See other Religion Articles
Title: Sikhs Dispute Texas Ruling on Temple (Austin, TX said it must go)
Source:
online.wsj.com
URL Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100 ... 3988304575413992348097342.html
Published: Aug 15, 2010
Author: Perry Stein
Post Date: 2010-08-15 19:18:42 by Ferret
Keywords: None
Views: 408
Comments: 16
A Texas appellate-court ruling that a newly built Sikh temple near Austin must be razed or moved has sparked an international outcry from members of the religious group, some of whom claim discrimination is at the heart of the case. The dispute began when a couple in the neighborhood filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the temple violated the subdivision's rules restricting construction to single-family dwellings. The couple, John and Leslie Bollier, say it isn't about religion, but rather the construction of a building that could bring down property values in a residential neighborhood. The Bolliers' newly constructed home has a taxable valuation of more than $600,000, according to public records. Sikh organization Austin Gurdwara Sahib said it cost $350,000 to build the temple, and it paid $100,000 for the land. "There is a great amount of grief that a religious house of worship is being destroyed," said Amardeep Singh, director of programs at the National Sikh Coalition, a civil-rights organization. Sikhism is the world's fifth-largest religion, and Mr. Singh estimated that about 500,000 Sikhs live in the U.S. Established 500 years ago, Sikhism is a monotheistic religion that stresses the importance of a leading a good moral life. Many adherents wear turbans and uncut hair. While disputes over buildings between municipal officials and religious groups are common, this case is unusual in that zoning laws aren't an issue. And most property suits don't persist after construction has been completed. The temple was built to replace a mobile home that the congregation of about 60 families in central Texas had been using as a place of worship since 2003. Construction was completed in April and has been used by congregation ever since. The group purchased the 2.75-acre property where the new temple sits in 2003 in a subdivision of the Austin suburb of Bee Cave and set up the makeshift temple in the 1,200-square-foot mobile home, which was already on the property. Two years later, the congregation started plans to build a temple on the property and obtained all necessary permits from the city, said Harnek Bains, president of the Austin congregation. He said his group was unaware of the subdivision's restricting covenants stating that only single-family dwellings can be built on the lot and that they must be used as housing. Bee Cave officials say the temple meets zoning laws for that area, and it doesn't enforce private residency restrictions. Only property owners that are subject to the covenants can file suit to enforce the rules. Mr. Bains said the congregation faced no opposition until 2008, when the Bolliers moved into the neighborhood and filed suit while the temple was under construction. "We were shocked and stunned," Mr Bains said. "We were not expecting a lawsuit from any person we did not know, a person we had not met—a person we had never even heard a complaint from whatsoever." The Bolliers said in a statement: "We did not bring this suit until AGS violated the single-family dwelling restriction by beginning construction of a large, pre-fabricated aluminum commercial building on its lot." Nell Penridge, former president of the subdivision's neighborhood association, said she wasn't aware of the rule until the court case. "You would be hard-pressed to know there are deed restrictions because there are so many violations of them everywhere that have gone without consequence," she said. The trial-court judge sided with the Sikh group in March 2009, saying while it was in violation of the subdivision's covenants, the Bolliers were barred from seeking court action on use of the property in large part due to the expiration of a statute of limitations that requires citizens to file suit within four years of an alleged violation. Once the trial decision was made, the congregation resumed the temple's construction, which had been halted voluntarily. The Bolliers appealed, arguing that the statute of limitations for the structure should have started when the construction of the new temple began, not when the Sikh congregation began praying in the mobile home—a structure that, despite its use, was intended as a residence. Then, on July 9, the Texas's Third Court of Appeals sided with the Bolliers. The Sikhs can worship in the mobile home, which is still on the property—and in the new temple pending their request for a reconsideration of the court ruling. The potential razing of the temple has spurred outrage in the community, and international Sikh organizations and publications have written about the legal battle. "Though this is a civil-rights issue from our perspective, in the courts it has been framed as a property issue," said Mr. Singh of the National Sikh Coalition. Mr. Bains's son, Yadvindera Bains, an Austin-area doctor, started a website called Save the Austin Gurudwara. "When you eliminate all logical opposition, what you always come down to is that this isn't a rational objection. Whether you want to call it racism or not, you wonder what [their] motivations are for pursuing such lawsuits," he said. The younger Mr. Bains links to various rap videos created by young Sikhs and asks for donations to help cover legal costs for the congregation. One song by Young Fateh, a Canadian, raps, "They are trying to bulldoze the shrine, we need to fight back, it's about time." Experts say the religion's adherents are sometimes mistaken for Muslims and can face discrimination in Western countries. "There is good reason that they feel targeted. The post-9/11 experience of backlash is real," said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University School of Law. "What's less clear is if that has been translated into discriminatory practices in locating their place of worship." Bruce Bennett, the attorney who represented the Bolliers, said the Sikhs shouldn't have continued building the temple until the court case was resolved. "This was really a problem of their own making."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ferret (#0)
(Edited)
It is not a first amendment issue, it is a question of zoning. This was a residential neighborhood zoned for low density (single family homes). A house of worship - in any denomination - means a lot of traffic through residential streets - noise, risk of accidents, lots of strangers in the neighborhood, parking problems, an imposition on local utilities, etc.
This is a Sikh situation !
"To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all the Jews, for if the goys knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly". (Book of Libbre David, 37.)
If you purchase a piece of property and are not smart enough, or your real estate attorney, is not smart enough to read the deed restrictions on said property - tough noogies. You lose. These are enforceable covenants to which you agreed when you purchased the property.
Looks like the city of Austin is (should be) on the hook for this one. If Austin is anything like FTW, they had to go through the office of Land Use, or its Austin equivalent, whose job it is to determine that the construction and intended use meets all zoning requirements, covenants, and is in the "spirit" of the area, etc, before any permits are allowed to be pulled. Of course, the real test is whether a jew shrine would be allowed to stand, which of course, the answer is yes, lest it be another anti-semitic holocaust. I'll bet you dollars-for-donuts the whine- ass who brought the suit is a typical, hate-filled jew. If the city wants to cow- tow to some POS like that, then they should have to pay-up. Give the towelheads a couple mil so they can move somewhere that it won't offend the delicate sensibilities of the tribe. Dig deep Loddy, ol' buddy!
You lose. These are enforceable covenants to which you agreed when you purchased the property. If you own private property you should be to do what you want with it. No one should be able to put in restrictions as they don't own the property anymore. A bunch of bullshit.
That seems reasonable on the surface, but looking at how long they have used that site before upgrading the infrastructure, I would say they have standing to make a good fight for their building.
Do you apply this philosophy to the mosque planned and approved near the twin towers site in NYC?
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Hell no.
That's blatant hypocrisy right there. You don't have a problem with that?
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Looks like acting jewess and lawyer Leslie Bollier is going to cost he citizens of Austin some big bucks.
It is not hypocrisy. Here is my position. I believe people who own property should be able to do what they want with it. I also believe that the muslim religion is a satanic one. My second belief trumps the first one. I realize that the people who are trying to build the mosque own that property and can do what they want with it pretty much. That doesn't mean I support their building a mosque anywhere.
In a nation of laws, the laws trump religious dogma. That's just the facts. You don't have to support the mosque, but to avoid contradiction and hypocrisy you should support the rule of law. I'm pro private property rights all the way, even if I don't agree with what is built on a property. The mosque builders and attendees will need to allow the gay bar to be built down the street too, even if they don't like it.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
I hope they prevail. I have known a couple of Sikhs and they are, based on my experience, a godly and decent people.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Yes they are but there might be more to this than meets the eye. Sikhism originated in the Punjab provence of India, it borders Pakistan. Sikhs and the gov of India have gone head-to-head a few times and the outcome was always bloody, very bloody. Sikhs are commanded to fight injustice and not with word. So, if the Sikhs think the state of Tejas is trying to slip them the baloney-pony,they might resist, physically resist. Their fellow Sikhs in Punjab would support this 100% and the gov of India might use this as an excuse to beef up it's military presence in Punjab. Remember India is our good ally in the "waw on terra" and our ultimate invasion of Pakistan.
WWGPD? - (What Would General Pinochet Do?)
The history of India is filled with Sikh Warriors eliminating enemy armies.
Somewhere, Jimmy Carter is laughing and saying, "Finally! I won't be the worst President ever!"
gotta love'em
WWGPD? - (What Would General Pinochet Do?)
#2. To: Ferret (#0)
#3. To: Shoonra, Ferret, 4 (#1)
#4. To: Lod (#3)
(Edited)
Two years later, the congregation started plans to build a temple on the property and obtained all necessary permits from the city
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#5. To: Lod (#3)
If you purchase a piece of property and are not smart enough, or your real estate attorney, is not smart enough to read the deed restrictions on said property - tough noogies.
#6. To: Lod (#3)
#7. To: A K A Stone (#5)
If you own private property you should be to do what you want with it. No one should be able to put in restrictions as they don't own the property anymore. A bunch of bullshit.
#8. To: abraxas (#7)
Do you apply this philosophy to the mosque planned and approved near the twin towers site in NYC?
#9. To: A K A Stone (#8)
#10. To: All (#4)
(Edited)
Racist Bigots in Texas Want Gurdwara Torn Down
In 2005, in order to improve the facilities, the gurdwara committee, with the congregation's support, decided to build a more contemporary and appropriate building. In this regard, they applied for, and were granted, all the necessary permits from the city.
The approval process from the city included meetings with the Planning and Zoning committees as well as the City Council at large. The members of the gurdwara committee also met with and provided full disclosure to the neighborhood association.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#11. To: abraxas (#9)
#12. To: A K A Stone (#11)
(Edited)
I realize that the people who are trying to build the mosque own that property and can do what they want with it pretty much.
#13. To: Ferret (#6)
That seems reasonable on the surface, but looking at how long they have used that site before upgrading the infrastructure, I would say they have standing to make a good fight for their building.
#14. To: Lod (#3)
These are enforceable covenants to which you agreed when you purchased the property.
#15. To: Flintlock (#14)
Sikhs are commanded to fight injustice and not with word.
#16. To: mirage (#15)
The history of India is filled with Sikh Warriors eliminating enemy armies.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest