The building of mosques is a hot issue in the news lately, but recently some Buddhist temple construction has met with resistance also, for different reasons.
The Justice Department is suing the city of Walnut, California, for denying the Chung Tai Zen Center a permit to build a temple on its own property. According to the Justice Department, the Walnut Planning Commission originally was concerned that the building would be too big and possibly create traffic problems.
However, at an initial meeting between the zennies and the Planning Commission, the "Commission's Vice-Chair, James Hall, expressed concern that the Zen Center would seek to 'recruit' and influence students who attended a nearby middle school," the court document says.
Then, in a series of meetings, the zennies submitted plans for a smaller building, and when that was still too big they planned for an even smaller building and agreed to conditions about limiting the number and sizes of meditation classes. The zennies also agreed to provide off-street valet parking and submitted at least two traffic studies to show that the center would not substantially interfere with traffic.
However, the Walnut Planning Commission wasn't having it.
At the January 16, 2008 hearing, the Commissioners provided explanations for denying the application, including a belief that the Zen Center would be a "tourist attraction" and would attract numerous visitors and adherents from outside Walnut. Although the proposed Zen Center was in fact smaller than other houses of worship in Walnut, certain Commissioners stated that the Zen Center, as a Buddhist house of worship, would resemble much larger Buddhist temples elsewhere in California and in Taiwan.
Later that year, the same Planning Commission approved a building permit for a Catholic church that will be three times larger and 20 feet higher than the Zen Center would have been. The Planning Commission also has approved non-religious building projects much more traffic-intensive than the Zen Center. So, yes, I'd say this is a case of religious discrimination.
Elsewhere, in Rankin County, Mississippi, the Board of Supervisors has denied a permit to a small congregation of Vietnamese Buddhists, who want to build a temple on a three-acre site in Pelahatchie (population 1,461, per the 2000 census). "If your congregation was to grow, where is it going to grow?" the County Supervisor said. Um, three acres? The current congregation consists of 15 to 20 people who meet in a mobile home. They need more than three acres?
The Board of Supervisors received a petition of more than 130 signatures opposed to the building, siting traffic concerns. Is it me, or has "traffic concerns" become shorthand for "they ain't Christian, so we don't want 'em"?
Dear Barbara,
It’s amazing how hypocrites these people are. When coloring to the world how religious free this country is; they forget to say free means as long you’re Christian. They have no idea how wonderful Buddhism is, how peaceful it is. If they knew, they would be glad to have more Buddhist temples around, and have their children learn to meditate , to be peace.
Like Shakyamuni I also meditate everyday: “At all times I think to myself: How can I cause living beings to gain entry into the unsurpassed way and quickly acquire the body of a Buddha?”
It’s a lifetime mission. Thank you!
The first dedicated Buddhist temple under construction in Finland was just vandalized, then torched. Seems we do that sort of thing more directly over here.
There is a saying: that ACTION proves who you are but not by WORDS. I am not Christen but I respect them and other believers. If I am not wrong Jesus had said : LOVE your neibhours. That is all, I have nothing to say more than this.
As I’ve mentioned in commenting at Zen Mirror There is a history of NIMBY cases with regard to cultural/religious minorities. The Pluralism Project’s website is excellent:
Zoning law, traffic issues etc are often just a covert, socially accepted way of expressing bias– that is why the mosque case should resonate with Buddhists…
And one more reason the Buddhist community benefits from engaging in interreligious dialogue, even though this poses special challenges for us– in that immigrant communities often face cultural and linguistic barriers to entering into dialogue. And Zendos and other meditation centers may not see themselves as a religious identity, so have not always prioritized this.
I’m glad I don’t live in Walnut. I’ve never been to a Buddist Temple that recruited middle-school kids. Sounds kind of weird, which makes me think that the Walnut, Cal., mindset must be kind of weird!
Seems to me the Planning Commission members might more profitably employ their energy relating to the excess traffic of deluded thoughts within their mindstreams — perhaps by spending some time on a meditation cushion?
(which, admittedly, could be hugely disruptive to the functioning of Samsara-as-usual)
I live about a block and a half from the proposed site. The Zen Temple site is in the middle (rock throwing distance) of a mormon church (just north), a korean church (just west), and I believe its a chinese presbyterian church just east. This is half a block from Suzanne Middle School (west) and is in the pick-up/drop-off line of this school and across the street from Walnut high school (south). There is a Teen Center (east) County Library (East) City Hall (east) Senior center (East). All of this is in a quarter mile radius of the proposed site. Walnut is a small town but this area is BUSY.
The catholic church that is mentioned in the article is NOT in center of this area and is tucked away about 2 miles from this area.
The proposed site that is owned by the Buddhists was left to them after the original owner of the land passed away. It was originally zoned for a few homes, but now the new owners want to make it another attraction in a congested area.
The article mentions nothing of these relevant facts. This is not religious bigotry or hypocrisy, it is for obvious reasons that the temple is not going to be in a good location for the City. Why not sell that land and put it someplace else in Walnut?
The “obvious facts” are that the city of Walnut is in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of2000 (”RLUIPA”). This is particularly true if, as you say, there already are churches in the area. This is obvious religious discrimination; read the complaint.
A Zen Center is not an “attraction,” any more than any church and arguably less so. The primary practice of Zen is silent meditation, and during special retreats everyone keeps silence and maintains meditative focus throughout the day. For that reason, Zen Centers are often closed to anyone who doesn’t have an appointment or other business there. If anything, having a Zen Center in the middle of all that development would quiet everything down a bit.
Hi Barbara,
Please read this with a smile on your face so it won’t sound harsh or negative. I tend to write direct and to the point and it sometimes comes across harshly.
I did read the complaint. Page 4 line 20 even mentions “attract” so the term “attraction” is fitting. I did not say attraction like people would be coming by and staring at people chanting. Would you be “attracted” to a new zen center?
Meditate on that for a minute.
You stated “obvious facts” that they’re in violation. You just convicted them so why should there be a trial? Maybe you should pause and reflect on your conviction of the city and it may be based on your own bias possibly because of some possible discrimination you feel may have been directed towards you. I don’t know you personally and I am not attacking you.
The complaint even mentions that the house located in the site used to house a meditation center but their numbers grew too large for the home to accommodate so they voluntarily moved. They were not run out of town by burning crosses.
The city directly addresses the issue of congestion at this location and it is mentioned in the complaint. I have to drive right through those little streets every morning and it takes 10-15 minutes to go about 75 yards. There are a lot of small kids and a lot of impatient drivers. Putting the center right there would really increase the danger to kids. I strongly believe that it would be “when” and not “if” is a child going to be hit by a car.
Why not move the center to a better location in Walnut that is about 1 mile away at the intersection of Grand Avenue and La Puente Road? There are larger streets to accommodate the traffic and the school kids will not be in harms way.
Sorry if I struck a nerve… but methinks thou dost protest too much.
In current American English idiom, an “attraction” is something intended to draw attention by appealing to people’s desires, tastes, or curiosities, such as a museum, carnival, or nightclub. A Zen Center is a place set aside for silent meditation and dharma study. It is not an “attraction.” The word “attract” on page 4 was the word of the Planning Commission, which seems to have thought a Zen Center would be something like Disneyland.
I live in the greater New York City area. I run into traffic like that all the time. Sometimes worse. Further, the Zen Center paid for two independent traffic studies that said the Center would have little impact on traffic, so to deny the permit because of concerns about traffic is discrimination.
Meditate on this: If the Zen Center in question runs programs similar to most Zen Centers, it wouldn’t be adding to commuter traffic, because it would schedule most programs and services for evenings and weekends. It would also be closed to the public much of the time, either because nothing is scheduled or because there is a silent retreat going on. There might be a teacher or small staff of resident monastics who live there or work there daily, but it would be extremely unusual for any Zen Center to schedule programs or services for laypeople during working hours or when children were being let out from school. So your concerns about traffic are unfounded and irrelevant.
The complaint says “Because of Defendant’s denial of the Conditional Use Permit, the Zen Center was not allowed to operate at the Marcon Drive property, and moved its operations to a less-desirable location in Pomona, California.” This says that the Zen Center didn’t move to another location voluntarily; it says they were no longer permitted to use the house as they had been using it and were forced to move to a less desirable location. Do learn to read.
Or, why not let them use the property they already owned, since it would not have caused traffic problems? In any event, I doubt that moving to another location in Walnut was an option, or the Zen Center would have done that instead of moving to a “less desirable” location.
If only those durn zennies would learn t’ carpool…
Shame on Walnut!
Discrimination on the Nation: For the same reasons, such as “traffic concerns”, a Mormon temple was denied the right to be located in the town of San Pedro, Mexico. But, a Walmart got the right to open there, instead. So sad!