Source

U.S.A., March 20, 2005: A Hindu group had two options when they were told they could not build a temple in Apply Valley, California: Accept rejection or ask again. They decided on the latter. Following an impassioned appeal in early February, the Apple Valley Planning Commission agreed to rehear the temple project, which was approved this month. Had the city stuck with the initial decision, the group could have taken their case to court. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, commonly known as RLUIPA, would be in their corner. The law protects religious groups from being discriminated against under the guise of undesirable or inappropriate land use. It also guarantees that prisons and other federally funded institutions will provide the space and support for religious exercise whenever it will not hinder security. Its future is in jeopardy, however, as the Supreme Court hears arguments today that could shake RLUIPA’s foundation.



The state of Ohio will argue that the law unconstitutionally gives preferential treatment to religion. Though Cutter v. Wilkinson focuses on the prison aspect of RLUIPA, the high court’s ruling expected in June could target the entire law. Civil libertarians and religious organizations have rallied behind the law. It’s also got the backing of President Bush and former President Clinton. Among RLUIPA’s list of opponents is the National League of Cities, which considers the law burdensome and unnecessary. “Local governments are being forced to treat houses of worship different than they would any other (building applicants), ” said Veronique Pluviose-Fenton, principal legislative counsel for the League of Cities.



But to its supporters, the law is a legal tool that protects religious groups, particularly those of minority religions, from discrimination. Religious organizations are commonly squeezed out of commercial districts because they don’t add to the tax base, and are hard-pressed to find a home in residential areas because of related traffic, said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. “They say, effectively, ‘We can zone your ministry out of existence,'” said Lynn whose organization joined the American Civil Liberties Union by filing a friend of the court brief in support of the law. “There are two clauses about religion in the First Amendment: One protects it and the other guarantees government won’t promote it,” he said.

Post Views: 627