339 replies to this topic

[Beckys_Mom]

sam12six, on 22 February 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

None of that's the point in this debate though. This thread is predicated on the idea that has been repeated several times that Christians are being denied their right to worship. This would imply that the deniers are anti-Christian. On the other hand, the truth is that this was an example of the local government trying to enforce their (possibly misinterpreted and in need of change) code that defines a church and what permits a church needs.

Argue with the silliness of the law all you want but it's stupid to try and twist it into some sort of religious persecution by people who (in all likelihood) follow the same religion.

Good post..     I do not think for a sec  this was religious discrimination

In general when so many religious people   (  whatever the religion may be ).. get themselves in trouble and into a twist over it all  They usually can convince themselves that it has to be an act of discrimination all because they are religious..  This can upset and anger them.. Even those who will read about it who happen to be the same as them...

Many people use these kind of excuses  all the time..

Example... My husbands brother ...  

Alan was always getting into fights in bars, showing mean jealousy over girlfriends he had.. .Winded up being barred from  local bars and clubs.. .Sometimes brought home by the cops ...
One fine summer  Alan desiced to take his grlfriend   on a holiday in the hope this time she can forgive him for fighting in bars over her

  Meanwhile back home.. his parents get a call  -  It went something like this....

Alan -  Mom I only have one phone call, you need to help me
His mother - What is it son?  OMG whats happened ?
Alan -  I am in jail over here in Majorca
His mother.. What happened... Why are you locked up?
Alan - Ehh Because My girlfriend and I were causally  walking along the beech, minding our own business..This guy attacked us out o the blue for no reason..   I am in jail and he is in hospital.. I have to pay a fine..  I think he was trying to mug us.. But  for some reason  the police believed him and I have to pay up....
His mother -  OMG that is terrible son...  Wait there a sec i'll get your dad to pay up..

Now for the usual cry....

Alan - Thanks mom...Iti s so unfair..They single you out over there all because you are a foreigner ...  Or they don't like the look of you
His mother -  Sigh  I know son.... I know...  Don't worry we'll get you out ..You poor boy...

Now.. When he arrives home In Ireland with the girlfriend ...It gets interesting..   Even though I knew Alan was full of manure given his past history

His girl friend  dumped him.. and told the truth  of what really happened..  Turns out  They were on a beech..but Alan saw a guy smile at his girlfriend and picked a fight...  Cops were called and Alan was arrested ...  singled out for being a foreigner my foot   lol

That excuse  is so annoying  at times when it is linked to law breaking ..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 22 February 2012 - 09:07 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

A simple question here... What makes you think a legal permit applies in this context?

Because it applies for all groups .. It does over here.. I know this 1st hand.....

What makes you think it is an act of .........religious discrimination?

Why should other Christians  do it right and not them? ..

Quote

As it was demonstrated, THIS WAS NOT A CHURCH!!!...

Yell all you want.. Fact is it is a church... As pointed  out to me before by a Christian on here .. A church is not  just a building.. it is a body of worshippers gathered  to worship and discuss their holy texts...  

My mothers Christian group that attend  their regular  bible meetings in their little hall  that they rent out and have a permit for.......Are classed as a church too...  

Quote

          Or is it now going to be the argument that these people did in fact have a church going on there in their patio. If the city council backed down after analyzing the situation, what makes you think they were wrong to fight this misapplied law?      

Having a law reviewed does not mean they wll be happy with the outcome...

There is so much to be taken into consideration.. Something you have yet to realize...    I agree with those that say you are not wiling to look at other factors..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 22 February 2012 - 09:20 PM.

[sam12six]

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

Sure... then these videos are simply a figment of my imagaination...

If your point is that the continuing encroachment on our rights by the government is a bad thing, I agree completely. There should be no crimes based on what someone MIGHT or COULD do. There should also be no crimes where someone is guilty because someone similar them did something bad.

On the other hand, if you're upset that Christians are not being exempted and face the same danger from government as the rest of us, well, what's to say?

Again, the point I was making was that there are codes local governments establish to handle different legal entities (like churches). For the purpose of enforcement, there is a definition in the code that delineates what a church is. These people's home apparently fit that definition. There's no persecution (unless you consider the very existence of code regulating churches in general to be persecution) - just an attempt by the city to get churches to comply with code.

Now, you don't see a church. You just see a place where a bible studier stands in the pulpit and bible studies at a congregation. That's fine but your opinion has no bearing on whether they're a church. Only whether they fit the legal definition in the area matters.

Again, maybe the laws are wrong or are being misapplied but those are different arguments from "they're out to get Christians".

[Jor-el]

Beckys_Mom, on 22 February 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

Because it applies for all groups .. It does over here.. I know this 1st hand.....

What makes you think it is an act of .........religious discrimination?

Why should other Christians  do it right and not them? ..

[/size][/color]

Yell all you want.. Fact is it is a church... As pointed  out to me before by a Christian on here .. A church is not  just a building.. it is a body of worshippers gathered  to worship and discuss their holy texts...  

My mothers Christian group that attend  their regular  bible meetings in their little hall  that they rent out and have a permit for.......Are classed as a church too...  


Having a law reviewed does not mean they wll be happy with the outcome...

There is so much to be taken into consideration.. Something you have yet to realize...    I agree with those that say you are not wiling to look at other factors..

Wrong BM,

That is the religious definition of a church.

The legal definition is something else entirely. Having a group of people meet in your home to pray together and study the bible is not a definition of a church.

My church has bible study meetings on Wednesdays, it is held at the church building we frequent, but aside from that we also have home cell groups that meet informally at home. We can have between 5 to 15 people attend. We pray together, we socialize and we study the bible together.

That meeting at a private home can in no way be construed as a church, not legally, not in any way.

The simple fact is, that a simple complaint by a neighbour should never have gone as far as it did. That it did so, demonstrates pure negligence by the authorities. That it needed a lawsuite to get things sorted out demonstrates the unwillingness of the authorities to look at simple facts.

That the city council gave in and withdrew the charges speaks volumes for a governing authority finally admitting that it erroneously invoked a law that was not applicable in this specific circumastance.

And as I said. this is not a unique circumstance. There have been a number of these incidents lately.

Banished! City forbids Bible studies in homes

Edited by Jor-el, 22 February 2012 - 09:48 PM.

[Jor-el]

sam12six, on 22 February 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

If your point is that the continuing encroachment on our rights by the government is a bad thing, I agree completely. There should be no crimes based on what someone MIGHT or COULD do. There should also be no crimes where someone is guilty because someone similar them did something bad.

On the other hand, if you're upset that Christians are not being exempted and face the same danger from government as the rest of us, well, what's to say?

Again, the point I was making was that there are codes local governments establish to handle different legal entities (like churches). For the purpose of enforcement, there is a definition in the code that delineates what a church is. These people's home apparently fit that definition. There's no persecution (unless you consider the very existence of code regulating churches in general to be persecution) - just an attempt by the city to get churches to comply with code.

Now, you don't see a church. You just see a place where a bible studier stands in the pulpit and bible studies at a congregation. That's fine but your opinion has no bearing on whether they're a church. Only whether they fit the legal definition in the area matters.

Again, maybe the laws are wrong or are being misapplied but those are different arguments from "they're out to get Christians".

Well it seems these incidents just keep happening, is this a fashion trend in the US nowadays?

[sam12six]

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Well it seems these incidents just keep happening, is this a fashion trend in the US nowadays?

That people are building and operating churches attached to their homes to dodge the permits and other church requirements that the area has established by saying they're just a few believers studying? I don't know if it's a new trend or just something that's getting a lot of attention recently.

The bottom line (as has been mentioned repeatedly here) is that if the people in the area think the laws are wrong, this attention will likely result in changes. If they don't, the laws will likely remain the same. Churches and businesses are special entities in the eyes of the law. There's a legal difference between a bunch of guys coming over to my house every night to play video games and my operating a business that provides the consoles and games.

If these people with the non-churches in their homes actually have churches, why don't they have their get-togethers there? If they don't, is it a stretch to say that the place where they gather twice a week to hear someone preach is their church? If it's their church, should it not be subject to the same regulation as any other church in that location would be subject to?

[Jor-el]

sam12six, on 22 February 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

That people are building and operating churches attached to their homes to dodge the permits and other church requirements that the area has established by saying they're just a few believers studying? I don't know if it's a new trend or just something that's getting a lot of attention recently.

The bottom line (as has been mentioned repeatedly here) is that if the people in the area think the laws are wrong, this attention will likely result in changes. If they don't, the laws will likely remain the same. Churches and businesses are special entities in the eyes of the law. There's a legal difference between a bunch of guys coming over to my house every night to play video games and my operating a business that provides the consoles and games.

If these people with the non-churches in their homes actually have churches, why don't they have their get-togethers there? If they don't, is it a stretch to say that the place where they gather twice a week to hear someone preach is their church? If it's their church, should it not be subject to the same regulation as any other church in that location would be subject to?

Here's a little quote from the link I posted to BM,

The town interprets its law so that “churches within its borders cannot have any home meetings of any size, including Bible studies, three-person church leadership meetings and potluck dinners,” ADF said.

A city letter confirmed, “Given that the church is considered to be religious assembly, and given the LDC provisions prohibiting that use on Local streets without Use Permits and prohibiting it in single-family residential structures, it follows that the church meetings cannot be held in the home.”

“The assembly activities associated with the church, including Bible studies, church leadership meetings and church fellowship activities are not permitted,” wrote Mike Milillo, the city’s senior planner.

“This ban is defended based upon traffic, parking, and building safety concerns. However, nothing in its zoning code prevents weekly Cub Scouts meetings, Monday Night Football parties with numerous attendees or large business parties from being held on a regular basis in private homes,” the ADF said.

Banished! City forbids Bible studies in homes

Just to add that here too the city officials backed down after they came under intense criticism...

Now, imagine what would have happened if there had been no public outcry... a legal precedent would have been created...

[sam12six]

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Here's a little quote from the link I posted to BM,

The town interprets its law so that “churches within its borders cannot have any home meetings of any size, including Bible studies, three-person church leadership meetings and potluck dinners,” ADF said.

If this is true, I don't like the law either and hope they change it.

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

A city letter confirmed, “Given that the church is considered to be religious assembly, and given the LDC provisions prohibiting that use on Local streets without Use Permits and prohibiting it in single-family residential structures, it follows that the church meetings cannot be held in the home.”

So the local law is that they can't have a church (as defined by their law) in a single family home? This means these people were breaking the law, right?

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

“The assembly activities associated with the church, including Bible studies, church leadership meetings and church fellowship activities are not permitted,” wrote Mike Milillo, the city’s senior planner.

Things haven't changed from a couple of sentences ago right? It's still illegal to operate a church out of a home there? So these church activities (which the crass might point to as "operating a church") cannot be performed from a home...

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

“This ban is defended based upon traffic, parking, and building safety concerns. However, nothing in its zoning code prevents weekly Cub Scouts meetings, Monday Night Football parties with numerous attendees or large business parties from being held on a regular basis in private homes,” the ADF said.

As I mentioned, churches and businesses are unique legal entities. Things that apply to churches might not apply to businesses and things that apply to businesses might not apply to private activities. The laws that the people put in place in that area seem more stringent on religious meetings to me too (but then again, I'd bet those home based businesses would love to get a hold of some of that sweet, sweet tax exemptness churches are offered).

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Just to add that here too the city officials backed down after they came under intense criticism...

Now, imagine what would have happened if there had been no public outcry... a legal precedent would have been created...

So they backed down. This proves they're wrong? No one's ever pled guilty to a lesser crime he wasn't guilty of just because the risk of going to court was too much? No company's ever paid a settlement just because they'd rather avoid a fight that could cost them more (even when the suit was borderline frivolous)?

You've got it backward about the legal precedent. Had there been no public outcry, they'd either have been forced to get the permits they were supposed to get or stop running the church (or, I guess, pay fines indefinitely). No legal precedent would have been set. But thanks to the knee jerk wannabe martyr public outcry, there has been one set. Religions can bully their way through ignoring local ordinances in that area (as opposed to complying with or trying to change them like anyone else). Congrats.

[Jor-el]

sam12six, on 22 February 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

If this is true, I don't like the law either and hope they change it.



So the local law is that they can't have a church (as defined by their law) in a single family home? This means these people were breaking the law, right?



Things haven't changed from a couple of sentences ago right? It's still illegal to operate a church out of a home there? So these church activities (which the crass might point to as "operating a church") cannot be performed from a home...



As I mentioned, churches and businesses are unique legal entities. Things that apply to churches might not apply to businesses and things that apply to businesses might not apply to private activities. The laws that the people put in place in that area seem more stringent on religious meetings to me too (but then again, I'd bet those home based businesses would love to get a hold of some of that sweet, sweet tax exemptness churches are offered).



So they backed down. This proves they're wrong? No one's ever pled guilty to a lesser crime he wasn't guilty of just because the risk of going to court was too much? No company's ever paid a settlement just because they'd rather avoid a fight that could cost them more (even when the suit was borderline frivolous)?

You've got it backward about the legal precedent. Had there been no public outcry, they'd either have been forced to get the permits they were supposed to get or stop running the church (or, I guess, pay fines indefinitely). No legal precedent would have been set. But thanks to the knee jerk wannabe martyr public outcry, there has been one set. Religions can bully their way through ignoring local ordinances in that area (as opposed to complying with or trying to change them like anyone else). Congrats.

There is not alot more I can say after you have shown your opinion here. It's a real doozy.

When they start enacting laws that demonstrably can be abused and we have people clapping and saying, serves them right they should have obeyed the law, then when one day it comes knocking on their doorstep, they shouldn't complain.

When religion fights back for its freedom, then it is simply ignoring the law... that it had to fight back at all simply passes people by...

[Beckys_Mom]

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

Wrong BM,
That is the religious definition of a church.(SNIP)

It is a general definition that I have looked up  .  and a religious definition... And if it is just a religious definition, then this Christian group would have known that ...Funny how people like to pick out what suits  when they face trouble...    Also  Lest say it is not  any of those..  It was still a matter of a large gathering  done twice a week   with no permit  and so on...

"Here is the church. Here is the steeple. Look inside and see all the people…" Church is one of those words that, I think, generates a lot of tension with its usage. On one hand, the Church is a group of people. This is made clear in passages such as 1 Peter where the Church is referred to as the 'living stones' or in 1 Corinthians as 'the body of Christ'. Scripture also uses other relational metaphors such as referring to the Church as the Bride of Christ for which Jesus returns in Revelation. The Church is a collection of people who in a variety of ways worship, have faith, and ascribe to the Christian belief system.
However, the church is also a building. The church may or may not have a spire, pews, an altar, or stained glass. The church may be old or new   ...........   http://www.transposi...andor-building/

You seem very keen on picking out what you want to tag on to , like  what the legal system says in ref to Church.... ...But other things the legal system may say if it doesn't suit you ..you take a different attitude ....

Fact remains... any group meetings with more than X amount of people regularly  is still  not legal...    More so up to 50 or more done twice a week like they did...  Anyone can complain  and protest the issue   ( which you have done  hence the reason for the OP) ,  but your arguments so far have not been strong enough...... All I can see is someone not wanting to look at other views and the bigger picture .. You have demonstrated this from the moment you posted this OP  to be fair and honest.........But  the laws apply to all... This entire thing is in no way an act of any religious discrimination........

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 23 February 2012 - 12:08 AM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Well it seems these incidents just keep happening, is this a fashion trend in the US nowadays?

They wouldn't keep happening  if people did it all above board....   And it is not just the US that will act upon it.. I have seen it done over ere a couple of times or more...

Actually  the Christian family I spoke about  earlier in  this thread   ( The Rogers ).. they were doing the same thing...   In my old street,  filled with Christians ..  It was the Christian neighbors that rang in the complaints and  made themselves known.. . .  So it goes to show you, that Christians will in fact make complaints about other Christians ...This is a fact of life..  

It is funny the sec  someone complains about a Christian , it must have been from an anti Christian as voiced by so many biased people...  Singled out  . The same ole line over and over .... When in fact  many Christians will complain about their fellow Christians if they feel they need to.. and that includes for holding  illegal group meetings  regularly in their homes ....

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 23 February 2012 - 12:09 AM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

It's a big liberal conspiracy to create a fascist state!
Gov'ment tryin' take my jesus away!

[sam12six]

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

There is not alot more I can say after you have shown your opinion here. It's a real doozy.

I know, right?!? The opinion that responsible citizens should either settle for or attempt to change a law as opposed to simply breaking it is pretty out there. What can I say? I'm a wild-eyed radical...

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

When they start enacting laws that demonstrably can be abused and we have people clapping and saying, serves them right they should have obeyed the law, then when one day it comes knocking on their doorstep, they shouldn't complain.

I agree with that statement. Do you not agree with the statement that someone who ignores the ramifications of breaking a law should pay the penalties laid down in that law?

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

When religion fights back for its freedom, then it is simply ignoring the law... that it had to fight back at all simply passes people by...

When people ignore a law, it's choosing to break the law. Fighting for their freedom would have been speaking out at city council meetings, circulating petitions, trying to change the law. These are local codes we're talking about (as has already been pointed out). Just like the people of the town might pass a law that an elephant can't be tied up in your front yard, they have passed a law that you cannot have a church in your house and defined what they mean by a church.

A person tying an elephant up in his front yard in the face of these laws shouldn't be able to cry martyrdom and anti-elephant haters, a person building a church attached to his house shouldn't be able to cry martyrdom and anti-Christian persecution. (Well, they should be able to do it, the rest of the world should just laugh at them for being stupid).

[aquatus1]

I find this case interesting because it is one of the very few cases of this type that is an actual business issue (i.e., not having the proper permits to operate a business out of your home).  Most of these cases are residential issues (parking, crowds, property value, etc.)

[Copasetic]

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

There is not alot more I can say after you have shown your opinion here. It's a real doozy.

When they start enacting laws that demonstrably can be abused and we have people clapping and saying, serves them right they should have obeyed the law, then when one day it comes knocking on their doorstep, they shouldn't complain.

When religion fights back for its freedom, then it is simply ignoring the law... that it had to fight back at all simply passes people by...

Jor-el, your posts on this topic seem to indicate you view all American government as the same entity--Its not, you need to get over that if you believe so.

These were, as others have pointed out, local laws put into place by local members of the community.

When people don't like local laws in the states, know what they do? Get elected to their local government to change them. Or propose at city meetings, new legislation to be enacted. If that is too complicated for you, maybe staying out of American government (or in deed, America even) is a good idea for you.