Churches in freeway rest areas

[Chris]

There are "Autobahnkirchen" (Freeway churches) in Germany. Is there something like that in the United States? A church on a rest area?

[mightyace]

The only one I know of is this one on the PA turnpike:

Superhighway to Heaven...

or see also

Holy Turnpike!

[Brandon]

There are "Autobahnkirchen" (Freeway churches) in Germany. Is there something like that in the United States? A church on a rest area?

Short answer: No.  Even the famed church along the Pennsylvania Turnpike is off the road and used to have access from the road to the church, but not a special service area for it.  It was, and still is, a local church.

[mightyace]

Short answer: No.  Even the famed church along the Pennsylvania Turnpike is off the road and used to have access from the road to the church, but not a special service area for it.  It was, and still is, a local church.

Yes, I forgot to add that.  The proximity of the Turnpike to the church was not planned with access from the turnpike in mind.

[mgk920]

I believe that some larger truck stops have informal chapels.

Mike

[Scott5114]

It would likely be found unconstitutional.

[shoptb1]

There are "Autobahnkirchen" (Freeway churches) in Germany. Is there something like that in the United States? A church on a rest area?

Religion is handled a little differently in Germany than in the United States with respect to the government.  Although Germany has no "official state religion", taxes can be levied from established religious entities if one lists their religious preference via the census / annual taxation forms.  The constitution of Germany guarantees freedom of faith and religion, but unlike the United States, cooperation between the state and religious communities is supported directly in the constitution.  With respect to the 'Autobahnkirchen', these do not generate a constitutional conflict given the amount of cross-cooperation between state and religion.

In the United States, this sort of funding would be seen as biased towards one religious group vs. another, unconstitutional, and against legal precedent.  It's for this reason that you won't see this sort of thing in the modern United States.

[english si]

Surely, however, if the Church pays for the land in the rest area to build a building, and the State would have allowed any religious group's money for the land, and gives a fair price then it would have to be allowed?

The 1st Amendment doesn't allow French/Turkish style secularism, where basically you have to, on State property (schools, courts, universities, etc - soon to be anywhere outside private property), effectively be an atheist - your religion isn't allowed to affect your public life. US-style secularisation is deliberately 'the State has no religion', rather than 'no religion is the State's religion' that the French went for a few years later.

Providing that any religion could buy land on rest areas, etc and build chapels, etc then there's no Constitutional block on it. There's a pissed off ACLU, but the Constitution says that religion cannot be banned out of the public square, but also no one religion cannot be biased towards by the State.

That there's a National Cathedral in Washington, and "In God We Trust" on money suggests that there can indeed be churches, etc in rest areas.

However, quite why you would want to build a church in a rest area beats me - villages with business loops (perhaps near the freeway junction, or with some side facing the freeway) would mean that you'd have a congregation, rather than just getting passing trade.

[Brandon]

That there's a National Cathedral in Washington, and "In God We Trust" on money suggests that there can indeed be churches, etc in rest areas.

The National Cathedral is a private, not public building.  It's named that by some Protestant group.  There have also been atheistic challenges to "In God We Trust" on money.

Given the Establishment Clause, I'd say that churches in US rest or serivce areas is a non-starter.

[J N Winkler]

Providing that any religion could buy land on rest areas, etc and build chapels, etc then there's no Constitutional block on it. There's a pissed off ACLU, but the Constitution says that religion cannot be banned out of the public square, but also no one religion cannot be biased towards by the State.

I don't think that interpretation of the Establishment Clause would work with regard to rest areas on Interstates and other primary highways in the US.  FHWA is authorized to co-fund acquisition of land for rest areas only for certain defined purposes, none of which is to provide facilities for the practice of any religion.  State DOTs in the vast majority (if not all) states operate under similar restrictions.  What this means is that practitioners of a given religion could build a house of worship on land acquired for rest areas, etc. only if the land in question consisted of unused parcels of land which were acquired by the state DOT (with FHWA funding) in the usual way, were found not to be necessary, and were disposed of as surplus ROW.  The parcels in question would have no entitlement to access (either by ramps or through the frontage) to the freeway mainline and so it would be pretty pointless to use them to build a "freeway church."

A huge complicating factor for secularism in Europe and in traditionally Catholic countries in the Americas like Mexico, which does not exist in the US to nearly the same degree, is alienation of church lands.  In these countries confiscation of such lands by the state is generally an important part of the process of economic modernization, although it has often had unintended consequences, such as the massive losses of historic and architecturally valuable buildings and artworks in Spain during the Desamortización.  The typical outcome, which you see in countries like France and Mexico, is that church buildings and other physical plant are owned by the state, but the churches are given the usufruct of them for free.  This causes controversy, particularly in France, because it means that recently arrived religions, like Islam, have to dedicate a substantial proportion of their resources to building houses of worship which more established religions get essentially for free as the ultimate outcome of a past act of state confiscation.  Donations to build mosques are also one way to hide terrorist financing.  On the other side of the equation, you get state resources spent on the upkeep of churches, including ones used for regular worship (not just ceremonial churches like, say, the Ridderkerk in Stockholm), on grounds that they are part of the nation's cultural and artistic patrimony.  There is an obvious problem of joint costs involved and it is easy to see the money spent on preserving the physical fabric of a church as a subsidy to worshippers in that church.

Because the US is institutionally post-Reformation, with roots in the Enlightenment, there is no medieval legacy to disentangle when attempting to separate church and state.  US politicians make strong appeals to religion which in European countries which practice laicism, like France, would be seen (excuse the pun) to be as vulgar as farting in church, but there are no state subsidies to religion beyond granting churches status as tax-exempt charities (which they lose, at least in theory, if they engage in political lobbying) and allowing ministers of religion to carry out marriages which are recognized by the state.  (In Italy, before the Lateran treaties were signed in 1929, attempts to separate the Italian state from the Catholic church resulted in each entity declaring marriages solemnized by the other to be null and void, with the result that couples living together in some peasant areas could never be sure whether they were legally married or not.)  Meanwhile, European countries which subscribe to a laicist ethic in their public life either have an established religion, like Britain, or a massive fiscal overhang from the Middle Ages, like France and Spain.  In both cases churches receive significant subsidy from the government.

There are also exceptions which prove the rule.  In Kansas, for example, something similar to ecclesiastical confiscation happened in the 1950's when it was acknowledged that ecclesiastical school districts (which were common in farming areas because the churches were best-positioned to set up an educational infrastructure) were unconstitutional.  There was no actual state takeover of schools, however; instead the ecclesiastical school districts simply lost their eligibility to obtain block grants in aid of education, and had the options either of reorganizing themselves as new districts within the public sector, or integrating themselves into existing school systems affiliated with a particular religion (e.g. the nearby Catholic school district).  My mother went to grade school in the small unincorporated community of St. Mark, northwest of Wichita, when it was an ecclesiastical school district.  The grade school was right across the street from the church and was staffed by nuns.  Now St. Mark Elementary School is in the public sector (I think it is part of the school district for Andale or Colwich).

[mightyace]

Thanks again, J N, for another well thought out and well written essay on the issue in question and dealing with the issues at hand in an impartial manner. 

And, yes, IMHO, while I think it might be legal for  a "roadside church," the legal hassles to ensure the constitutionality of it would be immense.  If I wanted to build a church near an interstate, I'd simply buy private land near an interchange and avoid the constitutional issues altogether.

[realjd]

That there's a National Cathedral in Washington, and "In God We Trust" on money suggests that there can indeed be churches, etc in rest areas.

The National Cathedral is a private, not public building.  It's named that by some Protestant group.  There have also been atheistic challenges to "In God We Trust" on money.

Given the Establishment Clause, I'd say that churches in US rest or serivce areas is a non-starter.

See: Ceremonial Deism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism

And while the National Cathedral was built privately (and currently run by the Episcopalian Church), it was designated by Congress as the National Cathedral and is used for many non-Episcopalian purposes.

[corco]

I don't know if it's that illegal.

Plenty of public hospitals and even some airports have chapels- which are just general places of worship that don't cater to any specific religion. I think if you did it that way it would work. If you call it a church and put up a cross, that's bad, but if you call it a chapel and just label it as a place for all faiths to come worship, then I think it's OK

[shoptb1]

This is an interesting discussion of the subtle intricacies of the division of Church and State in the United States, but if you step back and take a broader look....the question that begs to be answered presents itself.  Why in the world would anyone really want to place a church in an Interstate/Turnpike rest area?

[agentsteel53]

This is an interesting discussion of the subtle intricacies of the division of Church and State in the United States, but if you step back and take a broader look....the question that begs to be answered presents itself.  Why in the world would anyone really want to place a church in an Interstate/Turnpike rest area?

same reason they want them at airports.  I have no idea what that reason is, but I've seen them at airports enough times to know that a reason must exist.

[shoptb1]

same reason they want them at airports.  I have no idea what that reason is, but I've seen them at airports enough times to know that a reason must exist.

I agree, although there is a slight difference in this case.  With airports, you have travelers that land and are waiting to go to another destination. So for a lot of folks, the airport is an island where they will visit without ever leaving this area to find a church in the surrounding city.  The freeway, however, allows easy access on and off to visit a church in a neighboring city.  It's probably a safe assumption that people traveling on freeways have access to a vehicle.