Effects of the RLUIPA
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) creates major changes in how the rule of law is balanced against religious liberty. Because of the RLUIPA, local governments may be prevented from enforcing local zoning ordinances against religious institutions in the same way as against secular organizations. Understanding what these effects are and why they are a problem are necessary for understanding why the RLUIPA is a bad law.
What would the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act law do?
On the face of it, this sounds very reasonable - why should the government interfere with people's free exercise of religion any more than absolutely necessary?
However, this principle only sounds reasonable as applied to religious rights because it could reasonably be applied to all of our rights and beliefs. Sure, it would be nice if the government were prevented from interfering with religion unless it had an "overriding, compelling reason" - but it would also be nice if it similarly prevented from interfering with our lives as a whole and our constitutional rights in particular unless it had an "overriding, compelling reason."
The RLUIPA is part of a class of laws which create a blatantly discriminatory class of "special rights" for religious groups and believers, allowing for a dual system of laws and regulations. Ordinances that apply to everyone and every group would not necessarily apply to religious groups. This places government in the unconstitutional position of favoring religion over irreligion.
Because there have been fewer cases involving the RLUIPA than state-level versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA, struck down by the Supreme Court), it's easier to find examples of problems involving RFRAs. All these cases, though, would go the same way under the RLUIPA because it establishes the same sorts of standards when it comes to evaluating government acts that impact religious institutions.
If you examine the record, you will find that most problems between religious groups and local governments have not been about the free exercise of religious practice. Instead, the real problems have been over the very worldly matters of zoning exemptions, waivers on permits on environmental controls, construction of massive "mega-churches," expansion of church parking lots and buildings into surrounding neighborhoods, etc. Basically, the churches want to do whatever it is they want to do, regardless of how it impacts their neighborhoods and their neighbors.
There are a wide variety of land use and zoning regulations which could become essentially invalid under the RLUIPA — including noise ordinances, safety laws, zoning rules, and historical preservation. Noise ordinances are in fact a great example of generally applicable laws which are designed to apply to everyone and help everyone. Under the RLUIPA, however, anyone who wishes to violate them for religious reasons can force the government to prove that they should have to abide by them anyway.
The Chicago Tribune (Rocking Church Riles Neighbors, July 9, 1999) reported on a church in a residential neighborhood which held services Wednesday evening that included a band. The noise level went above the maximum allowed by law and so neighbors complained. According to the church, however, the Alabama RFRA prohibited local government from enforcing noise regulations against them.
So, how would you like to live near a church which could force you to listen to whatever sorts of music, preaching, or general noise that they wanted to broadcast at whatever volume they wanted to broadcast it? Can you imagine how difficult it would be for you to sell your home and get out? What can be said of the moral standards of a church which cannot manage to be a good neighbor?
Another case cited by Marci Hamilton is one dealing with the very important issue of safety laws: In California, a homeless shelter owned and operated by a church started to admit people at night. Unfortunately, the building's structure was in violation of numerous safety regulations, even including fire safety regulations.
Believe it or not, courts ruled that because of the RFRA, this church did not have to live up to safety codes and, so, was permitted house the homeless men in an admittedly unsafe building. Only after the RFRA was held to be unconstitutional was that decision reversed and the church forced to abide by basic safety codes. I really have to wonder at the moral values of a church which does not think that the homeless deserve safety.
This issue has a direct impact on any neighborhood that contains either a church or any building owned and operated by a church. If they do not have to abide by fire codes, they pose a fire threat to the entire area. If some politicians have their way and religious organizations start to administer government programs like welfare, food stamps, job training, etc., then people will have to come to unsafe buildings just to obtain guaranteed government assistance.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
What would the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act law do?
1) GENERAL RULE - 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.
On the face of it, this sounds very reasonable - why should the government interfere with people's free exercise of religion any more than absolutely necessary?
However, this principle only sounds reasonable as applied to religious rights because it could reasonably be applied to all of our rights and beliefs. Sure, it would be nice if the government were prevented from interfering with religion unless it had an "overriding, compelling reason" - but it would also be nice if it similarly prevented from interfering with our lives as a whole and our constitutional rights in particular unless it had an "overriding, compelling reason."
Special Rights
The RLUIPA is part of a class of laws which create a blatantly discriminatory class of "special rights" for religious groups and believers, allowing for a dual system of laws and regulations. Ordinances that apply to everyone and every group would not necessarily apply to religious groups. This places government in the unconstitutional position of favoring religion over irreligion.
Because there have been fewer cases involving the RLUIPA than state-level versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA, struck down by the Supreme Court), it's easier to find examples of problems involving RFRAs. All these cases, though, would go the same way under the RLUIPA because it establishes the same sorts of standards when it comes to evaluating government acts that impact religious institutions.
Local Land-Use Conflicts
If you examine the record, you will find that most problems between religious groups and local governments have not been about the free exercise of religious practice. Instead, the real problems have been over the very worldly matters of zoning exemptions, waivers on permits on environmental controls, construction of massive "mega-churches," expansion of church parking lots and buildings into surrounding neighborhoods, etc. Basically, the churches want to do whatever it is they want to do, regardless of how it impacts their neighborhoods and their neighbors.
There are a wide variety of land use and zoning regulations which could become essentially invalid under the RLUIPA — including noise ordinances, safety laws, zoning rules, and historical preservation. Noise ordinances are in fact a great example of generally applicable laws which are designed to apply to everyone and help everyone. Under the RLUIPA, however, anyone who wishes to violate them for religious reasons can force the government to prove that they should have to abide by them anyway.
Noisy Churches
The Chicago Tribune (Rocking Church Riles Neighbors, July 9, 1999) reported on a church in a residential neighborhood which held services Wednesday evening that included a band. The noise level went above the maximum allowed by law and so neighbors complained. According to the church, however, the Alabama RFRA prohibited local government from enforcing noise regulations against them.
So, how would you like to live near a church which could force you to listen to whatever sorts of music, preaching, or general noise that they wanted to broadcast at whatever volume they wanted to broadcast it? Can you imagine how difficult it would be for you to sell your home and get out? What can be said of the moral standards of a church which cannot manage to be a good neighbor?
Fire & Safety Regulations
Another case cited by Marci Hamilton is one dealing with the very important issue of safety laws: In California, a homeless shelter owned and operated by a church started to admit people at night. Unfortunately, the building's structure was in violation of numerous safety regulations, even including fire safety regulations.
Believe it or not, courts ruled that because of the RFRA, this church did not have to live up to safety codes and, so, was permitted house the homeless men in an admittedly unsafe building. Only after the RFRA was held to be unconstitutional was that decision reversed and the church forced to abide by basic safety codes. I really have to wonder at the moral values of a church which does not think that the homeless deserve safety.
This issue has a direct impact on any neighborhood that contains either a church or any building owned and operated by a church. If they do not have to abide by fire codes, they pose a fire threat to the entire area. If some politicians have their way and religious organizations start to administer government programs like welfare, food stamps, job training, etc., then people will have to come to unsafe buildings just to obtain guaranteed government assistance.
Source...