12/3/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Rosenbcreer Court also held: A central lesson of our decisions is that a significant factor in upholding ,governmental -programs in the lace of Establishment Clause attack is their neutrality towards religion.... f Wye must `be sure that we do not inadvertently prohibit [the government) from extending its general state law benefits to all its citizens without regard to their religious belief." j¢. at 2521. If zoning laws were changed with respect to churches, but not with respect to schools, when bath share a common secular purpose in their enactment, as the Larkin case stated, that would be deliberate, not merely "inadvertent" discriminatory pn)hihition. The; I.J.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the government cannot engage in activities which either aid or handicap religion_ Government must he neutral in its relations with religious organizations. Voiding protection zoning laws for churches but not for schools is not neutrality: On the contrary, such a change would show hostility to the churches. The Supreme Court hit,; long held that the U.S. First Amendment "affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any."' Lynch v. Donnelly. 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984). Since schools and churches are similarly situated with respect to the need to protect their environments, any diffcrcatiation in such pmtec;tion would show ho.stilily, not neutrality, toward religion. In Lamb's Chalml v_,. Q13ter Mari6ry Union Frcc Sch. Dist 113 S_C't_ 2141, 2I47 (1993), the Court said that a school district could not ban the showing of a film with a Christian perspective on family values when the same sehcx)l district allowed non -religious views to be presented in the same forum. Justice White said: The principle that has emerged from our cases "is that the First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others." Id. at 2147. Similarly, zoning decisions should not be purposefully distinguished on the basis of secular and retigious interests. We hope that the above Legal Opinion Memorandum will he helpful to you and to the Indian River County Board of Commissioners. If we can he of any further help to you or to the Board, please to not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Gibbs & Craze, P.A. David C. Gibbs III AdmilhAl in Flnrida Btubaru J. Weller Admitted in noridat 50 DECEMBER 3, 1996 �ooK 99