The Land of the Free? Not so Much!

[Mr Walker]

I consider it neither brave not an opinion. I consider it fact that governments hold life and death power over every citizen. You did not ask if I like oppressive laws. You asked if I really believe they had the power to make and enforce them - that's pretty much the definition of government.

I choose to surrender nothing. I choose to see reality, and the reality is that if you dislike your local laws, your options are: suck it up and deal, protest them, or break them. If I read a story about people who have a handful of friends over to study the bible and are protesting the law says they can't, I'll applaud them. If I read a forum post that people who have essentially built a church attached to their home, have twice a week services consisting of dozens of people, and have been asked to secure the permits their activities require are being persecuted because they're religious, I'll argue if I disagree.

My apologies . Your surrender has been to fatalism and acceptance. Nothing more.

No! Western governments do not have anything like the sort of powers you assume, not even now. Try living in stalinist russia or mao's china or in north korea.

I am still, basically, completely free, There are very very few practical restrictions on me or what I do, or how i act .I am restricted mostly by my own ethics and moralities, far more than any form of govt control.

I dont have to go to war if it is against my beliefs. I dont even have to go to school in a formal sense, if i am a child. I can chose where i live, what i do, read eat or view, and with whom I associate (or not) In practical terms there are very few govt compulsions on me, and most can be side stepped by personal choices Eg i can avoid paying taxes by a variety of legal strategems if i chose to. I can avoid almost every govt control by living in a quiet country town without restrictive ordinances Heck I went without even filing a tax return for 14 years, despite working for the govt, and when i did the govt paid me 5000 dollars for doing so.

I can drive anywhere in australia, stop anywhere i like, and never have to show any form of identity. I have been asked for proof of identity by the police 3 times in 40 years. EAch time after getting a speeding ticket, which i deserved in each case because i was inattentive ( I have no objection to laws which rightly punish physically dangerous behaviour In fact i think there should be more of them)

No one else has ever asked me to prove my identity, other than when engaging in private financial transactions such as banking or getting a loan.

Come and live in Australia.

Ps I am too old to worry much about the future direction of my society, but i continue to fight the gradual erosion of the liberties I grew up with, and which my ancestors enjoyed for several generations. i chose a gandian form of civil disobedience or ev more sublte resistance Since we had to give a name when buying a mobile phone (In about 2005) i gace up buying them for myself and give a false name when I bought one for my wife.

Since they introduced security checks such as body scans at major airports, I stopped flying (better for the environment also, anyway) Until now most local and regional airports dont have such checks but it is coming. My opinon is that this is a form of surender to terrorism, and we would be beter off accpeting some casualities and retaining a free ability to travel.

Such restrictions do not really impact on me. I dont fly using aircraft and If i need to travel physically I prefer to drive. I tis quite normal for an austrlana to drive 500 miles or so in a day. Heck of a lot cheaper alos. I can take four of us comfortably to our capital city about 650 kilometers away in a little over 6 hours, for a total cost of about 60 dollars, without anyone knowing where we are going. To fly those people there would cost almost a thousand dollars, involve a lot of invasive checks, and still take a couple of hours getting from one destination to the other. A round trip for us all, is 120 dollars plus a meal or two, compared to nearly 2000 dollars. Economics is often the greatest influence on freedom in a western democracy. With money you are free, without it you lose many freedoms of choice.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Mr Walker

[sam12six]

Funny how there doesn't seem to be any political correctness when it comes to religion. Lately you can trash and vilify religion in ways that you could never do to other ethnic groups. It's interesting how that shift seems to happen. I remember it being the otherway when I was a child. But generalizations and insults directed at "delusional" Christians. Seems to be happening more and more. Sigh.

You're right. I believe it's exactly like race in the US. For a long time, white men held all the power in the country and now it's OK to make fun of them but not for them to make fun of other races (or women). How many black comedians have you heard start a joke with something like, "Black people beat they kids, don't they?"? If a white, male comedian tried that, he get lynched by the press even if he managed to escape being lynched by the audience.

Similarly, religion (Christianity in the US) has held a commanding seat of power in most of the world for several hundred years. As more power is gained by non-Christians, there's a similar taboo where it's OK to make fun of Christians, but they're bullies if they make fun of anyone else.

Mr Walker,

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm happy you live in a state of what you consider freedom. I also do pretty much what I want without running afoul of regulation. That doesn't change the fact that all "rights" we have are rights the government can take away. I'm not saying that's good or inevitable. I'm saying that's the definition of government - to force people to act within certain guidelines. Those guidelines can become draconian (and I believe they are) but even a complete replacement of the government will simply replace them with other guidelines. I don't see how you interpret my recognizing this as a surrender to anything.

[Cassea]

The solution to inequity or oppression is not to turn around. And start oppressing the descendants of those who had power. That kind of power shift creates situations like Rwanda. The solution to oppression is to learn and to move forward. Not to try to get evens. Not try to make innocent people pay. For the sins of their fathers and grandfathers.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Cassea

[_Only]

Funny how there doesn't seem to be any political correctness when it comes to religion. Lately you can trash and vilify religion in ways that you could never do to other ethnic groups. It's interesting how that shift seems to happen. I remember it being the otherway when I was a child. But generalizations and insults directed at "delusional" Christians. Seems to be happening more and more. Sigh.

Society is evolving.

Years and years and years of "anything we do is right and justified, in the name of our religion" has dropped like a bomb all throughout history. This can only happen so many times before society takes notice and changes their stance.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Jerry Only

[aquatus1]

You stated:

Now answer my questrion...

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

Like I said, do not waste my time asking me to repeat things that I have already explained in length simply because you are more concerned with winning an argument than discussing it.

Do not respond to my posts without first reading them. Not just the one sentence that you obsessively fixate on. Everything.

[GoldenWolf]

Society is evolving.

Years and years and years of "anything we do is right and justified, in the name of our religion" has dropped like a bomb all throughout history. This can only happen so many times before society takes notice and changes their stance.

Irreversible damage has been done.

[_Only]

The solution to inequity or oppression is not to turn around. And start oppressing the descendants of those who had power. That kind of power shift creates situations like Rwanda. The solution to oppression is to learn and to move forward. Not to try to get evens. Not try to make innocent people pay. For the sins of their fathers and grandfathers.

Questioning a persons faith/belief system is far from oppression. We are lucky that we live in a society today that is allowed to do this. No one is attempting to "get even" by pointing out some logical/rational deficiencies of some peoples belief. In the end it's just people arguing over their stances; not oppression.

If by oppression, you were instead referring to the OPs claim that there is a conspiracy being ran by the U.S. government, and local city/state governments, to stop practicing religious people from gathering, well, erm...

But try not to use it as a factual argument, as it is a conspiracy theory.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Jerry Only

[Mr Walker]

Mr Walker,

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm happy you live in a state of what you consider freedom. I also do pretty much what I want without running afoul of regulation. That doesn't change the fact that all "rights" we have are rights the government can take away. I'm not saying that's good or inevitable. I'm saying that's the definition of government - to force people to act within certain guidelines. Those guidelines can become draconian (and I believe they are) but even a complete replacement of the government will simply replace them with other guidelines. I don't see how you interpret my recognizing this as a surrender to anything.

I dont see governace as you do. But then i studied it for 3 years at university, doing poitics, and I am a bit more sympathetic to it. Governments cant really take away from people any rights we do not surrender to them. Governments are only representatives of people. We can change them via a vote in a democracy or a revolution in a non democracy. It is not govts who have any power ove rus it is how much we are prepared to surrender to a govt. In democracies it is more about the power and pressure of a society, than a govt. The mores/ways of a people are very powerful. They can pressure, but they cannot compel, a person in a free society. It seems to me thatm in believing govt is powerful, you surrender power and authoority to it and make it so. If you do not believe it is powerful, you weaken its powers/authority, and make it less so.

Enmasse the more power we give a govt, the more powerful it becomes. The less power we give it, the less powerful it becomes. No one should ever really surrender personal power/authority to a govt, or allow it to increase its power/authority as a state, over its own people We tend to do this when we are frightened and insecure, but it a dangerous trade off to surrender our rights for the protection of a state. Sometimes it is necessarly but really very rarely.

[Rlyeh]

Funny how there doesn't seem to be any political correctness when it comes to religion. Lately you can trash and vilify religion in ways that you could never do to other ethnic groups. It's interesting how that shift seems to happen. I remember it being the otherway when I was a child. But generalizations and insults directed at "delusional" Christians. Seems to be happening more and more. Sigh.

Yeah especially when it comes to radical christians, pro-choicers are baby murderers, homosexuals should be jailed or worse, non-believers are devil worshippers.

Oh wait..

[Beckys_Mom]

Questioning a persons faith/belief system is far from oppression. We are lucky that we live in a society today that is allowed to do this. No one is attempting to "get even" by pointing out some logical/rational deficiencies of some peoples belief. In the end it's just people arguing over their stances; not oppression.

If by oppression, you were instead referring to the OPs claim that there is a conspiracy being ran by the U.S. government, and local city/state governments, to stop practicing religious people from gathering, well, erm...

But try not to use it as a factual argument, as it is a conspiracy theory.

Well written and thought out post . You are 100% correct, questioning a persons belief system is far from oppression, in fact so many Christians like to question others beliefs too, we all do it to find out more and get other points of view...

You are also correct and you make sense when you say that the OP is not some conspiracy by the government... To say that it is, would not add up,,

If the government wanted to put together a plan to rid those with religious beliefs and prevent them from having religious freedoms, then targets a family over a couple of fines and then giving in to them is hardly a top form goverment conspiracy...If it were they are not exactly putting much effort into it are they?

Discrimination, a term that is regularly used as and when it suits others.. more so with the religious from all over the world ( not all but so many of them) ... that like to use the poor we us, we are discriminated over our religious beliefs.. They all would be great on that TV show CSI... because each one of them are so good at playing the victim..

It happens over here in N.Ireland a lot ...You will hear them say - You are singling me out because I am Catholic.. You are singling me out because I am protestant.. This is non stop... Each time it is because they were caught doing wrong... If they are breaking any law, it wont matter, the discrimination cards get played.. But in a court room, it never washes

The idiots that were supporting the guy,were too daft to see that.. and they too chanted - This is discrimination... I mean how ignorant can so many people get? It never ends ...But the religious discrimination cards are always in play..

Edited February 25, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[preacherman76]

I think his comment had less to do with having being questioned about faith, and more to do with comments made in this thread telling christians they deserve to be discriminated against cause of things that happened long before any of us were born.

[preacherman76]

Yes, a state should be able to regulate all social gatherings in an individual's house.

[Beckys_Mom]

I think his comment had less to do with having being questioned about faith, and more to do with comments made in this thread telling christians they deserve to be discriminated against cause of things that happened long before any of us were born.

Well that's a new one.. Where do you get that from his post? I have seen people say they were discriminated against.. and others say no they do not think so.. But I cannot see what you have now just added...?

Edited February 25, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[preacherman76]

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!

Here is one a example BM.

[Jor-el]

Like I said, do not waste my time asking me to repeat things that I have already explained in length simply because you are more concerned with winning an argument than discussing it.

Do not respond to my posts without first reading them. Not just the one sentence that you obsessively fixate on. Everything.

Bollywocks Aquatus,

The rest of your post was justifying that one line, it all centered on the logic of that line, do not assume I do not read what you post because I chose a different path to question the logic of your argument.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Jor-el

[eight bits]

preacherman

They just wanted to get paid. They didnt want to be recognized. They wanted to bully these people into paying them, or they wer going to shut them down.

This keeps coming up. An executive agency "fine" is ordinarily a negotiating tool. For any money to be collected requires either voluntary settlement or a court approval, which means a court finding in favor of the agency's position in an adversarial proceeding.

None of that happened here. The zoning administration is an executive agency, not a court.

A sure sign that the fine was "imposed" in order to be waived is that it would cost the municipality more than a few hundred dollars to collect a few hundred dollars.

Got what they sought?? They didnt get anything.

They sought and got the property owner to hire a lawyer to enter into negotiations to ensure that their church was lawfully operated. Persuading them to do that is the adminstrator's job.

Anybody can send anybody else a letter saying "You need to talk with me." If you add to your letter "You owe me $300," then there's some chance that the person will talk with you. Better yet, maybe they'll get a lawyer, and you'll save some time because you can talk with the lawyer instead of with the scofflaw, a real plus if what you want to talk about is complying with the laws.

Things are exactly the same as if they never said a word. After the nation wide backlash, I highly doubt they will be bothering these people again.

Except for the former scofflaws now negotiating to comply with a law they used to be flaunting. Did I mention what the administrator's job is?

And, um, what nationwide backlash? Except for the God Squad, Americans here are generally accepting or supportive of the zoning adminsitrators.

Off the netz? Nobody's even heard of this. It's a local zoning beef, for Christ's sake. (Wanna bet whether 1 out of 10 Californians could place San Juan Capistrano on a map? How about New Yorkers? Texans? Nobody cares, dude.)

But I fully agree with you that if these people finally do comply with the law, then they will have no further bother from those whose job it is to administer and enforce the law.

And so we see yet again, the subtitle of this thread is a lie. Home Bibles studies are legal in the United States.

[Jor-el]

Well written and thought out post . You are 100% correct, questioning a persons belief system is far from oppression, in fact so many Christians like to question others beliefs too, we all do it to find out more and get other points of view...

You are also correct and you make sense when you say that the OP is not some conspiracy by the government... To say that it is, would not add up,,

If the government wanted to put together a plan to rid those with religious beliefs and prevent them from having religious freedoms, then targets a family over a couple of fines and then giving in to them is hardly a top form goverment conspiracy...If it were they are not exactly putting much effort into it are they?

Discrimination, a term that is regularly used as and when it suits others.. more so with the religious from all over the world ( not all but so many of them) ... that like to use the poor we us, we are discriminated over our religious beliefs.. They all would be great on that TV show CSI... because each one of them are so good at playing the victim..

It happens over here in N.Ireland a lot ...You will hear them say - You are singling me out because I am Catholic.. You are singling me out because I am protestant.. This is non stop... Each time it is because they were caught doing wrong... If they are breaking any law, it wont matter, the discrimination cards get played.. But in a court room, it never washes

The idiots that were supporting the guy,were too daft to see that.. and they too chanted - This is discrimination... I mean how ignorant can so many people get? It never ends ...But the religious discrimination cards are always in play..

Wait, are you saying that discrimination must be institutionalized for it to exist in government?

Because if you are, then it will already be too late to do anyhthing about it. To use the term, "conspiracy theory" does not mean that it has to be institutinalized, to exist, it is the active abuse of logical laws being applied where they are not to be applied. Only if you allow that to pass will it eventually become institutionalized. By combating these tendencies at their root, you are preventing them from reaching further and further as time goes on.

I remember a few years ago by way of an example, the crazy fashion that also started at the local level, of banning smokers from smoking indoors in public institutions. Perfectly logical and justifiable. Then it got banned in other areas. Then it was taken to a state level, now it is close to becoming a federal law, but the twist is that as each new step is taken, they also become more extreme. Banning people from smoking in their own homes, smoke free condominiums that can expel you from your own home if you smoke there. Smoking in the street is now the next battle and when you look, smoking will be as illegal as any drug, like Marijuana.

And all because, wow, it is a "justifiable", public health issue.

Then it became a world fashion adopted by other governments, now in Portugal, you can't smoke anywhere except in the street, and even then it must be at least 100m from a restaurant or cafe. If you give a little, alot will be taken when you are not looking.

Maybe religious people will become the next public health issue, after all they are already accusing us of being delusional and that there is something wrong with our brains.

[Beckys_Mom]

Here is one a example BM.

I read that, and all I can see is him saying that he is sick of reading and hearing the same thing about discrimination and points out that no one cares if it is about other groups..He is in a way technically correct.. On here I have yet to see so many including Christians get all upset and annoyed of they felt a muslim or a pagan get trampled on or discriminated against... It is his way of saying - I am sick of hearing the same old chant about discrimination over and over.. To be honest, it is worn out... I have even seen a couple of Christians say the same when reading a story about a muslim being in trouble and playing the victim card... So it goes to show you, people in general will get tired of hearing it... The only ones that make the claims are those who do not care to view it any other way... It is easy to be biased to suit one's self ... But looking at it on both ends, takes more thinking and a broader mind in my view

[Beckys_Mom]

Wait, are you saying that discrimination must be institutionalized for it to exist in government?

Because if you are, then it will already be too late to do anyhthing about it. To use the term, "conspiracy theory" does not mean that it has to be institutinalized, to exist, it is the active abuse of logical laws being applied where they are not to be applied. Only if you allow that to pass will it eventually become institutionalized. By combating these tendencies at their root, you are preventing them from reaching further and further as time goes on.

Yiou know something...see below

Like I said, do not waste my time asking me to repeat things that I have already explained in length simply because you are more concerned with winning an argument than discussing it.

Do not respond to my posts without first reading them. Not just the one sentence that you obsessively fixate on. Everything.

I agree with what aquatus1 has said.. You are only focused on keeping an argument going and not concerned in disguising anything... The above quote to me shows this. .all I can see is you nit picking over a simple opinion... You need to get over it .. The issue is long resolved is resolved dragging on for arguments sake is pointless.and tedious . Heck the Fromm's didn't go this far lol .....This thread should be put to rest... . People have served time in prison and can get out faster than you will with ending a thread argument.. No joke !! It is not worth discussing further to be honest ..All it is now is a nit pick over points people make that does not suit you.. High time this all was put to rest.. as the issue is already resolved..

Edited February 25, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[aquatus1]

Bollywocks Aquatus,

The rest of your post was justifying that one line, it all centered on the logic of that line, do not assume I do not read what you post because I chose a different path to question the logic of your argument.

Your question was specifically and directly answered. I had an entire exchange about it with Mr. Walker. Either you did not read it, or you did and are choosing to ignore it. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you did not read it. Go back, read what I said regarding families, and stop obsessing over one line while ignoring the rest of the entire argument, as you have been doing from the very beginning, in the exact same knee-jerk fashion that others did in order to make this utterly banal case of proper permits into a ridiculous accusation of constitutional infringement.

So, as before, stop wasting my time. It will take you all of 30 seconds to go back and read the answer, and once you do so, try and take another 30 seconds to consider that maybe a miniscule effort in reading what is actually in front of your eyes, instead of just making a knee-jerk assumption that you are automatically right, will actually make you look a little more reasonable to all the people who did actually read the posts and see the very clear answer to the exact same question when it was asked before.

[_Only]

Here is one a example BM.

That didn't say anything about anyone deserving to be discriminated against for anything that happened in the past.

It was a complaint about how radical Christians have been known to make some ridiculous discrimination against others, then cry discrimination against them, when it isn't even the case.

[Jor-el]

Your question was specifically and directly answered. I had an entire exchange about it with Mr. Walker. Either you did not read it, or you did and are choosing to ignore it. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you did not read it. Go back, read what I said regarding families, and stop obsessing over one line while ignoring the rest of the entire argument, as you have been doing from the very beginning, in the exact same knee-jerk fashion that others did in order to make this utterly banal case of proper permits into a ridiculous accusation of constitutional infringement.

So, as before, stop wasting my time. It will take you all of 30 seconds to go back and read the answer, and once you do so, try and take another 30 seconds to consider that maybe a miniscule effort in reading what is actually in front of your eyes, instead of just making a knee-jerk assumption that you are automatically right, will actually make you look a little more reasonable to all the people who did actually read the posts and see the very clear answer to the exact same question when it was asked before.

Well, Aquatus, I did as you suggested and went back to check on what you wrote, and yes you had mentioned the situation of a family before to Mr. Walker...

The following is an extract of your post to him:

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.

My question is withdrawn, but another comes up, since when do I need to defend my right to practice my faith in my own home?

You lay it out very reasonably, thinking that the judge would be a reasonable person who would give an exception to a law in effect, but that means that your faith in the system could be blindsided, if the judge decides to maintain the law, no exceptions, even if it goes against the constitution of the US.

The simple fact is that it should never even get to a judge, plain and simple, it should never have become an issue, the law should never have gotten involved.

As it was demonstrated, this was not a church. That they needed to defend themselves to get the city to finally see it their way, should never have happened.

[aquatus1]

My question is withdrawn, but another comes up, since when do I need to defend my right to practice my faith in my own home?

You never have, and likely never will, need to.

You lay it out very reasonably, thinking that the judge would be a reasonable person who would give an exception to a law in effect, but that means that your faith in the system could be blindsided, if the judge decides to maintain the law, no exceptions, even if it goes against the constitution of the US.

*sigh*

Go back and read.

The simple fact is that it should never even get to a judge, plain and simple, it should never have become an issue, the law should never have gotten involved.

I agree. Getting a permit is a fairly easy, straightforward, process, which involves about an hour of going to the City Permit building and filling out a few forms. Even if for some inexplicable reason building thousands of dollars worth of additions to the house and a parking lot didn't twig anyone on to wondering if maybe this was a bit over the top for a home bible study, the warning from the city made it very clear, and later on the fine for refusing to heed the warning should have emphasized it.

This did not come out of left field. This was a slow build-up, with plenty of warnings, and a single, ridiculously simple, outcome. You are quite correct that this was never, and should never, have been an issue.

What made it an issue was people willing to believe before they knew. People who did not bother to listen to what other people say, but instead chose to believe they know what other people would say.

As it was demonstrated, this was not a church. That they needed to defend themselves to get the city to finally see it their way, should never have happened.

Actually, it was demonstrated that it was a church. Should the county choose to change their definition of a church, that is up to them. I personally do not think that is going to be likely, since that definition does a pretty good job defending all the churches that do actually follow the rules in their practice.

Edited February 27, 2012 by aquatus1

[Cassea]

I am curious why people want so badly to ignore the truth. If this was a meeting of people who got together to read Richard Dawkins books every week. You can bet that people would suddenly see the harassment. Then it would be clear. But since most people hate Christians, then we're just whining.

[_Only]

I am curious why people want so badly to ignore the truth. If this was a meeting of people who got together to read Richard Dawkins books every week. You can bet that people would suddenly see the harassment. Then it would be clear. But since most people hate Christians, then we're just whining.

Ignorant and unfair assessment of the discussion here.

What you believe is "the truth" is a completely subjective opinion. That all here who don't agree with you about this, "hate Christians".

Tsk, tsk.

City/state governments worship the almighty dollar. They were simply practicing their religion in attempting to ticket this meeting of people. This is what I think. I'm not going to get high and mighty and say it's "the truth" and you all are blind for not seeing it, but it is far more likely than a paranoid theory that this city hated religious people, or in your quoted post, Christians. Doesn't add up.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Jerry Only