Architectural Design Controls on Places of Worship in Australia: State Encroachment on Religious Expression and Exercise
In: Religion & Human RightsSearch for other papers by Noel G. Villaroman in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
This article analyses the ramifications to the right to religious freedom when the design of proposed places of worship is subjected to architectural design controls imposed by Australian planning authorities. First, such design controls can impinge on the freedom of religious expression—that is, the ability of religious communities to express their beliefs through their built structures. Such expression of beliefs may be vital to their prescribed manner of worship, observance, practice or teaching. Second, they can pose a physical obstacle to a religious group’s freedom of religious exercise—that is, their actual conduct of rituals, ceremonies and other kinds of worship. It is argued that the rigid application of design controls hinders the ability of religious groups in Australia to fully exercise their right to establish and maintain places of worship which is a constituent element of the right to religious freedom as guaranteed in international human rights law.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
1
Gerard Carney, The Constitutional Systems of the Australian States and Territories (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 33–34.
-
2
Susan Thompson and Paul J Maginn, Planning Australia: An Overview of Urban and Regional Planning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 46–49; Leslie A. Stein, Principles of Planning Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 31–84, 125–161.
-
8
Pak, supra note 6, p. 1840.
-
10
Sergiusz Michalski, Reformation and the Visual Arts: The Protestant Image Question in Western and Eastern Europe (London and New York: Routledge, 1993), pp. 169–194.
-
14
Malek Chebel, Symbols of Islam (Paris: Assouline Press, 2001), pp. 17–18.
-
16
Chebel, supra note 14.
-
28
Peter W Edge, Religion and Law: An Introduction (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), p. 123.
-
31
William Owen Cole and Piara Singh Sambhi, The Sikhs: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (Brighton and Oregon: Sussex Academic Press, 1995), pp. 63–66.
-
39
Titus Burckhardt, Art of Islam: Language and Meaning, Commemorative Edition (Bloomington, Indiana: World Wisdom, Inc, 2009), pp. 87–90.
-
41
Ibid., pp. 337–352.
-
45
Louis Henkin, ‘The Universality of the Concept of Human Rights’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (1989), p. 506, 10–16.
-
46
Paul Sieghart, The International Law of Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), p. 75.
-
60
See generally, Carol Stratton, What’s What in a Wat: Thai Buddhist Temples Their Purpose and Design (Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 2010), pp. 1–104.
-
69
Nicolas Perpitch, ‘Bias denied as Swan Valley mosque rejected’, The Australian, 18 December 2009.
-
78
Kaitlyn Offer, ‘Krishna temple to expand’, In My Community, 28 December 2010.
-
81
Anat Scolnicov, The Right to Religious Freedom in International Law: Between Group Rights and Individual Rights (New York and Oxon: Routledge, 2011), p. 194.
-
82
Ibid., p. 195.
-
83
Peach and Gale, supra note 64, p. 482.
-
91
Lee Levin, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), p. 359.
-
99
Melinda Marshall, ‘Row over Gold Coast Buddhist temple’, Local Gold Coast News, 5 March 2010.
-
101
Marshall, supra note 99.
-
102
Greg Stolz, ‘Buddhist temple in Nerang gets go-ahead under strict conditions’, The Courier-Mail, 23 March 2010.
-
105
Mabbett, supra note 12.
-
106
Villaroman, supra note 3.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 239 | 63 | 11 |
| Full Text Views | 179 | 6 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 52 | 14 | 0 |
Architectural Design Controls on Places of Worship in Australia: State Encroachment on Religious Expression and Exercise
In: Religion & Human RightsSearch for other papers by Noel G. Villaroman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
This article analyses the ramifications to the right to religious freedom when the design of proposed places of worship is subjected to architectural design controls imposed by Australian planning authorities. First, such design controls can impinge on the freedom of religious expression—that is, the ability of religious communities to express their beliefs through their built structures. Such expression of beliefs may be vital to their prescribed manner of worship, observance, practice or teaching. Second, they can pose a physical obstacle to a religious group’s freedom of religious exercise—that is, their actual conduct of rituals, ceremonies and other kinds of worship. It is argued that the rigid application of design controls hinders the ability of religious groups in Australia to fully exercise their right to establish and maintain places of worship which is a constituent element of the right to religious freedom as guaranteed in international human rights law.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 239 | 63 | 11 |
| Full Text Views | 179 | 6 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 52 | 14 | 0 |