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
The “Constitutionally” protected right to free parking! Well, at least they are not arguing that the bike lane would allow women to pass their church on bikes! But seriously, this is exactly what happens when a government that is supposed to eschew providing religious privileges does. One religious exemption or privilege leads to another and then another. If the government limits those privileges then it will be accused of favoring one church over another. Churches must follow the law and live within the content neutral limitations just like the rest of us.
We need to stop giving church’s exemptions and special privileges. Let’s stop tax exemptions for churches. I am not happy with being forced to pay for the propagation and support of religious beliefs I do not share. Oh and yes, put the bike path in. If the church needs parking it can buy some land and build a lot just like any other business!
“It’s a practical solution with common problems, not an ideological imposition.”
Whether it is a practical solution, or even a superior one, is debatable.
Yet the debate has never occurred.
If so, show me where there has been one.
Not ideological? That is risible.
Agenda 21 and its local arm the ICLEI are explicitly socialist and Statist.
That is their ideology, and bike lanes were a product of their effort.
In my city, they have imposed them even though we have miles of bike trails that traverse the city exclusive of cars, eliminating the need for bike lanes, which I have never ever seen being used.
In any event, the purpose of bike lanes is not to make bike travel safer, but to eliminate automobile use.
Socialists love the idea of the proletariat forced to use trains and bicycles, and live in high density buildings with one child or, preferably, none.
An old, simplified gem:
http://youtu.be/pQq2wTCgE-Y
Dave,
If bike’s are technically vehicles then lanes already technically exist for them. If the “moving” vehicles are the danger to bikes then enforce the existing laws.
For someone so pro-life, Olly, surely the saving of just one person by employing bike lanes must be worth it. But that requires consistency of course.
And the waste is in the courts. The church is suing, not each individual.
The Mason quote is misapplied here given that he said it in the preamble to a bill he introduced into the Virginia Assembly in 1776 “which ended the practice of forcing dissenters to pay contributions to the established (Anglican) Church.”
If you accept the professor’s overly broad interpretation, you could similarly argue that churches should forego police and fire protection, sewers and water supply, because they are ‘contributions’ to a church.
(I do believe some of those who post here would in fact argue that is the case. If so, churches could not exist, which is of course their aim.)
Streets are a utility, and religions should have no less an ability to petition the government about the impact of the loss of a utility has on them than our far wealthier corporate lobbyists clearly enjoy.
KC:
Bikes are technically vehicles, and must obey traffic laws the same as cars. Most drivers can’t stand sharing lanes, and many drivers don’t understand that they’re supposed to.
It’s safer for everyone if cyclists have their own space on the road.
It’s a practical solution with common problems, not an ideological imposition.
Taxpayer resources are putting in bike lanes where none have proven necessary to date; to accommodate what, “potentially” 1,100 riders who ALL will not likely ride in the lanes by the Church? However, they will inconvenience 800 parishioners who I would suggest ARE tax payers.
They’re not whining persecution to get attention: they actually claim persecution, that their religious freedom is being “denied”: which is far easier than persuading people why installing bike-lanes isn’t a good idea (the church cares only about itself, is the reason).
Another pending waste of taxpayer resources.
Bike lanes are the holy sacrifice of the modern environmental-socialist religion.
Bike lanes are in fact part of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), an arm of the UN’s Agenda 21, an explicitly socialist response to an ephemeral belief.
Their plans are being introduced in cities all over the world, without voters being aware of it.
Since the bike lane idea is being imposed in order to impose the demand to reduce automobile use, the religious institutions affected here are in fact making the correct argument.
People no longer live within walking distance of a nearby church, and parking is extremely limited in large cities, so getting rid of their parking in effect prohibits the practice of their religion.
I see no reason to favor the practitioners of the global warming religion over these faiths.
“This is particularly important as DDOT expands to a larger, regional, bike sharing system of more than 1,100 bikes by the end of the year.”
http://ddot.dc.gov/page/bicycle-lanes
From what I’ve read this is not to address major safety concerns or a recent rash of injuries in this area. This is an expansion plan that seems to be a bit myopic about the impact on places like this Church that has been there for 90 years.
The Church has nearly that many members. As a cyclist I applaud efforts to put in more bike lanes and if D.C. wants to encourage more cycling to work then good for them. I expect this Church doesn’t need a 7 day a week accommodation and perhaps the bike lane could be for Monday-Friday. A First Amendment protection is a bit much but when dealing with bureaucracy, sometimes only extreme measures get their attention.
I can understand fielding complaints from small businesses, as they pay taxes which subsidize public streets. But a church dictating infrastructure?
What does the church pay in tax? And why should its voice be louder, let alone on par, than others? (And don’t mention charity: that’s supposed to happen for its own sake, not to garner legal leverage.)
Pandora’s Box is right.
Annie,
Wait for the Church of Oil to sue EXXON for Heresy…
Religious Freedom… Gotta love it, NO?
“Another example of how a badly written Constitution can be manipulated to address an issue it was not intended to address.”
Raises two important questions: 1) does the document have to be a constitution to be manipulated 2) does the document have to be badly written to be manipulated?
Or is it possible that bad lawyers can manipulate any issue? And without the legal process how do we know which are the bad lawyers and which is the manipulation?
Another example of how a badly written Constitution can be manipulated to address an issue it was not intended to address.
There is no attempt in this case to interfere with freedom of thought or belief. They just don’t want a bike lane.
The fact that the courts are obliged to pay attention to frivolous attempts to manipulate said constitution should be regarded as contempt of court?
On the other hand they would be able to adapt this argument to the second amendment as a breach the sixth commandment of the Highest Power.
There is an interesting twist to this story.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Bike-Lane-Is-Bid-to-Force-DC-Church-Out-Leaders-Say-332985481.html#
“Bike Lane Is Bid to Force Out D.C. Church, Leaders Say
Leaders of a prominent African-American church in Northwest Washington say the construction of a protected bike lane near the house of worship is a veiled bid to kick them out of the area.
United House of Prayer for All People, located just east of the Washington Convention Center, has argued in a strongly worded seven-page letter to city officials that proposed bike lanes on 6th Street NW, alongside the church, would interfere with church services and parking.
The church charges through its lawyer that the District is “targeting historically African-American churches” in rapidly gentrifying areas, in a policy that has “forced” some churches to move.”
Pandora’s box has been opened, it’s not at all surprising to see this religious claim. I’m guessing we’ll be seeing far more of these claims in future.
They need to move that church off the streets. Maybe out in the ocean on a barge.
(music- )
Wacko! Call them wacko!
What kind of people call them wacko?
Fat kids, skinny kids, kids who climb on rocks!
Religious kids, dim wit twids, even kids with chicken pox…
Say Wacko! Call them wacko.
The pimp.. dogs… like….. to BITE!