Owners of an apartment complex in upstate South Carolina have told a group of seniors that they can no longer hold weekly Bible study meetings in the common areas of the complex because it might violate the Fair Housing Act, reports the Spartanburg Herald-Journal.The nativity scenes are debateable, but somewhat understandable. By allowing one religious group to put up something like that, it signals that that religion is somehow more important. If all groups could do such a thing, or the public displays were small/not overt, I would have less of a problem with it.
Raleigh, N.C.-based One Management Inc., the owners of the complex on South Church Street in Spartanburg, said no hymns may be played and the nativity scene the group puts up at Christmas will not be allowed from now on.
The owners say the apartment complex must be "religion neutral" to avoid the appearance of discrimination based on faith. They said the Bible studies and nativity scene might make tenets feel that one religion is preferred over another.
But Bible study? What's wrong with that? Would Jewish people not be allowed to sit outside their apartment complex and learn Gemara (Talmud)? Some Chumash (Bible)? What if someone simply wanted to tell over something he had learned that day to his wife - would they have to wait until they were inside their own apartment to discuss it? This seems to be political correctness run amok - I sincerely hope this gets reversed.
Am I looking at this the wrong way?
Right on!
ReplyDeleteWhat ever happened to freedom of religion?
Will they not allow residents to display a mezuzah on the doorway facing the hallway?
'By allowing one religious group to put up something like that, it signals that that religion is somehow more important. If all groups could do such a thing, or the public displays were small/not overt, I would have less of a problem with it.'
ReplyDeleteThat is essentially the ACLU position regarding government and religion. However, even the ACLU would admit that private entities have a bit more leeway -- they can do whatever they want as long as they don't take government funds or violate a specific statute. It is possible that this housing complex does take government funds and therefore has to be more careful. (Yeshiva University lost its suit regarding the Gay partner of a medical student who wanted to live in a dorm in part because the dorm was build with government funds.)
'But Bible study? What's wrong with that?'
Nothing, as long as the common area is open to any group, religious or non-religious, on an equal access basis. Even the ACLU would agree with that one even for government housing.
'Am I looking at this the wrong way?'
I don't think so. I bet the administrators just wanted an excuse to have fewer events in their common areas.
I find that very frightening.
ReplyDeleteWhat would be next?
This is a troubling story, especially since I have been caught reading many a Torah book on a park bench! :)
ReplyDeleteWow, are times changing. My high school had kids who studied their Bibles at lunch, something that is more than controversial today, and a place that I worked a long time ago even had a group that met once a week in a conference room for a Bible Study.
20 or so years ago Nat Hentoff had a column about a religious (Christian) woman who ran afoul of the law. A homosexual couple wanted to rent from her. But she didn't want to have them violating her beliefs in her own building.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty certain she lost in court.
Anon, Kasamba - exactly.
ReplyDeleteCharlie - it doesn't sound like they get government money, just that they're worried about the Housing Act.
Thanks for all the rest.
SL - Would all the Chofetz Chaim people around me be able to walk with their chavrusas outside as they do? Same idea.
Anon - Very interesting.
It's a very slippery slope, if nothing else.
ReplyDelete"said no hymns may be played..."
ReplyDeleteMaybe this rule is because they were being loud about things. It says nowhere that they'd just sit on park benchs reading from Bibles or talking back and forth about it--it seems like what they'd do is the equivalent of a group meeting weekly to daven shacharit in the "common areas" of a "complex" instead of getting a conference room or something.
PT - Yep.
ReplyDeleteXvi - Similar (but different) to people being unwilling to call racism against whites what it is.
BG - I understand what you're saying, but it sounded like it wouldn't matter if they were singing or what. Plus, why would that be disallowed and not (for example) what I saw last week by a friend, someone blasting a boom box outside in the common area of a set of apartments?
According to Wikipedia, "Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights." is a factor in the Fair Housing Act. While I think someone listening to a boom box in a common area of an apt. complex is borderline obnoxious, unless the music had offensive lyrics, it was possibly just annoying more than anything else. When a group of people get together and sing loudly of religious matters, it can intimidate and interfer with other people in the building who feel differently. Note, again, that the excerpt you put up says that "no hymns may be played and the nativity scene, etc." Hymns: loud. Nativity scene: visually loud. That's all I have to say.
ReplyDelete(Also, what I wrote both times is not particularly my opinion, I just think the situation has to be looked at in more than one light. Clearly, the owners of the building have one idea in mind: to make money. They must've received complaints from other residents who found this meeting disruptive...)
ReplyDeleteClearly, the owners of the building have one idea in mind: to make money. They must've received complaints from other residents who found this meeting disruptive...
ReplyDeleteOh, absolutely. Nevertheless, I don't find that When a group of people get together and sing loudly of religious matters, it can intimidate and interfer with other people in the building who feel differently. Would the same apply (for example) if someone were singing/playing music loudly that advocated something political or racial? People are "offended" by much; the Sixth Circuit a few months ago ruled regarding public property that the standards of offensive are higher, not lower. I would imagine that for private residences, even those that are under the Fair Housing Act, the standards would be higher.
As an aside, thank you for commenting in such a proper, respectful manner. Commenters on debates such as this are often far... different. I hope you'll keep coming to visit.
[I'm not faulting the residence for trying to make more money; rather, the basis of their argument is what bothers me. I also acknowledge that the 6th Circuit decision is about a display in a courthouse, not about loud hymns - nevertheless, the arguments about "reasonable person" they use are still applicable. I highlighted the best parts in a post here, and discussed it in brief here.
ReplyDeleteInteresting website with a lot of resources and detailed explanations.
ReplyDelete»
This site is one of the best I have ever seen, wish I had one like this.
ReplyDelete»
This site is one of the best I have ever seen, wish I had one like this.
ReplyDelete»
Very pretty design! Keep up the good work. Thanks.
ReplyDelete»