Posted on 08/13/2009 3:02:29 PM PDT by Rebelbase
HIGH POINT -- Residents of a local public housing facility recently had to cease holding religious services there after officials told them the activities ran afoul of federal regulations.
Worship services by residents of Elm Towers were in violation of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rules, which forbid "inherently religious activities" for organizations that receive HUD funds, according to the High Point Housing Authority.
Elm Towers residents had been gathering for years on Sunday mornings and sometimes Wednesday evenings for Christian worship services led by a local minister in a common room on the first floor of the high-rise apartment building on S. Elm Street, according to tenants.
The housing authority learned of the services after other Elm Towers residents complained last month. The agency then put a stop to the services.
"To me, it's stepping on our constitutional rights. You're supposed to be able to worship like you want," said Howard Embler, an Elm Towers resident who sometimes attended the services. "We've got a lot of elderly people here who can't get out on their own to church."
HUD subsidizes the apartments, which are primarily for senior citizens, and forbids religious activities in places like the common area and lobbies of the facility but not inside residents' apartments, according to the housing authority. Officials explained to residents why they took the action they did and gave them copies of the regulations.
"We're not telling residents they cannot have religious activities in their homes, but they cannot hold things in common areas. We understand they would like to do this, but we have to go by regulations," said Rachael Matthews, a spokeswoman for the authority. "We're not saying churches can't come and pick them up and take them to worship or religious services. We don't want to restrict them."
Embler, a three-year Elm Towers resident, said its was his understanding the services had been held for many years prior to his arrival. Residents said the attendance varied, from a handful of participants to larger gatherings.
"We just want to be sure, as in all cases, that we're following HUD regulations to ensure that we do not lose the subsidy for the residents' apartments," said Matthews. "That's of utmost importance."
The presence of moslems in that HUD community would give them the same right of free expression in the town square.
One will see disparities in numbers of services, however, not because of contrivance, but because islam is a low density religion in most places in the US. High Point is, iirc, in N. Carolina. The point is that the absence of an islamic service does not equal discrimination. It probably would mean that no one is present to conduct or attend such a service.
I never said they’re not allowed to worship as they see fit. That would be unchristian of me to dictate to others how they must live their lives. What I’m saying is, however, in terms of *official functions* of *government entities*, the US, founded on Christian principles by Christians, has no obligation to allow self-described witches and the like to hold their religious ceremonies through them.
To put it another way: congress has an official prayer to open up sessions. They don’t have a traditional beltane rite.
I suppose thy should also provide prayer rooms for the Muslims?
When you are on the public dole .....
ping
They would, if it were Muslims involved instead of Christians.
Under the Clean Air Act and the current EPA leadership, if you breathe, you have turned your life over to government control; if the Waxman bill fails to pass, EPA is going to enact regulations through taxes on every gram of carbon.
Nice try but its wrong.
Its not the first ammendment because its important: its first because 2 others were not approved.[ http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm ]
Also: there has never been any problem until very recently with religious expression in this country. Now anything with the whiff of religion becomes a cause celebre’ for people bent on denying it. Your reading of the clause, while in line with the wrong-headed court rulings is simply twisting the pretzel into contortions it should not have.
Some may laugh at your comment.......but I’m not. I fear you just may be right.
The purpose of the common area is to temporarily enlarge the area of the home. The common area is their home.
____________________________________
I assumed that it was "black" muslims who made the complaint.
the US, founded on Christian principles by Christians, has no obligation to allow self-described witches and the like to hold their religious ceremonies through them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The bottom line on your argument is you think the US government should favor one religion over another.
That is a very slippery slope once you start down it. What if 100 years from now the US is no longer a Christian nation (don’t think it can ever happen here, just look to Europe, once strongly Christian, now?) In that future, under your guidelines, it is Christains that won’t be able to use govt. facilities because at that time the US will no longer be a Christian nation.
The best way to protect my rights as a Christain is to protect everyone’s rights.
Hud doesn’t count, it’s in violation of zoning codes, go build a church in a proper zone!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I know of two church zoning court cases in my area (one involving a home church, and another where a church wanted to establish itself in an area zoned only for warehouse—they literally wanted to use an old warehouse as the church.) In both cases it was decided that it was unconstitutional to zone out a church. People’s right to meet and worship where they wanted trumped any zoning considerations.
“The point is that the absence of an islamic service does not equal discrimination. It probably would mean that no one is present to conduct or attend such a service.”
No doubt. But much as I and others may have a visceral hatred for the Mohammedan heresy, the simple fact is its benighted devotees have as much right to practice it, assuming no calls for violence, the old “fire in a crowded theater” exception, as you and I do our Christianity.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Zoning codes are not the issue in this case. The common room of the center is used for any number of programs, many of them involving the gathering of people. One cannot discriminate just because the nature of the gathering is religious. No one has built a “church building” in their zone, but the zone does allow a town square like common area. That said, I doubt that it is legal to construct a community and then forbid churches. Communities imply people, people are religious, and people are allowed to freely practice their religion. It would make as much sense to allow communities but forbid schools.
If the prior proposed amendments were not approved by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, they did not, in fact, become amendments.
This is clearly an Establishment Clause issue. Do some research on the cases. I’ll admit it’s at times a murky area - but it is the one area of constitutional conflict, so far, where the SCOTUS has consistently granted standing to the general taxpayer to challenge federal government spending. So it’s recognized as an important fundamental right (the right not to have the federal government establishing, or favoring, or subsidizing a particular religion.) Most of the commentary appearing before my post was premised on this as a suppression of religious expression - which is an incorrect framing of this issue.
The federal government hasn’t established anything. as others have posted, the government simply built the space for the resident to use. The residents apparently chose to hold religious services there. There is no “establishment” in this case.
Again: tho the courts have variously agreed that the use of school rooms, for example, for a bible club after school can be prohibited, it doesn’t mean that they are correct. If the housing authority in any way promoted these services, then yes, I can see that they might have some issue. Apparently they did not.
I like otheres, would like to know WHO made the complaint.
I am thinking it might not have been a resident....just a hunch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.