Opinion ID: 1126936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Charge of Denial of Religious Freedom

Text: This claim of constitutional infringement rests upon the assertion that the denial of the permit upon the grounds of congestion of traffic and annoyance to neighbors in the area constitutes a denial of freedom of religion, freedom of worship and freedom of assembly contrary to the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Constitution of the State of Oregon. 26. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296, 303, 60 S Ct 900, 84 L Ed 1214, 128 ALR 1352 (1940). One phase of the argument relating to invasion of religious liberties is premised upon the proposition that it cannot be left to the uncontrolled discretion of any public official as to when, where and under what conditions a religious organization may build a church or maintain a place of assembly. (Emphasis ours.) As an abstract proposition, we find ourselves in accord. We also find that the Federal authorities cited by appellant give support to the proposition as above stated. 27. Although the Supreme Court has been strict in its prohibition of prior restraint, on the exercise of freedom of religion or speech, it has held that reasonable regulations of time and place for the exercise of such freedoms are valid. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296, 306 (1940); Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 US 569, 574, 85 LEd 1049, 61 S Ct 762 (1940); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US 158, 88 LEd 645, 64 S Ct 438 (1943); Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 US 77, 93 LEd 513, 69 S Ct 448 (1948); Kunz v. New York, 340 US 290, 95 LEd 280, 71 S Ct 312 (1950). We have recently expressed ourselves in the same tenor. See Baer v. City of Bend, 206 Or 221, 292 P2d 134 (1956), an opinion of Mr. Justice LUSK, where we said at p 229: It has never been held, said Mr. Justice BELT, speaking for this court in City of Portland v. Thornton, supra, 174 Or at p 513, that `the practice of religion is beyond reasonable limitation.' As stated by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia in Rice v. Commonwealth, 188 Va 224, 234, 49 SE2d 342, 3 ALR2d 1392, `The individual cannot be permitted, on religious grounds, to be the judge of his duty to obey the regulatory laws enacted by the State in the interests of the public welfare. The mere fact that such a claim of immunity is asserted because of religious convictions is not sufficient to establish its constitutional validity.' In the Baer case, 206 Or at 234, we also held: Incorporation of the First Amendment into the Fourteenth has not rendered the states and their political subdivisions impotent to enact reasonable laws for the protection of the public health. Although the law before the court in the Baer case was one related to public health, we think the phrase is equally applicable to measures and administrative decisions designed for the protection of public welfare. It is to be borne in mind that `Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practice.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 US at p 166. (206 Or, supra, at p 234). Here, however, there is no evidence the ruling of the Milwaukie Planning Commission or that of the Milwaukie Council was the product of the uncontrolled discretion or arbitrary action on the part of either administrative entity. To the contrary, hearings were had and presumptively, and in the absence of any testimony to the contrary, the trial court, as well as this court, is warranted in concluding that the judgments of both bodies were formulated within the ambit of the standards established for their governance by Section 3, supra, of the ordinance. These apply alike to churches, schools, lodges, telephone and electric companies and all others who are entitled to apply for special use permits under Section 8, supra, of the ordinance. There is a tendency upon the part of some authors, text writers, and a few courts, to cloak petitioning churches with a species of judicial favoritism under the zoning laws which seems to vest them with an immunity beyond the reach and touch of certain zoning provisions. The argument of appellants strongly suggests dependency upon such viewpoint, notwithstanding that it accepts the doctrine of the Porterville case, to which we will later give attention. Speaking generally to the subject, we find, for example, that some seize upon statements like the following of the Indiana Supreme Court, in the Decatur case, 117 NE2d, supra, at page 119: The law is well settled that the building of a church may not be prohibited in a residential district, as a dogmatic and immutable injunction against the denial of any church's application to build in a zoned area. This, of course, is not true for reasons which will presently appear. It was not even so intended by the Indiana Court, which elsewhere in the same opinion correctly says: building of churches is subject to such reasonable regulations as may be necessary to promote the public health, safety, or general welfare (117 NE2d, supra, at p 118). And, of course, the determination of whether there is such a reasonable necessity for denying a permit to build must, as we have said, be governed by the facts and circumstances evidenced in each separate case wherein an application for a permit is made. Even while invalidating a statute affecting freedom of religion, a unanimous court in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296, at 303-04, 84 LEd 1214, 60 S Ct 900, speaking through Mr. Justice Roberts, said: The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,  freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom. No one would contest the proposition that a State may not, by statute, wholly deny the right to preach or to disseminate religious views. Plainly such a previous and absolute restraint would violate the terms of the guarantee. It is equally clear that a State may by general and non-discriminatory legislation regulate the times, the places, and the manner of soliciting upon its streets, and of holding meetings thereon; and may in other respects safeguard the peace, good order and comfort of the community, without unconstitutionally invading the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Emphasis ours.) The only issue involved in the assignment relating to freedom of religion is whether zoning regulations, which appellant admits all other property owners would have to comply with, are a violation of freedom of religion when applied to plaintiff. Mr. Justice Reed gives clear answer to the question in Jones v. City of Opelika, 316 US 584, 593-594, 86 LEd 1691, 62 S Ct 1231. While that case was subsequently reversed, the force and truth of his thought remains unimpaired: We turn to the constitutional problem squarely presented by these ordinances. There are ethical principles of greater value to mankind than the guarantees of the Constitution, personal liberties which are beyond the power of government to impair. These principles and liberties belong to the mental and spiritual realm, where the judgments and decrees of mundane courts are ineffective to direct the course of man. The rights of which our Constitution speaks have a more earthy quality. They are not absolutes to be exercised independently of other cherished privileges, protected by the same organic instrument. Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise, and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living, without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery. Courts, no more than Constitutions, can intrude into the consciences of men or compel them to believe contrary to their faith or think contrary to their convictions; but courts are competent to adjudge the acts men do under color of a constitutional right, such as that of freedom of speech or of the press or the free exercise of religion, and to determine whether the claimed right is limited by other recognized powers, equally previous to mankind. So the mind and spirit of man remain forever free, while his actions rest subject to necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows.    One man, with views contrary to the rest of his compatriots, is entitled to the privilege of expressing his ideas by speech or broadside to anyone willing to listen or read. Too many settled beliefs have in time been rejected to justify this generation in refusing a hearing to its own dissentients. But that hearing may be limited by action of the proper legislative body to times, places and methods for the enlightenment of the community which, in view of existing social and economic conditions, are not at odds with the preservation of peace and good order. (Emphasis ours.) Examples of such permissible limitations on the exercise of the freedom of religion will be found in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 US 145, 25 L Ed 244, upholding prohibition of the practice of polygamy; Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, 293 US 245, 79 L Ed 343, 55 S Ct 197, approving the exclusion of students who for religious reasons refuse to take prescribed Reserve Officers' training; Prince v. Massachusetts, supra (321 US 158), holding as valid a statute denying children the right to sell religious periodicals on the streets. Also see City of Portland v. Thornton, supra (174 Or 508), wherein this court, following the Prince case, upheld an ordinance of similar purport. Obviously, while freedom of religion cannot be suppressed, its exercise is subject to restraint by reasonable regulations. Mr. Justice Frankfurter expressed these views in Carpenters Union v. Ritter's Cafe, 315 US 722, 86 L Ed 1143, 62 S Ct 807, at page 726:    Whenever state action is challenged as a denial of `liberty', the question always is whether the state has violated `the essential attributes of that liberty'. Mr. Chief Justice Hughes in Near v. Minnesota, 283 US 697, 708. While the right of free speech is embodied in the liberty safeguarded by the Due Process Clause, that Clause postulates the authority of the states to translate into law local policies `to promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of its people   . The limits of this sovereign power must always be determined with appropriate regard to the particular subject of its exercise'. Ibid, at 707. `The boundary at which the conflicting interests balance cannot be determined by any general formula in advance, but points in the line, or helping to establish it, are fixed by decisions that this or that concrete case falls on the nearer or farther side.' Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 US 349, 355. We now turn our attention to what is said by other courts where the matter of traffic congestion has been given as a reason for denying the erection of a church in a zone restricted to single family dwelling units. The infrequency of the attempts of zoning authorities to prevent the erection of churches in residential districts is attested by the paucity of reported cases dealing with the precise questions projected by this appeal. This overall situation in turn results in few church cases which treat with the reasons upon which the Milwaukie Council predicated its refusal of appellant's application. There are quite a few cases relating to the building of parochial schools, orphanages, old people's homes and like institutions, but we confine our attention as far as possible to those treating with the application of building permits for churches alone. The following are recently adjudicated zoning cases wherein a religious organization was denied the right to build a church in a residential zone because it would contribute to traffic congestion in the location selected. Thus, they recognize that such reason had a substantial relation to public safety and general welfare, and hence did not constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law nor a limitation on the constitutional religious freedoms: West Hartford Methodist Church v. Zoning Board, 143 Conn 263, 121 A2d 640 (1956); Miami Beach United Lutheran Church v. City of Miami Beach, 82 S2d 880 (1955); Galfas (acting in behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses) v. Ailor, 81 GaApp 13, 57 SE2d 834 (1950). In the West Hartford Methodist Church case, supra, the zoning board, under the permissive type of ordinance, refused a permit for these reasons among others, undue concentration of traffic and substantial depreciation in value of surrounding property. The Supreme Court of Connecticut in sustaining the action of the board said, 121 A2d at page 643: We need not repeat the facts which demonstrated to the board that the use of surrounding homes will suffer substantial injury if 240 South Main Street is utilized as planned. Suffice it to say that these homes will lose much of the peace and quiet now enjoyed by their owners. Values will fall; traffic, with its attendant danger and noise, will increase greatly on Crestwood Road and other side streets; and the privacy of some homes will disappear with the advent of a large parking lot at their very boundary. In Miami Beach United Lutheran Church, supra, the church sought to build in a single family dwelling zone. In affirming the denial of plaintiff's application, the following statement is made: Evidently the property is located on a state highway, often heavily travelled. From testimony the chancellor was privileged to believe, the value of the surrounding property would `definitely depreciate'   . (82 So2d at p 882). The Galfas case, supra, has a particular interest in that the organization seeking the right to build under a permissive type of ordinance like the instant one was a segment of the same religious group as appellant. There the testimony was substantially the same as here concerning the size of the congregation, the frequency of its meetings and probable automobile use of its members. In approving the action of the zoning board in refusing the permit, the court says:    Under the record before this court in the present cases it does not appear that there was an abuse of the discretion and judgment vested in the Board of Zoning Appeals in determining that it was undesirable to permit the location of a church at the proposed site in that it would likely create a serious traffic problem, considering the number of vehicles that would be brought into the area and the number of those which could be parked off the street and around the proposed building.    (57 SE2d at 836) We now examine cases relied upon by appellant wherein the application of churches to build in single residential zones were initially denied by zoning authorities for reasons of traffic congestion, but later reversed by the appellate courts. They are: State ex rel. Synod of Ohio United Lutheran Church v. Joseph, supra (39 NE2d 515); Board of Zoning Appeals v. Decatur, Ind. Co. of Jehovah's Witnesses, supra (117 NE2d 115); Mooney v. Village of Orchard Lake, 333 Mich 389, 53 NW2d 308 (1952); and State ex rel. Howell v. Meador, 109 W Va 368, 154 SE 876 (1930). A unique situation is presented in the Synod case, which in our opinion is alone sufficient to invalidate it as an authority in the instant matter. The zoning ordinance of Upper Arlington, a suburb of Columbus, Ohio, had a permissive provision comparable to Section 16 (8) of the Milwaukie ordinance. There the zoning commission was directed to hold hearings on applications for permits to erect buildings in the single family dwelling zone (Class I). The proviso listing potential permittees included among other institutions churches. But notwithstanding, the Zoning Commission arbitrarily rendered this provision nugatory and inoperative as to churches, by formally adopting a resolution declaring that all applications to erect churches in Class I district would be denied as long as land was available in Class III district. Relying solely on the force of this resolution, the Zoning Commission without a hearing and without giving any reasons therefor, denied plaintiff-church's application to build in Class I district. The court, 39 NE2d at p 520, stated the issue in these words:  Specifically the crucial question is whether the local zoning authorities can    refuse a special permit for the erection of a church in a class I district, in pursuance of a general policy adopted formally by resolution `that all applications for permits to erect churches in class I, or single family house districts, as long as class III, or business property is available, be refused'. (Emphasis ours.) In answer to the question, the court reached its decision by holding the zoning commission was not authorized by the ordinance from whence it derived its powers to reject the application for the reasons embodied in the resolution. But at great length indicated obiter the court's belief that any fiat exclusion of churches from residential districts would be unconstitutional. It is from the realm of this dictum that appellant draws in support of its contentions. It is in this area that will be found what is said about traffic congestion and where it will be discovered that, even there, the views expressed are controlled and limited to the particular facts and circumstances presented by the record in that matter. In the Decatur case, the permit was denied because of noncompliance with the building set-back line and the failure to provide off-street parking space as required by the ordinance (117 NE 2d, supra, at 116). The sole question presented by the appeal, as stated by the court, was: Are the restrictions imposed [by the ordinance] reasonable regulations on the building of a church at the location and under the facts and circumstances as shown by the record before us ? (117 NE2d, supra, at page 118). (Emphasis ours.) Although the ruling was for the church under the evidence, the court expressly recognized that churches are amenable to zoning regulation. At p 118 the court observes:    the building of churches is subject to such reasonable regulations as may be necessary to promote the public health, safety, or general welfare, citing Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, Commonwealth of Mass. v. Prince, supra, and West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624, 63 S Ct 1178, 87 LEd 1628, 147 ALR 674. In the Mooney case, the plaintiff (as Archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit) sought a permit to build a church and school under an ordinance which served, as a practical matter, to exclude churches and schools from the village of Orchard Lake (53 NW2d, supra, at p 309). The court stated the matter to be adjudicated as follows:  On the basis of the record at bar the question to be determined is whether churches and schools may, in effect, be excluded by ordinance from the entire village. (53 NW2d supra, at p 309.) The court, relying on a provision of the constitution peculiar to the State of Michigan and having its genesis in the Ordinance of 1787, governing the Northwest Territory, resolved the question in favor of the applicant church. We think it appropriate to observe here, that the instant case presents no comparable question. Churches are not excluded under the Milwaukie ordinance, they can build without permit in any of the other three zoned areas, and in the single family dwelling zone with permit. The court in the Mooney case, as in the Synod and Decatur cases, supra, notes that the right to full and free use and enjoyment of one's property is, however, subject to reasonable regulation, restriction and control by the state in the legitimate exercise of its police powers. The test of legitimacy is the existence of a real and substantial relationship between the exercise of those powers in a particular manner in a given case   . (at p 309) In the West Virginia case of State ex rel Howell v. Meador, supra, wherein the plaintiff, Howell, acted as a Trustee of the Church of God of Beckley, W. Va., the prime question called for a construction of the ordinance wherein the court correctly held that a church by the very terms of that ordinance (and unlike that of Milwaukie) was not excluded from the residential areas. The court also gave attention to the question of traffic at the place designated by the church for building and concluded from the facts as enumerated that it would create no traffic problem. Much of the difficulty in cases invalidating the exclusion of churches, says 70 Harvard Law Review, Churches and Zoning, 1431 (1957), results from the courts' giving too narrow a construction to `general welfare' and consequently taking too restrictive a view of the permissible scope of zoning. Under the view adopted by the Court in the Berman case the factors that make churches undesirable neighbors should be considered sufficient to give a municipality power to exclude them from residential neighborhoods, even though it may appear to courts and to zoning authorities that there is social value in locating churches in residential areas.