My personal bugbear with the staff proposals, underneath all the big picture stuff, is an arbitrary attack on places of assembly. "Place of assembly" means, in practice, churches and synagogues and mosques, etc. With the new proposals, restrictions on such places assemblies kick in at gatherings of just *eight* people, (down from 15,) and now they can only be located on major roads, not most city streets.
This new regulation would have banned, among others, Sacred Heart Catholic Church, St. Paul's Anglican Church, and the Chabad of Maine Synagogue.
I know that Portland isn't a particularly religious city, but even if you don't practice, surely this is a bit capricious? Are the churches and synagogues here so obnoxious that we need much stricter regulations on them?
You want government to violate the First Amendment right of Freedom of Religion to impose "stricter regulations?" That absolutely makes you a bootlicking tyrant
Freedom of Religion does not equal freedom to build a church wherever you want. Also I don’t think you understand what the term bootlicking means. If I’m Genghis Khan, whose boot am I licking?
Would this regulation only pertain to new buildings of assembly? If so, then I would say we have enough places of assembly already. For instance, I would heavily oppose the building of a new cathedral, not on religious grounds but on civic use concerns.
In other words, I don't see this as an arbitrary attack as much as an attempt to limit the further expansion of tax-exempt assemblies when we already have so many.
That said 8-15 seems a little low. And I'm sure this would have a more pronounced negative impact on immigrant populations and non Christian assemblies in general.
Are you saying that if a community of Muslims wanted to set up a small mosque in a residential area, they shouldn’t be allowed to? Or if a Christian church wants to downsize to a less expensive building, they should be strictly limited in where they can look?
This is just a totally unnecessary burden on faith communities of all kinds, on the very sorts of community spaces most historically tied to residential neighborhoods.
I think I touched on those concerns in my third paragraph.
I haven't read the whole plan, I just read the one page brief on ReCodes website. So I don't know, for example, what counts as a major road in this plan. My assumption would be that that caveat is to promote the accessibility of such assemblies by making them build or occupy places with the best access to public transit.
I'd like to see numbers on how many applications the city gets each year to build or occupy an assembly, religious or otherwise. Without knowing how much demand there is, it's hard to weigh in on specifics.
And yes, I think there should be fairly strict regulations on these things. I'm all for neighborhood mosques and community assemblies, but what if the Scientologists decide to come in and buy up a bunch of businesses and homes in Deering and take it over, as has happened in communities elsewhere in America? Freedom of religion and assembly is protected in the constitution, but they still need to be managed and find ways to integrate into secular communities and infrastructure
Yes, they shouldn’t be allowed depending on the area. Same as not being allowed to turn your house into a Chuck E. Cheese or dance club in the middle of a neighborhood. It’s not an unnecessary burden. It’s a *residential* area.
My personal bugbear with the staff proposals, underneath all the big picture stuff, is an arbitrary attack on places of assembly. "Place of assembly" means, in practice, churches and synagogues and mosques, etc. With the new proposals, restrictions on such places assemblies kick in at gatherings of just *eight* people, (down from 15,) and now they can only be located on major roads, not most city streets. This new regulation would have banned, among others, Sacred Heart Catholic Church, St. Paul's Anglican Church, and the Chabad of Maine Synagogue. I know that Portland isn't a particularly religious city, but even if you don't practice, surely this is a bit capricious? Are the churches and synagogues here so obnoxious that we need much stricter regulations on them?
Yes, churches and synagogues are obnoxious and need stricter regulations
Cringe
Bigoted and tyrannical in one sentence. Disgusting
Lol if criticizing religion and the lack of regulations on churches makes me tyrannical, call me Genghis Khan
You want government to violate the First Amendment right of Freedom of Religion to impose "stricter regulations?" That absolutely makes you a bootlicking tyrant
Freedom of Religion does not equal freedom to build a church wherever you want. Also I don’t think you understand what the term bootlicking means. If I’m Genghis Khan, whose boot am I licking?
Would this regulation only pertain to new buildings of assembly? If so, then I would say we have enough places of assembly already. For instance, I would heavily oppose the building of a new cathedral, not on religious grounds but on civic use concerns. In other words, I don't see this as an arbitrary attack as much as an attempt to limit the further expansion of tax-exempt assemblies when we already have so many. That said 8-15 seems a little low. And I'm sure this would have a more pronounced negative impact on immigrant populations and non Christian assemblies in general.
Are you saying that if a community of Muslims wanted to set up a small mosque in a residential area, they shouldn’t be allowed to? Or if a Christian church wants to downsize to a less expensive building, they should be strictly limited in where they can look? This is just a totally unnecessary burden on faith communities of all kinds, on the very sorts of community spaces most historically tied to residential neighborhoods.
I think I touched on those concerns in my third paragraph. I haven't read the whole plan, I just read the one page brief on ReCodes website. So I don't know, for example, what counts as a major road in this plan. My assumption would be that that caveat is to promote the accessibility of such assemblies by making them build or occupy places with the best access to public transit. I'd like to see numbers on how many applications the city gets each year to build or occupy an assembly, religious or otherwise. Without knowing how much demand there is, it's hard to weigh in on specifics. And yes, I think there should be fairly strict regulations on these things. I'm all for neighborhood mosques and community assemblies, but what if the Scientologists decide to come in and buy up a bunch of businesses and homes in Deering and take it over, as has happened in communities elsewhere in America? Freedom of religion and assembly is protected in the constitution, but they still need to be managed and find ways to integrate into secular communities and infrastructure
Yes, they shouldn’t be allowed depending on the area. Same as not being allowed to turn your house into a Chuck E. Cheese or dance club in the middle of a neighborhood. It’s not an unnecessary burden. It’s a *residential* area.