A rabbi who sued a New Jersey town because he claimed it was persecuting him over prayer services held at his house says the town is trying to further meddle with his religious freedom by defining his home as a place of worship.
Rabbi Avraham Bernstein amended his federal lawsuit against Freehold Township, saying a new law the township passed in late September defines his house as a place of worship, putting him in violation of area zoning laws.
Bernstein could face several hundred dollars in fines, said township attorney Duane Davison.
Bernstein argues in the amended lawsuit filed Monday that the new ordinance is too vague under federal religious protections law and is meant to empower the town to retaliate against him for holding prayer services at his house.
“This is a small group of Jews meeting in somebody’s home,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville, Va.-based civil liberties group representing the rabbi. “If there are a hundred cars pulling up it might be some concern. But these people walk. It’s their Sabbath. They can’t drive.”
(Source: Associated Press)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
10 Responses
so where are all the comments about theAnti-semitism raising its ugly head here in America? Why haven’t all those who responded to the President of Belarus, commented here?– Must be too close to home Oh and ofcourse, since Freehold is next door to Lakewood, and the Hanhalla hasn’t told you what to do, you can’t react for yourselves.
He probably is violating the local zoning laws. His attorney’s reference to RLUIPA (see http://www.rickross.com/reference/lubavitch/lubavitch52.html) confirms it. RLUIPA is a horrible law. It allows ostensibly religious organizations to dramatically change the character of a town or village and renders the municipality powerless to do anything. That’s all fine and good if you happen to like the religious group in question. Many frum Jews for example have to qualms about the Tartikov project in Pomona as they support anything that might help frum Jews. But what would those same frum Jews say if, for example, a “Jews for Jesus” institution sought to open in their neighborhood? RLUIPA would protect it. What about a Islamic study center replete with a mosque and minaret from which the muzzein calls the faithful to prayer five times a day? RLUIPA would protect that too.
This is a clear case of Anti-Semitism. Quiet people walking to his house on the Sabbath cannot possibly disturb any neighbors.
There is no music or any other loud noises being made.
you tell them cantoresq. in fact do more than tell them, tear down YOUR Shul and YOUR Yeshiva – who said that EVERYBODY was happy when YOUR facilities were being built. maybe you can expand the anti-Shul, anti-Yeshiva group(exept my own) preserveramapough to preserveamerica
it sounds antisemitic but you have to know the whole situation, because there are a lot of cases where they realy take away the quitness and calmness of a neighborhood , even in lkwd its not that simple.
#4, I don’t know how others determine what is objectioanble to them. But for me the analysis starts with the honesty of the endeavor. In other words do I believe that the development in question will actually be used in the way described by the developers? Sadly, in too many instances involving developments built under the protection of RLUIPA, that is not the case. I don’t believe it appropriate to get into specifics in this forum, but since you are familiar with Preserve Ramapo, I’m sure you know to what I refer. Additionally, the issue is the propriety of the way someone goes about his/her business. There is no excuse to violate the law; even in pursuit of kiruv rechokim, especially not in such an instance. I therefore see no need to tead down the schul where I daven nor the yshiva my children attend, since they were built legally and to code, and are used for the purposes described at the time they were built.
Zoning laws have always been used to keep down “undesireables”. The presumption must always be against such laws and in favour of the property-owner’s right to use it as he chooses. And by raising the case of a j4j place or a mosque you explicitly concede that these disputes really are about viewpoint-based discrimination. Of course the j4j and the moslems are entitled to build their places; if you’re concerned about the muezzin waking people up, feel free to apply neutral noise regulations, so long as they apply to all noise sources, including parties, car alarms, and municipality-owned garbage trucks.
There is no coubt that communal standards are in play when talking about zoning. My point however about the J4J or a mosque spoke more to prejudice and bias than to communal standards however. I sincerely doubt that a predominantly frum neighborhood would tolerate a J4J center, but I am convinced that the same neighborhod would more welcoming of a yeshiva and “adult student housing” even if the later scenario had a more profound impact of the quality of life. They would reject the principles upon which RLUIPA is based as regards the former and embrace it vis-a-vis the later The reason is bias and prejudice. And they would be right. J4J should not be allowed to build a center in a predominantly Orthodox Jewish neighborhood as their activities offend communal sensibilities. But at the same time, a yeshiva with adult student housing should not be foisted upon the denizens of a bucolic predominantly non-Orthodox neighborhood as their presence (i.e. the increased use of already scarce resources, the added traffic and other strains that would be put on the infrastructure) will upset the lifestyle of those already there. The consistency #7 refers to is grounded in menschlechkeit. And I don’t care if the rest of world acts like beheimot gasot. A yid darft vaksen vie a yid.
Post #8: J4J should not be allowed to build a center in a predominantly Orthodox Jewish neighborhood” — and you studied law, where??? we can protest, we can try to make them want to leave – in peaceful, lawful means, we can not forbid them to live where they want. we can keep them out of our Shuls and Yeshivas as they are private, membership institutions with bylaws, but we can not legislate against them (not in the U.S. anyway, not sure where you reside.
additionally, you make the leap that those that are utilizing RLUIPA (the LAW) are violating the law -go figure!
#9. I was not talking law. I was speaking about something that transcends law, menschlechkeit. You are absolutely correct about the law however J4J have am absolute right to build whereever they want, communal standards to the notwithstanding. As to RLUIPA my original post said that it is a bad law since it tips the scales too far in favor of religious land use and prevents a municipality from protecting itself from such construction. I don’t recall making any leap, but it is clear to me, based upon “facts on the ground” that RLUIPA is used as a mechanism to develop property for profit. Congress certainly did not anticipate that some crafty business people would see this law and being forming religious institutions or using dormant ones for the purpose of putting up otherwise prohibitted developments. We’ve seen it happen already, and I suspect that it will happen again in the near future.