New York West Side Democratic Congressman, Jerry Nadler, better known locally as the Weeble (cause he wobbles but he won’t fall down), has introduced a law to override the 7th Circuit decision in Boch v. Frischholz, holding that a condominium association had the right to prohibit religious displays, in this case a mezuzah, outside of their units.
According to the New York Sun, Nadler, who is an orthodox Jew, wants to protect the ability of residents of coops, condos and apartment buildings to mount religious objects outside their apartment doors.
“This legislation is a straightforward attempt to clarify the Fair Housing Act and prevent co-op and condo associations and landlords from interfering with residents’ free exercise of religion,” Mr. Nadler, a Democrat, said in a statement e-mailed to The New York Sun. “If not creating a public nuisance, residents should clearly be allowed to affix crosses, mezuzahs, or other religious symbols to their doors, no matter where they live.”
It’s understandable why this would be a cause of great concern for observant Jews, as one of their tenets is the duty to fix a mezuzah to the “doorposts of their house.” In the effort to make this appear not to favor one religion, it would similarly force landlords to permit crosses, and likely Christmas decorations, on doors as well.
This is not about whether religious symbols belong on doors, and whether you like them or not. Nor is this about whether landlords should, or should not, chill out and just let people do what they want. This law is about taking the free exercise clause, a constitutional limitation on government, and imposing it upon private parties. This is about making private ownership subject to constitutional restrictions on government.
If someone feels strongly that he needs to mount a religious symbol on the outside of his door, it would seem obvious that he should ascertain first whether that is permitted. If so, no problem and everyone lives happily ever after. Many landlords and coop and condo associations take no issue with installing a mezuzah, or a cross, and this is a non-issue.
But there are other buildings, as well as communities, that are formed for the purpose of controlling exterior appearances and maintaining a perfect consistency to create an atmosphere where individual tastes and choices are not imposed on others. Whether or not this is your cup of tea, there are clearly many who desire this atmosphere, as demonstrated by the popularity of this concept.
These buildings and communities make abundantly clear, up front, that while residents can do as they please within their doors, they can do nothing outside. This is not thrust upon residents by surprise, but happily promoted as part of the marketing package. For those who want an atmosphere free of individuality, this is Nirvana. Unless Jerry Nadler gets his way.
The problem with forcibly extending rights, as this bill seeks to do, is that it comes at the expense of other rights. In this case, it’s the right of the landlord and other residents to live in a place free from the imposition of other people’s individual choices. The rights of one side necessarily impinge on the rights of the other. Those who wish to create such communities, and live in them, should be able to make rules to suit their tastes as well.
I strongly believe that the government has zero business becoming embroiled in religion at all, and this bill strikes me as an unconstitutional exercise of governmental power to force one person’s religious observance down the throats of others. It further strikes me as an unconstitutional deprivation of property, by forcing the owners to abide a restriction that was intended to apply only to government.
This is not, as Nadler would characterize it, a fight for religious freedom. Residents are free to practice their religion, and hang whatever they want, on the interior doorposts of their homes. And the larger aspect of religious freedom is freedom from religion. People seem to forget this part of the deal.
Why can’t government keep its mitts out of religious issues? And why can’t those who seek to exercise their religious beliefs show respect to those who don’t share them?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Why can’t government keep its mitts out of religious issues? And why can’t those who seek to exercise their religious beliefs show respect to those who don’t share them?”
Easy — because those who believe in moronic superstitions will always want to force the rest of us to believe in them too. And politicians will always pander to superstition.
I’m actually on the side of the landlords in this one, but you’re, well, wrong, to use the technical term: the Orthodox Jews involved don’t want you to believe in their religion/superstitions; they just want to hang their mezuzahs on their doorposts, whether they’re renters or coop members.
You’re right. I was being overly simplistic about it. Nobody wanted anyone else to believe in their superstitions.
I actually find the mezzuzah tradition to be quite charming, and I always kiss my fingers and transmit the kiss to the mezzuzah when I enter a home with one on the doorway.
Nevertheless, orthodox Jew, Xtian, Muslim, or whatever — it seems that Abraham’s legacy is half the world (or more) that can’t just give it a damn rest. Does anyone really believe that an almighty flying spaghetti monster, cares if your mezzuzah is outside or inside?
The problem here is superstition and an unwillingness to simply be neighborly.
Landlords ought to chill. I’m a landlord, and if a Jew wanted to put a mezzuzah on the doorway of one of my properties, I’d say that is just fine as long as they want to pay to repair any damage that is left as a result.
However, if I said “no” and they complained, I’d start discriminating against who I rented to.
So… while I did oversimplify, my point remains. Those with superstitions need to learn that the rest of us don’t have any obligation to respect your superstitions. I happen to… but that’s my choice, not my obligation. When the superstitious try and make it my obligation, I start losing my voluntary respect.
Does anyone really believe that an almighty flying spaghetti monster, cares if your mezzuzah is outside or inside?
From the Orthodox perspective, well, yes; the deal is that you’re supposed to follow the rules, as best you can, and if the rule is interpreted to mean outside, then inside isn’t good enough.
In some of the NYC cases I’ve heard about, the hassle came after a change in practice — landlords, coop associations, whatever who used to ignore the issue started cracking down. Within their rights? Sure. But that’s understandably going to be more than a little annoying to somebody whose mezuzah — or Christmas wreath, or whatever — has hung in the same spot for years without any hassle.
I’m with Heinlein on this — “one man’s religion is another man’s belly laugh.” But it’s also that one man’s religion, and while I’m not in favor of folks going to court to settle that sort of stuff, I do sympathize with both sides, and think your suggestion that landlords chill is a good one. A mezuzah on the doorframe is going to do minimal damage, and that can be either repaired or paid for when the tenant leaves; ditto for the Christmas wreath hung over the peephole or doorknocker, or the spaghetti strand draped over the doorknob in celebration of the Holy Al Denteness of the FSM.
Not my — to use the Talmudic term — ox being gored; I own my own home, am pretty aggressively non-practicing . . . and have the mezuzah prominently on my doorpost, anyway.