Rabbi sues Freehold for violating his religious freedoms

Oy, too much tsoris over such bupkis! (0.00 / 0)

Tch, tch, tch, tch, tch, tch.

So, nu, where should the Rabbi pray if he can't travel on Friday nights? He should break the Jewish law, then they'd be happy?

What's it Freehold's business if the rabbi has a minyan in his home? What, your home is such a delight to visit? It's not like the rabbi is making a bar mitzvah with thousands of Jewish children.

---

by: MediumPetey @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:51:29 AM UTC

Glad I don't live there. (4.00 / 1)

I'd be in big trouble having a family barbeque.  When we get together it's like 20 people with my nieces and nephews and siblings - 22 if you count my parents.  I have to make extra big batches of manicotti - and that is just ONE course for a Christening!  Would they consider our Christian get-togethers as a house of worship?  Now really.  When do you consider 10 people a house of worship?  I have more than that when my friends drop by and I invite the folks next door.  What about candle parties and girls nite book clubs? Now I know why they only include one extra parking space per new condo for guests.  You're not supposed to have any. 

There should be some kind of number present for it to be considered a public gathering.  Aren't churches usually allowed in residential areas anyway?  Isn't that where you want them?  (It's the store front ones that kill a downtown.) 

So many questions - so little time......
 

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:53:19 AM UTC

Variance? (0.00 / 0)

I don't even see where he need that. He wants to have 10 friends over for a prayer meeting, why should he need anyones permission?

JG.

---

by: thejerseyguy @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:19:59 AM UTC

Better article here... (0.00 / 0)

There's a more descriptive article here.

Apparently it was not just 10 people - more like 35 to 50.  The rabbi's house is across the street from the municipal building, with a camera setup in a window of the building.

I'm just offering up more detail.  I can't say if his civil rights are being violated or not.  If it's that many people - that's a lot of people to be going to his house on a weekly basis.  If the congregation of people grew to a hundred people - would the township have ignored it?  I think they are just trying to nip it in the bud before it gets too big and the neighbors start really complaining.  Even 35-50 people at one house every week is a pretty large gathering.

--*Rob

---

by: robusdin @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:13:28 PM UTC

Moreover... (0.00 / 0)

NJDem - I think your reaction is...well....very reactionary and designed to provoke by bringing up the homeland security references.

The township has a right to protect the neighborhood's quality of life - which might be interrupted if the rabbi is having 35-50 people at his house every week.  How else could they monitor the situation if they could not videotape it?

Further - if they gave him a variance - what's to keep him from converting his house - in the middle of a residential development - into a full-fledged synagogue at some point - thus completely destroying the intended original zoning?

I have no problem with 10 people over for a small worship service - but to allow 35-50 people (if this is the case) really starts down the slippery slope.

By the way - I drive down Stillwells corner road a few times a week, so I am familiar with this location.

--*Rob

---

by: robusdin @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:22:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i agree.... (0.00 / 0)

...the article cited it a bit specious which makes a reply to the post about the (specious) article really difficult without sounding like i don't know what i am talking about.....which i don't.

but the homeland security argument...i am very uncomfortable with that.

And if this guy is an ultra orthodox then isn't it someone else's job (not ours) to stick up for him.  i thought fundamentalism and liberalism were incompatible.

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:51:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: i agree.... (0.00 / 0)

Not making any judgement on the situation because I don't understand it well enough, but the type of religion - whether it's ultra orthodox, conservative, reform, or anything else - shouldn't be relevant. He has certain religious freedoms regardless of what he believes, and by the same token he has to obey municipal laws regardless of what his religion is.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:58:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ultimately... (0.00 / 0)

I don't think the religion matters - even if this were a reform rabbi, or a Christian  leader, Muslim leader, Buddhist leader, Hindu leader or any other religious leader doing this - the township would be compelled to investigate. 

The neighbors were concerned about the large gatherings in the rabbi's backyard - which were already large enough to be noticed by the neighbors.  They'd be concerned no matter the religion - or even if the resident in that particular house was having a knitting group meeting every week with that many people.

The rabbi needs to see the bigger picture of his neighbors and how his actions affect them. This is a quality of life issue for the neighborhood, and a zoning issue for the township, not a civil rights issue.

We tend to forget that with rights also come responsibilities - the first amendment guarantees us free practice of religion - but towns have laws regarding zoning for a reason.  We have a responsibility to practice in a safe and reasonable manner respecting our town's laws and our neighbor's quality of life.

--*Rob

---

by: robusdin @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 13:08:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

homeland security argument (0.00 / 0)

all i am saying is that there are limited resources and this is not where i feel they should be spent.  like i said further down this thread, i reacted to the way the article made the situation sound. 

---

by: Jason Springer @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 13:16:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

he's not the only one who lives in the neighborhood (0.00 / 0)

to quote from above:

The rabbi needs to see the bigger picture of his neighbors and how his actions affect them. This is a quality of life issue for the neighborhood, and a zoning issue for the township, not a civil rights issue.

when you see how this debate is going in circles, it's aparent to me that the foundation for a reasonable argument simply does not exist until we know more facts. 

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 13:23:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i also said there had to be more to the story (0.00 / 0)

Where should the line be however.  Where should the town law balance with his religious law?  I apologize if you didn't like the frame i put on this, but i think its an important discussion of where the line is.  Where does the Rabbi respecting his neighbors/the town's law balance with the town/his neighbors respecting his religious beliefs.  This issue will continue to come up, regardless of religion, so i think it's an important discussion.

---

by: Jason Springer @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 13:27:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not "retaliatory" (0.00 / 0)

Sorry, but this diary is paranoid. If the township thinks (rightly or wrongly) that his actions violate a legitemate oredinance, and he sues them, they've got an obligation to document their case. An attempt to establish the facts isn't done for the purpose of punsihment (retaliation).

---

by: Dvd Avins @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:45:03 PM UTC

I said there had to be more to the story (0.00 / 0)

and apparently there is.  I was reacting to the story I saw, which apparently in your opinion did not adequately describe what has been going on.  I'm not saying it's not a legitimate ordinance.  I'm saying that sometimes its better to work with someone than fight them.  Both sides may be wrong, it may be completely one side that is in the wrong, but now the town is going to have to spend alot of taxpayer money because this guy wanted to have some people over to pray, in his own home.

---

by: Jason Springer @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 13:11:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do your research (0.00 / 0)

Then do your research before you post a wholly reactionary and paranoid story, and don't get all nuts bringing up Homeland Security into a case which is likely about zoning and quality of life, and not free practice of religion.

Hell, I'm surprised you didn't go down the road that Freehold's Mayor and council are republican, since you seem bent on skewing the story to the surveillance angle.

--*Rob

---

by: robusdin @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 13:38:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

easy there tiger (0.00 / 0)

you say its zoning and quality of life.  he says its religion.  you're entitled to your opinion.  you don't like the frame.  I went w/ what i had.  Did I overreact.  Yeah.  Do you want me to get down on my hands and knees and apologize.  I'm not doing that.  I said when i posted it that there had to be more to the story and now that its coming out, i feel the topic deserves a serious discussion, past the incorrect frame that i provided in the original post

---

by: Jason Springer @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 13:45:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It does need discussion (0.00 / 0)

As someone who has represented churches in front of zoning boards, we do need to look closer at this.  In Haworth there was a town fight about a church which made it to the pages of the NYTimes.  The problem was that nearby residents felt threatened by a religion that they did not share.  The masses were in Aramaic - the language Jesus spoke.  The church was based on the earliest Christians, but the Dome would remind some of a Mosque.  It was a huge fight for several years. 

In South Jersey, my sister's non-denominational church was given quite the runaround by the town.  Religious discrimination in zoning in NJ is very real and something to be looked into.  Typically towns do not handle these things well.  Tenafly had to pay $400,000 for legal fees to fight an eruv - that nobody even knew or cared about.  We have to handle this better.  Sometimes the biases are what you would not expect - Jewish residents biased against different sects of Judaism, Christians biased against other forms of Christianity.  It is very deeply felt by those involved, even though most of us here are pretty tolerant and consider these non-issues.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 14:10:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

another case (0.00 / 0)

I immediately thought about this story I read which is a similar situation near a hospital.
http://chaptzem.blog...

---

by: jerseyandproud @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 13:05:30 PM UTC

Re (0.00 / 0)

I've stayed out of this discussion because it's obvious that it has touched a deep vein in a few folks - and because it has no direct bearing on me.  I would like to point out a few things, though.

1) If he's in violation of a zoning law, then he can apply for a variance.  That gives his neighbors the chance to speak as well as his fellow worshippers.  It uses the governmental framework that is in place and is not a violation of anything anywhere.  In fact, it is making things work for a change.

2) I don't see the initial post as reactionary.  It's true that not all the facts were put forth but there isn't a single diarist here that hasn't had to go back and update or correct a post.  It is no more reactionary than the posts I've done on racism - though not handled with as much finesse (if I can brag a bit).

3) I think some of the arguments against the Rabbi are pretty weak.  Insufficient bathroom facilities?  I think that's an issue for the people who attend.  Fire code violation - that's a better one, but only if it's documented.  Noise?  Are there complaints filed with the police over a noise ordinance?  "Too many people" - my family numbers somewhere close to 80 when we get together for a birthday, anniversary, or other holiday.  We make a hell of a lot of noise. 

The difference is that we don't do it every weekend.  But - as I said - if there are separate issues, then they should be documented through complaints filed through the authorities.

I've seen this happen in both Florida and Texas.  I can guarantee that it wouldn't happen to a Christian group.  I've belonged to churches that began as a mission meeting on someone's carport until they could raise the several thousand dollars to purchase land.  Not one soul complained.  In fact, every story I've heard about has been a minority religion - Hindu, Jewish, or Muslim for the most part.

Having said all of that, if the ordinance is enforced uniformly, then there is little to complain about.  My initial feeling, however, is to organize a Christian group to meet on the same street as an act of solidarity and see how long it takes for it to be noticed.

It's a quality of life issue for both sides.  His neighbors don't want "those people" taking over and doing whatever they want.  The rabbi and his flock are trying to practice their faith in a common and accepted manner.  Sorry folks but Constitutional freedoms trump zoning laws in my book.  I'm much more worried about a freedom so primary that it is written into the Constitution than I am about the exercise of governmental power to keep our neighborhoods pure.

And, zoning laws are not necessary in the least.  The City of Houston actually has no zoning laws and they are a hell of a lot bigger than Freehold.  People can figure out how to get along if they are told they have to do so.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 17:06:30 PM UTC

"Constitutional freedoms trump zoning laws" (0.00 / 0)

Oh really?

What if someone organized a 10000 person religious "retreat" in a town without getting the proper permits from local government?  It would cause great traffic delays, possibly disturb many residents and create litter and unsanitary conditions (say if they didn't order porta-potties).  Would that be covered under "constitutional freedoms trump zoning laws"?  Because that's what you're saying here - you're offering that up as a blanket statement, and that just doesn't fly with me.  Where do we draw the line, Ex-Texan?

--*Rob

---

by: robusdin @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 21:34:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (0.00 / 0)

You're building a straw-man, Rob, and I'm not going to take it.  We aren't talking about ten thousand people.  I haven't seen anything that said the Rabbi was endangering the public health.  Are there reports somewhere that the Rabbi and his fellow worshippers are endangering anyone at all?  If so, then those issues should be addressed.  If not, then they shouldn't be part of the discussion.

From my reading of the links, the problem is that he is using a "house" as a "worship center".  The house appears to me to be his property.  The congregation doesn't appear to be harming anyone around them - no noise citations, no fire citations, no public health citations, nothing but a zoning violation.  Apparently the ONLY issue is that his house isn't zoned to hold a prayer service.

So, yeah, Constitutional freedoms are going to trump zoning laws.  Our government has consistently (at least until President Bush came along) that fundamental freedoms can only be abridged if some compelling public reason is given.  There doesn't seem to be one.  "We have a law" isn't a compelling reason or no law would ever be deemed unconstitutional.

Where do we draw the line?  How about when his freedom has negative consequences on those around him?  As I said, there doesn't seem to be a record of that.

Regardless, pursuing a variance would give his neighbors a chance to air their concerns, as well as giving the Rabbi the chance to speak his mind.  Majority rules, of course, but we also respect the rights of minorities.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 22:20:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

lawbreaker ot annoyance? (0.00 / 0)

It would have to be a "quality of life" neighborhood problem, because the religious aspect just doesn't cut it for me. You can gather together in a home to glorify  Harry Potter for all I care. What are the neighbors complaining about? Certainly, if someone was having loud parties in the backyard every week, spilling out into the street, & the police were regularly  being called to quiet down the noise, summons for disturbing the peace would eventually ( hopefully) be issued. But a  neighbor who is merely an annoyance - that's common enough & there isn't a whole lot can be done about it.

---

by: Wesleylake @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 19:28:07 PM UTC

Hindu Curtural Center proposal in Bridgewater (0.00 / 0)

The primarily Republican powers that be in Somerset County and Bridgewater gave the Indu Temple an unbelievable amount of grief in its proposal to build a cultural center.  The same audience is already attending the same events at their auditorium.  There is a lot of suspicion leveled against minority religions. Maybe someone can update us on what finally happened about the Hindu Cultural Center. 

---

by: proud2Bliberal @ Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:15:05 AM UTC