|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Order Daniel Greenfield’s new book, Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers’ Fight Against the Left: HERE.
The right to establish places of worship in America remains all too unsettled as demonstrated by a series of landmark cases originating in the suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio — a region with a surprisingly significant role in shaping religious freedom jurisprudence.
As Jews in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb went to the high holy day service of Rosh Hashanah, a private investigator was watching them. The man in the black SUV videotaped congregants entering the synagogue and the city of University Heights charged that 50 people had gone to pray, in excess of a court order limiting the number of congregants to only 36 people.
It was 2021 and existing battles over houses of worship had taken on a new intensity in the COVID era. While most cities, including Cleveland, generally avoided the level of extreme abuses seen in New York under Gov. Andrew Cuomo or California under Gov. Gavin Newsom, Cleveland, its suburbs and synagogues had long been in the curious position of creating legal precedents on religious freedom.
Back in 1925, Cleveland Jewish Orphan Home v. Village of University Heights over discrimination against an orphanage, originally established in 1868 for orphans of the Civil War, helped set precedents for religious zoning cases including churches battling over being excluded from residential neighborhoods through municipal zoning regulations.
Tenafly Eruv Ass’n, Inc. v. Borough of Tenafly, also involving discrimination against Jewish religious practices out of nearby New Jersey, would go on to be cited in multiple COVID religious discrimination cases including Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (which also included two Orthodox Jewish synagogues) and helped dismantle the COVID regime.
Now Grand v. City of University Heights, a case that dates back to 2021, is being appealed to the Supreme Court in the latest battle between municipalities and freedom of worship.
And the Trump administration had previously come out on Grand’s site with a supportive brief.
What is it about a case in an obscure suburb that led to a 28-page legal brief from the Department of Justice? The answer lies in the larger question of the right to prayer in America.
In 2021, Daniel Grand sent an email to a dozen people within two blocks inviting them to a prayer group at his house. Grand, who was new in town, received a phone call from the mayor warning him not to proceed. According to Grand, he was told that the city would “use any force necessary to prosecute” him if he insisted on having prayers at his house. Since then, Grand claims that he has faced multiple examples of legal harassment by the city against his property.
The prayer group was only intended to convene on Saturdays and holidays, times during which Orthodox Jews do not drive anywhere, so that parking would not be an issue.
Nevertheless a ‘cease and desist’ order was issued.
At the conclusion of a city Zoom meeting in March 2021, Mayor Michael Dylan Brennan publicly encouraged residents to report any observed prayer activity. “If you observe such activities, and I hope you do not, but if you do, you may report them to the city and the city will enforce its laws,” he stated. Grand has further alleged that police were directed to conduct surveillance of his home using unmarked vehicles, a claim consistent with the city’s documented use of private investigators to monitor a local synagogue.
Such battles have been taking place in the Cleveland suburbs for over a century.
Cleveland Jewish Orphan Home v. Village of University Heights had hinged in part on the use of selective zoning restrictions. The construction of the Fairmount Temple in Beachwood in the late 40s and 50s, a congregation whose origins had dated back to 1842, had led to four years of legal battles over the contention that the wealthy Reform synagogue would “be detrimental to the public safety, welfare, and convenience” that eventually ended up in the Ohio Supreme Court (State ex rel. Anshe Chesed Congregation v. Bruggemeir).
The same system that had previously blocked a Catholic Church was forced to give way, but human nature being what it is, battles over abuse of discretion and selective zoning for religious congregations continued.
In the late 90s the battle resumed over the construction of Orthodox synagogues and schools, with members of the Reform Temple leading the campaign against the congregations, one of which dated back to 1915, until the battle was finally won at the Ohio Supreme Court in 2000.
Daniel Grand’s battle and that of an actual synagogue which contends that zoning restrictions had functionally made it impossible to build a synagogue anywhere in the city shows the unfinished business of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was one of the initiatives during the Clinton administration that was supposed to protect religious freedom in a country that was starting to become increasingly irreligious and even disdainful of religion. Like other ‘bipartisan’ initiatives from that era, the RFRA turned out to be a bait-and-switch and was gutted by the Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores in a battle over the expansion of a Catholic church in Texas.
Bourne was one of a series of decisions by the Supreme Court that crippled the legislative vigorousness of Congress, eventually leaving it the useless shell that it is today. By the next decade, Congress existed to do little more than legislatively rubber stamp presidential agendas or block it, and a decade later, it could barely even manage to legislate, doing little more than holding hearings, conducting cable news hits and issuing press releases no one cared about.
Yet in the nineties, Congress still tried to compensate for RFRA’s death with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and RLUIPA is being argued once again in cases involving churches and synagogues around the country. Including Daniel Grand’s case.
Grand’s case has attracted attention well beyond the local level. The Department of Justice had previously filed a 28-page brief in support of Grand before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that “the fundamental premise of these land-use protections is that religious individuals should have a place to gather for worship and to carry out other religious activities.”
Grand v. City of University Heights raises broader questions about the extent to which local governments may use land-use authority to burden or effectively prohibit religious assembly. As American society grows increasingly secular and municipalities continue to press the boundaries of their regulatory authority, the legal framework protecting the right to worship — whether in a synagogue, a church, or a private home — continues to be tested. And in a country that is becoming ever more irreligious, the fight for the right to worship is still not resolved.
Daniel, you must realize that all the wins in the fight for religious freedom also help in the Islamization of America. I don’t know what the answer is, but if you have one, I’d be interested in reading about it.
“…the Islamization of America. I don’t know what the answer is…” (To that.)
Bible believers must try and get the Word out.
Romans 1:15 “…as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel…”
2 Corinthians 5:20 “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ…”
2 Corinthians 5:18-19 “…all things are of God…hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation…God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them…”
Romans 1:16 “…I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth…”
People gathering in a private home quietly is one thing. Loudspeakeers belting out their wailing heard over several blocks, plopping their rugs in rows in the middle o the street,
I don’t know how the local gummit dcided thee people were gatheving to puray together, but that’s immaterial. We DO, per our consitution, have he right to asemble at will. Except in cases o illegal acivity (Epstein’s “house” to do what they liked to do with underage girls) there is no restriction on assembly.
read about the ,meetings they had in Boston as they pondered their options regarding the tea tax back when. The Brits had prohibited more than one meeting per year, so instead o adjourning today’s meeting, they’d ‘continue” the meeting to another time and place.. same meeting.
Waterloo – Daniel Greenfield and the Freedom Center do indeed
have an answer. It is their fight against acceptance of Sharia Law
in America.
Robert Spencer, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom
Center and Director of their Jihad Watch, appeared before the
United States Congress just this very month to fight against the
acceptance of Islamic law – Sharia – in America.
Thank you for reminding me about that Annie45. You are right.
Waterloo.
I’m curious if this mayor Dylan Brennen is related to communist sympathizer, John “The Thing” Brennan?
Don’t worry Daniel, assembling in mosques will be very well protected in coming years…
I wonder how they treat Muslim gatherings. Are they okay with them blocking the streets to pray?
Thank you. I wasn’t aware this was happening.
Mum-Dummy turning New York into a City of Thieves
It is tragic that heterodox Jews fight Orthodox Jews and their First Amendment rights of worship and building communal institutions
Today in 2026 it is tyrannical and outrageous for any government
authorities to stop a man from inviting twelve people to his home for
private prayers. But back then during the height of the Covid pandemic
in 2021 – that wasn’t the case.
Authorities were stopping people from gathering at such occasions as
Thanksgiving – prohibiting church and synagogue services – shutting
down schools – and entertainment venues – enforcing wearing masks.
Although – giant corporate stores like Walmarts were free to operate
and so were little liquor stores where you could get all the booze you
wanted – while all other small businesses across the nation whom
people relied on to make a living were forced to close.
The draconian measures imposed on Americans during Covid were
not just to wreck the economy to set up the steal in the 2020 U.S.
Presidential election – they were also imposed to interfere with our
religious freedom. It is likely SCOTUS will consider those measures
while adjudicating Daniel Grand’s case. But if Grand loses, could
those attacking religious liberty use that ruling to their advantage as
a precedent? That is also very likely.
Many people just don’t understand , alt all, what a Zionist is , and likewise what Zionism actually is.
Therefore, it’s best to define what the words “Zionist” and “Zionism” really mean.
Therefore, the definition of “Zionism” has been explained “The word refers simply to the right of the Jews to settle in their ancestral homeland, , the word ‘Zion,’ …. Is referring to God’s work through the Jewish people…” [1]
For the Bible reveals, that God had given all this land that now composes the State of Israel, including all of the West Bank, to the Jewish people. This may be found in the Bible, as seen in, for example, Genesis 28:13-15. 35:10-12. Deuteronomy 32:48,49. Psalm 105:7-11. 135:4.
In other words, the Jews have tall this land by Divine Right. Furthermore, the Jewish people should have this land by historic rights as shown in First Kings 4:20,21, 24,25. 8:55, 56.
“Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.” Psalm 51:18 [K.J.V.]
“…the Bible reveals, that God had given all this land that now composes the State of Israel, including all of the West Bank, to the Jewish people.”
Very true. However, there is a major point being overlooked. The 5th course of punishment spelled out in Leviticus 26. The 5 courses can be identified in Lev. 26 if you haven’t already done so.
The fifth course of punishment, on Israel, began with the Assyrian-Babylonian captivity. There was a return after 70 years, and the city and temple were rebuilt, but the return was only partial. All Jews must be in the land, and will be, but, God Himself is going to do that.
The Jews can try and do everything they can to take what is their’s, and they might be successful, but it’s not really going to be as it might seem; it’s not really going to count. God is going to do it.
And then there’s the issue of the Messiah and His mandates. The Orthodox Jew doesn’t even believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, so their still expected Messiah hasn’t even begun on His five mandates, which are: Redeemer, Deliverer, Avenger, King, and Blesser.
If a Jew has believed on the Lord Jesus, He has fulfilled only one mandate, that of Redeemer.
So, there are still many things which have to play out before Israel truly obtains and inherits all their land.
Concerning all this irrational and ignorant hate for the Jewish people in the United States.
Now isa good time to remember and heed the wisdom of the former US President, Theodore Roosevelt had, rightly, said in a speech “There can be no fifty -fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only one hundred percent Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else.”
During the Covid Restrictions Churches were forced to close while Bars, Pubs and Taverns stayed open