There is an interesting free exercise case developing in Fairfax County, Virginia (where I live). The Church of the Good Shepherd has been informed that it may have to remove its sign after violating country rules that prohibit electronic signs from being changed more than twice a day unless they are giving weather reports. An inspector informed the church that it had posted three different messages in one day and thus stood in violation of the law. The church is objecting on religious freedom grounds — citing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Matthew 12:39 warns that “an evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign” and it appears that Fairfax County has found one.
It may be a sign of our times that there is nothing sacred. Today a burning talking bush would result in a fire code citation and lawsuit for failing to have a sign interpreter for the hearing impaired.
Before addressing the free exercise issue, I am not sure what surprises me more: that the county has a law regulating how many messages can appear on electronic signs or that it has someone who actually monitors the messages on electronic signs. Given the host of underfunded school and county programs, I think we have isolated a position that can be freed up for more productive use.
In this case, the Vienna United Methodist church posted three messages on one day. One offered people refuge from the heat. The church then posted a reference to its web sites. Then came the final and fatal message . . . wait for it . . . the church listed the time of a group prayer meeting. That final message shocked a Fairfax zoning inspector who dashed off a warning to the church “It is noted that the screens changed more than twice in a twenty-four (24) hour period. This changeable copy LED sign is considered a prohibited sign.” So now the county wants a permanent limit of just two messages a day on the sign or for the sign to be taken down.
Notably, the messages on that day followed a severe storm that knocked out the electricity of the whole whole, leaving many in distress. Here are the three specific messages:
“Welcome, come on in and beat the heat”
“Visit us at goodshepherdva.com.”
“Practicing the Presence, Thurs., July 5, 1 pm.”
That last message was clearly not received by Fairfax officials.
Now the church is suing as a matter of both free speech and free exercise. They are relying on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Pub.L. 106-274, which prohibits overly burdensome zoning law restrictions on religious properties. RLUIPA provides:
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution–
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc(a)(1).
“Religious exercise” is defined as “includ[ing] any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” Id. § 2000cc-5(7)(A).
Maryland has a sign challenge of a different kind a few years ago under the law. See Trinity Assembly of God of Balt. City, Inc. v. People’s Counsel for Balt. County, 407 Md. 53 (2008). In that case, a church challenged the denial of a permit to construct two large signs. The court rejected the claim citing other courts:
We resolve that, under the RLUIPA, a land use regulation, or a zoning authority’s application of it, imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise only if it leaves the aggrieved religious institution without a reasonable means to observe a particular religious precept. Such a regulation would be “oppressive to a significantly great extent.” See Guru Nanak Sikh Soc’y, 456 F.3d at 988 (internal quotations omitted). If, however, the religious institution may adhere to that precept through some viable alternative mode, the land use regulation at issue is not a substantial burden on religious exercise, even though it may make that exercise more difficult or expensive.
In this case, the Church may be hard pressed to show a substantial burden. It can speak through various means and can post up to two different messages each day. However, I fail to see how the sign regulation satisfies even a rational basis test. How is a different sign a nuisance to the neighborhood?
I also do not see why Fairfax would want to litigate such a claim rather than reach a compromise or amend the law.
The position of Fairfax appears to come directly out of Mark 8:12: “And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”
Frankly, I find the Methodist sign tame in comparison to some others around the country:
Source: Washington Post
Yo, Methodists: If you can not find a lawyer who knows where the federal courthouse is or has a clue about the Civil Right Act violations here then take him/her clueless lawyer to the library in the federal courthouse there in Fairfax and dust off the shelf containing the federal codes. Go to 42 United States Code Section 1983. Begin reading and pay attention to the annotations (short summaries of cases). Lawyers today dont know nutin bout birthin babies Mix Scarlett.
To make the case stick in federal court, do the following. At Seven a.m. post a sign: Lord, Please Make The Children Listen. At Eight a.m. post a sign: Fairfax County, Please Make The Alderman Listen. At Nine a,m, post a sign: Fairfax County, Wake UP and Smell The Roses.
Sue them under the First Amendment. Two Prongs. Freedom of Religion Prong and Right To Petition The Government Prong. Refer to yesterdays article on this blog about the Continental Airlines dildo for the other First Amendment Prong concerning the right of privacy. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Sue the individual officials in their official capacity who tell you to take down your sign. Seek damages, injunctive relief, atty fees and prong fees.
The first I remember reading were billboard signs. It seems that they are the first thing I have stopped reading.
If the religious will permit me the freedom of speech, I will support their sign’s use of many messages.
Here’s an analogy which may upset the reliegious, and politicians as well. Inspired by the convention, in fact.
————————————————–
Politics is a lot like religion.
Whatever they promise it will come in the great bye n bye, if it comes at all.
Most likely something else will come instead, for which they will claim credit, or blame it on the mysteries of ??????!
And, as in religion, folks believe it as long as it is what they learned as a child.
Add to that a little pandering to your pride of being an (X, or Y or Z) American, threatened by the hellfires of (Satan) Obama, and also if you leave the party. Lastly, you must go out and save others to the church.
The more we are, then the happier the Almighty will be, he will reward us more, and our pleasures of belonging to the one true and righteous church will increase.
Follow an evidence chain involving reason? Not sure I can do it myself. Am sure they don’t want to bother. Just believe in my ol’ timey religion.
Blouise, I agree. There are different kinds of signs. The kind you mention, the scrolling ones, are very difficult to read and I don’t bother. The static signs are a different matter. I get the message in a glance (and sometimes have to think a bit to understand it) and see no harm in the message changing fairly frequently.
There is a church sign that I see nearly every time I go out. I look for the message b/c I enjoy a play on words and whoever puts these messages up is good at it. Not that I’ll go into the church, but the messages usually give me something that’s worth a smile. I wonder what Pastor Kathy Moore was thinking when posting her sign?
The number of messages should be a matter for self-policing. The point of the message boards is to get a message out. If the sign is scrolling, the board generally fails in its purpose unless it’s within sight of a long traffic light. If the message changes frequently, the board may also fail b/c those passing by at a certain time see only the message at the time and miss all the others.
I see no reason for limiting the number of times a message can be changed. Hope the judge rules in favor of the church on free speech grounds and specifically says that the religion part doesn’t apply.
I wonder which member of the city government is pissed at the pastor?
oops … forgot the “e” … figure out where
Like bettykath, I don’t understand the rational behind the law in the first place.
A library and high school a couple of communities to the west of mine each have one of these signs and one doesn’t have time when passing by to read anymore than one line … if that. For that reason alone I think the signs are a huge waste of money. The library does a line with time, then temp, then hours of operation, then 1 or 2 events scheduled … if you want to get the whole thing you have to stop your car and wait as each line scrolls through. The high school sign lists sporting events, school hours, awards, programs planned … on and on and same result … no time to read even doing 20 mph in the school zone.
Stupid laws about stupid signs. Bah, Humbug! (Kudos to the crafty sign salesman)
Fairfax County ??
Bureaucrats, Lawyers, and Lobbyists…Oh My.
Bureaucrats, Lawyers and Lobbyists….Oh My.
Saddle up Dorothy, The land of Oz is about to make a Big comeback!!!
While I would certainly address the religious aspect of their claim, I concur it is more of a free speech issue.
First, the church is not a business and has not accepted submission to local business ordinances in exchange for a business license. So if one could apply speech rights to a church, I would say the prohibition of speech beyond two messages to the public per day is just as akin to only permitting an individual two picket signs or two conversations per day.
In that sense it is rather a draconian law.
The only legitimate position I can see the county arguing is that a sign that flashes very rapidly might be a safety hazard as it distracts the eye from drivers’ attentions. But this rate would have to be very bright and quite fast.
again, I see no compelling interest to the state if an organization changes the sign’s wording however many times per day it chooses.
Cutting to the chase, in practical terms someone at the code enforcer’s office has far too much time on their hands
Frankly had it right. This ordinance, while stupid, is used against all companies or institutions with these signs. Like Prof. Turley, I am still wondering if there is someone in Fairfax County who sits outside and counts the number of messages?!
I don’t understand why there should be a limit in the first place. And I don’t see it as a religious issue.
When politicians say they need to raise taxes or they will need to lay off police or firefighters the hair on the back of my neck rises. On almost a daily basis I would be in government buildings[Fed, State, City] getting reports, records, etc. I would see employees[I can’t call them workers] sitting around scratching their butt all day. These folks NEVER get laid off! So, when you hear a pol giving you that boilerplate line about laying off cops or firefighters just to scare you, ask why this sign monitor isn’t in jeopardy of losing his job.
Nick – Hear, hear!
Maybe add a warning about showers of fire and brimstone to each message? 🙂
“I kissed a girl and I liked it … then I went to hell”
The background story is about a high priest whose name cannot be spoken.
Oh. Good. God.
This is the kind of nonsensical, overbearing, petty nonsense that is bogging down our society and economy (not this exactly, but this type of thing typifies what small biz deals with too). Some small-minded bureaucrat who has built his/her little fiefdom and gets a thrill out of stomping the proverbial ants.
Fire them and make them go earn an honest living; if they know how (doubtful).
I wonder if homeland security outta get involved mespo….. Seems like the crime of the sentry……
I wonder if there’s an exception for an Amber Alert….. Maybe the person enforcing the ordinance goes to another church….. Or is God and does not like the messages…….
More nanny government.
Ok I think all municipalities need a sign cop. Your never know when we will have too much information. We need to keep the masses like mushrooms!
Since the ordinance does not restrict the exercise of religion in any way I do not see the value at coming at it as a religious issue. A restriction of free speech maybe but not religion.
But then I hate those flashing electronic signs & question the might of any deity that needs one to sell their message.