Church Bells Violate Noise Ordinance

[otterinbham 0]

Church Is Denied Waiver of Noise Restriction

St. John Neumann's Bells Disturbed Some Residents

By Bill Turque

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, December 1, 2006; B02

Fairfax County officials have issued a ringing non-endorsement of the bells at St. John Neumann's in Reston, ruling that they must toll within the limits of the county's noise ordinance or not at all.

The Board of Supervisors asked the zoning staff this year to see whether the law could be amended to accommodate the church, whose bells ring at a volume slightly higher than the 55-decibel maximum permitted in residential areas.

But James P. Zook, director of Fairfax's Department of Planning and Zoning, recently told the board in a memo that creating an exception for church bells could be constitutionally problematic, leaving the county open to court challenge.

"Localities cannot enact different standards for noise emanating from a place of worship," Zook said. If Fairfax did that, he said, the new rules would have to apply to "all other types of bells, chimes or carillons." Zook noted, however, that at least two other cities, Morgantown, W.Va., and Seattle, did make exceptions for church bells.

St. John's, a Catholic church in south Reston, installed a $50,000 electronic bell system in 2004 as part of a major expansion. When the bells began ringing, in three-minute bursts -- three times on weekdays, once on Saturdays and before each of five Sunday Masses, starting at 7:30 a.m. -- neighbors complained.

The county discovered that the bells registered at an average of 75 decibels (roughly equivalent to a vacuum cleaner at close range), which is considerably above the 55-decibel limit in residential areas.

The church reduced the power flowing to the three bells, which brought the reading down to 60 decibels, softer (about the sound of an air conditioner at 50 feet) but still above the limit.

The dispute has kept the bells silent for 23 months.

"It's frustrating, because the sound is so much a part of our tradition," said the Rev. Thomas Murphy, the church's pastor. "Anybody who has grown up in a city atmosphere is familiar with the ringing of bells."

But the church, named for a 19th-century Philadelphia priest who founded the first national parish for Italian Americans, is in the suburbs, where noise of virtually any kind can become a quality-of-life problem.

Sean Walsh, who has lived on nearby Pegasus Lane for 20 years, said the county's ruling was good news for most of his neighbors.

"No one here is anti-church or anything," Walsh said. "People just want some peace and quiet."

Church members have said the complaints about the bells have come from only a few disgruntled neighbors.

The church says that it is not possible to further reduce the power flowing to the bells. And even if the power could be reduced, the ringing would be so inaudible that the bells would hardly be worth operating, Murphy said.

"We've done as much as we can, according to the manufacturer," he said.

If St. John Neumann were elsewhere, it would be able to ring away. Prince William and Arlington counties allow a daytime maximum of 60 decibels. Montgomery County permits 65 decibels during the day.

Supervisor Catherine M. Hudgins (D-Hunter Mill) will host a community meeting at the church Dec. 11 to discuss the situation. The board could decide to overrule zoning officials and establish an exception for the church. But Hudgins sounded doubtful.

"What's melodious to some people is just not that way to others," she said.

[Tigermike 3,053]

Obviously you agree with this. Why?

[CCTAU 3,345]

Is this the same type issue? And is Christanity being singled out again?

LINK1

LINK2

[Tigermike 3,053]

The difference is the Democrats elected a Muslim who BTW has decided he will refuse to take the oath of office on the Bible and will instead take his oath on the Koran.

[otterinbham 0]

Oh, TigerMike. You're so paranoid. I don't agree or disagree. I just threw this up on the forum to see you guys make the predictable replies. Kind of like kicking an anthill and watching them spill out.

Notice neither of you said, "Oh, what a bunch of dumbasses. Why the heck didn't they check out the local noise ordinances before spending that much money?" Nope. Just a kneejerk reaction because anybody who opposes anything a church does is automatically anti-religious. Kind of like those guys who insist on building megachurches in formerly peaceful neighborhoods, thereby creating huge traffic problems and ruining people's property values. Yet when somebody suggest that maybe a megachurch needs to be in a more commercial district of town, then they're anti church. Do I have that right?

For the record, churches have to obey the law just like everybody else. They have to adhere to building codes and employment law. So why shouldn't it adhere to noise ordinances. And if the church has any concern whatsoever about being a good neighbor, then it doesn't ring the bells at 7:30 in the morning. The same goes for a mosque with 6 a.m. prayers.

I usher at my church twice a month. For the 9 and 11 a.m. services we ring the bell. For the 7:30 service, we do not.

[Ranger12 46]

Sounds like another case in which a small group of people get their way because they have nothing else to do but whine about church bells ringing.

Stupidity runs rampant in this country.

[otterinbham 0]

Sounds like another case in which a small group of people get their way because they have nothing else to do but whine about church bells ringing.

Stupidity runs rampant in this country.

Well, unless you work a night shift or something, which I did for 2 years. 7:30 a.m. comes awfully early if you've worked until 2. But, again, it's the noise ordinance. The boneheads never really took that into consideration before spending the money.

[tiger88 934]

This is clearly another case of "The Man" holding down the "Christians" again. (Heavy sarchasm intended.)

[TexasTiger 13,017]

The difference is the Democrats elected a Muslim who BTW has decided he will refuse to take the oath of office on the Bible and will instead take his oath on the Koran.

How can that be? I thought our Constitution required an oath on the Bible!

[AURaptor 1,126]

Put rubber covers on the bell hammers, and muffle the sound until it complies with the local ordinance.

Problem solved.

[Tigermike 3,053]

Oh, TigerMike. You're so paranoid. I don't agree or disagree. I just threw this up on the forum to see you guys make the predictable replies. Kind of like kicking an anthill and watching them spill out.

Oh, please. You posted a news item with a sensationalist headline and then feign neutrality?

[Tigermike 3,053]

The difference is the Democrats elected a Muslim who BTW has decided he will refuse to take the oath of office on the Bible and will instead take his oath on the Koran.

How can that be? I thought our Constitution required an oath on the Bible!

So did I Tex, but,,,,,,,,,,,

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

I got these five from a Google search. I first heard about it when I read a piece at Townhall.

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/13069747p-13723091c.html

http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=19552

http://www.subzeroblue.com/archives/2006/1...son_wants_.html

link

Islamic Theocracy To Trump US Constitution At Next Congressional Swearing In Ceremony

By By Bill Wilson , Daily Jot News Service Senior Analyst

2006-12-01 -- WASH—Dec 1—DJNS--Newly elected Democratic Islamic Congressman Keith Ellison from Minnesota says he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but rather on his favorite book, the Koran. Throughout American history, the Bible has been the standard to which elected representatives take their oath because the God of the Bible is the one to whom Americans’ conscience is bound the most. Ellison’s declaration undermines the tenets of American society and opens the door to treason, to allegiances to other forms of government and to an eventual demise of the United States —if he is allowed to do it because the Koran calls for complete submission to an Islamic theocratic form of government.

Article VI Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Founding Father James Iredell defined an oath as a “solemn appeal to the supreme being, for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments according to that form which will bind his conscience most."

The Founding Fathers believed that the only way that a person could be trusted to hold office is if the person believed in a supreme being and an afterlife where that supreme being meted out rewards and punishments. Otherwise, the person could not be trusted. This is the Oath of Office for Congress: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

The “So help me God” ending was added during the Civil War to snuff out traitors. It is a recognition that only God—the God of the Bible—is the arbitrator of true justice. Now, how does one expect an Islamic Congressman, whose religion requires submission to an Islamic theocratic form of government, to uphold the Constitution of the United States , especially if he is swearing an oath on the very book that requires the Islamic theocracy?

“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.”-- 2 Timothy 3:13

Media Contact

Contact Bill Wilson at bill@dailyjot.com or visit www.dailyjot.com

link

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

The noise ordinance is overly authoritarian, and the enforcement is simple nitpicking.

FYI -- OSHA requires hearing protection for workers subjected to noise levels at and above 90 db. Keep in mind this is for a sustained sound level for a typical 8-hr day. The Dept of Defense requires hearing protection at the 85 db level -- again, for an entire time-weighted average of an 8-hr day. In other words, if a person was subjected to say 4 hrs at an average of 75 db, and 4 hrs at an average of 85 db, then hearing protection wouldn't be required. The permissable time exposure to noise levels decreases as the noise levels increase. The intensity is one thing but the time of exposure is just as significant. Normal office conversation levels are between 50-60 db. If you have a office PA system, that level would be about 75-80 db. The further you are from the source of noise, the lower sound level you would be subjected to (like any other emission/radiation.)

Differentiating between an instantaneous level of 56 and 60 db is just plain absurd. I'll bet the local rush hour traffic is higher than that (probably around 85-90 db.) It becomes even more ridiculous when you consider how short of time the bells actually are rung. No one in their right mind would ring bells for 8-hrs straight. Bottom line -- this is local government gone amok.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Isnt funny that the LETTER of the Law may now be enforced on someone besides a Conservative. Wow, how "unfair!" The letter of the law is only to be applied to those that uphold the law according to the Left. We need gun laws to apply to gun owners not law breakers. That way we can waste 99% of our law enforcement officer's time doing something that does no good as far as actually catching bad criminals. We wil make criminals out of the average law abiding citizen.

So it makes total sense to me that if the Constitution says Holy Bible, then we use only the Holy Bible. Now if Congress amends the Constitution to say that the Koran is...equal to the Holy Bible and that the Holy Bible is equal in all respects to the Koran.... then I AM ALL FOR THIS.

This could be very fun for the Muslims in this country to be forced to admit that the Koran is no more than equal to the Holy Bible. You do realize that there could even be a fatwah issued on Ellison after all this clears... Too funny. The last thing any real Muslim ever wants to have happen is for the Holy Bible to be admitted as the EQUIVALENT of the Koran.

[otterinbham 0]

Do you guys bother to read the Constitution? There's no requirement to swear on the Bible. Period.

The Presidential oath of office is described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Nothing in this section requires that the oath of office be taken on the Bible. Neither do the words "so help me God" appear in the oath. George Washington just happened to say it, and other presidents have followed suit out of tradition. While Presidents often include this phrase in their inauguration ceremonies, the words are customary; they are not required by the Constitution and have no legal significance.

Oaths of office for other federal and state officials are described in Article VI of the Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Further, several states allowed Quakers to escape taking an oath as a condition of assuming elected office. The 1780 Constitution of the state of Massachusetts, for example, provided that:

...when any person shall be of the denomination called Quakers, and shall decline taking said oath, he shall make his affirmation in the foregoing form, omitting the words "swear" and inserting, instead thereof, the word "affirm," and omitting the words "So help me God," and subjoining, instead thereof, the words, "This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury." So now are you saying that Quakers are out to subvert the state, too?

What fascinates me is how quickly you guys careen a rampage about gun rights and muslim's swearing on the Bible when it's really a cut-and-dried question of whether or not the church is in violaton of a local noise ordinance. The church was in absolute violation of the noise ordinance. It never considered that question when it built its huge edifice of a carrillon (Spending God knows how much money in the process), and seemed genuinely shocked when the neighbors get ticked off that maybe, just maybe, they want to sleep past 7:30 in the morning on Sunday. What doesn't get said in this article is what the bells will do. Is it a few simple rings of the bell? Or is one of those obnoxious devices that play "Nearer my God to thee" for 3 minutes? Having lived in a neighborhood near one of those, I can tell you it gets annoying in a hurry.

[channonc 466]

I actually had to take an oath of office when I was hired to work in the Senate. I did not take the oath on a Bible, or any book for that matter, I just had to raise my right hand repeat the oath, and then sign it.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Do you guys bother to read the Constitution? There's no requirement to swear on the Bible. Period.

The Presidential oath of office is described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Nothing in this section requires that the oath of office be taken on the Bible. Neither do the words "so help me God" appear in the oath. George Washington just happened to say it, and other presidents have followed suit out of tradition. While Presidents often include this phrase in their inauguration ceremonies, the words are customary; they are not required by the Constitution and have no legal significance.

Oaths of office for other federal and state officials are described in Article VI of the Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Further, several states allowed Quakers to escape taking an oath as a condition of assuming elected office. The 1780 Constitution of the state of Massachusetts, for example, provided that:

...when any person shall be of the denomination called Quakers, and shall decline taking said oath, he shall make his affirmation in the foregoing form, omitting the words "swear" and inserting, instead thereof, the word "affirm," and omitting the words "So help me God," and subjoining, instead thereof, the words, "This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury." So now are you saying that Quakers are out to subvert the state, too?

What fascinates me is how quickly you guys careen a rampage about gun rights and muslim's swearing on the Bible when it's really a cut-and-dried question of whether or not the church is in violaton of a local noise ordinance. The church was in absolute violation of the noise ordinance. It never considered that question when it built its huge edifice of a carrillon (Spending God knows how much money in the process), and seemed genuinely shocked when the neighbors get ticked off that maybe, just maybe, they want to sleep past 7:30 in the morning on Sunday. What doesn't get said in this article is what the bells will do. Is it a few simple rings of the bell? Or is one of those obnoxious devices that play "Nearer my God to thee" for 3 minutes? Having lived in a neighborhood near one of those, I can tell you it gets annoying in a hurry.

Bro, I am just picking on the idea that Congress needs to make a statement, any statement that the Holy Bible and the Koran are EQUIVALENTS. THAT is what I want.

[Ranger12 46]

Sounds like another case in which a small group of people get their way because they have nothing else to do but whine about church bells ringing.

Stupidity runs rampant in this country.

Well, unless you work a night shift or something, which I did for 2 years. 7:30 a.m. comes awfully early if you've worked until 2. But, again, it's the noise ordinance. The boneheads never really took that into consideration before spending the money.

I worked a night shift for three years, getting off at 7 am. I had to deal with neighbors mowing their lawns, traffic, phone ringing, etc. You just deal with it. You don't go whining about every noise. Like Loggerhead said, the level of noise those church bells are making are not that loud. Again, it just sounds like a small group of people that have nothing better to do but complain about something.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Sounds like another case in which a small group of people get their way because they have nothing else to do but whine about church bells ringing.

Stupidity runs rampant in this country.

Well, unless you work a night shift or something, which I did for 2 years. 7:30 a.m. comes awfully early if you've worked until 2. But, again, it's the noise ordinance. The boneheads never really took that into consideration before spending the money.

I worked a night shift for three years, getting off at 7 am. I had to deal with neighbors mowing their lawns, traffic, phone ringing, etc. You just deal with it. You don't go whining about every noise. Like Loggerhead said, the level of noise those church bells are making are not that loud. Again, it just sounds like a small group of people that have nothing better to do but complain about something.

Exactly right! Besides, a church must have expensive electric bells. It's in the Bible!!!