The United House of Prayer on M Street NW in Washington, D.C. has a curious view of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The Church has claimed that the city is denying the freedom of religion by seeking to add a bike lane on one side of its street. While there is a rich literature on the scope of the protections afforded to religious practices, it is perfectly delusional to claim that the addition of a bike lane violates “constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws.”
The Church has 800 members and its lawyer wrote the District Department of Transportation that the proposed bike lane are “unsupportable, unrealistic and particularly problematic for traffic and parking.” The lawyer suggested the addition of a standard bike lane would add to traffic congestion and thus violate the Constitution. It suggests sending the bike lane down another street (where presumably another church would not claim a constitutional violation).
The church lawyer insisted that by potentially increasing congestion the DDOT was impinging on religious freedoms: “As you know, bicycles have freely and safely traversed the District of Columbia throughout the 90-year history of the United House of Prayer, without any protected bicycle lanes and without infringing in the least on the United House of Prayer’s religious rights.”
Notably, the District previously caved to another church’s objections to a bike lane and agreed to make the bike lane unprotected in front of the church despite the view of groups and other churches can now make similarly frivolous claims under the Constitution.
The District is now considering the latest religious freedom claim. The use of the religious rights argument would suggest that a church might be able to block a municipal traffic plan where a non-religious institution might not.
“It is contrary to the principles of reason and justice that any should be compelled to contribute to the maintenance of a church with which their consciences will not permit them to join, and from which they can derive no benefit; for remedy whereof, and that equal liberty as well religious as civil, may be universally extended to all the good people of this commonwealth.”
~Founding Father George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776
Delete repeated “just like civilians”
David…..i don’t think churches have to be 503 to avoid income taxes as a “church”….i think many do it so their big tithers can take a tax deduction. Which is silly bc then the pastor is always checking his speech to comply with the irs….ie no politics. And silly because i suspect a great majority of parishoners don’t itemize.
Not sure of your understanding re. churches paying income tax. As a retired clergy, I can say that every year I was active I paid as self-employed and that included “both parts” of SSI/MEDICARE but did have a non-taxed IRS portion as a housing allowance just as the military. Church clergy are not covered by unemployment but lay employees are and churches pay that plus work comp for both lay and clergy. Never worked in congregation that made a profit no matter how one “cuts” it. All purchased equipment and supplies were subject to a State’s sales tax.
The 501 provisions keep it simple and less paperwork for all concerned. There is no depreciation schedule etc., etc.. For instance, a new building is not depreciated but all fees and special assessments are paid.
Just for info, my previous career in the Navy—all “pays” were taxed kjust like civilians (except in combat zone) just like civilians–allowances were not subject to IRS or SSI/MEDICARE.
davidm2575 said …
Aridog wrote: “What happened to that licensing idea?” … Licensing bicycles is a bad idea. Children use bikes The homeless use bikes. Licensing would be oppressive on them.
Oh, please. I was a child when I got my first bicycle license plate. It was cheap. Everything is “oppressive” if you choose to define it that way…there is no reason for bicycles to not pay a pittance for the roadway space they use…why do I “owe” them anything else? If I hit one accidentally am I automatically blameless? If not, why where they on our roadway to be hit? I hit another car I am liable in some cases, in fault is found and if they are licensed…so why not bicycles?
Frankly, I don’t owe anyone and if they want “bike lanes” let them fund it. The city pays for my sidewalks that I walk down, and I pay taxes to the city for that convenience. Who pays for the “bike lanes?” No one…it is taken from highway funds, paid by motorists…not by city taxes per se…or by bicyclists.
I’m in favor of bike lanes, just let the users step up…period.
Aridog, there are lots of ways to pay for bike lanes without requiring licensing. To tell you the truth, I wish all automobile licensing was done away with too, but that won’t happen. It is oppressive when people without two nickels to rub together uses a bicycle and then gets slammed with fines for not having a license. I’m sorry, but nobody should have to ask the government permission to ride a bicycle. That’s just crazy.
Here in Florida I have seen people drive a car without a tag, get caught, then can’t pay the fine, so they lose their license to drive. The fines and penalties just keep adding up. The person then tries to drive to work anyway and is caught, so more jail time and more fines are added. Ultimately the person is made into a second class citizen because while others can drive to work, but he cannot. It limits his choice of jobs. It is the opposite of equal opportunity. It is oppressive.
Madison believed religion should be left to the conviction and conscience of the individual, and homage to ::ahem:: the Creator only as is acceptable to the individual. This means freedom FROM religion where the individual’s conviction and conscience so chooses.
This is quite true. You are not compelled to worship any God at all if that is your choice. You are not forced to belong to a church that the government established in order to get a job or be a “good citizen”. The State or the Government cannot compel you to believe in God or attend a church. Someone merely mentioning the word God, or displaying the 10 Commandments doesn’t force you to worship.
The converse is true, that those who believe in no God do not have the right to compel others to abandon their faith or stop their worship of whatever God they choose.
Basically, they can ignore you and your atheism and you can (and should) ignore them and their religiosity. I ignore all kinds of people and their stupid ideas. Life is easier that way.
As to the Church in question in this case, their freedom of religion case seems pretty slim, since they are still free to worship in their faith, but maybe not as conveniently in that particular location. If a person is a believer: God doesn’t exist in a building, so the place of worship is not material. Just because you don’t have parking doesn’t mean you are being prevented from exercising your faith.
The street issue however is something that any business could bring to court. If the city is purposely blocking traffic to their establishment and causing economic damage, it seems that their could be grounds for financial restitution.
I’ll be gone the rest of the day so if I don’t get back to you, I am not ignoring you….this time 🙂
Having served as a clergy person for over 20 yrs, what I find rather interesting is the lack of knowledge and the plethora of pre-judgement by so many well educated members of society. All of my church income was taxed by SSI/MC and I also paid IRS as self-employed with the Manse allowance, and professional expense were for the most part reduced to near nothing. The last church I served paid fees for all of its community services except the straight out part of real estate tax but that real estate tax was only exempted for property used for well defined worship space and attached parking. The property cannot be legally rented out, but was provided for use by anyone with a “charitable” purpose—AA, ACOA, BSA, GS, NA, blood bank, community events such as conferences etc.. Usually donations were made to cover utilities and a small honorarium as thanks. Over each yr the congregation provided over two tons of food and baby needs to the local food backs.
My last church started its life many years ago (long before I got there) with over 10 acres. Various govt “improvements” reduced it to 1.85 acres shaped like a half moon. New setbacks further restricted improvements. Yet officials kept praising the little church for all its work while further restricting on-street parking which significantly impacted major events except on Sundays when nearly all else was closed at least for the morning. With all the “growth” in codes—regulatory fees, setbacks, etc., moving was not an option. Rental/lease of space exceeded mortgage costs for new construction with concomitant improvement compliance costs. A quarter acre in a developing center was $500,000.00.
When we wanted to erect additional lighting for night safety? It only took one neighbor within second story eyesight of any additional light to stop the whole project until a completely new plan was designed, signed and submitted with new fees. We decided to go with temporary measures. BTW over 10% of the total operating income went to local unaffiliated community and individual needs.
My sense is that the church in question may be using this suit as a last resort to ever encroaching mandates.
So let’s bring the high pitched clamor down a bit. Some who have no experience or expertise (common sense?) love to spew bovine “end” product…. which often is actually equine in nature. Get my drift? Oh yeah, am also USN retired combat vet hence the refined sailor talk.
Renegade – I did not know that ‘refined sailor talk’ existed. 😉
Renegade wrote: “All of my church income was taxed by SSI/MC and I also paid IRS as self-employed with the Manse allowance, and professional expense were for the most part reduced to near nothing.”
Don’t confuse your personal income taxes with taxes on a church corporation. Certainly a minister’s income is taxed just like everybody else. The church, however, is considered a nonprofit. If it were treated like an S-corp, any extra income to the church would have flowed through to the officers of the church as taxable income. If it was a C-corp, that income would be taxed as profits of the corporation. As a non-profit, though, the extra income is not taxed. The income must be used for nonprofit purposes of the church. The church also benefits usually from exemption from paying State sales tax whereas a for profit corporation would collect and remit sales tax to the State.
David, That was my point. The proper phrase is freedom OF religion. The Freedom FROM religion is a recent construct by secular progressives. The Freedom From Religion foundation is their cathedral, as it were.
David, Freedom FROM Religion is based in Madison. They have Shiite zeal and hate religion. When people use the phrase freedom “from” religion you can usually discern their motivation. The correct term is freedom “of” religion.
Nick, Madison was certainly a big proponent with Jefferson to separate the powers of civil government and religion, but he did not believe in freedom from religion. In his autobiography, he mentions when George Mason used language about “tolerating” religion, he corrected it to verbiage that communicated that the freedom of conscience was a natural and absolute right. That indicates freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
As far as I can tell, the “freedom FROM religion” concept did not come from any of our founding fathers. If you have a quote indicating otherwise, I would be most interested in seeing it. The freedom FROM religion concept comes from modern atheists and secularists under the influence of the philosophy of atheism. We also have to thank Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black for misleading thousands of people on this concept.
davdm writes, “he did not believe in freedom from religion. In his autobiography, he mentions when George Mason used language about “tolerating” religion, he corrected it to verbiage that communicated that the freedom of conscience was a natural and absolute right. That indicates freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.”
Nice try:
“The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.”
“It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him.”
Madison believed religion should be left to the conviction and conscience of the individual, and homage to ::ahem:: the Creator only as is acceptable to the individual. This means freedom FROM religion where the individual’s conviction and conscience so chooses.
Give it up.
stevegroen wrote: “Madison believed religion should be left to the conviction and conscience of the individual, and homage to ::ahem:: the Creator only as is acceptable to the individual. This means freedom FROM religion where the individual’s conviction and conscience so chooses.”
I can’t get inside your head and figure out how you came up with freedom from religion with the quotes you offer. Your summary is accurate, that religion should be left to the conviction and conscience of the individual, but that is not freedom FROM religion. That is freedom OF religion from government coercion.
Some secularists today teach a dangerous perspective of the First Amendment, not noticing the article “an” before the word “establishment” and thereby misinterpreting the First Amendment and misreading it to say “not respecting the establishment of religion.” Such a misreading would mean that government should be secular or irreligious and should not be allowed to encourage or favor religious institutions with tax exemptions or government contracts. It leads to government being hostile toward religion and theism in general. It leads to government favoring secularist and atheistic philosophies over any that might acknowledge a Creator or God. Such was NOT the purpose of the First Amendment or our founding fathers who envisioned a society where the individual would be free to pursue faith and worship in any manner that seemed suitable to the individual. They did not want a government that would put people like Kim Davis in jail because her religious convictions did not agree with the atheistic and secularist views of government. They wanted freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. They longed for a society where religion was allowed to be expressed and followed freely without government coercion to believe a particular philosophy or doctrine.
Justice, I agree. But, let me shift to a religious topic other than this, Catholic priest sexual abuse. It is an outrage and many religious people righteously speak loudly on this topic. That said, there are many people who are religious and hate the Catholic church who also speak loudly. There are atheists who hate all religion who also speak loudly. If you listen and/or read what any of these 3 groups say on the topic, you can usually discern the motivation. I believe the primary force speaking out are Catholics. But, you cannot deny the other 2 categories exist in large numbers. The same holds true w/ this situation on the bike lanes. There are righteous folks like yourself, but hopefully you understand there are haters of religion and THAT is their primary motivation, not the Constitution. My job is understanding what motivates people. Sometimes it’s difficult, often impossible. But, most of the time I can discern why people do what they do.
Why is it that when ever it is pointed out that churches should not receive special privileges or tax exemptions, the commenter must be seen as anti religion. I criticize government but I’m not against government. I criticize the way laws are written and enforced but I am not against law. Criticism of churches and or religions is just as appropriate as the criticism of anything else. Privilege and or exemption from the law based on a religious belief or status as a religious institution is, in my opinion, unconstitutional and should not be permitted. That doesn’t make me anti religion it makes me pro Constituion and pro separation of church and state.
Justice Holmes wrote: “Privilege and or exemption from the law based on a religious belief or status as a religious institution is, in my opinion, unconstitutional and should not be permitted. That doesn’t make me anti religion it makes me pro Constituion and pro separation of church and state.”
All it means is that you do not understand the rationale behind our current laws, nor do you understand the Constitution.
There is no tax exemption based upon “religious belief.” That is your canard. Lookup IRS Code 501(c)(3). The same IRS code that exempts religious organizations also exempts educational organizations, science organizations, literature organizations, amateur sports organizations, prevention of cruelty to animal organizations, the erection and maintenance of public monuments, and any organization that lessens the burden of government.
The tax exemption is based upon the idea of a non-profit organization doing work that the government otherwise would be doing. For example, consider the role of religious organizations. That role includes education and persuading people to live righteously, avoiding crime. If religion persuades people to live righteously, not stealing, not hating people, not lying to people, not given to pleasurable excesses of drug and alcohol abuse, etc., then that religious organization is lessening the burden on government which would otherwise be put into a position of prosecuting and imprisoning people engaging in those activities. Likewise, in regards to charity, those religious organizations that are providing for the needs of the poor, providing shelter, clothing, and food to the homeless and destitute, caring for widows and orphans, providing adoption services for abandoned children, etc., then these religious organizations are relieving the burden that otherwise would fall upon government.
The theory is that in essence, if government taxes non-profit organizations, they are taxing themselves, which would be irrational. So those nonprofits that serve the public good in the same way that government does, with similar mission and goals regarding the public good, these organizations should be exempt from taxation.
The Constitutional idea of separation of church and State is that government should not show any special respect toward particular religious establishments, but rather treat them all the same. Whether a non-profit is religious or not religious, whether it is part of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, or some Protestant church, the government should treat all these organizations the same in regards to tax exemption. If you have some other idea of the Constitutional separation of church and State (e.g., freedom FROM religion instead of freedom OF religion), then you are in error in your thinking (i.e, you have an anti-religious bias).
KCFleming writes, “And, given the Kelo decision, the State has a very low hurdle to prove this is ‘in the public interest.'”
That’s true, unfortunately, and perhaps compensation for a taking should be more than fair market value, but you’d need a constitutional amendment to get there.
I just looked up Kelo v. City of New London. That was a deplorable result in my opinion, and I remember my disgust when it came down. I thought and still do believe it to be a theft of property. It permits the city to reduce to rubble for instance a mom and pop grocer to allow a multiple-use complex with more potential tax revenue. The city still has to pay reasonable compensation, whatever that may be for the taking, however, but that probably isn’t enough to overcome the loss of future revenue and peace of mind to the former property owner.
That said, Kelo has nothing to do with this case, unless somehow you believe removing parking from the street (which is city property) is somehow a taking under the 5th Amendment. That argument has zero merit, unless you think free parking on a city street is hostile, open and notorious possession over the years by churchgoers on the sabbatical when the city authorized it. Get real.
Like I wrote earlier, the church has to prove, even if impliedly, that the city mandate involves some sort of malfeasance toward it.
Why can’t those schmucks ride their bikes to church?
Paul C.
Like a Corporation is a people?
A church is a person?
UP NEXT: A garden is a group of investors that seek a future harvest… YES?
So Paul C.
Explain what misappropriation means, then?
Max-1 – for the sake of the lawsuit, the church is treated as a corporation. It might even be registered as a non-profit. So, yes, the church is a person.
Does THIS article contribute to the discussion?
Feds To Spend Gas Tax Money To Increase Congestion
Federal Highway Administration loosens regulations to encourage road diets and bicycle paths to slash space used by motorists.
http://thenewspaper.com/news/48/4811.asp
ExpatNJ – you should send a copy of the article to the Church.
David, One incongruity w/ the Netherlands and bicycles is the low helmet compliance.
Paul C.
Is it the members complaining or is it the Church?
Name the members listed in the complaint…
Max-1 – “The Church” incorporates their members. They are complaining on behalf of their members.
If it’s shown to be an equal application of the law, whether the purported harm is to a church, business, or residence, then I don’t see a problem. Do you?
@ Steve
Not really. Unless it can be shown that the reason for the bike lane being on that particular street is necessary and that the bike lane could not as easily be in another location AND if it could be shown that the planners are in reality trying to get an “undesirable” business/church to move to another location….then they might have a case.
The issue is that the equal application of the law has been an illusion for quite some time. Those who can pay seem to be able to avoid the unpleasantness of having their livelihoods and lives disrupted.
DBQ – they wanted to build a freeway thru the center of downtown Phoenix in the 1970 and they were going to elevate it. People voted it down. Politician got all butt hurt for about 15 years until they finally figured out why it was voted down. People were for a freeway, but they wanted it depressed. So, they offered to depress it, build a 2 mile long tunnel with a park on top and the people were happy as clams.
DBQ writes, “Unless it can be shown that the reason for the bike lane being on that particular street is necessary and that the bike lane could not as easily be in another location AND if it could be shown that the planners are in reality trying to get an “undesirable” business/church to move to another location….then they might have a case. . . .The issue is that the equal application of the law has been an illusion for quite some time. Those who can pay seem to be able to avoid the unpleasantness of having their livelihoods and lives disrupted.”
Well, I agree with you to an extent with regard to whether the church has a case IF they can prove some tacit conspiracy, but the burden is on the church. Laws are presumed constitutional until proven otherwise. Right?
And one more thing: just because a law is proved unfair doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been applied equally. Equal protection and regulatory law in general are not about fairness.
I like bicycles and may buy another one sooner than later (dang, good ones are expensive now! 🙁 ) …however, we have scant “bike lanes” here…those we have are scarcely marked or safe. Since I’m not suicidal, I’ll skip it for now.
That said, when bicycle riders start paying highway taxes of some kind and pay for a license plate, I’ll be more sympathetic. When I was a kid a right of passage, usually around 7 or 8, was going with your dad or mom to the police department and paying for that bicycle license plate which was mounted on the rear of the bike seat. It allowed you to ride on streets and good e-v-e-r-y-w-h-e-r-e … a big deal to a snotty kid like me 🙂
What happened to that licensing idea?
Aridog – as expensive as a new bike is, an new car is even more expensive. The taxes from the car go to the general fund and pay for roads, etc.
Gasoline taxes also pay for roads. Bikes do not pay a gasoline tax.
Aridog wrote: “What happened to that licensing idea?”
Licensing bicycles is a bad idea. Children use bikes The homeless use bikes. Licensing would be oppressive on them.
The Netherlands has always impressed me about their bicycle use. They have many dedicated bike lanes. They even have huge bicycle garages multiple stories tall. The interesting thing about Amsterdam is that it was not this way 40 years ago. Protesting children led to changes in the way society looked at cars.
Check out this documentary from 1972. For those who have visited beautiful modern day Amsterdam, it is a fascinating look at the way it used to be there. I marvel at the children so intensely arguing with adults against cars and for bicycles and play streets (playgrounds).
https://youtu.be/YY6PQAI4TZE