Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Jor-el

The Land of the Free? Not so Much!

340 posts in this topic

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 w00t.gif

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

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? ..

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...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

“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...

“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).

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a big liberal conspiracy to create a fascist state!

Gov'ment tryin' take my jesus away!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

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?

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if there is a conflict. Generally, federal law only applies to federal government involvement, not to local government involvement. The local and state courts decide if a law is fair and reasonable, and the underlying assumption is that the court will avoid conflicts. If there is a question regarding the constitutionality of a law, the matter is submitted to the Supreme Court, which decides if this is indeed a matter of constitutional significance.

Most of the time, the Supreme Court does not even consider the matter worth listening to. The one that make it to the floor tend to be solved in a fairly straight-forward manner, due in large part to the absolute intolerance for hand-waiving and drama of the Supreme Court judges. There are amusing past cases of judges taking the time during an overly dramatic lawyer's intro to review the facts of the case and resolve it before the opening speech was completed, but nowadays, most lawyers at that level know better than to try. Not a lot of humor at that level.

It gets more complex, of course, but basically, the idea is that the Federal Government only gets involved as much as it needs to, and no more. Most Americans do not tolerate Big Government encroachment too well.

Generally, a business is an organization engaged in the trade of goods or services. Narrowing it down a little more, a church is a legal entity that makes income (either in the form of donations or services from the congregation) and has to pay expenses (such as rent, permits, or what have you). More specifically still, in this county, a church is defined as a location which regularly hosts gatherings of a religious nature of 3 or more people.There are really no rhetorical questions when it comes to business law.

Because they meet the same qualities as every other church that is a business. Location is not specified. That the location is a private home in a residential area as opposed to a rented unit in a commercial area is not part of the definition of a business. People can have businesses based out of their homes.

The fine is for not getting a permit to function as a church. And, in all honesty, legality aside, the fine is really more for refusing to heed the warning that you need a permit to run a business out of your home. It is simply a level up in the warning system, a carrot and stick, and 9 times out of 10, when the person complies, the fine is often waived.

I know people here have been obsession about how much the county wanted the money for the fine, but...it really isn't that big a deal.

That's correct. The law doesn't care where you have the business. The business is a business regardless, and businesses need permits. Now, running a business out of your home requires a different (cheaper and simpler) permit that one for a business in a commercial zone, but you do still need to have it in order to legal run a business. There are different permits because the government recognizes the difference between running a home business and running a commercial business.

:mellow:

:huh:

Oooooh! You think "shooting" and "lassoing"...:lol:

Okay, no, that's a perfectly understandable error (particularly considering we are talking about Texans, here) yeah, no, heh, heh...okay...

"Shooting" a fish refers to Bow Fishing. It's kind of a big thing here in Texas, 'cause the fish...well, Texas fish get pretty big...

"Lassoing" a fish refers to Bringing a large fish on board with, yeah, a lasso.

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/national-geographic-channel/shows/fish-warrior/ngc-lassoing-fish/

With small fish, you can use a net, but Texas...again, things are bigger in Texas. A little net isn't going to cut it.

That said...yeah, we have our share of idiots who who were alcoholically-inspired to try to shoot a fish with a rifle, and we even have an entirely-too-Texan-to-be-real representative, who was invited to a off-shore fishing trip by his Australian friend who didn't really think through the consequences of putting a cowboy on a boat. He ended up lassoing (as in twirling a rope over his head and throwing it a good 15 feet) the largest Great White shark of that era (I think the record has been beaten, but his 19.5 footer was up there for quite some time).

Heh...no, that part is true.:lol: The laws are talking more about the...technical side of fishing (I guess? Not sure what term is for things one does in the process of catching fish)

Thank you for your information on fishing :devil: The crux for me is the statement bolded. A church cant be a home that has regular worship from a few people, if a church is also a business. There is no money concerned in any prayer meeting I have attended not even a collection. By definng a church as any place where people meet to worship, and then saying every churches is a business, the "state" creates a false connection to use for its own advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

It's polatics copa. The votes go to the most crismatic story, not necesserily to greatest good for freedom. people should be able to do whatever they want with their own property. If it does not directly infringe up on another's, then so be it. There is a price for freedom. If I don't like the neibours junk yard on his front lawn, I can move. There is a slippery slope and it has sliped in California. There certainly needs to be lines, but those lines should be set at protecting freedoms not preferences. I rather like wild plants. Most of them are edible and I consider them beautiful, but in my town if I let my lawn go wild I'll be harassed and evenchally fined. I'm not hurting anyone, or doing anything bad, I just like wild plants instead of useless pretty little flowers and cookie cutter grass. It's maddening. Can I move... Yes... But so can they. But they would evenchually force me to if I didnt conform. If something is a fire hazard... Ok then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your information on fishing :devil:

Yeah, that's one of those "Truth is stranger than fiction" type of things. :P

The crux for me is the statement bolded. A church cant be a home that has regular worship from a few people, if a church is also a business. There is no money concerned in any prayer meeting I have attended not even a collection. By definng a church as any place where people meet to worship, and then saying every churches is a business, the "state" creates a false connection to use for its own advantage.

Mr. Walker...a church is not defined as "any place where people meet to worship" in this county. The county has a very specific definition of a church:

A church is defined as a location which regularly hosts gatherings of a religious nature of 3 or more people.

It has to host gatherings. It has to be on a regular basis. They have to be religious. They have to consist of three or more people.

That is the legal, working, definition of a church in this county. Notice that the only mention of location is that there actually has to be one (To be perfectly frank, it is something generally assumed. Few business entities are metaphorical in nature.)

You can't just strip away 75% of the requirements, emphasize the one thing that is not defined, and still argue the same point as if you had the same definition. Legal definitions don't define things for the heck of it; everything they talk about is important (if it is not defined, it is referred to as a "loophole", which is a general word for finding a cheat code out of a particular legal responsibility because someone forgot to define it).

If a definition states the frequency, the nature, and the quantity, it means that these are important to the definition. If it does not state any requirement regarding the location (beyond y'know...existing), then one cannot assume that there is any requirement for the location.

If that is too complicated for you, maybe staying out of American government (or in deed, America even) is a good idea for you.

Tone it back a little, Copa. ;)

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's one of those "Truth is stranger than fiction" type of things. :P

Mr. Walker...a church is not defined as "any place where people meet to worship" in this county. The county has a very specific definition of a church:

A church is defined as a location which regularly hosts gatherings of a religious nature of 3 or more people.

It has to host gatherings. It has to be on a regular basis. They have to be religious. They have to consist of three or more people.

That is the legal, working, definition of a church in this county. Notice that the only mention of location is that there actually has to be one (To be perfectly frank, it is something generally assumed. Few business entities are metaphorical in nature.)

You can't just strip away 75% of the requirements, emphasize the one thing that is not defined, and still argue the same point as if you had the same definition. Legal definitions don't define things for the heck of it; everything they talk about is important (if it is not defined, it is referred to as a "loophole", which is a general word for finding a cheat code out of a particular legal responsibility because someone forgot to define it).

If a definition states the frequency, the nature, and the quantity, it means that these are important to the definition. If it does not state any requirement regarding the location (beyond y'know...existing), then one cannot assume that there is any requirement for the location.

Tone it back a little, Copa. ;)

I still have a problem seeing the words make the same meaning as you seem to get from them

A church is defined as a location which regularly hosts gatherings of a religious nature of 3 or more people.
is a ridiculous definition, that would make half the houses in some towns, churches. For example, any family, with more than 3 family members visiting, who pray together each day, is technically living in a church. And according to the other law, that house and family would, technically, have to meet the same legal requirements as a formal church, including getting a permit for saying grace. :devil: Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To speak about laws in general and why they are in place....

The laws are placed for a reason

Yes they are. In this case its so they can trample on the constitution. Which clearly says,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.

All states are united under the constitution. Because its a amendment, the federal government has the only say in the matter. A state doesnt have the power to over turn the constitution. They already have a permit, the highest law in the land.

For example, 0bama took AZ to court over new immigration laws past by the state. He claims that immigration laws can only be enforced by the federal government. And he won. Personaly I disagree with the outcome, cause the power to enforce immigration isnt specificaly granted to the federal government in any founding document. But if 0bama decided to take THIS matter to court, it would be a easy win. Matters of religous freedom are granted souly to the federal government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is all well and good.. But When you buy your car, you pay for the road tax, the MOT and the insurance for each year, and it keeps right with in that law, it is your property, you own it.. right?..

Well...that is all fine but what if you break the laws while in your own car? ..... If you are driving without a seat belt? Drink driving? Speeding? going too slow? driving while eating or holding a cell phone up to your ear ? Parking in no parking spaces and so on..

The question therefore would be - What do you suppose can happen to you if you are reported by a local citizen or the cops catch you out ?

Do you think that if it your own property you can do as you please ?.... Truth is you are not safe from the law if you do break other rules whist on or in your property.....

Laws in general no matter where you are, . If there are rules / laws to follow... Then they are all made for a good reason... We might not think so for many of them, some do in fact sound ridiculous and petty, but unfortunately if they are set in your area, you still have to abide by them...

Vehicle laws are not a matter of federal authority though BM. Its within the power of the state to set vehicle laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still have a problem seeing the words make the same meaning as you seem to get from them

I am honestly not able to see them in any other way. Perhaps I am simply just used to how legal definitions are presented (I am a marketing and negotiation teacher). For me, it is so clear and straight-forward that I have difficulty understanding where any confusion might be. Simply put, it means exactly what it says; there is no interpretation to be made (interpreting a definition kind of defeats the purpose of a definition).

is a ridiculous definition, that would make half the houses in some towns, churches.

So, in your town, the locals (including the local businessmen) would not vote that in as a definition of a church for legal purposes. In this county in California, they did. Their choice.

For example, any family, with more than 3 family members visiting, who pray together each day, is technically living in a church. And according to the other law, that house and family would, technically, have to meet the same legal requirements as a formal church,

Like I mentioned before, it is a bit more complicated than that. As much time as we are spending on the definition of "church" in this county, keep in mind that...all it is is the definition of "church" in this county. It is just one tiny part of the entire business law system.

Heck, you wouldn't even need a business lawyer. You could just go to the judge and show that everyone there is a member of your family, and you do have a family tradition of getting together and praying every day. Chances are pretty good the judge will believe you. They will probably also note that you went above and beyond in your efforts to avoid inconveniencing your neighbors by building a tiny parking lot on your property.

Would you still be classified as a church? Yes. Would the law apply to you? No. You convinced the judge you aren't running it as a business. It's just a family thing.

People have a habit of thinking of the law as some immovable line carved in stone. It isn't. It's more like a string laid on the ground. There is plenty of wiggle room on either side, as long as you are willing to be reasonable about it.

including getting a permit for saying grace. devil.gif

No permit needed for saying grace. Never has been, never will be. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are. In this case its so they can trample on the constitution. Which clearly says,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.

What you have not considered is - This quote from the constitution, says nothing about causing any violation of traffic laws, environmental impact, the rights to free excess of wheel chair users, That is what this permit ensures, that all these conditions are met before the permit can be issued ...The law is in no way against being religious, holding religious gathering or practising your faith in any way.. as long as you do it above board..

The permit is there for the reason to ensure the rights and safety of the neighboring residential community

Vehicle laws are not a matter of federal authority though BM. Its within the power of the state to set vehicle laws.

It does not matter the laws are all there for a reason.. The fact you were pushing out a statement saying that it is their property they should be able to do as they please.. I had to point out to you that no that is not the case.. Just because it is your property, whether it be your home, your car, your caravan / trailer.. it does not mean you can still break the laws of the land whist using or in your property.. This is a fact.. not an opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Problem here is the local law is unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Any question of whether or not this is a case of descrimination can be put to bed after reading that statement. This is without a doubt descrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.