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

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;.

Congress has made no law in the case before us. So far, so good. When California first became a state, it could have supported churches by taxation outright if its people had wanted to, or anything else its people felt like doing about religion. Having found the First Amendment, you might want to keep reading through to the Ninth and Tenth.

However, decades after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and shortly after California became a state, the United States collapsed into a Civil War. Afterwards, the newly reunited United States amended its Constitution to provide the following:

XIV.1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Notice that this does not say "What Congress cannot do, neither can any state nor its civil divisions do." But it does say that the state must protect both property and liberty. Hmm. That even sounds like it might be tricky to do both.

The purpose of zoning is to protect property, and specifically its market value. Whether it is effective or wise is a political question, but its permissibility is not a legal question. It is permissible. It follows that you cannot open a church anywhere you happen to own property. In general, in protecting the free exercise of religion, a state may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Place = zoning.

So, in the case before us, we never reach whether it was the parking, or the noise, or the traffic density. Residential zoning means that property owners have paid a premuim for living in an area where their neighbors' property is "almost" exclusively used for human habitation. The owners are taxed based on the market value of their property, which includes that premium. Thus, that property interest must be a concern of the state, under the Civil War amendments.

The "almost" is wiggle room. You can have certain non-habitation uses in a residentially zoned area. It may even be desirable to have a church, or a social club, or even a small retail business serving the neighborhood. Schools, private or public, and other amenities, like parks or public gardens may also be found in residential areas. People pay a premium for that sort of thing, too.

Part of zoning administration, then, is to ensure that the residential "character" of a residential zone is maintained, and that variances or other exceptions to use of real property only for habitation are regulated and orderly. Ordinarily, this would include public scrutiny of zoning decisions, and one way or another, zoning administrators are accountable to the people, directly or indirectly, through election and referendum.

Although California's definition of a church may not be to everyone's taste (and by all means, feel free to emigrate to California if you'd like a vote to change their definition), the point is not to define a church for the sake of defining churches, but to distinguish a reasonable category that marks off "non-habitation" use of real property from the incidents of habitation.

You'll be happy to know that American courtrooms are considerably more efficient than internet forums in handling things. Total bull manure like "Well, there are four people in my family, and we pray every night, so now we're a church" will not be litigated. What is incidental to habitation is inherently permissible in a residential zone, not because it's religious, but because it's incidental to habitation, the preservation of which character is the purpose of the regulation. Judges are fully capable of following that thought from beginning to end, and will rule accordingly.

Having thirty to fifty people over twice a week is not incidental to the use of the property for habitation. It will be regulated, and since the purpose of the gatherings is religious, it will be called, for the convenience of the lawyers on both sides, a church.

Which brings us to what actually happened here. Nobody was shut down. A church is potentially a kind of amenity in a residential zone. It may well qualify for a variance, but the burden is on the non-conforming user to get right with the law. In this case, the owner decided to flaunt the law, and to wait for the organs of the state to catch up.

A token fine was imposed, and a "clock" of escalating finanical liability started. These are rotuine enforcement tools in many kinds of administrative law, including zoning.

If the non-conforming user had delayed further in getting right with the law, then the cumulative fine would eventually have been substantial. That didn't happen, the non-conforming user was prompt in approaching the zoning agency, once the authorities got wise to what was going on, and so both the initial fine was waived and the clock of escalation stopped, pending negotiation in good faith to reach an equitable, orderly and well-regulated outcome.

What has the non-conforming use being religious to do with anything that happened? Not a damned thing. If the non-conforming use was biweekly Iraq War Veterans gatherings (a social club, also a potential amenity), then the same things would have happened.

From the Foutheenth Amendment perspective, the non-conforming user can neither get anything nor suffer anything for the specifically religious character of the non-conforming use. The church must be treated as the potential amenity but facial departure from habitation that it is, the same as the hypothetical homebrew Iraq War Veterans social club would be treated.

In any case, home Bible study is legal in the United States. The subtitle of this thread is a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

This isnt a public gathering BM. This is people who have decided to hold bible studies in thier private home. Until the rights of others are in violation, this is no one's business. In this case, as decided by the councle its self, there was no such violations. If this wasnt about descrimination, it would be happening to people who have weekend BBQ's. Or who regularly hold Amway meetings ect ect ect. And with statements like this

“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.

He wasnt even saying they were a church. He is saying that having a gathering that even associates with church activity is prohibited. That is far over reaching power not granted to any state.

The constitution is there for a reason also. Its to make sure that people dont have to deal with things like this.

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

It isnt the home owners who are violating the law. The law created by the state is in violation of the highest law in the land. They were called out on it, and knew they had no case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that in the city of Chicago it is Illegal to Fish in a pong from the back of a Giraffe??

That is a crazy law, it makes people say that it couldn't be a real law. However, that law had to have come from somewhere. Maybe a drunken frat bet gone wrong (if the initial is wrong enough).

O.C. California has laws like that in effect for a reason. The Giraffe law of Chicago was created 60 some years before I was born.

O.C. May have had this legal permit and such law in effect Long before these people lived there, and they were born there this law may have been created before they where born.

I do however not agree with "it's a church". I have to agree and it has been said several times before, It all comes down to parking.

ALSO!!!

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This where people get a little dumb (and I mean no offense). The first While the first amendment indeed protects your religious right, the part in there about the Government: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Means that you are free to worship as you please, The government can not create a state sponsored religion. Other words they cannot tell you, you HAVE to worship this faith.

As stated by several people there is more to this story then what is being told.

and By the way the Government can deny the building of a church in a certain place, just as they can deny anything else. The generally do not but they can. And I have examples.

Edited by Mobhitmusicman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress has made no law in the case before us. So far, so good. When California first became a state, it could have supported churches by taxation outright if its people had wanted to, or anything else its people felt like doing about religion. Having found the First Amendment, you might want to keep reading through to the Ninth and Tenth.

However, decades after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and shortly after California became a state, the United States collapsed into a Civil War. Afterwards, the newly reunited United States amended its Constitution to provide the following:

XIV.1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Notice that this does not say "What Congress cannot do, neither can any state nor its civil divisions do." But it does say that the state must protect both property and liberty. Hmm. That even sounds like it might be tricky to do both.

The purpose of zoning is to protect property, and specifically its market value. Whether it is effective or wise is a political question, but its permissibility is not a legal question. It is permissible. It follows that you cannot open a church anywhere you happen to own property. In general, in protecting the free exercise of religion, a state may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Place = zoning.

So, in the case before us, we never reach whether it was the parking, or the noise, or the traffic density. Residential zoning means that property owners have paid a premuim for living in an area where their neighbors' property is "almost" exclusively used for human habitation. The owners are taxed based on the market value of their property, which includes that premium. Thus, that property interest must be a concern of the state, under the Civil War amendments.

The "almost" is wiggle room. You can have certain non-habitation uses in a residentially zoned area. It may even be desirable to have a church, or a social club, or even a small retail business serving the neighborhood. Schools, private or public, and other amenities, like parks or public gardens may also be found in residential areas. People pay a premium for that sort of thing, too.

Part of zoning administration, then, is to ensure that the residential "character" of a residential zone is maintained, and that variances or other exceptions to use of real property only for habitation are regulated and orderly. Ordinarily, this would include public scrutiny of zoning decisions, and one way or another, zoning administrators are accountable to the people, directly or indirectly, through election and referendum.

Although California's definition of a church may not be to everyone's taste (and by all means, feel free to emigrate to California if you'd like a vote to change their definition), the point is not to define a church for the sake of defining churches, but to distinguish a reasonable category that marks off "non-habitation" use of real property from the incidents of habitation.

You'll be happy to know that American courtrooms are considerably more efficient than internet forums in handling things. Total bull manure like "Well, there are four people in my family, and we pray every night, so now we're a church" will not be litigated. What is incidental to habitation is inherently permissible in a residential zone, not because it's religious, but because it's incidental to habitation, the preservation of which character is the purpose of the regulation. Judges are fully capable of following that thought from beginning to end, and will rule accordingly.

Having thirty to fifty people over twice a week is not incidental to the use of the property for habitation. It will be regulated, and since the purpose of the gatherings is religious, it will be called, for the convenience of the lawyers on both sides, a church.

Which brings us to what actually happened here. Nobody was shut down. A church is potentially a kind of amenity in a residential zone. It may well qualify for a variance, but the burden is on the non-conforming user to get right with the law. In this case, the owner decided to flaunt the law, and to wait for the organs of the state to catch up.

A token fine was imposed, and a "clock" of escalating finanical liability started. These are rotuine enforcement tools in many kinds of administrative law, including zoning.

If the non-conforming user had delayed further in getting right with the law, then the cumulative fine would eventually have been substantial. That didn't happen, the non-conforming user was prompt in approaching the zoning agency, once the authorities got wise to what was going on, and so both the initial fine was waived and the clock of escalation stopped, pending negotiation in good faith to reach an equitable, orderly and well-regulated outcome.

What has the non-conforming use being religious to do with anything that happened? Not a damned thing. If the non-conforming use was biweekly Iraq War Veterans gatherings (a social club, also a potential amenity), then the same things would have happened.

From the Foutheenth Amendment perspective, the non-conforming user can neither get anything nor suffer anything for the specifically religious character of the non-conforming use. The church must be treated as the potential amenity but facial departure from habitation that it is, the same as the hypothetical homebrew Iraq War Veterans social club would be treated.

In any case, home Bible study is legal in the United States. The subtitle of this thread is a lie.

Its not as easy as all that eight. The amendment says congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exorcise thereof. It is established as a right, a freedom according to the bill of rights, is not to be infringed. The state has no power to side step the constitution. Heck the federal government exorcises powers over the state NOT directly supported by the constitution (which of course is unconstitutional). Just look at Pot laws. States have made smoking pot legal in some cases. But that doesnt stop the federal government from raiding folks who grow, and sell for the state. And that isnt even specificaly granted to the fed. Freedom to gather for religious purposes very much is. In fact it was top priority, being the very first amendment.

Anyone who knows me here knows I am all for state rights. But in the case of religious freedom, it is strictly a federal matter. Cali knows this, and thats why they backed off. They knew they had no case.

And the title of this thread isnt off at all. There very much was a attempt to make home bible studies illegal. Just listen to what they directly 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.

This statment doesnt even try to make a argument regarding the number of people allowed, parking, traffice, noise ect ect. You could take this to mean you couldnt have a single person over your privatly owned home for a bible study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that in the city of Chicago it is Illegal to Fish in a pong from the back of a Giraffe??

That is a crazy law, it makes people say that it couldn't be a real law. However, that law had to have come from somewhere. Maybe a drunken frat bet gone wrong (if the initial is wrong enough).

O.C. California has laws like that in effect for a reason. The Giraffe law of Chicago was created 60 some years before I was born.

O.C. May have had this legal permit and such law in effect Long before these people lived there, and they were born there this law may have been created before they where born.

I do however not agree with "it's a church". I have to agree and it has been said several times before, It all comes down to parking.

ALSO!!!

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This where people get a little dumb (and I mean no offense). The first While the first amendment indeed protects your religious right, the part in there about the Government: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Means that you are free to worship as you please, The government can not create a state sponsored religion. Other words they cannot tell you, you HAVE to worship this faith.

As stated by several people there is more to this story then what is being told.

and By the way the Government can deny the building of a church in a certain place, just as they can deny anything else. The generally do not but they can. And I have examples.

Again, parking has nothing to do with it. The home owners had people park on thier property. They werent parked on the street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not as easy as all that eight. The amendment says congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exorcise thereof. It is established as a right, a freedom according to the bill of rights, is not to be infringed. The state has no power to side step the constitution. Heck the federal government exorcises powers over the state NOT directly supported by the constitution (which of course is unconstitutional). Just look at Pot laws. States have made smoking pot legal in some cases. But that doesnt stop the federal government from raiding folks who grow, and sell for the state. And that isnt even specificaly granted to the fed. Freedom to gather for religious purposes very much is. In fact it was top priority, being the very first amendment.

Anyone who knows me here knows I am all for state rights. But in the case of religious freedom, it is strictly a federal matter. Cali knows this, and thats why they backed off. They knew they had no case.

And the title of this thread isnt off at all. There very much was a attempt to make home bible studies illegal. Just listen to what they directly 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.

This statment doesnt even try to make a argument regarding the number of people allowed, parking, traffice, noise ect ect. You could take this to mean you couldnt have a single person over your privatly owned home for a bible study.

No One Is trampling on Freedoms, More to the Story then meets the eye. Jeez no one can do anything slightly "off" in this country without it being an Attack on Christianity. Get over yourselves!!! You have it made!! No one stands up for Pagans when someone discriminates them. Christians wanna stop the building of the Mosque near ground zero, Christians want to ban Gay Marriage, Christians want to stop the rights of women to have abortions. But one little move against 40 Christians and It's a war on Christianity. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSES, PAGANS and JEWS were here long before Christianity, and No one NO ONE stands up for our RIGHTS!!

I Don't mean to offend, but I am seriously tired of people and these crusades saying they have every right in the world, screw everyone else because we Believe in this and they believe in something different so they are wrong. Yeesh!! this is why I don't come into this section of the boards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not as easy as all that eight.

Nobody said it was easy, preacherman. Zoning is tricky stuff.

Two points: First, my example of the Iraq War Veterans biweekly bash wasn't casually chosen. That Constitution, one line of which you have clearly mastered, has many other lines as well. Look no further than the rest of the paragraph:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A social club, like the IWV, has as much right as a church to come together in a residential zone. Whatever is done in the one case must be done in the other. The church group cannot be favored ahead of the social club because it is a church group, nor treated worse, either.

It is perfectly obvious that the state can regulate the activities of the IWV. It follows that the state has the same powers with respect to this church. And the members of the social club have the same rights as the members of the church. Identical rights and identical powers all around.

Everything is the same. Which brings us to:

Second, the lie that the zoning administrators "lost" simply extends the original lie that the zoning administrators tried to shut down the church in the first place. The zoning administrators, the ones in the real world, wanted only that the property owner recognize the claims of the law on the non-habitation uses of their property, which is located in a residential zone. And yes, the scope of the administrators' concern is all non-habitation uses of the property. Duh.

When the administrators got what they actually sought, they did what they would do for the IWV. They dropped the token fine, stopped the liability escalation clock, and arranged to pursue an orderly resolution of the problem, which is ongoing (a situation likely to persist, too; zoning wrangles can be interminable, but even a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, in this case, the church admitting that it needs to conform with the law just like everyone else).

In any case, home bible studies are legal in the United States. The subtitle of the thread says otherwise. Its author knows that the truth is otherwise. The subtitle of this thread is a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody said it was easy, preacherman. Zoning is tricky stuff.

Two points: First, my example of the Iraq War Veterans biweekly bash wasn't casually chosen. That Constitution, one line of which you have clearly mastered, has many other lines as well. Look no further than the rest of the paragraph:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A social club, like the IWV, has as much right as a church to come together in a residential zone. Whatever is done in the one case must be done in the other. The church group cannot be favored ahead of the social club because it is a church group, nor treated worse, either.

It is perfectly obvious that the state can regulate the activities of the IWV. It follows that the state has the same powers with respect to this church. And the members of the social club have the same rights as the members of the church. Identical rights and identical powers all around.

Everything is the same. Which brings us to:

Second, the lie that the zoning administrators "lost" simply extends the original lie that the zoning administrators tried to shut down the church in the first place. The zoning administrators, the ones in the real world, wanted only that the property owner recognize the claims of the law on the non-habitation uses of their property, which is located in a residential zone. And yes, the scope of the administrators' concern is all non-habitation uses of the property. Duh.

When the administrators got what they actually sought, they did what they would do for the IWV. They dropped the token fine, stopped the liability escalation clock, and arranged to pursue an orderly resolution of the problem, which is ongoing (a situation likely to persist, too; zoning wrangles can be interminable, but even a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, in this case, the church admitting that it needs to conform with the law just like everyone else).

In any case, home bible studies are legal in the United States. The subtitle of the thread says otherwise. Its author knows that the truth is otherwise. The subtitle of this thread is a lie.

Excellent. :)

Christians being targeted and harassed by the government? Let's see who else feels the same way?

FBI Teaches Agents "Mainstream" Muslims are Violent; Radical

FDLS Being Unfairly Targeted

Jews

Scientologists feel persecuted, heck just about every religious group feels targeted these days.

Muslims targeting Christians, Christians targeting Muslims, atheists targeting all religions.

It's paranoia being fed by the media. Nothing more.

I stand by my statement that the incident is NOT religiously biased. It's greed.

Like my example in my neighborhood, it was a nuisance complaint. The bible study each week increased noise and traffic. More than what was considered "normal" in a residential area.

Can ANYONE give me the exact citation the Fromm's received? So far the quoted code is far too broad in definitions.

This isn't a constitutional violation, it isn't a religious attack, it's a cash strapped community government that screwed up and now has to publicly eat it's own words.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent. :)

Christians being targeted and harassed by the government? Let's see who else feels the same way?

FBI Teaches Agents "Mainstream" Muslims are Violent; Radical

FDLS Being Unfairly Targeted

Jews

Scientologists feel persecuted, heck just about every religious group feels targeted these days.

Muslims targeting Christians, Christians targeting Muslims, atheists targeting all religions.

It's paranoia being fed by the media. Nothing more.

I dont understand how you can call it paranoia nibs. In each of those articles it showed that religious persecution was going on. Especialy the one about the jews on the subject of nazi Germany.

I stand by my statement that the incident is NOT religiously biased. It's greed.

Like my example in my neighborhood, it was a nuisance complaint. The bible study each week increased noise and traffic. More than what was considered "normal" in a residential area.

Can ANYONE give me the exact citation the Fromm's received? So far the quoted code is far too broad in definitions.

This isn't a constitutional violation, it isn't a religious attack, it's a cash strapped community government that screwed up and now has to publicly eat it's own words.

Nibs

I dont know exactly what the citation was. From what I understand it was holding a church service in a residencial neighborhood without a permit. Im nearly certain it said nothing about noise or traffic. They werent having a concert. I just read comments like,

“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.

And I have to believe there is at least the possibility there was intentional descrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta get back to you later 8. That post is gonna take some disecting ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand how you can call it paranoia nibs. In each of those articles it showed that religious persecution was going on. Especialy the one about the jews on the subject of nazi Germany.

I dont know exactly what the citation was. From what I understand it was holding a church service in a residencial neighborhood without a permit. Im nearly certain it said nothing about noise or traffic. They werent having a concert. I just read comments like,

“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.

And I have to believe there is at least the possibility there was intentional descrimination.

:) My point was that there isn't a concentrated attack on ONLY christians. All religions are feeling and many sects are claiming unfair targeting. (I think I linked the wrong thing on the Jewish groups. The article I found referred to recent targeting.)

I read the codes that have been quoted and they don't really say anything like what Mr. Milillo said so I'm not sure.

I gotta get back to you later 8. That post is gonna take some disecting ;)

:) No worries!

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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........

When a law, does not allow you to practice your faith in your own home, no matter the motive given it is religious descrimination. If you are not harming anybody, if you are not annoying your neighbours with singing, shouting or just a ruckus due to the number of people, then it becomes religious descrimination when the authorities fine you and shut you down, especiaaly if the next door neighbour has a troop of scouts over in his backyard ever weekend for a barbecue and the police do NOT act in the same fashion toward them.

As you well know, when one is speaking of religion, one uses the term church to apply to the whole body of believers, it is the church of christ. When we are dealing with legal issues, it is the legal definition that will apply, what exactly are we dealing with here BM, a legal issue or a religious issue?

So please sit down and think about what you are writing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ....

The point is that it was above board and they were fined for it. That the fine was withdrawn later, demonstrates that it was above board. I have never heard of a city council withdrawing a fine if it had a legal standing to proceed...

It is amazing that people don't see this, or they do but it isn't within them to accept the evidence.

Since when does a government authority back down from a battle it can win? Even when they can't, they still proceed in the hope that they can outmaneuver the complainants...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

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 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).

And the US should not have revolted against the King of England, as laid down by law... wouldn't you say that some things are more important than the laws that govern us?

They should really have remained a loyal colony... or shouldn't they?

The right to freedom, the right to have a bible study in your own home with your family and friends...

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.

Thank you Copasetic for taking time to inform me of the obvious, it sort of works that way in most of the western world.

It doesn't change the facts that both at the federal, state and the local city level, this "overzealous" attitude by authorities is becoming more evident by the day but only in regards to religious groups, the boy scouts can still meet regularly in the backyard to have a barbecue, you can still meet regularly for your weekly poker night... out on the patio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

In absolute agreement...

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. ;)

If my family consists of 4 to 6 people, then am I suddenly a church when I pray with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No One Is trampling on Freedoms, More to the Story then meets the eye. Jeez no one can do anything slightly "off" in this country without it being an Attack on Christianity. Get over yourselves!!! You have it made!! No one stands up for Pagans when someone discriminates them. Christians wanna stop the building of the Mosque near ground zero, Christians want to ban Gay Marriage, Christians want to stop the rights of women to have abortions. But one little move against 40 Christians and It's a war on Christianity. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSES, PAGANS and JEWS were here long before Christianity, and No one NO ONE stands up for our RIGHTS!!

I Don't mean to offend, but I am seriously tired of people and these crusades saying they have every right in the world, screw everyone else because we Believe in this and they believe in something different so they are wrong. Yeesh!! this is why I don't come into this section of the boards!

It is not an attack on christianity, that is what people think, but they are mistaken, it is an attack on the freedom of religion..., in this case it just happened to be with christians, but it could just as easily been muslims, Jews or anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Colorado, most boyscout/girlscout meetings take place at schools or churches. It was the same in Maine and Pennsylvania.

When my daughter was in girlscouts we used to rotate which parent hosted the special events at their home.

So I don't think it is a good comparison.

I believe this is just a situation that was blown out of proportion. The city/county/state over reacted and then retracted. The individuals targeted are using this as a preaching platform as far as I am concerned. There are means and ways (outlined in the municodes) on how to properly challenge this.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a law, does not allow you to practice your faith in your own home, no matter the motive given it is religious discrimination.

False. That is way off base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish to thank Michelle for the google link that resolves this whole hassle.

Where in the world do they have the space to park 50 cars...

It seems they have quite alot...

houseki.jpg

This is a case of religious discrimination. It started with a neighbour who complained, the police did not even go there, they did not recieve a single phone call, they were simply FINED.

The neighbour lied, when she said there was a church next door, that is why the Fromms effectively won this battle, and were refunded the money of the fines. That is why the City Council is going to review this law...

It seems laws can take on a life of their own, and in so doing, effectively stop people from gathering for a simple bible study... they proved that they were not a church my friends, the city had no business throwing this law at them.

hold on a second.... where do they have space for fifty cars? Do they own that empty space next the house as well or is that private property?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Colorado, most boyscout/girlscout meetings take place at schools or churches. It was the same in Maine and Pennsylvania.

When my daughter was in girlscouts we used to rotate which parent hosted the special events at their home.

So I don't think it is a good comparison.

I believe this is just a situation that was blown out of proportion. The city/county/state over reacted and then retracted. The individuals targeted are using this as a preaching platform as far as I am concerned. There are means and ways (outlined in the municodes) on how to properly challenge this.

Nibs

http://ladbs.org/LAD...ning_manual.pdf

Hey Nibs, I am in California this is our zoning code book for the city I am in.

Section 12:03 (PDF page 22) defines the perimeters of holding meetings in the home on a regular basis.

I'm in a beach community and the parking is a nightmare, because of this most of us are sticklers on following zoning laws.

I can tell you if anyone on my block was as holding regular meetings for any reason and it interfered with my being able to park in the evening when I get home from tutoring I'd be upset and seek to rectify it legally.

A lot of filming goes on in our city and the movie industry has to get permits if it is gonna interfere with the ability for the locals to park they have to notify us as residents, even if they are doing street work or DWP projects for any reason we have to be notified. . It doesn't matter if it's religious or not it is just an unspoken common courtesy we extend.

The majority of our parking is on the street, most of the garages are 1 car and we are allowed 2 vehicles per resident.. If someone is holding meetings regularly it is gonna be a big parking issue.

Just my 2 cents.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Colorado, most boyscout/girlscout meetings take place at schools or churches. It was the same in Maine and Pennsylvania.

When my daughter was in girlscouts we used to rotate which parent hosted the special events at their home.

So I don't think it is a good comparison.

I believe this is just a situation that was blown out of proportion. The city/county/state over reacted and then retracted. The individuals targeted are using this as a preaching platform as far as I am concerned. There are means and ways (outlined in the municodes) on how to properly challenge this.

Nibs

Of course it is a good comparison, if the scouts have a barbecue next door to you on a regular basis, since it is the home of one of the members, then the comparison is correct. The point is that we don't hear of people being told they can't have the scouts over for a barbecue, because it is a private residence and you need a permit for doing so.

I would agree though that this is cused by overzealous officials, but the fact that it can be abused in a way to take away a right as given by the US constitution (and common sense), and as multiple examples in a number of states demonstrate, it can be used as a tool for religious persecution.

I see it this way, since they can't get you directly, they will use the tools available to them to do so, even if it means abusing laws that were not meant to be used in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a law, does not allow you to practice your faith in your own home, no matter the motive given it is religious descrimination.

No one is stopping them for ever holding a religious meeting in their home as long as they do it like everyone else has to

Why should the rest of the Christians who gather up in groups to attend bible meetings all need to have permits and make sure they have it all above board and these Christians don't' ? Why is is fair to make way for one group you like to support and not the rest of the Christians that do it the proper route? And do not tell me other Christians who attend their little bible meetings do not have to pay anything, I know for a fact they do... I have asked you this question 3 times do far, care to respond this time?

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False. That is way off base.

How so?

What authority does the state have to regulate what happens in the privacy of your home, especially when the usual laws concerning parking, noise and being a nuisance to your neighbours do not apply since they are not the issue?

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.