The Virginian-Pilot
©
VIRGINIA BEACH
The Buddhist monks must stop holding services at their home near Pungo.
In an 8-2 vote Tuesday, the Virginia Beach City Council denied the monks' request to use their West Neck Road house as a temple with a Sunday service for two more years.
"I accept the reality," said Thich Chuc Thanh, one of five monks who lives in the house.
However, Morris Fine, the attorney for the Buddhist Education Center of America Inc., said he is concerned that the city has violated the monks' religious rights.
"I think we will be talking to somebody about litigation," Fine said after the vote.
The debate over the temple drew crowds from both sides.
Proponents, many of whom attend the temple, said the monks were peaceful and have helped people by teaching them about Buddhism.
"If we can open up our hearts and allow ourselves to work with one another... I think we would have a far superior community here," supporter William Osborn said.
Many of the monks' neighbors objected to the temple.
The religious institution doesn't fit into their neighborhood of farms and homes, said Louis Cullipher, a neighbor.
Other residents complained that the temple drew too much traffic and large crowds for the Sunday services.
If the monks were allowed to continue using their home as a temple, more and more people would come there to worship, said Daniel Franken, another neighbor.
Franken said he feared the temple could grow to the size of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network.
"Where is it going to end?" Franken asked. "What will happen to this neighborhood when this place outgrows itself?"
City Councilman Jim Wood, who voted against the extension, said the council last August gave the monks a year to move to a more suitable neighborhood and they haven't made enough efforts to do so.
The City Council's decision had nothing to do with religion, Wood said. "In my opinion, it was a land-use issue, not a religious issue," he said.
City Councilwoman Barbara Henley agreed. "I have no belief that the city is intolerant and that the people in the city are intolerant," she said.
Councilman Bob Dyer, who along with Harry Diezel voted against the denial, said religious institutions help maintain strong communities.
As long as the temple maintained its current attendance and had a conditional-use permit from the city, "I think we could have had a win-win situation," Dyer said.
Samantha Niezgoda, a friend of the monks', teared up as she explained to the monks after the vote that they would have to stop their Sunday services.
"Keep smile," Thanh said.
Deirdre Fernandes, (757) 222-5121, deirdre.fernandes@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Equal Rights or Special Rights?
Although I don't know all of the specifics, I would say there's a serious problem with any Buddhist practitioner who doesn't know the difference between "equal rights" and "special rights".
From my understanding, these monks disregarded the zoning laws when they were pretending to be a home study group and now they're trying to play the role of victim, claiming discrimination where no discrimination exists?
Their behavior is contrary to the Dharma and it's time for them to grow up.
Re: Indefensible Slurs -
Billy: No one is calling the Underhills racists or xenophobics because they oppose the Buddhist. Get it straight and stop twisting what was really said.
Because there is an underlying prevailing aura of "fear of outsiders" in this area specifically DOES NOT label or single out (or slander as you profess) the people who oppose the Buddhist as racists or xenophobics. In conjunction with zoning issues there are issues of a failure to see that in this case, "what is not understood is feared."
You need to understand the First Amendment and stop acting like a victim.
People use all kinds of things,
Other than truth, to push what amounts to bias. Few are willing to admit to certain biases & fears, in these times. All this reminds me of the "State's Rights" code word arguments during the scariest days of the civil rights movement. All of us need to look inside, deep inside, to see, just why difference is something we so fear.
Good things about monks
August 28, 2008
The Monks in Virginia Beach
By Artiest (a down to earth friend)
These Buddhist Monks belong to the Mahayana (a modern sect)
Traditionally, all Buddhist monks had to live in their temples or monasteries since 500 years before Christ. WHY? Monks must be readily accessible for spiritual guidance and help to all followers when the need arises. In their South Vietnamese society the temple is open 24 – 7. People can come anytime they need service.
Once their vows are taken, all Buddhist monks are required to denounce all physical attachment to family, to outside jobs and to other worldly needs, thus they enter a simple life of spiritual attendance and service to the public. They are highly sought after for their skills in teaching meditation as they help many to overcome stress.
Maybe its because Buddhists like trees...
So the WAVE church can build a church in Pungo off a two lane road on a curve, but monks can not practice in an established home where they also live? They can rent the home across from me. Their noise can't be any louder than the dozens of jets I've heard today or Lynnhaven construction project nearby.
marym63204 ... We are speaking of what seems unsightly
Appearances marym63204; Myra may be Jewish but she would find anyone of foreign means unsightly or not within the right to practice outside of the realm of an Americana type look. If they were Hasidic Jews with women covering and the men in long beards this would not work for the sales brochure type picture the entire council looks at to raise revenue. This has been proven time and again. The only bashing I have seen here is the lack of understanding and unprincipled nature of VB Gov to the constitution of the US.
Why, presently they are in a fight over that very thing in Federal court
Honestly, 3 points
1) The majority of the neighbors are concerned w/ future building plans after the zoning change. THe religion is a non-issue.
2) The monks have in FACT attempted to place a larger building on the property in the past.
3) This is a tax and zoning issue. No one cares if the worship. The future plans for the location are the issue.
It should be noted that Seaboard Rd. Which another poster mentioned is no where near West Neck, nor is it comparable.
City is definitely violating the law
As a previous poster mentioned, it is against the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) for a government to tell people they cannot have religous services on their property. There are several caveats to it, but the city's ruling is a clear violation of the act. While this section of the act still has not been challenged in the Supreme Court (due to its interference with local zoning laws), it looks like VA Beach needs to find themselves an attorney. I think the monks have a good case to challenge the city's ruling in court.
radical Muslim madrassah?
Another Pogo moment.
Beach council rules Buddhists cannot hold services in home
Isn't The Wave Church building a facility in this area?
From their website info:
"We are currently working on plans to build our South Beach Campus on Seaboard Road. This first phase will enable us to begin meeting on our property in a new 500 seat auditorium with great facilities for our children and youth. This first phase will only be the beginning of a much larger complex centered around our Wave Convention Center II."
Will they be subject to the same ruling of 'a one year trial'? Maybe they could offer 'sanctuary' to the monks!