A tale of two synagogue buffer zones

Last week, my former synagogue in Maryland began a lobbying campaign to pass a bill creating a 100-foot buffer zone against boisterous protests around synagogues and other places of worship. Later in the week, a congregation down the street from it joined a lawsuit against an existing “gun-free” buffer zone in and around synagogues and other sensitive places. The Jewish organizations supporting the bill and the members of the congregation advocating for “take your gun to shul” gave the same rationale: protecting the freedom of worship. The rhetoric might match, but its validity does not.

The 100-foot buffer zone bill tries to copy a 2014 US Supreme Court decision, McCullen v. Coakley, 573 US 464 (2014), striking down a Massachusetts 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, within which only patients and those connected with the facility could set foot. The Court held this violated the First Amendment because abortion opponents had the right to engage the pregnant women in conversation and proselytizing. Protesters also had the right to have the patients hear singing and chanting. This could not happen from 35 feet away. The Court acknowledged that the state could prohibit intimidation, obstruction and blockading, but only with a narrowly drawn law.  

Separately, the Court found 35 feet too far away to allow the protestors’ message to reach its intended audience. Years earlier, the Court allowed six feet.

The bill expressly applies only to intimidation, obstruction and hindrance. However, if 35 feet violated the Constitution, a 100-foot size surely does. Make it six feet, then. 

The 100-yard buffer zone against guns falls squarely within the Constitution. As far as I have read, the suit the neighboring congregation joined invokes (incorrectly) Jewish religious principles, rather than the so-called: “Right to Bear Arms”. Because the current Court majority seems enamored of that Constitutional provision, I discuss it.  

The most recent decision on the subject of concealed carry on private property open to the public, Wolford v. Lopez, last June, invalidated a Hawaii law requiring the property owner’s consent in advance. Three justices of the majority of six held it unconstitutional in every case, including synagogues and schools, and other sensitive places. Playing historians, they concluded that no such ban existed in the 18th Century, except for game preserves. However, the other three, wearing their historian robes, held that restrictions did apply in sensitive places back then. The Hawaii law applied to all property and therefore, the three struck it down. Of course, the three dissenters would have upheld the requirement for all Hawaiian property open to the public. That adds up to six in favor of this synagogue buffer zone.

I am not a practicing rabbi, and, as they say, “I don’t play one on television.” However, to me, claims that Judaism requires or encourages bringing guns to Sanctuaries and religious services contradict our tradition and the teachings of the Sages.

We read in last week’s Torah portion (Deuteronomy 22:8) “If you build a new house, you shall make a parapet [gate] for your roof and you shall not place blood in your house, if someone falls off it.” The Talmud focuses on the phrase  “you shall not put blood in your house” to include a prohibition against maintaining unsafe conditions. For example, the Sages mention keeping an unruly, unleashed dog who will bite, or a shaky ladder, which can kill or injure. That should include a gun which someone can pick up. Despite best efforts, that can very well happen in a crowded synagogue during lengthy services.

In addition, the Torah takes special care not to bring even the remotest connection to weaponry or violence into G-d’s Holy Places. In the Torah portion we read this week (Deuteronomy 27:5) that, when the Israelites crossed the Jordan, G-d commanded them to build a sacrificial altar, but “you shall not wield iron on it.” This harkens back to the commandment (Exodus 20:28) that, in building an altar of stones, “you shall not build it of hewn [ones], because you wielded your sword on it and desecrated it. Rashi explains that iron, the material for swords and axes, connotes war and violence, incompatible with a sanctuary of peace and mercy.  Indeed, Bartenura and Kehati, state that the Shamir G-d created on the Sixth Day at dusk (Avot 5:6) was a worm that hewed the stones of Solomon’s Temple and the Priestly breastplate to avoid using iron.

The Talmud calls synagogues mini-Temples. 

We all want to pray safely, but we have to take the right path. Hiring competent  security guards around the perimeter works best.