Land developers have always been painted as willing to do just about anything to make a buck -- think Craig T. Nelson realizing in Poltergeist that he built a new subdivision on top of an old Native American burial ground. But what about good old George and Mary Bailey, who apparently built Bailey Park on top of an old cemetery in It's a Wonderful Life? No one seems to make a big deal about that. Regardless, the point is that no matter where or how one decides to build something new, it's likely that the project is bound to offend someone. The affront can be big or small, real or perceived. And sometimes, "hallowed ground" means the public space itself, at least from a Constitutional perspective. Take the recent New Jersey Supreme Court case where a homeowners' association won the right to restrict the posting of political signs in certain areas of the housing development governed by the association. And as is so often the case, the lawsuit started with an affront, with certain homeowners bristling at the association's restrictions against political signs, the use of common spaces for political meetings and limitations on publishing contrary opinions against the board in the association's newspaper. The significance of this case of first impression is too early to know, but will be played out in other courts over the next few years.
But beyond the worldly there is the spiritual world, which can often encroach on our space. Some projects can border on sacrilege, at least in some peoples' minds. For instance, in Pequannock, New Jersey, a wireless communications carrier has proposed constructing a 100-foot cellular tower shaped like a cross on property owned by the Bible Christian Fellowship Church. As a practitioner becoming very familiar with cell tower applications, this one seemed a bit unique. Wireless carriers have been searching for ways to hide their antennas for years, in such places as church steeples, flagpoles and structures that look (sort of) like trees. The cross option, in fact, has been used elsewhere. However, the thought of it no doubt causes consternation to those who have not heard of such proposals. As one local resident noted, "As a Christian, I wouldn't want to do anything that would denigrate the idea of the cross." Who knew that providing cell coverage would force certain Christians to test their very faith? Nonetheless, one Township councilman focused on the worldly. "There's a big difference between a man made structure such as this and natural vegetation such as trees." For the Church, they're just trying to figure out what's best for the institution, and the people it serves.
On the other side of the continent, in Navajo territory in New Mexico, tribal leaders are considering the construction of a $3 billion plan to construct the Desert Rock coal-burning generator facility that would emit over the course of a year carbon dioxide amounts equivalent to emissions from 1.5 million cars. The expected environmental opposition groups have entered the ring like Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Local citizens groups, including Dooda Desert Rock, or "No to Desert Rock" in Navajo, have also voiced their objections. Even Governor, and Presidential contender Bill Richardson has entered the fray, coming out against the proposal. But lost amongst the bustle is also the opposition from some Navajos who see the plan as a deadly "energy monster" that desecrates Father Sky and Mother Earth. With a history of exploitation when it comes to mining activities in the region, you can understand how the worries have manifested in the spiritual realm. Yet, this opposition received far less attention than the legal and environmental challenges. Nonetheless, it seems these concerns are part of the equation as well.
So how far should spiritual concerns encroach into the land use process? Obviously, as a public matter, and in a country ostensibly devoted to the concept of the separation of church and state, the answer appears to be self-explanatory. However, it is undeniable that one's religious beliefs cannot help but factor into one's opinion on such projects. No, this isn't the same as when people challenged John F. Kennedy's devotion to his country, claiming he would follow the Pope. Projects such as these question one's faith, especially if you have to look at them every day. Sure, there are other issues involved, but it cannot be ignored in such stark examples. Nonetheless, just as the Founding Fathers realized when they put their own finishing touches on the Constitution, circumstances change, as well as values. Just as courts will continue to parse out the meaning of the Constitution, religious leaders and practitioners will continue to determine how to define and redefine their faith, and what they want it to look like.
No comments:
Post a Comment