So I like church.
And I like church music.
And I like carillons of bells, and church bell music and all of that. And Dorothy Sayers’ The Nine Tailors is fascinating.
That all said — these folks are waaaaaay out of line.
The fight, pitting religious freedom against the right to be comfortable in one’s own home, started in March 2008 — on Palm Sunday.
After opening in a new location in Phoenix, Ariz., The Cathedral of Christ the King started playing a recording of church bells every half hour — every day — from morning to night.
Let us first set aside that they were playing a recording of church bells — which is an abomination before Man and God that would warrant marching on the place with torches and pitchforks. Assume, for sake of argument, that these are the finest, sweetest, most melodious church bells this side of some place that has really nice church bells.
Every half hour. Every day. Monday through Sunday. Morning to night.
Um … no.
We’re not talking about the Ancient Cathedral of Christ the King where they’ve been doing this since St Swithin’s Day in 1325. That would probably still irritate some neighbors, but at least it would be a known menace. You really lose the moral high ground to complain that all those jets are making a heck of a racket — when you willingly moved next door to the airport.
No, these folks moved to a new location, and then decided to … share.
“To me, it is one of the ways that we express praise and worship to God. And it is also one of the ways that God speaks out and says to the community that there is somebody here that cares,” said Bishop Rick Painter, rector of the Cathedral of Christ the King, a local Charismatic church affiliated with the Anglican Church in North America.
Four things:
- Is it okay if I open up a mosque next door and bombard the neighborhood with the call to prayer? Especially if it happens during the homily at your main Sunday Service, Bp. Painter? No? But that’s how I (as a hypothetical Muslim) “express praise and worship to God.”
- If it is okay for you to ring your church bells every half hour to let me, as your neighbor, now that God and you are there and you care — can I come over and knock on your door at 1 a.m. and remind you of same? Well, of course, you’re doing it only during daylight hours. So can I phone you to tell you this at 6:00 a.m.? And 6:30 a.m.? And 7? And 7:30? And so on? Every day? Every single day?
- People who feel compelled to draw attention to themselves — look at me! look at me! — generally aren’t the best of moral exemplars. It’s sort of the opposite of that, y’know, humility thing. And saying you’re doing it on behalf of God doesn’t make you any more humble.
- There are some horse’s asses in every human organization, and thus in every denomination. That said, I can only roll my eyes that this guy is one of the evangelicals in ACNA.
To neighbors like Sam Jensen and Al Brooks, it was a rude shock.
“I didn’t know where it came from. It was six in the morning,” said Brooks. “I had no idea what it was. And then they were playing every half hour, so it woke me up and I came out into the back yard and then I heard them again every half hour all day long — 31 times that day,” said Jensen.
Starting at 6 in the morning. Six in the morning. Every day of the week. Every working day. Saturday. Sunday.
Need to get up by 8 to get to your Lutheran service? Don’t worry, Christ the King Anglican will get you up at 6. Trying to sleep in late on Saturday? Christ the King Anglican will make sure you’re not haunted by the deadly sin of Sloth. Ticked off at that guy who starts the leaf blower at 9 a.m. on the weekends? Ha! You can be sure that he’ll be ticked off, too, starting at 6! Work Third Shift? Rest assured you’ll get no rest, but at least you’ll know that Christ the King Anglican is still hoping you’ll come by to visit.
The church, once confronted by neighbors, offered graciously to reduce the ringing to every hour, instead of every half hour. No reduction offered in days of week, or time of day. Not surprisingly, the neighbors sued.
The judged sided with the neighbors, found Bp. Painter guilty of misdemeanor disturbing the peace, and restricted the church to ringing the bells on Sunday and church holiday. (Hey, kids! No more worrying that Mommy and Daddy will sleep in late on Christmas Day!)
Bp. Painter is shocked, shocked, to find himself branded a criminal, and that someone might not like to worship the way he thinks they should like.
Painter is now not only appealing his conviction, but he’s suing the city of Phoenix in federal court. He argues that the noise ordinance is unconstitutionally stifling the church’s freedom of religion.
Yeah, that’s exactly the course you want to take. When the Rastafarians open a (whatever you call a Rastafarian hang-out) next door and play Jim Marley music all day and night, do you reeeeeally want them using your (hypothetical) victory as a precedent?
I am a huge believer in freedom of religion. And just as your freedom to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose, your freedom to loudly celebrate your religion ends … well, for the most part it ends at the doors of your church.
We occasionally do things at our parish that might disturb some of our neighbors, though we really try not to. We do an outside procession around the church on a couple of occasions. We start Palm Sunday services (weather permitting) in front of the church. It’s possible that we sometimes disturb someone. I worry sometimes we disturb folks getting into our car at home to go to church, too.
“I was surprised that I was charged with a crime,” Painter said. “I don’t see where I have broken a law… Now I am a criminal, after all my years.”
He says Phoenix’s noise ordinance has an exception for things like ice cream trucks, and that the church should have the same immunity.
For now, while the neighbors are content, Painter is praying for a change.
I’d be so willing to bet major sums of money that ice cream trucks have strict regulation as to their hours of business. Plus, they wander from neighborhood to neighborhood.
No. Not buying it. Just another person who thinks that, because he can slap the label “MY RELIGION” on it, he can be exempt from the law, not to mention from being a good neighbor. None of which, oddly enough, do I recall Jesus preaching …
(I got this via George, who linked to Digital Cuttlefish’s lovely rewrite of Poe’s “Bells.”)
UPDATE: Reading through the comments, I got found this from “BPRCC”:
Since the third century bells have rung out through communities as a symbol of the presence of God in the community. A sound of peace and safe heaven.
I suspect that not all Third Century traditions would get a pass here. Plus, this particular community has not known the ringing of the bells until, oh, March 2008, so it was hardly their tradition.
In all this reporting some FACTS have been left unmentioned. Fact #1 the bells ring at the same decible level as the volume of ordinary speech at the distance of three feet.
Wow. That sounds really soft. It sounds really hard to believe, too.
Fact # 2 the bells ring at a level less than ice cream trucks.
Again with the ice cream trucks. Ice cream trucks come and go. You hear them briefly, they come by, they do their thing, they go away. They don’t drive by every [half] hour, on the [half] hour.
Fact # 3 The church has baffeled the bells that point in the direction of the two who have complained.
Are the complainants satisfied with this resolution? Are there any others who are unhappy about it?
Fact #4 The over whelminmg majority of the residents in the area appreciate the bells and signed a petition saying so.
Really? The overwhelming majority? I’d like to see some numbers or documents to back that up.
Fact # 5 The bells are set so they do not ring before 7:00 am or after 7:00pm
Still too early. At least in my mind, folks who are making noise outside on the weekends before 9 are being bad neighbors; and any sort of yard equipment operated before 10 should incur the pillory.
Now my question is this, will the City of Phoenix also silence the calls to worship at the local Mosque.
Yes, they should. Of course, if the church’s suit passes, they won’t be able to. And, of course, the call to prayers is only 5 times a day, though the first is at dawn.
Let’s get this straight — the Muslim call to prayer, and the Christian tradition of ringing the hours (or, more properly, the Canonical Hours, which were hardly every 30 minutes — 8 during the day, 3-4 each night) serve to summon the faithful to prayer. They are suitable for the public to the extent that the public is largely the faithful.
Further, they served as timekeeping in pre-clock societies. More timekeeping services and devics we do not need in our lives.
Will they also stop the ringing of bells in shopping centers?
They ring bells in shopping centers in Phoenix?
With all the liberties that over 1,300,000 people have foght and died for, slip away from us, should we sit idely by and do nothing?
Shall we take a poll of those 1.3 million (whomever they are) and ask them if they fought and died to make sure that someone could wake them up at 7 a.m. on a Saturday?
How long before someone knocks on YOUR door and says your praying to loud in your home?
If I’m praying so loudly in my home that I’m audible to and disturbing my neighbors in their home, that’s too loud. (And it is louder than “someone holding a conversation at 3 feet away,” since I do that fairly frequently at my house and nobody complains.)
I understand this battle and I firmly believe that Christ The King HAS taken the high road. They have tried to work out a peaceable settlement with those concerned. But there come a point when one must take a stand. As was said by another, “Here we stand for we can do no other”.A Bishop in TN
Luther — and other purveyors of civil disobedience — are willing to take the heat for their stand. Bp. Painter seems a bit whiny about having been slapped with a misdemeanor “disturbing the peace” charge. But I suppose martyrdom is where you find it.
Sec. 23-l2 Creation of unreasonably loud and disturbing noise prohibited.
Subject to the provisions of this Article the creating of any unreasonably loud, disturbing and unnecessary noise within the limits of the City is hereby prohibited. (Code 1962, § 26-1.) The above is the ordinance in the city of phoenix.
The story is wrong the bells were rung from 8am to 8pm at the top of the hour for about 30 seconds. the first day they rang there was a computer glitch and they rang at 6 am that was quickly fixed. The Church also put up sound abatement foam around the speakers and pointed the speakers up and away from the neighbors. The neighbors are the ones that walked out of the meeting and refused to negotiate.
James, thanks for the ordinance info. I would say that half-hourly, or even hourly, newly-introduced bell ringing is loud, disturbing, and unnecessary.
Okay, so I’ve now read 6, 7, and 8. I’d argue that even 8 a.m. is too early, to be honest.
I appreciate that the church tried to abate the noise — but if the whole point of ringing the (recorded) bells is to send a message outward, it doesn’t seem possible to keep this from being a public disturbance.
The bells only rang at 6 am the first 2 days when that was pointed out to the church we found out that the computer had a glitch that was quickly corrected.
The Church then cut the bells down to ounce an hour from 8 am to 8 pm for no more than 30 seconds at the top of the hour except for noon when they played a part of a hymn for 1 min and 45 seconds. The church tried to negotiate with the neighbors but they were obstinate and walked out of the meeting and said they want no bells at all so what you hear them say in the news stories is bull.
So they went “live” at 6, and nobody was there to notice? Poor project implementation.
Introducing a new regular noise source to a neighborhood is an intrinsically disruptive act. It’s not up the neighbors to compromise. Did the church consult with the city as to the noise ordinance? Presumably it did a variety of permitting beforehand for traffic impact, as well as for construction. An environmental impact study of the “bells” would have been in order, too, I should think.
There is no need for a permit for church bells. As you can see from the ordinance I posted earlier there is no set standard as to loudness.
The ordinance doesn’t set a standard, but does indicate “any unreasonably loud, disturbing and unnecessary noise within the limits of the City is hereby prohibited,” which, if the church were smart, would suggest getting some guidance as to what falls into that category (or whether the proposed bells would). One can ask permission or ask forgiveness — the church appears to have chose the latter.
As there is no set standard who are you going to ask? If I ask 50 people I could get 50 different answers as to what is unnessary and disturbing, until the city corrects the ordinance and puts in a specific level of allowable noise then we will always have this problem. There are some people out there that just don’t like the sound of any thing doing with a church and the 2 neighbors you see in the video are them.
You’re correct that anything that changes in a neighborhood is going to have folks that don’t care for it. Even if the church were perfectly silent, I’ve no doubt that some folks would be unhappy with the traffic. That’s one of the dangers of moving into a new locale.
As to whom you ask, the first place I would have gone to is the building / permitting department or the city attorney to ask for an interpretation of the law as applies to the proposed new activities. That at least would demonstrate a good faith effort to abide by the law, such as it is. Informing the neighborhood ahead of time might seem to be asking for trouble, but it would at least again show some concern beforehand for the neighbors. It might also have provided feedback that, say, ringing the bells at Noon and 6pm would be acceptable, or how the weekday, Saturday, and Sunday schedules might need to differ.
Not everyone will ever be happy, but it still seems that the church didn’t take many steps up front that might have given it some more secure moral high ground in the dispute.
First the church sent out over a 1000 fliers months before we started ringing the bells on Palm Sundat 2008 and we recieved no responses pro or con on them. Second we have been ringing the bells at our old location for 15+ years and recieved zero complaints. As there are no set standards one person can say they are disturbing and unnessary and another can find them ok. Even the city prosecuters have said the ordinance is vague. The only reason that this was prosicuted was because of a politician. here are the current exemptions
Sec. U-13. Exemptions.
None of the terms or prohibitions of Sections 23-12 through 23-17 shall apply to or be enforced against:
(a) Any vehicle of the City while engaged upon necessary public business.
(b) Excavations or repairs of bridges, streets or highways by or on behalf of the City or the State, at night, when the public welfare and convenience renders it impossible to perform such work during the day..
(c) The reasonable use of amplifiers or loud-speakers in the course of public addresses which are noncommercial in character, and which amplifiers or loud-speakers arc not used in connection with any moving vehicle.
(d) The use of a hand-operated device producing not in excess of seventy decibels of sound, “C”-scale, measured a distance of fifty feet from the instrument emanating sound from bicycles, pushcarts, or other vehicles, or from vehicles in connection with the sale or display of merchandise; Provided, that such devices or musical systems:
(1) Shall be operated only while the bicycle, pushcart or vehicle is in motion;
(2) Shall play only pleasing melodies; and,
(3) Shall not be played between the hours of 1:00 P.M. and 3:00 P.M., and between the hours of 9:00 P.M. and 10:00 A.M. (Code1962,
§ 26-4; Ord. No. G-3581, § 1.)
Sec. 23-16. Repealed (Ord. No. G-3581, § 2.)
First the church sent out over a 1000 fliers months before we started ringing the bells on Palm Sundat 2008 and we recieved no responses pro or con on them. Okay, that’s the first I’ve heard of a proactive step by the church to lay the groundwork for this. And that’s a good thing, and should be a key defense by the church in any litigation.
Second we have been ringing the bells at our old location for 15+ years and recieved zero complaints. Which is irrelevant. An existing condition is different from a new condition. That I threw a big party every Friday night at my old house and never had any complaints is hardly a comfort to the neighbors at my new house.
As there are no set standards one person can say they are disturbing and unnessary and another can find them ok. Even the city prosecuters have said the ordinance is vague. The only reason that this was prosicuted was because of a politician. I thought it was because of the obnoxious and stubborn neighbors. Note that these sorts of ordinances are often vague because the standard of what is disturbing or obnoxious is subjective, which allows police and the courts to adjudicate such matters.
I note that there does not seem to be an exemption in the above that would cover the church, unless you wanted to consider church bells a “public address.”
I also note that the “ice cream truck” metaphor seriously doesn’t serve the church either, since the ordinance clearly note (a) you can’t play music while not in motion (i.e., the music is to signal your approach to a neighborhood, not to sit there and gather in kiddies from all around), and (b) the only legit hours are 10 a.m – 1 p.m., and 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. The church stops its music earlier than that, but starts it earlier, too, and plays through the early afternoon (presumably when people might be trying to nap).
I would suggest:
a. Adopting a similar time frame would make the church a better neighbor. I’d stop at dusk, too, if it were my church.
b. Maintaining and demonstrating a reasonable sound level, in compliance with the city attorney’s office.
c. Stop making declarations that the sound ordinances are religious persecution. It just makes the church come off as thinking they are above the law.
If the City would clarify in writing what level and duration is acceptable we would follow it that is why the three churches here are suing the city. The same language in another city in another state. Here are the court cases where the courts found the same type of noise ordinances to be unconstitutional.
State v. Martin, 847 P.2d 619, 622 (Arz. Ct. App. 1993). The vagueness doctrine
ensures that “all be informed as to what the state commands or forbids.” Lanzetta v. New
Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453 (1939). A law cannot be “so vague that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application.” Smith v.
Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 577 (1974) (quoting Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S.
385, 391 (1926)). The prohibition against overly-vague laws protects citizens from
having to voluntarily curtail their First Amendment activities because of fear that those activities could be characterized as illegal. See Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 109 (1972). The Supreme Court has enunciated the standards under the vagueness doctrine: The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrator and discriminatory enforcement. ..Although the doctrine focuses both on actual notice to citizens and arbitrary enforcement, we have recognized recently that the more important aspect of vagueness doctrine “is not actual notice, but the other principle element of the doctrine — the requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement.” Where the legislature fails to provide such minimal
guidelines, a criminal statute may permit “a standard less sweep (that)
allows policemen, prosecutors, and juries to pursue their personal
predilections.”
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357-358 (1983) (internal citations and footnote omitted). While it is true that mathematical certainty is not required of language in a statute or ordinance, it is also true that an ordinance must not impermeably delegate “basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrar and discriminatory application.” See Grayned, 408 U.S. at 109, 110.
Here is the appellate brief filed by the ADF
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/PainterAppellateBrief.pdf
I lost a big long response back to this, but, to summarize.
1. The timing and duration of the initial music was even more egregious than noted in the article.
2. Using ice cream trucks as a standard of reasonability is goofy because (a) they have much more restrictive time brackets than what the church has agreed to, and (b) ice cream trucks don’t cruise through the neighborhood every hour on the hour.
3. Painting this all as religious oppression makes it sound like churches should be above the law. Claiming a noise restriction is a violation of your First Amendment Rights is like claiming that a limit on the number of parking places you can put on your lot interferes with the Great Commmission and is a similar violation.
4. The brief actually has a solid point with the vagueness of the noise ordinance.
Here in Phoenix the Ice cream trucks are in front of my house at least twice an hour, They are supposed to shut off their chimes when they stop but most do not.
If I wanted to be a jerk I could call the police on them every time and report a noise violation but I’m not that kind of person as they are during the day even though I work third shift and sleep days.
Wow. I’ve never encountered such obnoxious ice cream trucks, either in frequency (they must sell a lot of ice cream) and in keeping their chimes going. Actually, I’d strongly advise filing a noise violation on them: it is illegal, and it may be disturbing others beyond just yourself. That’s not being a jerk.