all,

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Grab
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 09:32 AM

I'm failing to understand this. Since when was there a religious requirement for families to live next door to each other? Granted, some people do want to, but if there's no houses available then tough titties. If the zoning laws required you to break the rules of your religion, then you might have a case, but this is simply personal preference and nothing else. You can't shout "discrimination" just because you can't find a house in your price range near your family/place of work/favourite restaurant/pub/whatever.

Now the synagogue issue, I have some sympathy with you, although I still don't see why a religion should ban driving a car on the Sabbath. But that case is done and dusted.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 11:08 AM

jOhN from Hull asked why religion could not be updated, and told us that he understood the no-riding on the Sabbath was originally to give the animals a rest.   Interesting.

I once was talking with some Orthodox Jewish friends about the kashrut food laws, and I made the comment that I thought they were originally because of (in the case of not eating pork) avoiding trichinosis, and (in the case of the milk/meat divide, "not seething the calf's meat in its mother's milk") humanitarian reasons.

His reply was emphatic: "NO! We observe these rules because God said so!

The point is that the believers will deny your rationale, jOhN, however right or wrong you are. And of course your rationale, while possible or even persuasive, can't be proved, any more than the doctrine, "because God so commanded" can.

And even supposing that the Sabbath no-riding rule was humanitarian in origin (which we don't know), or the no-pork rule was health oriented (which we don't know), these rules now serve what I'll call "a liturgical purpose" (maybe wrong language, but it will serve for this purpose) for observant Jews, and besides that they serve as a means of maintaining community identity, a sense of "us" versus "them". Jews have maintained their cohesiveness, their sense of who they are, for thousands of years while scattered into many foreign cultures, many foreign lands, in part by such practices, and one cannot expect their attachment to these rules to go away even if you were to prove a historical health or humanitarian or other non-religious origin.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 09:23 PM

I am back on line after a 3 day hiatus, due to my celebration of the Jewish Succos (Tabernacles) Holiday and the Sabbath which came in on the very next day. Now to answer some questions.

Although riding on the Sabbath was originally prohibited to give the animals a rest, the prohibition of riding in an automobile is for entirely different reasons. It mainly falls under the prohibition of lighting a fire on the Sabbath. It involves combustion as well as electrical use, as well as carrying in the public domain, all which are prohibited acts on the Sabbath.

The law is, if the Synagogue is beyond walking distance, or the person is too infirm to walk, one must pray at home rather than violate the Sabbath.

The concept of "Eruv" is as follows. One can build a fence which demarcates the difference between a public domaine in which carrying or pushing strollers is prohibited, and a private domaine in which such acts are permitted. A public domaine is defined as a place in which 600,000 people can pass through in the course of one day. That is why Eruvs are not permitted in Manhattan or most parts of Brooklyn.
They are permitted however in areas such as Monsey, where I live. An "Eruv" is a symbolic fence. It is constructed by using the telephone or electrical wires that are located on utility poles. In order to be valid, the wire must pass directly over the pole. In cases where the wire goes alongside the pole a "lechi" or firring strip of wood (approximately 16 inches in length), must be nailed to the side of the pole on which the wire is attached, so that theoretically if the strip were extended all the way to the top, the wire would pass over it. In this way, a designated area enclosed by the wires is now defined as private domaine. Written permission must be obtained from the secular local governing authorities in the area as well as the utility companies that own the poles. Also, the area enclosed can not contain a major express highway or passenger rail line. In our area, the "Eruv" can not encompass the New York State Thruway or the Palisades Intersate Parkway, for fear that the 600,000 population limit might be breached.

Orthodox Jewish law which is based upon the Torah as handed down to Moses at Mt. Sinai, is immutable. There may be different interpretations of that law but the basic concepts can never be changed. Driving, or riding in an automobile on the Sabbath, unless it is done for a life saving emergency, is one of those concepts.

                                                SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: musicmick
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 11:19 PM

Perhaps the good rabbi will offer his opinion on those areas in Israel where the Orthodox have decreed that the Sabbath will not be sullied by cars and enforce this decree by roping off the public thoroughfares. Like the vast majority of Jews in Israel, I am not Orthodox and I can say, without reservation, that, when the Orthodox have authority, they are less than tolerant of non-Orthodox practices.
(The multi-party makeup of Israeli politics insure that no party gets a clear majority so the National Religious Parties join coalitions and wield power beyond their numbers). They successfully opposed bus services on Shabbat. They determine who is entitled to citizenship and right of inheritance. They tried to ban Shabbat TV but the Israelis drew the line at missing their weekly dose of Raymond Burr.
In this, present, controversy, I feel the faint aura of hypocracy. This, we need like a lekh in kup.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 12:52 PM

When Israel first became an independent state in 1948, there was a famous Hebrew folk song that was poular called "Dundai". To quote a line from the song " Eretz Yisroel belee Torah, he kegoof belee neshamah". For those who do not understand Hebrew, the translation is:
"The land of Israel without the Torah, is like the body without the soul". Although Israel is a democracy it is not at all like the USA. It is above all things the JEWISH homeland. The Torah and its laws are what sets the Jewish people apart, and makes them unique from all other people. It is what has enabled us to resist assimilation and has helped us to survive throughout all the generations of persecution that we have endured. Basic to our faith is the definition of "Who is a Jew ?", which can only be defined by Torah law as interpreted by the Rabbinical authorities. Marriage and Divorce as well at matrilineal vs. patrilineal descent, are part of that definition. The laws of citizenship and the right of inheritance stem from these Biblical laws. Similarly, observance of the Sabbath (Shabbat), is the defining commandment of Judaism. Take away these concepts and you cut out the very heart and soul of Judaism, making Israel, just another ordinary nation in the world without its unique Jewish character. That is why it is important that public entities, such as the transit system or El Al, not operate on the Sabbath. Nobody forces individuals to be religious or observant. To prove this point, the secular Jews in Israel far outnumber the observant ones. One should however be sensitive to the feelings of those who want to observe the Sabbath, by not driving vehicular traffic through areas such as Meah Shearim which is 99% ultra orthodox. People are entitled to peace and quiet on their day of rest, without being disturbed. It is no worse than the situation in Bergen County, N.J. where the residents have overwhelmingly voted to maintain the Sunday blue laws and keep the stores and malls closed on Sundays. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 01:04 PM

"electrical use" - but everything involves electrical use, when you get down to it. Even breathing and thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 01:20 PM

Electrical use do to the conscious efforts and positive actions of an individual. Not autonomous actions over which we have no control.
SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: HuwG
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 01:54 PM

I believe that the comparative lack of tension between Jewish and other communities in Britain has been the Jewish willingness to pay lip service to their own religious laws and the sometimes restrictive laws of the land and local by-laws, while subverting all of them.

Sometimes this has resulted in wry humour. As an example, in Golders Green and Hampstead, one could often see well-dressed Jewish ladies with gorgeous flamboyant hair styles, out shopping. The flamboyant hair was of course a wig, designed to preserve the "modesty" of the lady, by not showing a strand of her own.

I learned that morsel of information from a girl I knew who stayed with her sister and brother-in-law there while the brother-in-law served at the Army's postal service centre in nearby Mill Hill Barracks. Another acqaintance is the son of a woman who was employed to light fires for Jewish families in Cheetham Hill in Manchester, if these were needed on the Sabbath.

As you can imagine, none of the Jewish people in question could be described as "Orthodox", even if they did dress in the black clothing associated with orthodoxy, especially on the Sabbath.

In Britain, any restrictive religious sect is increasingly suspected of sanctimony, even those home-grown. By comparison, those whose emphasis is on internal spirituality rather than external display of righteousness are more respected. The Rastafarians are generally better regarded for example, than the rigid "Wee wee Frees" in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 02:02 PM

I believe that in France Muslim girls are starting to wear those wigs in school, to comply with the same religious rules, now that scarves are banned.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: musicmick
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 05:14 PM

The good rabbi's argument is, at best, self serving and, at least diversionary. He agrees that the vast majority of Israelis are non-observant (that's OrthodoxSpeak for non-Orthodox) but feels that the Orthodox Rabbinate should make laws based upon ancient mores that are rejected by everyone except the 12-15% who, coincidentally, agree with him. Israel is and was intended to be a refuge for the Jews of the world (So sayeth the UN in 1947) and a Jew was defined by birth, not belief. His suggestion that Jews are all like him is ludicrous.
He doesn't define my Judaism. Neither do those laws that favor his anachronistic views. It is hard enough for the Gentile world to accept a Jewish state without describing that state as Iran without the veils.
I am not saying that the rabbi is duplicitous. He is just wrapped in the clutches of self rightiousness and, in such a position, he is unable to think objectively. But I do wish him, as I wish you all, a year of peace and happiness.

               Mike Miller

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 06:07 PM

'Old Order' Amish equate, pretty much, to Orthodox Jews, it seems. The Amish do not permit themselves - or each other- to own motor driven vehicles but they will hire non-Amish or people who were reared Amish but no longer are 'observant', if they never formally joined the Amish church. (Usually between the ages of 14 to 18).)

For some reason, they also distinguish between gasoline and electric power. For instance, it is OK to use gas generators to run dairy 'milkers' but it is not OK to run electric lines to one's home. It is Ok to use oil lamps or to use propane to fuel your reading lamps.

As to families, the Amish too prefer to have their offspring and other extended family living close by. Often,in the old days, the father had enough property to deed certain portions to various offspring on which to build. In addition, it has always been the practice to have a amsller house built close to the family home for the eventual use of the patriarch and matriarch. However, the Amish tend to have large families and today it is much harder to find or afford farms so it is no longer possible in many cases to practice "the old ways". So, many more young Amish men become mechanics (small engine) or factory workers these days, rather than the traditional farmer or carpenter.

Last winter in my travels I visited several Amish communities and I was surprised to learn that the old ways are still alive to a certain vital degree.

No wonder I thought for the first few years of my life that I and my family were Jews!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 06:29 PM

We surely have embarked on a theological discussion . I believe that can lead to understanding from many sides if we keep open minds.

The good Rabbi made comments re: raison de etre for the State of Israel.   He also made reference to being understanding by not driving through Meah Shirim. He surely is correct there. The problem presents itself in the demand for the shutdown of ElAl and/or public transport on that day.   Since the majority of the nation is secular it would seem to me that they should not be made to abide by the religious minority's rules.

Musicmic makes that very valid point---the definition of the State as used by the UN in its creation.
By the way--Musicmic---it is Loch in Kopf (Hole In The Head).

It is not generally known, I believe, that there is a particular Hassidic sect (Satmar) that are very anti-Israel.   They consider it a secular and illegal place. Their belief is that only Messiah can bring us into the "Promised Land".

So--to bring it to a conclusion---it comes down to beliefs. I know that is a simple truism. Perhaps the dichotomy is in that those who have "faith" ie: total belief in something are on one side and those with a more pragmatic and questioning philosophy are on the other. All religions have their "faith". They all believe they are the holders of "truth" Therein lies the problem. So, here on earth, it must be adjudicated by the rule of secular law. Given that fact---and given the definition of Jewish by Jews and also by the UN (vis a vis Israel) --we have to accept Israel as a Jewish Secular State. Probably the best solution all around

One last thought about the electrical use mention.   I have never understood why it is OK to accept the benefits of the product provided you are not involved in its manual operation. I am reminded of an Orthodox friend of mine from many years ago who asked me to hold his cash on the Sabbath as we walked about town--so if he wanted something--say ice cream--I would purchase it. You are not a sinner if you receive the benefit as long as someone else did the deed--whatever it is.

I cannot argue with "faith"--but logic????


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 06:48 PM

Ebbie:   I never knew that about the Amish--=-the variance in the power sources ( propane/oil etc;) Just goes to confirm my earlier post---though I do find it incongruous to see Hassidim dressed in their traditional garb speaking on their cell phones.

One might be interested in seeing a film of a few years back called: A Price Above Rubies.   I had thought at the time it was a documentary--it was not. It was with very mainstream and famous actors and much despised by the Hassidic community. Well worth viewing since it does show both sides---the faithful and the secular.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 07:54 PM

Bill,
       Your Orthodox friend was wrong. The same way that I am prohibited from doing certain things on the Sabbath, another Jew, whether he is observant or not is similarly prohibited. If I ask another Jew to do a prohibited act on the Sabbath for me, it is the same as if I had done it and it would be my sin. Similarly, I can not even ask a Gentile directly to do something for me ON the Sabbath. I would have to arrange it with him BEFORE the Sabbath. In the case of a non life threatening emergency or communal need I can hint to the Gentile on the Sabbath but can not ask him directly. If I want the light put on I would have to say "It is dark in the house" and he would have to understand by himself what I want him to do. Of course, if it is a life threatening emergency even a Jew can violate the Sabbath.   SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 08:01 PM

The reason that governmental bodies in Israel follow the "rules" of the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox is not because Israel is a Jewish state or because these are somehow necessary to maintain its Jewish identity. Rather, it is for a very pragmatic reason: Israel has a parliamentary governmental system and no political party in recent decades has held a majority in its own right. The party with the largest number of seats must go into coalition with others to establish a government, and the religious parties have shown that they are pretty much willing to ally with anyone as long as their particular interests are satisfied.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 08:12 PM

Artbrooks:   Which is similar to the pragmatism of the U S, U K, and other nations with similar constitutional guidlines. This brings us back to my original point---A Jewish State with secular majority that compromises with religious parties (similar to Dems/Repubs/3d parties in the US) to achieve funcionality that can keep the nation moving on.   

Surely if the, say, Satmars had their way Israel and perhaps the rest of the world as we know it would be long gone. Intransigence never has a happy ending.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: MaineDog
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 08:23 PM

The first amendment is directed to Congress: "Congress shall make no law--" not to local governments. This was done so that states and localities will have discretion in matters of religion... in those days, I think, different states had different religious majorities, not exactly establishments, but preferences, at least. We also have freedoms of association, and assembly, which could tend to exclude certain people in order to maintain their identity. Let's assume that you and your Orthodox community had established a township that met all of your needs, and then the ACLU decided to move in and say thay you were violating the rights of Muslims, how would you feel then?
In America, rights and freedoms must be balanced against one and another, and although religious freedom is very important, it cannot always win out, because we are a pluralistic democracy, not a theocracy.
I very much hope that we all can learn to live together in peace, and I certainly wish no one ill will.
MD

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: musicmick
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 09:45 PM

Chaver Hahn, in my family it was pronounced lekh in kup. There is a saying that if there are two Jews, there will be three kinds of Yiddish. My point was that Orthodox Jews seem to object to limitation of religious expression except when they are doing the limiting. Of course, they have God on their side so who are we to object.

               Mike Miller

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 02:39 PM

Musicmic--I guess my pronunciation stems from my Austrian background--more German style Yiddish I guess.
    You are right about the "if there were 1.... etc;" I heard it as 10 and 10 different opinions. So---an anecdote of course. Years back I produced some fund raising concerts---did it myself and asked for colunteers where needed--sound, advtsg, etc; All worked out fine. A local Conservative group is putting on a concert later this year and asked me to consult with them---I went to their first meeting----what a commotion. Everyone had an opinion on how to do it. Simple things became complicated. I ended up volunteering to come for the final one (meeting) and set it up on the day of the show---makes life a lot simpler.

    Well, as to your other thought---true---Dylan did get that right---everyone has God on their side---or so they think.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 04:13 PM

"God is on my side!" "God is on my side!"   "No, God is on my side!

God is schizophrenic, I guess.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: musicmick
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 09:32 PM

I am pleased to announce that, as of 9:27 PM, October 4th, 2004, God is officially on my team. Excercising His right of free agency, He has agreed to a multi-year deal with options. From this date and time, anyone claiming that God is on their side will be hearing from my lawyers. Have a nice day.

                Mike Miller

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 09:12 AM

Why would someone whose religion requires them to be near a place of worship move into a neighbourhood where there is clearly no place of worship near by ? Further, why would you then expect the community to change the rules when you chose to live there. Also, Is a walk of a mile or so considered too long. Perhaps an accommodation could be made by putting a church on the edge of the community. People should look to the law to save them from a lack of foresight. They should also not call existing laws bigotry because they haven't gotten their own way.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 01:49 PM

In Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods, synagogues are not planned for. They always evolve as the need grows. Most start out as a quorum (minyan) of 10 males that start praying regularly in some private homeowner's basement. As more people move in to the area, the home based synagogue suddenly outgrows its acommodations and then has to find a more permanent home. This is the only type of Evolution that Orthodox Jews believe in. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 08:21 AM

Fine, so why would you move into a neighbourhood where this evoloution would be restricted. Seems to me you want be rescued from your own foolishness.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 08:37 AM

What's wrong with that? I would love to be rescued from my own foolishness!! lol!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 02:14 PM

Guest,
       When we first move into these neighborhoods we are not aware of the zoning restrictions until the Synagogue is already a fait accompli. After all most of us come from NYC where anything goes as far as zoning is concerned.
                                              SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 03:23 PM

I am reminded of a sign in a store (forget what kind now), which said:

"Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on our part."

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 05:16 PM

Uncle Dave,
               
             As I said once before; Communities evolve and laws sometimes have to be changed to fit the new realities that have come into existence. Otherwise, people in the South would still be living under the Jim Crow segregationist laws.

                                           SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 05:29 PM

Communities evolve and laws sometimes have to be changed to fit the new realities that have come into existence

and just how does this apply to Jewish orthodoxy Rabbi-Sol?

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: greg stephens
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 06:48 PM

I loved that stuff earlier in the message, where your Rabbi man explained that God says you can't ask someone to turn on the light, but you can say "It's dark in here" and hopes he gets the message. And apparently there are people who believe this in all seriousness. The mind, as they say, boggles. You'ld think God would be too busy running the universe to have time to take the piss out of credulous people. (credulous men I mean. Women aren't allowed to hear about it, apparently...though you can see why. They might laugh).

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 07:56 PM

To start---Greg S: "Rabbi, Man" I go no further---intelligent discussion is already lost I see. Y'all hurry back, heah?. But only when y'all can have discourse in an intelligent manner. See- I can do dialect also.

Dave the G: I, too, have had those questions and thoughts---and, hopefully, Sol will explain them. From his point of view. I feel we evolve and we progress---and laws and practices should change to fit the evolvement of society. For the true believers one must ask, then, if God created man, gave him thoughts, etc; does it not follow that the practices of "man" will also evolve and that will be in the way it should be. The way ---if you believe in the Almighty---He planned.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 08:01 PM

Actually Bill H., I kind of heard Greg S. expounding "well I'll be dipped in sheeeeit."

Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 03:28 PM

"Your man" isn't an offensive way of referring to a third party. "I saw your man down the shops yesterday". It just means "the man we are talking about", and it's a very common expression, especially, but not exclusively, in Irish conversation.

Why should it be seen as insulting to insert "Rabbi" in the middle to clarify which "your man" is being referred to?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 04:13 PM

Y'all hurry back, heah?. But only when y'all can have discourse in an intelligent manner. See- I can do dialect also.


I didn't realize that the dialict heard in Cornwall, UK, is so similar to the dialect of the southern states of the US. Imagine that. Learn something new every day. Do the Cornish really say y'all?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 04:49 PM

McGrath of H: We got off topic here---check the quote. It may be a difference in the US interpretation of such a comment vs a British one---or just truly unintelligent way of communicating---does this make sense to you: your priest man --or, how about, your minister man, etc;? Again--might be the difference in the two countries expressions.

As to dialect---well, perhaps my error there since Greg seemed to be using some sort of southern colloquialism of poor taste---but see above--if I am wrong in his residence then the joke falls flat and is out of place on my part.

But--hurry back anyway---heah?

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 06:27 PM

I'd say that "your priest man", or "your brickie man" would make sense enough. More typically the qualification might come after as in "your man in the street". But "your man with the bodhran" or "your bodhran man" both would sound natural enough.

Anyway, either way, I'd have thought that, over here, the expression doesn't in itself carry any sense of disrespect.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST,Fieldvole
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 08:29 PM

Rabbi-Sol.

If I/we tried to interfere with your religion by asking/telling you
to change or alter it, because we didn't like the way you do things,
we would be politely told to $%&* off and mind our own business,
wouldn't we? We would also be out of order in doing so, because it
IS your own private business, and quite rightly so.

So, as I said in my previous post, why are you asking the local
community to change their private/public lives to suit YOUR religious
beliefs?

This thread has dragged on and on, covering varying aspects of the
case, and basically getting nowhere, it never will get anywhere as
long as one part of the community is trying to force the other part
to change it's long established laws, (which you came to the area to
enjoy the benefits of). Sorry, but as I said before, you shouldn't
be putting the residents of this community in the position of having
to defend their well thought out zoning laws against religious belief.
In other words a public issue against a private one. It can't be done!


As you well know, there is no defense against the religion argument,
(which is why you are using it, and shouldn't be) because however
you try to defend yourself against it, it will be construed as
racialism. (If that is the correct term, but you know what I mean)

*********************************************************

Let us go into the realms of the ridiculous for a moment.

1. My aged mother, who lives near you, has an ingrowing toenail, she
can't walk very far and needs a local store. SORRY Rabbi-Sol but you
will have to give up a small portion of your front yard to build her one.

2. The local people need a drive in cinema / bowling alley / shopping
mall. SORRY Rabbi-Sol but it is going to be built right down the street from you. You are going to lose your pleasant outlook so that
the local people can have what they want. WELL TOUGH LUCK.

*********************************************************

This is what you are really saying to your local community isn't it?

Would YOU like it? I think not! (Especially as you have zoning laws to stop this sort of thing).

As I said before, if you can't do it within the existing rules,
(without bringing the big religious cannon into the battle), then
you would be better looking elsewhere for the things you need.

I am sorry if I sound nasty about this, but there are too many people
trying to force other people into doing what they don't want to do,
and using the religion / color gambit is the worst way of doing it.
As I said before, laws are laws. Once you get / if you get this
through, who will be the next group to flout the laws?
They did it, why can't we? they will say. And yet another part of our lives, laws and freedom will be lost.

No Rabbi, I appreciate that you are driven by your religious beliefs,
BUT, they ARE *YOUR* religious beliefs, no one elses, not the community's or maybe even your next door neighbours. They are YOURS.
Why should the rest of the community take them on board?

SO...if you feel you must fight the laws, then fight them cleanly,
do it within the existing laws which have served you well for so long.
And if you lose, well, you gave it your best shot and you must think
again and move on to other ways of getting what you need.

Right, rant over, it's getting late here and I must go.
Whatever you do or however it ends up, I wish you well.

Best wishes

Fieldvole

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST,Mike
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:38 AM

I too am in Ramapo, and the issue is not as clear cut as presented. There are two issues, one is the density issue and the other is Tax free housing. Most of the tax free base in Ramapo is "public" meaning schools and hospitals open to all. But the largest by far of the "residents" living tax free are in the religious community. They use RLUIPA to force changes and live tax free. That creates additional hostility. I live in Montebello and a new Temple was built and it is an asset to the community. BUT, only the Rabbi lives on the grounds, not 300 "students" who use town facilities. That is the issue. A ward system would allow all communities to be represented. Congress is not elected "at large", all views need a voice in the town.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 May 09 - 06:20 AM

100