Since 2005, Michael Salman and his wife have been hosting gatherings of about 15 or 20 people where they share food, fellowship and discuss the Bible. Unfortunately, that kind of thing is against the law in Phoenix, Arizona apparently. At one point, nearly a dozen armed police officers raided their home and “evidence” of their “crimes” was gathered. Michael Salman was found guilty of 67 “code violations”, and now he is going to be ripped away from his family and put in prison for two months. In addition, the assistant city prosecutor is asking the court to “revoke his probation and convert it into a 2 1/2 year jail sentence since he continues to hold worship gatherings on his property despite court orders.” This kind of case has the potential to have a huge “chilling effect” on home gatherings of all kinds all over the United States.
You may be thinking that you are glad that this man is being put in prison because you aren’t a Christian and you don’t have any sympathy for Christians.
Well, what if you wanted to hold small gatherings in your home to discuss the U.S. Constitution?
Or what if you wanted to hold small gatherings in your home to play cards or watch football?
The U.S. Constitution guarantees “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”, and when the constitutional rights of one person are under attack, it is an attack on all of us.
In America today, we actually do not own our homes and our properties. Instead, we are only allowed to use them in very, very narrowly-defined ways, and if we “rebel” against those rules the control freaks that run things will smack us hard.
A while back I wrote about how control freak bureaucrats all over the country are using “code violations” to force preppers back on to the grid. In some cases, they are even using “code violations” to force preppers completely off of their properties.
They want to run our lives, and if we do not live within the very narrow constraints that they define for us then they will send armed men to raid our homes.
So how did Michael Salman’s problems start?
You can probably guess.
His “neighbors” complained about noise and “traffic congestion“.
So that is how city officials got involved. We have become a nation of informers and tattlers, and this is another perfect example of that.
Michael Salman did have a big cross and a big sign outside his home, and in this situation that was rather foolish. Perhaps if he had kept a lower profile things would have been different. But it still does not excuse what authorities in Phoenix are doing to him.
People should be able to have small gatherings of friends and family in their own homes. If we can’t do that, what do we have left?
And these days, just about everything is illegal in America, so if you want to sick the authorities on your neighbors it is quite easy to do.
What is this nation turning into?
The implications of this story are staggering.
Over the past couple of decades, the number of “house churches” in the United States has absolutely exploded as an increasing number of Americans reject the big, institutional churches for one reason or another.
Now we are seeing a backlash against the home church movement.
Are we going to start to see authorities systematically coming after home Bible studies and house churches all over America?
Sadly, we have already seen quite a few examples of this. The following is one example from California….
A Christian couple from Orange County, Calif., were fined earlier this month for holding Bible studies and for what city officials called “a regular gathering of more than three people” in their homes. They have now been told they face a $500 fine if they continue to hold their home Bible study gatherings.
Fortunately, authorities in that case have backed off at least for now after immense public pressure.
But this is just the beginning. Bible-believing Christians are now considered to be “outside the mainstream” and are being attacked in unprecedented ways.
For example, the head of Personhood USA (Keith Mason) had his home brutally vandalized after he was featured in a recent Newsweek article. When that article was posted on the website of The Daily Beast, someone left a comment that contained his home address. Unfortunately, some very sick individuals decided to “pay a visit” to the home and hurled a boulder that destroyed the glass in his front door. In addition, they took red spray paint and painted cuss words and red coat hangers on his house and on his sidewalk.
The following is how this attack was described in a recent Newsweek article….
Mason says he was awake at the time of the attack. “I was in the basement, catching a movie and having a beer, to just chill,” Mason says. “I heard a loud noise and thought one of our kids had fallen down the stairs.” Mason says he ran upstairs from the basement, then “ran through a bunch of glass” and “saw red.” He describes the scene as “surreal—I didn’t know if it was blood on the glass or what. It turned out to be spray paint. There was red paint all over the side of our house. They spray-painted coat-hangers all over my sidewalk and door. We called 911. The police were there within three minutes.”
The family has moved from the home and they say that they have no plans to return.
This is what America is turning into.
Hate and anger are rising to unprecedented levels and it seems like psychopaths are running around everywhere.
I truly fear for the future of this nation.
Tags: Government shuts down Bible studies in US, anti-Christian legal system, AntiChrist laws, abuse of civil liberties, peaceful home meetings are now a crime, Michael Salman arrested and jailed in Arizona,
Article written by Michael Snyder of The American Dream, Monday, July 9, 2012 and noted at Infowars.com
Note: A related report shows that 12 people was considered the maximum for a home religious assembly: Salman ...was fined $12,000, sentenced to 60 days in jail and given three years of probation, during which he could not have more than 12 people in his home." Unless this number applies across the board to sports parties, bridge clubs, swingers parties and any group that meets in a home, then this constitutes religious discrimination. "... if a locality permits a resident to have a weekly gathering of 15 visitors to watch a sporting event or have a meeting of friends for any other secular purpose, and then prohibits another resident from holding a religious meeting of a similar number of people, this would be considered a regulation based on the content of one's speech."
Related
Hm... I believe the exact term of your condition, Rick,would be "cognitive dissonance". Let us look at the fox source:
ReplyDelete“It came down to zoning and proper permitting,” said Vicki Hill, the chief assistant city prosecutor. “Any time you are holding a gathering of people continuously as he does — we have concerns about people being able to exit the facility properly in case there is a fire — and that’s really all this comes down to.”
Conclusion - same bull as the "spanking prohibition" article. Caminiti was sentenced for advoquating chil abuse and Salman for breaking safety regulations.
Anonymous,
DeleteComing from Russia where legal civil liberties are worth about as much as the rough brown toilet paper seen everywhere, you probably don't have an appreciation for the civil liberties outlined in the US Constitution.
Stating that you need a "permit" to have some meetings of 10 - 20 people in your home once in a while is unconstitutional, even if it is written up as an "official" zoning rule. In a civilized and moral society, the Constitution is the foundation of the laws of land. In a corrupt tyrannical civilization, the law of the land is whimsical and enforced with brutality.
Having grown up in a more civilized condition in the US, it pains me to see the US Constitution being abused, ignored and reinterpreted by psychopathic presidents and power-happy local officials.
R:Coming from Russia...
DeleteNice red herring...
R:In a corrupt tyrannical civilization, the law of the land is whimsical and enforced with brutality.
Bold assertion. Do prove that only bible study groups have to go through the regulation.
R:Having grown up in a more civilized condition in the US
Thanks, I never knew that a low quality education, apartheid and high crime rate make you more "civilized"
Churches don't even pay taxes. What's Warden whinging about?
ReplyDeleteAnd....it looks like as usual, Warden has left something out:
DeleteIt came down to zoning and proper permitting,’ Vicki Hill, the chief assistant city prosecutor, told Fox News Radio. ‘Any time you are holding a gathering of people continuously as he does — we have concerns about people being able to exit the facility properly in case there is a fire.’
While this even in my opinion, is slightly overboard, given the large amount of preferential treatment that xians are given in the states, I still say that Warden really has no reason to complain.
What I like? This quote:
‘They’re cracking down on religious activities and religious use,’ Michael Salman told Fox News Radio. ‘They’re attacking what I as a Christian do in the privacy of my home.’
Uh, don't xians demand to be able to determine what gay couples are allowed to do in their homes? What's good for the goose....I say.
No, Reynold, it is you who has left something out:
DeleteThe U.S. Constitution guarantees “the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
local zoning enforcement does not supersede the Constitution in a civilized society. Meeting once or twice a week is not "continuously" and, even if there were private meetings every hour of every day, the Constitution guarantees this right.
"Evil men do not understand justice, But those who seek the LORD understand all things." - Proverbs 28.5 (NASB)
Welcome to Amerika, Your NWO socialist home away from home. My family and I are moving back to the US and it seems as though the US is becoming more like the Soviet Union than the original Soviet Union.
local zoning enforcement does not supersede the Constitution in a civilized society.
DeleteDo you have a problem with fire codes in general? Do you believe that they are unconstitutional?
Have you heard of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire?
(I notice, by the way, that 3 times a week has become once or twice a week in your riposte; there's a not-insignificant difference, and it fits with your ongoing pattern of fudging evidence to make your case look better.)
I will also note:
A January 4, 2010, ruling made it clear that the Salmans are not prohibited from running a church or hosting worship services on their property, but if they do so, they must be in compliance with fire and zoning codes.
In other words, he's allowed to do it, but he has to follow the rules -- which don't prevent him from doing it, but make him do it safely. If someone built a church with asbestos, I'd hope that for the sake of their own parishoners, they'd want it altered.
As to the neighbors -- no scoff quotes -- "tattling"; if your neighbor held parties nearly every other day that brought a significant influx of people and noise to your neighborhood, how would you feel about it? I don't know where you've lived -- I live in a city, and adding 10 cars to my block every other day would be a significant imposition to everyone in the neighborhood who didn't have off-street parking.
So -- we have a man who was told how to make what he was doing legal and acceptable, chose not to do it (because, I guess, he could build his church shed but not put up a couple of $40 emergency exit lights, build a ramp (not very expensive if you do it to start with) and add a parking space), and now is paying the price for it. This is not religious persecution, this is one guy trying to be a cheapskate and not getting away with it.
>Do you have a problem with fire codes in general? Do you believe that they are unconstitutional?
Delete- It is a good idea to have a smoke detector in various rooms in a house, as required by law. This follows common sense. However, forbidding 10-20 people to meet together in a private house is neither necessary nor justified.
Look up "weekly bridge club meetings" and see what you find:
"Bridge clubs and card parties were the passion of my mother's era. Hostessing the weekly event was just an accepted part of the club."
http://therope.hubpages.com/hub/partyfoodsforladies
Though weekly bridge parties and tea parties are a part of US history, according to some of these local laws, now they should be considered illegal.
A reasonable law would take into consideration, "Do the windows of the house have bars on them or not?" If there are no bars on the windows, obviously there would be many paths of egress from any part of the house. So, for these reasons, these petty laws and the noted abuse of civil liberties is a travesty of justice.
>A January 4, 2010, ruling made it clear that the Salmans are not prohibited from running a church or hosting worship services on their property, but if they do so, they must be in compliance with fire and zoning codes.
- What is the dictionary definition of a church:
a building for public and especially Christian worship
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/church
It is false and circular reasoning to argue that a home designed to be lived in and to have guests is a "church" because people meet there once a week.
If this is the 'logic' being used, every bridge and poker club must supposedly abide by the laws of a casino. Every weekly football party must be fitted out in accordance with the specifications of a sports stadium, and so on.
This situation, unfortunately, is not an isolated incident but the Nanny State mentality is becoming ever-more out of control.
A woman had her entire lawn ripped out by local authorities because they claimed it was an eyesore. She had basically grown edible plants and flowers to live on. She complied with an ordinance that only "edible" plants could exceed 12 inches in height. Nevertheless, the town ripped out her yard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m7VN123cW2k
More example of the Nanny State Gulag that Amerika is becoming.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/18-examples-of-the-nanny-state-gone-wild
R:If this is the 'logic' being used, every bridge and poker club must supposedly abide by the laws of a casino. Every weekly football party must be fitted out in accordance with the specifications of a sports stadium, and so on
DeleteIf 20-30 people meet once a week in a room that does not meet safety requirements, then yes. Do poker clubs gather 20-30 people each week in a private home? How many people did attend a weekly bridge club meeting? Does someone have weekly football parties each week with 20-30 participants?
It is a good idea to have a smoke detector in various rooms in a house, as required by law.
DeleteThe other requirements listed were "as required by law". Who gets to be the judge of what is a 'good idea'? I note, BTW, that you've suddenly stepped back from your constitutional absolutism -- or do you feel that requirement is also a crippling infringement on your civil rights, pointing us down the road to being worse than the Soviet Union?
If there are no bars on the windows, obviously there would be many paths of egress from any part of the house. So, for these reasons, these petty laws and the noted abuse of civil liberties is a travesty of justice.
Ah, but now we've gone from arguing "His civil liberties are infringed because he's a Christian!" to "I think this particular law is not needed."
Do you see the massive goalpost-moving you've just done?
t is false and circular reasoning to argue that a home designed to be lived in and to have guests is a "church" because people meet there once a week.
In many parts of the world, it's not unusual for shopkeepers to live in the same building as their shops; indeed, in quite a few Catholic churches, the priest's quarters are part of the same building.
But you'll note that he's not having them in his home any more -- he built a 2,000 sq. ft. building in his yard for the purpose of hosting the events, and put up a sign. This is not happening "in his home", it's happening "on his property." And by moving it like that, he has constructed a building for worship. The argument then becomes "is it public or private"? And if he has put up a sign, or has very lax membership rules, it becomes ever closer to "public", to use even your restrictive definition. (Rockefeller Chapel, which eats up a whole city block in Chicago, is not a "church" because technically it serves the University community. Arguing that it's not a church because of that dictionary definition is, I hope you see, rather risible.)
He had a clear path to legality, and chose not to take it. That's not persecution, that's asking for trouble.
It is worth noting, BTW, that having Bible study in your house is legal in all 50 states in the U.S. Playing poker for even the smallest of stakes (say, nickels) in the privacy of your own home is not. Why not? Because some states have not repealed their blue laws.
Finding examples of overzealous policing does not indicate a trend -- it's a collection of anecdotes.
Well, imnotandrei and Anonymous have just said what I was about to so that's that for me.
DeleteEdit for clarity: Not all 50 states allow in-home poker. Some do, but some do not.
Delete>Coming from Russia...Nice red herring...
ReplyDelete- I wasn't making a formal logical argument, just showing how people's environments influence their expectations. Having lived in Ukraine, I've seen that many people have no idea of what it could be like to live in a society that respects basic civil liberties. It's like a bird trying to explain what flying is like to a fish that has never experienced flight.
>Do prove that only bible study groups have to go through the regulation.
- As noted in the article, the US Constitution grants certain civil liberties. The right to freedom of assembly is one of them.
>R:Having grown up in a more civilized condition in the US. Thanks, I never knew that a low quality education, apartheid and high crime rate make you more "civilized"
- 1. As noted by Jonathan Turly, the US since 9-11 is a different country.
"10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free"[1] http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/cycles-of-freedom-and-bondage.html
2. The poor education statistics in the US may be traced back to atheistic cultural Marxism and later laws in the US that began to abolish any mention of God or the Bible in books or conversations, even in the context of history.
"Since the rapid expansion and liberalization of public schools after World War II, students' literacy levels have dropped significantly. While the average 14-year-old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words in 1945, the equivalent student in 2000 had a vocabulary of only 10,000 words, a severe disadvantage in an increasingly textual world.[33]"
http://www.conservapedia.com/Public_schools_in_the_United_States
The same can be said for crime and low-morality in school, as I pointed out recently:
According to a 1949 survey, school principals noted that there were no problems with interpersonal violence or destruction of property. A survey by Volokh and Snell (1998) illustrated the results of the top discipline problems in the 1940s in comparison to the 1990s. During the 1940s, the top disciplinary problems were talking out of turn, chewing gum, making noise, running in the hall, cutting in line, dress code violations, and littering. This survey also indicated that the most serious problems were lying and disrespect to teachers (Hennings, 1949). In the 1990s the top disciplinary problems were drug abuse, alcohol abuse, pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery and assault. The National Education Association (NEA) in 1956 released a study that revealed that violence was beginning to become a concern in schools. A particular concern, from the evidence was the violence against teachers, particularly in the inner-city areas.
Marshall University, The Status of Violence Prevention in West Virginia
Elementary Schools : A Case Study, 2009, P. 13
mds.marshall.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1161&context=etd
The right to freedom of assembly is one of them.
DeleteAnd, as I'm sure you've noticed, almost all the freedoms in the Constitution have limits placed upon them. I cannot carry a rocket launcher down city streets (and couldn't before 9/11). I cannot declare that my religion requires human sacrifice, and is therefore covered under the 1st Amendment freedoms. I cannot call for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, with specific action plans.
Constitutional freedoms have limits. Welcome to ConLaw 101.
As to your comments on education, I've rebutted them on a different thread, that you have since abandoned.
R:I wasn't making a formal logical argument, just showing how people's environments influence their expectations.
ReplyDeleteYour statement can be easily presented as a formal logical argument. Not that it has anything to do with the infrigement on civil liberties in America. Though, it can be presented as a classic ad hominem.
R:Having lived in Ukraine, I've seen that many people have no idea of what it could be like to live in a society that respects basic civil liberties.
1) A person not having experienced civil liberties does not mean they do not value them
2) You have no knowledge whatsoever on my personal stance on civil liberties. But you still make idiotic assumptions.
R:As noted in the article, the US Constitution grants certain civil liberties. The right to freedom of assembly is one of them
And as it has pointed to you in your previous article on the "prohibition of spanking" and here by imnotandrei, there are exceptions. You cannot use freedom of speech to preach child abuse or your freedom of assembly to endager people. Those Bible study groups violated rational regulation, hence they were punished. Nothing to do with religion.
R:The poor education statistics in the US may be traced back to atheistic cultural Marxism and later laws in the US...
You are not that old, Rick. Therefore, you should have receivced your education at the time of "atheistic cultural Marxism". By your own standard that does not make you more "civilized".
R:Since the rapid expansion and liberalization of public schools after World War II, students' literacy levels have dropped significantly.
Remember the magic words, Rick...Repeat after me... Corroletion does not equal causation...
The drop of literacy in US schools have two main reasons...
1) The invention of television and the internet. The quantity of information has been increased tremendously. And that info is easilly accesable. There is no need for good literacy anymore. That is a tendecy around the world.
2) The population s literacy in the US has grown. In the 1940s it was almost impossible for a non-white resident to receive a good education. Thankfully, race is no longer a big issue in education (even if "black" colleges are still present)
R:The same can be said for crime and low-morality in school, as I pointed out recently
As it was pointed out before to you, violence has decreased around the world and that includes the USA. Imnotandrei has already explained to you why your numbers are not accurate. To that I could add that education was something for the priviledged and the situation in schools did not reflect the situation in society.
Imnotandrei,
ReplyDelete>And, as I'm sure you've noticed, almost all the freedoms in the Constitution have limits placed upon them.
- That's right. They do now, don't they...
1. Freedom of speech is now limited to "free speech zones" and saying what is politically correct.
2. We no longer have the right not to be unreasonably searched and molested. We must be searched and molested upon command in any fashion chosen by those in authority at the airport if we desire to fly.
3. We no longer have a right to a trial or due process. Since December 31, 2011, in accordance with the NDAA, any US citizen anywhere on earth may be imprisoned indefinitely without a trial.
4. We no longer have the right to know what our groceries contain. I cannot go to a grocery store and buy general products that state whether or not they have genetically modified ingredients.
5. And now, regular gatherings in private homes by more than 3 people is considered dangerous and unacceptable.
Yep, I'm sure glad my government is keeping me safe from so many hazardous dangers.
It should be noted that the number of people considered hazardous in a Christian home meeting was THREE in a recent California legal case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040363/Couple-ordered-shut-home-bible-study--face-500-meeting-fines.html
In case you haven't detected a pattern, the restriction of all these freedoms is not actually making you any safer, it's simply creating a police state.
1. Freedom of speech is now limited to "free speech zones" and saying what is politically correct.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech has been limited since its inception -- the limits have been different, but they have always existed.
Once upon a time, you could not print accurate descriptions of sexual intercourse without it being seized, destroyed, and you were at risk of prison.
Consider also the well-known lack of a right to shout "fire" in a crowded room. Or the lack of the right to slander without consequence.
You seem intent on making this a modern occurrence, when it's not; what has happened in part is that Christian hegemony is no longer taken for granted, and so it is starting to learn what others have suffered for a long time.
We must be searched and molested upon command in any fashion chosen by those in authority at the airport if we desire to fly.
Technically speaking, we don't have a *right* to fly. I presume that you are also opposed to SB 1070 in Arizona, and how do you feel about passport checks at national borders?
3. We no longer have a right to a trial or due process. Since December 31, 2011, in accordance with the NDAA, any US citizen anywhere on earth may be imprisoned indefinitely without a trial.
We are in agreement that the NDAA is unconstitutional; we haven't had a test case of it, as far as I know, so saying we do not have the right is premature, at best.
4. We no longer have the right to know what our groceries contain.
We never had this right. Indeed, were it not for crusading progressives, we would not even have as much as we do. And your beloved Ron Paul wants to gut the entities that would ensure we have regulation and insight into these things.
5. And now, regular gatherings in private homes by more than 3 people is considered dangerous and unacceptable.
Regular gatherings by 15-40 people with a specialized building built in violation of safety codes is considered unacceptable. You are, as usual, trying to exaggerate your case.
It should be noted that the number of people considered hazardous in a Christian home meeting was THREE in a recent California legal case:
If you actually read the article, the number of people in question was "up to 50". Now, I would agree that the law is too broadly written. But I think that once again we are arguing "where to set the line", not that a line needs to be set. What, for you, would constitute a "church" meeting in a private residence, that is subject to regulation for health & safety?
Would you be OK with your neighbors holding sex parties with 30-50+ people, three nights a week, loud enough that you could hear and be aware of what they were doing, and causing the parking in your neighborhood to be regularly overful? If not, what is the difference?
1. You seem intent on making this a modern occurrence, when it's not
ReplyDelete- So, please point out where an example I noted, "free speech zones" has occurred in the US in the past.
2. Technically speaking, we don't have a *right* to fly.
- I was referring here to the right not to be molested. The right to free travel simply reflects a basic right in a civilized society, as outlined in Rome's Pax Romana.
http://www.banthecar.com/FreedomOfTheRoad.html
In accordance with TSA power creep, body searches for travelers on trains and busses and cars is being introduced.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly
So, if you don't want to be molested, you will have the right to stay at home. This is unprecedented in US peace time. The "war on terror" excuse does not justify this behavior as the official US report on 9-11 was based on multiple examples of outright fraud and lies.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/09/armed-swat-raids-and-news-confirm-911.html
3. We no longer have a right to a trial or due process - and we are in agreement that the NDAA is unconstitutional.
cont...
1. You seem intent on making this a modern occurrence, when it's not
Delete- So, please point out where an example I noted, "free speech zones" has occurred in the US in the past.
*sigh* Try reading for comprehension, Rick. Your specific example is new. Infringements upon the first amendment right to free speech are nothing new. You are trying to create the impression of a trend by ignoring the past. There -- clear enough?
- I was referring here to the right not to be molested. The right to free travel simply reflects a basic right in a civilized society, as outlined in Rome's Pax Romana.
Have you noticed that you're now claiming rights from other sources? And did you notice the last paragraph of your citation? The democratic state should have, and does have the right to dictate the means one uses to travel (more 4). Freedom to drive is not an inalienable right; it is subordinate to the state civil contract, outside this no individual could independently ensure it, achieving it would require force of numbers, subject to its own group contract, so it is not an individual right either
How this supports your "right" to fly without inspection is unclear to me. I object to the TSA's tactics, but not least because I feel they make us *less* safe rather than more.
However, I also notice from your photographs that you're white. Ever heard of the phenomenon of "Driving While Black"? I recommend you look it up. Again, you're presenting this as a new problem, when it's something that's been going on a long time -- just not to *you*.
4. We never had the right to know what is in our food and Ron Paul wants to gut the entities that would ensure we have regulation and insight into these things.
ReplyDelete- I'm not sure where you arrived at these points. In the early 13th century, the king of England proclaimed the first food regulatory law, the Assize of Bread, which prohibited bakers from mixing ground peas and beans into bread dough. Ever since, it has been a cat and mouse game between the food industry and the public. In 1906 The original Food and Drugs Act is passed in the US. It prohibits interstate commerce in mis-branded and adulterated foods, drinks and drugs.
http://blog.fooducate.com/2008/10/25/1862-2008-a-brief-history-of-food-and-nutrition-labeling/
GE GMO food is "adulterated" to the point where it has been shown to cure severe health problems both in animals and humans.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/02/gates-and-rockefeller-cafeterias-reject.html
The problem in the FDA is that there is collusion between the largest GMO producer and the FDA on many levels - This is obviously a conflict of interest and represents obvious corruption.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/cycles-of-freedom-and-bondage.html
If there is widespread corruption within the FDA from the top down, then don't you think it should probably be cleaned up and replaced with honest people and policies?
- I'm not sure where you arrived at these points.
DeleteYou appear to be assuming that anything that has a law passed about it creates a right. Furthermore:
"You can't use ingredients X in bread" is not the same as "You have the right to know what's in your food." One is a prohibition, the other a broad claim.
If there is widespread corruption within the FDA from the top down, then don't you think it should probably be cleaned up and replaced with honest people and policies?
If there is, then yes. That's not what Ron Paul has been advocating -- he's advocated its *elimination*. Libertarian philosophy, in case you hadn't noticed, advocates for *de*-regulation, and the market taking care of such matters, while what you are doing here is advocating for *more* and *better* regulation. That's my point.
5. Regular gatherings by 15-40 people with a specialized building built in violation of safety codes is considered unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteThe massive list of building "violations" were cited because the authorities named his home a public church building:
"He was charged with not having emergency exit signs over the doors. He was charged with not having handicap parking spaces and not having handicap ramps."
He did not apply for a permit to renovate his house and make it a church, the authorities simply decided that his house was a public "church building" because some people initially began complaining about parked cars.
If you actually read the linked references, the reasons for some of the general "violations" were not all related to the physical house itself, as noted:
"A few months later, members of the Phoenix Fire Dept. broke up the family’s Good Friday fellowship. As many as 20 people were in their backyard eating a meal when firefighters threatened to call the police – unless their guests left the premises."
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/man-facing-jail-for-hosting-home-bible-study.html
In what manner does having 20 people in your private backyard for a holiday celebration constitute a fire hazard?
“The city emphasized that bible studies or church-related activities are not permitted on residences because you have non-family members coming to the home and such use is considered church use.”
The point of focus here is not actually related to protecting against fire hazards, but simply the banning a specific use. A home is not to be used for "religious purposes" according to the understanding of these authorities.
There are many aspects to this story. One is the difference between a private and a public assembly. If a person has private meetings in his or her house and it is a peaceable assembly with no noise and no cars parked on the street, in my opinion this does not constitute a public church meeting subject to public church laws.
Town laws can legally limit how many people or families can "live" and sleep in a single family dwelling. But to state how many people can visit a private house and how often is quite another matter. What people actually do in their homes should be a private matter so long as the actions perfumed by the people are legal and peaceable.
As you do not seem to hold a very high regard for civil liberties and privacy, I can understand why you would not see this list of issues as a sign that the US has basically become a virtual police state:
A police state is defined as one in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.
The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
He did not apply for a permit to renovate his house and make it a church, the authorities simply decided that his house was a public "church building" because some people initially began complaining about parked cars.
DeleteIn other words, people complained about what he was doing, and the authorities investigated, and discovered that he had not (in their opinion) truthfully described what was going on on the premises. Which part of this was inappropriate?
In what manner does having 20 people in your private backyard for a holiday celebration constitute a fire hazard?
When you've previously been cited for running a church out of your house in violation of fire codes. As usual, you're engaging in tactics of minimizing and taking things out of context to try and salvage your point.
If someone does something, they are told not to do it again, and then they go and do it again, what are the authorities supposed to do -- ignore it?
If a person has private meetings in his or her house and it is a peaceable assembly with no noise and no cars parked on the street, in my opinion this does not constitute a public church meeting subject to public church laws.
Indeed. But this was not the case here, as far as we can tell. *Something* triggered the complaints -- traffic congestion, in this case. And the authorities acted on complaints.
Were they supposed to ignore the complaints because "Oh, it's religious"?
The case in question therefore fails your above test. I've had gatherings in my own house,a nd been to gatherings, of many more than 15-20 people -- but because they were infrequent, and not causing a disturbance, no one cared.
As you do not seem to hold a very high regard for civil liberties and privacy
Actually, I have a great deal of respect for both. It's why, for example, I'm in favor of same-sex marriage.
What I don't respect is people using civil liberties and privacy as a defense when they are caught out -- which seems, by all evidence, to be the case here. "Oh, no, it's not a church! It's a private meeting, so I don't have to follow your pesky rules about safety, even though I've built a whole building for this, I'm a pastor, and I put up a sign!"
The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement.
This is rather akin to diagnosing people from reading the DSMR-IV checklist. In anything but the most libertarian of states, inhabitants experience restrictions on their mobility, their freedom to express ideas , etc. It is a matter of degree -- and whose ox is being gored. You're noticing restrictions now, when other people have noticed a *reduction* of restriction. Things change -- that is not the same as things going downhill.
To put things into some perspective with Warden's whinging about the state imposing itself on the church, there's this.
ReplyDeleteThe pastor made some valid points but people who have a low regard for civil liberties and the Constitution will probably not understand why these points are significant:
ReplyDelete"I would like everyone to notice the statement of the Assistant Chief Prosecutor for the City. As long as we were using the building as a Gameroom we are O.K. It is when we start using it to host worship with our friends it is wrong. I would like everyone else to notice that the building was built in 2009 and we were told by the city in 2007 that even a Bible Study in a living room is a "Church". To the city any religious gathering like a Passover Supper, Bible Study or any other religious gathering on a property makes the property a "Church." I dare someone to ask Mrs. Hill what is the definition of a "Church"? We never hid the fact that we worship at my home and that we do what every other Christian does on Sunday and the inside of the building even looks like Christians gather in it. The fact is the City has no right to prohibit what my wife and I who gather privately with my family and friends unless they can show that our guest have caused a neighborhood nuisance, by traffic, parking or noise. They had no right since 2007 to tell me to stop having bible studies in my home and they had no right by the Fire Department to break up our Passover Supper with my family and friends. Please share!"
Instead of taking the Pastor's word for it, perhaps you could find the documentation to back up his claims
Delete- that the city defines any building which holds any worship services as being a church.
- that the city would not also act in the same way if the building were not being used as a church.
- that the breaking up of the worship service was not due to safety issues.
Christians like the Pastor have a very poor track record of accurately reporting things when they feel their beliefs are being discriminated against. We should prefer to get actual documentation supporting their claims before accepting them. It's not surprising that, once again, you accept what another Christian says uncritically.
It certainly does seem, from reviewing the documents presented, that they were advertising church services -- and that makes the building more than just their "home".
DeleteI don't think the pastor has a leg to stand on here, really -- he was given multiple opportunities to bring his building into alignment with the law, and he refused to take them. None of the requirements were exceptionally burdensome that I can see -- and being religious does not exempt you from whichever laws you don't feel like following.
imnotandrei, the realisation that this is a mundane matter doesn't feed into Rick's "Christian Persecution" complex, and therefore is unacceptable!
DeleteAS I understand it, as long as a law does not single out a single religion (or lack thereof) and serves a secular purpose, it is likely to be constitutional. The zoning laws seem to apply to all religious services (Christian and other), and serves a strong secular purpose (that of public safety), which appears to be why the Pastor's claims have repeatedly been rejected by the courts.
True. The problem is that christians in the states have been spoiled rotten by the constant preferential treatment they get and once the rules are actually applied to them once they break the rules, they consider it to be "persecution".
DeleteIt seems that it is probably a result of being the dominant religion - the book The God Market documents, among other things, the persecution complex that has been cultivated in India by Hindu's. From a review of the book:
Delete"The subject of government involvement in religious affairs is often a cause for contention among the Hindu masses that are led to believe that the government treats Hindus unfairly by targeting them and not the other religions. Nanda’s work discredits these arguments. She writes in detail how the current nexus between government and Hindu groups was initiated not by the government, but on the urging of Hindu elites. In essence, not only have Hindus managed to gain from this relationship that they forced onto the state, but they now use this nexus as propaganda claiming that the government unfairly targets Hindus!"
Richard Carrier provides another review, and notes the similarities with Christians in the US:
"Another curious parallel is how privileged and widespread Hinduism happens to be in India, receiving almost exclusive public and government support, and yet Hindus are presently enthralled by a “war on Hinduism” narrative, a widespread belief in “reverse discrimination” against Hindus and of Hinduism being “in danger” and in need of urgent action to rescue it, even a perception that Hindus are an oppressed minority–all while state financing and privileging and facilitating of Hinduism is on a stark rise, and the vast majority of the population is staunchly Hindu. Does that sound familiar to you?"
Hmmm.
ReplyDeleteFrom one of the court documents relating to this issue:
"Each week,about forty to fifty of plaintiffs' family and friends would gather for bible studies or worship."
"On June 11, 2009, plaintiffs were served with a search warrant and city inspectors searched their property. During the inspection, plaintiffs allege that Defendant Police Officer Oscar Cortez took a sign laying face down in the front yard that advertised dates and times for Christian worship and placed it against a tree. As a result of the inspection, which revealed building and zoning violations, defendant City Inspector Frank Dancil issued a notice of violation to plaintiffs."
So there was a large number of people meeting regularly, and the meetings were publicly advertised out the front of the property.
It looks like the state of Arizona is in the right here Rick.
There are other court documents available on that site - perhaps you could read them to try to support your claims (and the claims of the Pastor)?
Or perhaps you'll simply ignore the fact that it currently seems your point is indefensible, write a childish "spam filter reply", and carry on as if you were making cogent points.
From a different court document:
ReplyDeleteDuring the search, defendant Officer Oscar Cortez picked up a signthat had been face down and placed it against a tree. The sign said “Christian Worship,Sunday 10:00 AM, Wednesday 7:00 PM.”
So they were holding twice weekly public church services in their residence. They were given notice that they were violating city codes. It seems they basically ignored the code violations, are asserting that they can do whatever they want under the guise of "religious liberty", and are upset that the city and the courts have not accepted their assertions.
Rick, once again you seem to have backed the losing side here. I hope you'll now either provide actual evidence to support your claims and those of the Pastor, or admit that the Pastor, in holding large public gatherings at his residence, without adequate emergency signage, disabled access, etc is in fact in violation of the city zoning codes, and that the punishment is deserved.
Apologies - the link above is broken.
DeleteHere is the correct link to the court document referred to in the previous comment.
Might be a little off-topic, but I did find a very interesting interview on civil liberties and social evolution. I think that Jacque Fresco s utopia is impossible, but I completely agree with his assessment of the world and its problems.
ReplyDeleteHe is Rick s Antichrist 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qlgzTlAvOo
So, this has gotten enough attention that Phoenix has put up a web page about it:
ReplyDeletehttp://phoenix.gov/news/071212salmanfacts.html
From there:
Mr. Salman had regular gatherings of up to 80 people. He held services twice a week and collected a tithe at the services. The building that he held services in had a dais and chairs were aligned in a pew formation. He held himself out as a being a church through the media (Harvest Christian Church) and claimed a church status for tax exemption purposes on his property.
Due to the regular, reoccurring high vehicular traffic in this quiet residential neighborhood, neighbors repeatedly complained about the public assembly occurring on his property.
So, he claimed that it was a church for tax purposes, but not for zoning purposes. This isn't about religious freedom -- this is about dishonesty and an attempt to avoid reasonable legislation.
This is a reply to Imnotandrei's comment he posted at a different location:
ReplyDelete"In-home bible study being banned!" -- A man who described himself to media and the IRS as running a church was not allowed to continue doing so on his property without obeying safety laws, after repeated warnings.
- Even if a man decided to form a home church fellowship, and declared that meetings were church related, this does not automatically make the house subject to public church building ordinances. There are many legal cases dealing with house churches that have set legal precedents with regard to the interpretation of the Constitution and have helped to outline the rights of homeowners. The following is an example:
"The U.S. Supreme Court only allows content-based regulation of protected speech if the ordinance passed the strict scrutiny test.69 For example, if a locality permits a resident to have a weekly gathering of 15 visitors to watch a sporting event or have a meeting of friends for any other secular purpose, and then prohibits another resident from holding a religious meeting of a similar number of people, this would be considered a regulation based on the content of one's speech."
http://www.hccentral.com/gallagher/part2.html
If this county has been enforcing laws across the board that no more than 11 people can meet regularly in a home, then their judgement would carry a bit more weight, however, there is no indication in any of the text I have read by the local Arizona authorities that no house in any part of that vicinity may have a regular gathering of 12 people or more. It does not matter if it is a tupperware party, a football party, a swingers party or a home church meeting. If the meeting rules are only being applied against religious home meetings, then this is discriminatory.
Indeed, those damn autorities are opposed to regular meetimgs of 80 people in a building that does not comform to safety regulations. Oh the oppression! Oh the discrimination!
DeleteAs far as reports show, 12 people was the maximum:
DeleteSalman ...was fined $12,000, sentenced to 60 days in jail and given three years of probation, during which he could not have more than 12 people in his home.
http://www.religiontoday.com/blog/jail-sentence-host-home-bible-studies-arizona.html
The man has been gathering a crowd twice a week up to 80 people, violating numerous safety and other procedures. He even claimed church status for tax exemption! Are you going to accuse the authorities of lying on the matter and say that Salman is being prosecuted unjustly?
DeleteAnd if you are so full of indignation that Salman (a chronic offender) cannot have more than 12 guests during three years, why aren t you protesting for the rights of pedophiles to be near children?
It does not matter if it is a tupperware party, a football party, a swingers party or a home church meeting. If the meeting rules are only being applied against religious home meetings, then this is discriminatory.
DeleteThere is *no* evidence in this case that it's being applied to more than one religious home meeting. What there is is evidence that when people complain, the police investigate, and if there is a violation, they pursue it.
I presume that you, vigorous believer in civil liberties, prefer the "If you're bothering people" approach to policing to the "spot checks to make sure no one has more than 12 people, on a regular basis." approach.
Yet those are your choices, if you wish to enforce any kind of safety or zoning laws -- regular inspections, or inspections only when there's a complaint.
If someone was holding a game night with more than 12 people, regularly, and causing complaints by the neighbors, I would expect the police to investigate the reports. But there's no evidence that's happening.
You're trying to generalize oppression from a single case which fell well outside the laws to begin with. I notice that you keep dropping the fact that Salman was told what he could do to make his building legal, and *refused to do it*. It was his choice to continue violating building codes.
Anonymous and Imnotandrei, Let me ask you both a hypothetical question:
ReplyDelete1. If Ira Rennert, the owner of the largest house in the US, were to have over 80 guests regularly at his personal residence in the Hamptons, which includes a 10,000 sf "playhouse" and a 164-seat movie theatre, in your opinions should he be fined and thrown in jail?
2. Should Ira's private 164-seat movie theatre fulfill all the requirements of a commercial and public movie theatre?
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2010/08/06/conspicuous-consumption-and-destructive-wealth-the-case-of-ira-lennert/
R:If Ira Rennert, the owner of the largest house in the US...
DeleteRick, people are tired of repeating themselves here. If her movie theater and "playhouse" do not violate any rules, then there is no reason to prosecute her. On the other hand, Salman was clearly bothering his neighbours and failed to comply to safety procedures. See the difference?
A private 164-seat theatre has to accomadate 164 people and ensure a minimum level of safety. It does not matter if it is private or public. Also the owner is not allowed to turn it into public movie theatre, taking fees from people, but not paying taxes
If Ira Rennert, the owner of the largest house in the US, were to have over 80 guests regularly at his personal residence in the Hamptons, which includes a 10,000 sf "playhouse" and a 164-seat movie theatre, in your opinions should he be fined and thrown in jail?
DeleteIf he's posting signs inviting people to the parties there, and claims for tax purposes that his home is an "entertainment venue", and his house isn't up to zoning codes, then yes.
If no one is bothered by them, because he has space on his property for all the parking, and the road to his house can handle the traffic, then so long as there are no complaints, no.
Oh -- and if he's been warned about such gatherings in the past, given a means to resolve the problem, and blows it off? Yes.
2. Should Ira's private 164-seat movie theatre fulfill all the requirements of a commercial and public movie theatre?
For safety reasons, I would say "Yes". Whether or not it has to by force of law is a different question.
Anonymous and Imnotandrei,
ReplyDelete1. So, you both basically believe that any amount of people should be able to legally gather at a personal residence. However, the opinions of neighbors and the use of the house are critical.
1. In your opinions, is a neighbor justified to complain about parked cars if the cars are all located on the property and hidden from view?
2. If no specific laws are broken, then any use of a private house should be allowable, irrespective of the number of guests?
R:In your opinions, is a neighbor justified to complain about parked cars if the cars are all located on the property and hidden from view?
DeleteNo. But they could still complain about the noise and other disturbances.
R:If no specific laws are broken, then any use of a private house should be allowable, irrespective of the number of guests?
Yes, if safety rules are not broken (that includes a limit to the number of "guests") and no illegal activities are being held.
1. So, you both basically believe that any amount of people should be able to legally gather at a personal residence. However, the opinions of neighbors and the use of the house are critical.
ReplyDeleteNo. You are looking for a blanket statement, and there will always be exceptions. If 100 people came over to my house, it would be too many, because it would be unsafe. it would also very likely disrupt the neighborhood.
I will also note that "a personal residence" is not an unproblematic term here; part of the whole point of the Salman case is that he was using it in ways in *addition* to being a residence, a fact which you keep deleting or avoiding in your responses.
Just because you live somewhere does not give you free range to do whatever you want there under the grounds of "personal residence".
1. In your opinions, is a neighbor justified to complain about parked cars if the cars are all located on the property and hidden from view?
If they made a mess out of the traffic getting to and from there, then yes. Otherwise, not unless their departure generated an unacceptable level of noise, or there was some other issue.
Because you're asking a blanket question about something that can have very specific details.
And you know what? If I knew my neighbor had been cited for running an illegal operation, and I thought he was continuing to do so, I might well report him on the basis of perceived evidence.
2. If no specific laws are broken, then any use of a private house should be allowable, irrespective of the number of guests?
If you include "zoning laws" and "safety codes" in that list, along with the above caveats about disturbing the peace -- oh, wait, that's a violation as well -- then perhaps. Oh, and tax laws; let's not forget those.
Blanket statements will often run up against issues; that's why we have a judicial system, to decide in the grey areas.
1. Let me try to clarify your positions:
ReplyDelete1. If a person has 15 guests regularly visit his personal residence to pray and read the Bible and the people do not cause any notable disturbances, there are no signs or crosses on the property and no religious tax claims have been filed, no money is taken, and no laws are broken, then these regular meetings would be acceptable in both of your opinions, right?
2. If all of the above conditions were satisfied, but the person advertised "home Bible study" in the local news paper, would this be acceptable in your opinions?
3. If all the above conditions were satisfied, but the person offered "home church meetings" in a local newspaper, would this be acceptable in your opinions?
1) I'm fine with that.
ReplyDelete2) Nompe. Then it's being advertised and the public is being invited. That's when the government interest is created.
3) As with #2.
I've run private events in residences, that had ~100 guests. And you know what? The people who owned their buildings had put up signs for the exits and followed the local city code, because they didn't want to put their guests at risk.
>Then it's being advertised and the public is being invited. That's when the government interest is created.
ReplyDelete- So any event in a private home that is advertized cannot have more than 12-15 people in your opinion?
That would mean that a newspaper advertizing a regular bridge club meeting, a Tupperware party, a Boy Scout meeting, a singles party should be considered illegal in your opinion if it's over 12-15 people? - Even if it's in Ira Rennert's mansion with 39 bathrooms?
DeleteThat would mean that a newspaper advertizing a regular bridge club meeting, a Tupperware party, a Boy Scout meeting, a singles party should be considered illegal in your opinion if it's over 12-15 people?
No; I think such a party should be held in an appropriate location.
As usual, Rick, you're trying to point to the utter borderline case, cry "oppression", and then apply it to your cause of the day. What this has to do with Salman is, well, nothing.
If someone is holding regular public meetings, they should do it in a place suitable for the occasion. I think the government has a reasonable interest in ensuring the safety of such locations.
There's a reason buildings have "Max Capacity" signs on them, you know; what happens if 200 people show up for your Tupperware party? Do you turn all but the first 15 away?
I'll also note that you're now, in effect, haggling over numbers -- "is 15 OK, if the law says 12?" Which means you've abandoned your civil liberties point, and are arguing further, as far as I can tell, just in order to "be right" about something.
>No; I think such a party should be held in an appropriate location.
ReplyDeleteSo, in your opinion, a bridge club meeting or Cub Scout meeting of 12-15 people should never be held in a mansion with 39 bathrooms if there was any public notification involved.
If one should dare to put a notice on a library bulletin board, a public school hallway or any public place informing of a Cub Scout meeting or bridge club that will be held in a person's private house, then fines and jail time would be quite appropriate in your opinion if there was more than one such occurrence by any given family.
Now I can better understand why there is very little that you would find disturbing with regard to the present totalitarian attitude of the government.
So, in your opinion, a bridge club meeting or Cub Scout meeting of 12-15 people should never be held in a mansion with 39 bathrooms if there was any public notification involved.
DeleteFine, Rick, you're right. I think that would be OK. I think that public notification creates the interest in the state to regulate it, subject to a *problem*.
And, since your ridiculously constructed example specified *no* problem at all, then it's OK.
There. Happy now?
If one should dare to put a notice on a library bulletin board, a public school hallway or any public place informing of a Cub Scout meeting or bridge club that will be held in a person's private house, then fines and jail time would be quite appropriate in your opinion if there was more than one such occurrence by any given family.
No. If repeated occurrences, generating complaint, were followed by appropriate notification from the government that there was a problem, followed by continued defiance, then there's an issue.
Why is it that you presume that governments will always act in the most repressive way possible? Because that's what you're doing.
If no one complains, the government won't act; it's happened, and happens, over and over and over again. But in order to act when there *are* issues, there need to be laws. Or would you prefer that there be no law, merely the judgment of the enforcing officer?
Or would you prefer no law, and no recourse when your neighbor decides to host huge parties every day, take money for them, and destroy your peace and quiet?
Take your pick, Rick, of which evils you want.
Oh, and Rick? If 15's too low, then what's an acceptable value? At what point does the state have an interest in protecting its citizens?
DeleteOr is it entirely a matter of "If you have the money, you can buy the land and do whatever you want, if the neighbors don't notice?"
(Since you specified, unlike the real cases you've cited, *no* bothering of the neighbors.)
>since your ridiculously constructed example specified *no* problem at all, then it's OK.
Delete- Oh? but according to your original opinion, there is supposedly a problem if public notifications are involved. You had implied government regulation was warranted if any public invitations were offered for a private meeting:
"[If} it's being advertised and the public is being invited. That's when the government interest is created."
So, now you have apparently changed your mind, it's not just about public notification, there must be a combination of factors in order for there to be a legal problem:
>No. If repeated occurrences, generating complaint, were followed by appropriate notification from the government that there was a problem...
- If the Cub Scouts laughed a bit too loudly and the neighbors complained, does that then mean all the Cub Scout meetings must be shut down? Or do complaints have to fall within a modicum or reasonable acceptability?
>Or would you prefer no law, and no recourse when your neighbor decides to host huge parties every day, take money for them, and destroy your peace and quiet?
- Now it seems you are making an appeal to logic, which is quite exceptional considering these circumstances. I can't remember reading about any wild Bible studies that destroyed the peace and quite of a neighborhood with loud blasting music and drunken brawling, but maybe you have an example or two to offer?
>Oh, and Rick? If 15's too low, then what's an acceptable value? At what point does the state have an interest in protecting its citizens?
- If public safety is in fact the real concern, then whether or not a public notice was given is really not the issue. And whether or not people complain about guests make them annoyed is not the real problem either. The two main questions would be:
1. What is the relationship between the square footage of the house and the number of guests? Obviously, a one bedroom house will be able to hold less people safely than a huge mansion. But laws that state "No more than 12 may gather in any home" does not take into account the actual size of the home and is a bit ridiculous.
2. Is there an adequate means of egress in case there is a fire? In most residential homes, the windows do not have metal bars on them and egress is quite easy through any first floor windows or doors.
As noted, none of the reports by the local Arizona officials actually considered these specific questions, but automatically decided that a person's home should follow public church building standards because some people complained.
The original problem of cars on the street was apparently addressed by the owner as he later stated the cars could not be seen from the street at the present time.
Limiting a large house to 12-15 guests is obvious a travesty of justice for the above reasons. If the Arizona officials are prone to errors of judgment, they should probably try to err on the side of the Constitution, not on the side of a gestapo interpretation of the law.
."So, now you have apparently changed your mind, it's not just about public notification, there must be a combination of factors in order for there to be a legal problem:
DeleteFor there to be a practical problem. I am not in favor of overzealous policing either, but you are not presenting any option other than "no policing" or "gestapo interpretation."
- If the Cub Scouts laughed a bit too loudly and the neighbors complained, does that then mean all the Cub Scout meetings must be shut down? Or do complaints have to fall within a modicum or reasonable acceptability?
Welcome to the law; that's why people enforce it. They have to make the judgments in that regard. If there's one offense, there would probably be a warning. If it's repeated, then there would be action.
I can't remember reading about any wild Bible studies that destroyed the peace and quite of a neighborhood with loud blasting music and drunken brawling, but maybe you have an example or two to offer?
I've lived next to churches that disturbed the neighborhood with the volume of their services and preaching. I've lived in places where they disrupted traffic every Sunday. And they were permitted to. If they'd tried to claim they weren't "churches" but just "home bible studies", then darn right I would have complained about them.
Bible studies that are disruptive are just the same as any other activity that's disruptive -- they do not get special credit.
If public safety is in fact the real concern, then whether or not a public notice was given is really not the issue.
It is an issue, both because it amounts to the possibility of unpredictable attendance, and because it removes the "this is my private gathering" claim. It becomes a public one.
And whether or not people complain about guests make them annoyed is not the real problem either.
It is a concern of zoning laws, as is public safety.
As to your later quibbles -- take them up with your representative, Rick. But you've gone way beyond anything legitimately claiming "persecution" into "I don't like these laws, but I would rather disobey them than try and change them."
As noted, none of the reports by the local Arizona officials actually considered these specific questions, but automatically decided that a person's home should follow public church building standards because some people complained.
Would you prefer that each individual official make their own judgment, based on no law?
If not, what's your alternative?
Your first point could be answered by a formula. Your second, however, has been answered -- the state does not think it's good enough to rely on windows or doors, and if you're hosting public events above a certain size, then you can't rely on them either.
You can disagree with a law without claiming it's un-Constitutional -- and, indeed, the laws and standards you describe as being OK are just as Constitutional as the ones you decry -- whether that's un-Constitutional or not is up to you, but you have to be consistent.
The original problem of cars on the street was apparently addressed by the owner as he later stated the cars could not be seen from the street at the present time.
And if he'd gone back to 12-person Bible studies, there wouldn't have been a problem. As we've noted, and you continue to ignore, he had gone far beyond that, including claiming his building was a church for tax purposes.
If the Arizona officials are prone to errors of judgment, they should probably try to err on the side of the Constitution, not on the side of a gestapo interpretation of the law.
So, in other words, they should ignore the law because you don't like it and feel it should be different?
As usual Rick, you're unable to be mature and accept that you are in error. Instead you construct elaborate scenario's, which have little to no bearing on the issues involved, in order to try to save face. Yet these attempts only make you look more ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned an Ira Rennet. The huge house this person has would likely meet zoning laws regarding large numbers of guests. If he did not, and regularly held gathering of an unsafe size, then he ought to be held liable for that. This was pointed out to you by both Anonymous and imnotandrei, but you seem to have completely ignored it.
You also are ignoring the fact, entered into court documents, that the public Church meetings had ~50 people, twice weekly.
You are also ignoring the fact that the Pastor lied in his planning application, claiming the church building was actually a gaming room.
Whether or not Salaman deserved the fine and jail time is beside the point. He was obviously in the wrong here, repeatedly ignored city officials and zoning laws, and is now claiming that he can do whatever he wants, and endanger people, all in the name of religious liberty.
He's wrong, and so are you.
>but you are not presenting any option other than "no policing" or "gestapo interpretation."
ReplyDelete- This is incorrect, I did present what would would be logical subjects to focus on regarding building safety:
- If public safety is in fact the real concern, then whether or not a public notice was given is really not the issue. And whether or not people complain about guests make them annoyed is not the real problem either. The two main questions would be:
1. What is the relationship between the square footage of the house and the number of guests? Obviously, a one bedroom house will be able to hold less people safely than a huge mansion. But laws that state "No more than 12 may gather in any home" does not take into account the actual size of the home and is a bit ridiculous.
2. Is there an adequate means of egress in case there is a fire? In most residential homes, the windows do not have metal bars on them and egress is quite easy through any first floor windows or doors.
As noted, none of the reports by the local Arizona officials actually considered these specific questions, but automatically decided that a person's home should follow public church building standards because some people complained.
The original problem of cars on the street was apparently addressed by the owner as he later stated the cars could not be seen from the street at the present time.
Limiting a large house to 12-15 guests is obvious a travesty of justice for the above reasons. If the Arizona officials are prone to errors of judgment, they should probably try to err on the side of the Constitution, not on the side of a gestapo interpretation of the law.
The Rennert house is an extreme example to make a point. Most houses in the US are obviously between a one bedroom one and Ira Rennert's and size should be taken into consideration when making draconian sentences that force people into prisons for having the amount of guests their houses can easily accommodate, such as 12.
Rick: As noted, none of the reports by the local Arizona officials actually considered these specific questions,
DeleteActually, he was written up for not meeting safety laws (such as having emergency exits illuminated).
Rick: but automatically decided that a person's home should follow public church building standards because some people complained.
No, they decided that because the building was being used as a public church, with twice weekly services of 50+ people, in a purpose built building, and claimed as a public church for taxation purposes. Not to mention that the purpose built building was listed as a "gaming" room on the permit application, which is dishonest of the owner.
Obviously you're not honest or mature enough to admit your mistakes Rick, since this post is just the latest in a long line of blog entries from you where you've been shown to be wrong, and have done your utmost to avoid admitting this.
A previous post about the Pastor advocating child abuse, your endorsement of "Liar for Jesus" David Barton are a couple of other recent examples, though I can point to almost every single post you've made as an example of this behaviour.
- This is incorrect, I did present what would would be logical subjects to focus on regarding building safety:
DeleteTell me, Rick, do you think the people who write building codes don't know what they're doing?
Or, to turn it around, why should we substitute your judgment? What are your credentials as a safety expert?
Square footage as a sole measurement is nonsensical; consider the difference between an empty gym and a bookstore filled with shelves. Do you think they can hold the same number of people, on the same square footage?
Again, though, you've lost your main point -- now we're haggling over what laws *should* be enforced, not whether or not they're Constitutional. You've agreed that Salman screwed up -- many of his behaviors you had to explicitly exclude from your hypothetical example.
size should be taken into consideration when making draconian sentences that force people into prisons for having the amount of guests their houses can easily accommodate, such as 12.
Did you notice that he didn't have 12 people, he had 80, and he had a *prior history of violation* that led to this result? It's not as if the cops came the first time they were called, counted 15 people, and hauled him off to jail. He was a repeated scofflaw, and eventually, if you refuse long enough to follow the law, there's no choice in the law's hands but to penalize you.
A question, Rick: Have you ever admitted to being *wrong*, as opposed to being unclear and editing your posts later to try and get out of your own errors? Because I certainly don't remember you doing so, and the more we go around on this, with you constantly narrowing the point and shifting the goalposts, the more I believe you are simply incapable of it.
No, he is capable on very rare occasions of admitting his error. Provided that you spend months pestering him about a precise post, demanding an apology. I did manage this heroic endeavor once.
Delete>Tell me, Rick, do you think the people who write building codes don't know what they're doing?
ReplyDelete- The main problem with this situation and other similar situations is not with the building codes designed for public church buildings, rather, it is the perceived need to impose public church codes on private houses without using common sense.
If all home church meetings need to meet the codes of public church buildings, then this is religious discrimination for the many reasons I pointed out.
If anyone has been following the thread, Imnotandrei at first claimed that a house must be scrutinized simply if it is a “public” meeting:
"[If} it's being advertised and the public is being invited. That's when the government interest is created."
Then he admitted this is not practical and logical approach and admitted that there must be a valid existing “problem” to warrant government involvement:
Fine, Rick, you're right. I think that would be OK. I think that public notification creates the interest in the state to regulate it, subject to a *problem*.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/60-days-in-prison-and-12180-fine-for.html?showComment=1342467700052#c1997399223484504082
Here is the main problem: Undocumented personal complaints led to an irrational imposition of law that was simply unwarranted and not in line with constitutional law.
If a large game room in a large house is designed for normal use, then for the government to state, “Only 12 people can meet there because there is a religious activity occurring in the game room” is unconstitutional. If this were not the case, as I pointed out, then every home theater in the US needs to have all the codes associated with public theaters, including handicap ramps into the houses. Either that, or any public invitations to sports TV nights, Cub Scout meetings, or a bridge club should also be considered illegal if, in fact, no discrimination is to occur. Common sense would dictate it is better to allow for freedoms than to restrict them unnecessarily.
If a home makes excess noise and people complain, it does not matter if it is a Bible study or a sorts TV night, the police need to be able to document the problem adequately to show that it was not just people who don’t like sports or Christians who called up to complain. If the complaints are not documented and adequate, then jail time and heavy fines are of course not warranted.
As far as I have read, there was no actual documentation of a problem. Having firemen evict 20 people from a backyard celebration simply because it is religious is blatantly discriminatory because it is obvious that standing in someone’s back yard does not constitute a fire hazard.
Interesting how atheists will automatically state that I should ‘admit I am wrong’ when Imnotandrei agreed with me in stating that the government should not become involved unless there is a valid and reasonable problem.
If all home church meetings need to meet the codes of public church buildings, then this is religious discrimination for the many reasons I pointed out.
DeleteIf they all did, then you'd be right. They don't. Therefore, it's not religious discrimination.
That's why you had to put so many disclaimers on the hypothetical question I finally agreed with you on -- all of which applied in the *actual* case at hand.
Undocumented personal complaints led to an irrational imposition of law that was simply unwarranted and not in line with constitutional law.
How do you know the complaints were undocumented? Not all documents in the case have been released. Just because *you* can't read them doesn't mean they were undocumented.
And you're not a building expert. You don't get to judge "irrational imposition of the law". The man was claiming a tax exemption based on his church, and trying to evade building code laws on church buildings. He was being two-faced and dishonest. Yet you always elide that fact, leading me to believe that you believe he was behaving correctly -- which makes you dishonest.
As to "in line with constitutional law" -- there is no reason that a limit on the number of people who can assemble in a private residence is any more or less constitutional than "a limit based on the size of the residence" as you've proposed would be OK. Just because you don't like a law and find it "irrational" does not make it unconstitutional, Rick.
Common sense would dictate it is better to allow for freedoms than to restrict them unnecessarily.
Common sense would also dictate that people who claim to be churches when it's to their advantage, and not when they don't, are being liars, and deserve punishment under at least one of the laws they are violating.
If the complaints are not documented and adequate, then jail time and heavy fines are of course not warranted.
As above, how do you know the complaints weren't documented and "adequate"?
Imnotandrei agreed with me in stating that the government should not become involved unless there is a valid and reasonable problem.
I agree with that statement. Will you agree that Salman's activities were a valid and reasonable problem, giving that he claimed to one set of authorities (and the public) that his building was a church, and to another that it was not, depending on what was to his advantage?
>Tell me, Rick, do you think the people who write building codes don't know what they're doing?
ReplyDelete- The main problem with this situation and other similar situations is not with the building codes designed for public church buildings, rather, it is the perceived need to impose public church codes on private houses without using common sense.
If all home church meetings need to meet the codes of public church buildings, then this is religious discrimination for the many reasons I pointed out.
If anyone has been following the thread, Imnotandrei at first claimed that a house must be scrutinized simply if it is a “public” meeting:
"[If} it's being advertised and the public is being invited. That's when the government interest is created."
Then he admitted this is not practical and logical approach and admitted that there must be a valid existing “problem” to warrant government involvement:
Fine, Rick, you're right. I think that would be OK. I think that public notification creates the interest in the state to regulate it, subject to a *problem*.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/60-days-in-prison-and-12180-fine-for.html?showComment=1342467700052#c1997399223484504082
Here is the main problem: Undocumented personal complaints led to an irrational imposition of law that was simply unwarranted and not in line with constitutional law.
If a large game room in a large house is designed for normal use, then for the government to state, “Only 12 people can meet there because there is a religious activity occurring in the game room” is unconstitutional. If this were not the case, as I pointed out, then every home theater in the US needs to have all the codes associated with public theaters, including handicap ramps into the houses. Either that, or any public invitations to sports TV nights, Cub Scout meetings, or a bridge club should also be considered illegal if, in fact, no discrimination is to occur. Common sense would dictate it is better to allow for freedoms than to restrict them unnecessarily.
If a home makes excess noise and people complain, it should not matter if it is a Bible study or a sports TV night, the police need to be able to document the problem adequately to show that it was not just people who don’t like sports or Christians who called up to complain. If the complaints are not documented and adequate, then jail time and heavy fines are of course not warranted.
As far as I have read, there was no actual documentation of a problem. Having firemen evict 20 people from a backyard celebration simply because it is religious is blatantly discriminatory because it is obvious that standing in someone’s back yard does not constitute a fire hazard.
Interesting how atheists will automatically state that I should ‘admit I am wrong’ when Imnotandrei agreed with me in stating that the government should not become involved unless there is a valid and reasonable problem.
R:The main problem with this situation and other similar situations is not with the building codes designed for public church buildings, rather, it is the perceived need to impose public church codes on private houses without using common sense.
ReplyDeleteBold assertion. Do prove that Salman s case was not about safety violations and disturbance of peace.
R:If all home church meetings need to meet the codes of public church buildings, then this is religious discrimination for the many reasons I pointed out.
Straw man, no one claimed that all home church meetings have to meet the codes of public church buildings. However, if the people want to enjoy privilidges of public church buildings (taxe exemption) and do not care about safety requirements, that is a different matter.
R:If anyone has been following the thread, Imnotandrei at first claimed that a house must be scrutinized simply if it is a “public” meeting
Great, Imnotandrei has made a minor mistake on the principles of the law and acknolewdged that. How does it concern the concrete case of Salman?
R:Here is the main problem: Undocumented personal complaints led to an irrational imposition of law that was simply unwarranted and not in line with constitutional law.
Who said those were undocumented personal complaints? And how can you claim there was irrational imposition of law when you neither have the expertise nor the knowledge to judge how severe the safety infrigements were?
R:If a large game room in a large house is designed for normal use, then for the government to state, “Only 12 people can meet there because there is a religious activity occurring in the game room” is unconstitutional.
Great parade of straw men again...
1) The people that were gathering there were up to 80. Big difference from 12. The authorities demanded numerous times to improve the safety of the building. Unfortunately, Salman failed to comply and got the punishment he deserved.
2)The 12 people limit is only for 3 years of Salman s prohabation period. No one puts an absolute limit of 12 guests in a private home.
3) Salman himself called his "game room" a Church. When he denied it being so in court, his dishonesty became clear.
4) 80 people gathering twice a week can disturb your neighbors. Why should they put up with the disturbance?
R:...the police need to be able to document the problem adequately to show that it was not just people who don’t like sports or Christians who called up to complain.
What are you evidence that the problem was not documented adequately?
R:As far as I have read, there was no actual documentation of a problem...
Your ignorance is your own problem. Unlike you, Havok did his homework and found all the court documents.
As always, when presented with controversial info to his worldview, Rick courageously runs away.
ReplyDeleteWell, after a while, I just start going by "qui tacet consentire", and figure that anyone who bothers reading the comments at all will realize that Rick's retreat means a lack of ability to usefully respond.
DeleteAnother hypothetical example for you:
ReplyDeleteA group of 12 Boyscouts are meeting weekly at a private home that has, lets say, a large living room and plenty of bathrooms. They have posted signs in their public high schools in order to inform others. They regularly collect dues for their non-profit group.
Everything is fine until a neighbor complains that he does not want Boy Scouts meeting next door. The neighbor complains about cars on the street and the Boy Scouts move their cars far down the driveway to where they cannot even be seen from the street. The neighbor complains again anyway.
The police come to investigate and tell the Boy Scouts they have to stop meeting in a private house and move into a public meeting room because the neighbors have complained and because they are collecting money in their meetings. The head of the boy scout group states that he has a Constitutional right to have these meetings in his private home. The local authorities issue warnings and threats of fines and imprisonment.
Firemen come when there is a Boy Scout Jamboree of 20 people in the back yard and they evict everyone. And, finally, the town throws the Boy Scout leader in jail because he has continued to have Boy Scout meetings in his private home and this is considered a hazard.
Do you believe the authorities would be justified in fining and jailing a Boy Scout leader under these circumstances? Yes, or no?
The neighbor complains again anyway.
DeleteOn what grounds does the neighbor complain?
If the grounds are "I don't like the Boy Scouts meeting next door, even though I can't tell they're doing so except by their ad", the response of the police is very likely to be, "Quit bothering your neighbor" to the complainant, and nothing else would happen.
I am not going to answer your question at the end, because I find the whole set of circumstances so implausible as to be an attempt at strawmanning or other deception on your part.
Now, if you want to compare to the real case, you have to have your heroic Scoutmaster declaring a tax exemption for the specially-built Scout hall he has on his property, which he was warned would be in violation of the law if he continued, and which he then altered his planning request for to be something other than a Scout hall. Whereupon, when he has his Jamboree, the fire department evicts the celebrants, and after repeated warnings and citations, he is convicted of violation of his probation, and sent to jail.
And in that case, with that kind of a reckless scofflaw, yes, I think they would be justified in doing so.
A group of 12 Boy Scouts is meeting weekly at a private home that has, lets say, a very large living room and plenty of bathrooms. There are no bars on the windows and plenty of paths to exit the building in case of a fire, in addition to fire extinguishers. They have posted signs in their public high schools in order to inform others. They regularly collect dues for their non-profit group.
ReplyDeleteEverything is fine until a neighbor complains that he does not want Boy Scouts meeting next door. The neighbor complains about cars on the street and the Boy Scouts move their cars far down the driveway to where they cannot even be seen from the street. The neighbor complains again anyway.
The police come to investigate and tell the Boy Scouts they have to stop meeting in a private house and move into a public meeting room because the neighbors have complained and because they are collecting money in their meetings. The head of the boy scout group states that he has a Constitutional right to have these meetings in his private home. The local authorities issue warnings and threats of fines and imprisonment.
Firemen come when there is a Boy Scout Jamboree of 20 people in the back yard and they evict everyone. And, finally, the town throws the Boy Scout leader in jail because he has continued to have Boy Scout meetings in his private home and this is considered a hazard.
Do you believe the authorities would be justified in fining and jailing a Boy Scout leader under these circumstances? Yes, or no?
I've noticed you're starting to double- and triple-post; you might want to check your browser to see if there's an issue.
DeleteI had edited the text and had meant to delete the previous version.
ReplyDeleteYour question, "On what grounds does the neighbor complain?"
- The neighbor states that they don't like to see so many people meeting regularly in their neighbor's house. They don't like the fact that there are public invitations to the Boy Scout meetings, that they collect money in the form of dues and that so many people are coming into their nice quite neighborhood and driving on their streets. The neighbors believe the meetings must be held in a public meeting house by virtue of the fact that they are bothered and have made a complaint.
Do you believe the authorities would be justified in fining and jailing a Boy Scout leader under these circumstances? Yes, or no?
Rick, it might be a good idea to have your example actually reflect the facts of this case. As it stands, your boy scout example is not similar to the case at hand, as it does not involve the dishonesty of building a Church while calling it a gaming room, or registering as a public church for tax purposes, of having 50+ people gathering twice weekly, of not meeting nuilding codes, etc etc.
DeleteIf you amended your example, then perhaps any discussion about it would be relevant.
Of course, amending the example highlights the fact that Salman is in the wrong, and that you are mistaken in siding with him, and I doubt you're honest and mature enough to admit this :-)
- The neighbor states that they don't like to see so many people meeting regularly in their neighbor's house. They don't like the fact that there are public invitations to the Boy Scout meetings, that they collect money in the form of dues and that so many people are coming into their nice quite neighborhood and driving on their streets. The neighbors believe the meetings must be held in a public meeting house by virtue of the fact that they are bothered and have made a complaint.
DeleteOnly one of those is going to be considered even faintly a valid reason for a complaint -- the matter of traffic. If the traffic reaches a level (which, with 15 people, it's not likely to) that it becomes an issue, then it would be addressed. Again, you're stretching the very bounds of possibility here.
Not liking the public invitations, collecting money in the form of dues, these are not valid complaints under law, and would be dismissed.
Now, if those meetings ballooned to 80 people regularly, and became a traffic issue -- then they'd be asked to either move, or make accomodations for their neighbor's sake. And if they claimed they would, and didn't, then fines would be appropriate.
Rick, this is a pattern I discussed elsewhere, and you're doing it again -- putting the worst possible interpretation on everyone's actions who aren't the Christians you're feeling are oppressed, in an effort to make them seem justified in that feeling.
I'm not going to play your "ridiculous hypothetical" game any more, because the only reason you're doing this is to try and get to a point where, in theory, I'd agree that a law was not a good one. Which doesn't even prove your point -- plenty of bad laws are perfectly Constitutional.
>Not liking the public invitations, collecting money... these are not valid complaints under law, and would be dismissed.
Delete- Thank you for your response. The operational phrase in terms of the non-hypothetical case in Arizona would better read as "should be dismissed" as opposed to "would be dismissed."
The Arizona home church meeting had a sign out front. This and the fact that they collected money as a non-profit ministry were cited as some of the many reasons why they felt the need to force them to comply with public building ordinances.
After some complaints about cars on the street were addressed by parking cars in the yard, the only possible violation left was to evict 20 people from a back yard gathering. As noted by your comments, the actions of the Arizona authorities were not justified. Thank you for your assistance in fleshing out the details of what should have been the correct course of action by the Arizona authorities. I do appreciate it and I believe those who read these comments objectively will be grateful as well.
The operational phrase in terms of the non-hypothetical case in Arizona would better read as "should be dismissed" as opposed to "would be dismissed."
DeleteYou have no evidence for this at all. You *want* it to be that way, but that's not the same thing as it actually being that way.
This and the fact that they collected money as a non-profit ministry were cited as some of the many reasons why they felt the need to force them to comply with public building ordinances.
They claimed one status on their taxes, and another to the city of Phoenix. That's hypocrisy at best, flat-out perjury at worst.
the only possible violation left was to evict 20 people from a back yard gathering.
Not true; you have again elided the "regular meetings of 50-80 people" that have been described, along with a repeated pattern of violation of building codes and ignoring the law. He *chose* not to correct his problems, and he *chose* to continue claiming he had a church to the IRS.
As noted by your comments, the actions of the Arizona authorities were not justified.
My comments "noted" no such thing. You established a ludicrous hypothetical, and now, as I predicted above, you're trying to deny all the other factors involved and claim that I agree that the actions were not justified.
The Arizona authorities were entirely justified in sending a scofflaw and tax cheat to prison for his lies and willful defiance of the law. They gave him multiple opportunities to comply with the law, and he elected not to do so.
I do appreciate it and I believe those who read these comments objectively will be grateful as well.
Anyone reading these comments objectively will realize you are trying to declare victory despite having to abandon the bulk of your position -- I note that you've stopped talking about Constitutionality, yet with no acknowledgement that you were wrong in that regard.
Thank you for your assistance in fleshing out the details of what should have been the correct course of action by the Arizona authorities.
As I said above, given the facts as we know them (repeated violations, mendaciousness, and willful disobedience) the correct course of action was the one they took.
Let us recap... Rick believes that the American Constitution allows to promote child abuse, lie for one s benefit, endanger other people for not good reason. And of course it is also completely moral, according to Rick. Let us add to that his belief that every single human being is a wretched creature, deserving eternal damnation just for the sole fact of existing... By any reasonable standard, that will be classified as a fucked up worldview.
ReplyDeleteLet’s recap the home church issues:
ReplyDelete1. The number of guests in a private house should not be limited arbitrarily to a small number but should reflect the size of the house.
Imnotandrei agreed that a large private residence is not limited to a small arbitrary number of quests. If Ira Rennert, for example, wishes to have 164 people over for regular shows in his home theatre, or regular large groups guests in his 10,000-foot “playhouse” then it should not be a legal problem:
Atheist Imnotandre: “A private 164-seat theatre has to accommodate 164 people and ensure a minimum level of safety. It does not matter if it is private or public. Also the owner is not allowed to turn it into public movie theatre, taking fees from people, but not paying taxes.”
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/60-days-in-prison-and-12180-fine-for.html?showComment=1342452262641#c2792503618846738400
2. The specific use of a house should not be limited based upon discrimination as long as no laws are broken:
Atheist Anonymous: If no specific laws are broken, then any use of a private house should be allowable, irrespective of the number of guests? - Yes, if safety rules are not broken (that includes a limit to the number of "guests") and no illegal activities are being held.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/60-days-in-prison-and-12180-fine-for.html?showComment=1342455687547#c251158247963459267
3. Public advertising and the collection of money should not impinge upon a person’s right to have meetings in his or her house:
Atheist Imnotandrei: “Not liking the public invitations, collecting money in the form of dues, these are not valid complaints under law, and would be dismissed.”
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/60-days-in-prison-and-12180-fine-for.html?showComment=1342585595013#c948672452171980694
So, in short, atheists have agreed that if a person has an extremely large house able to accommodate a large group of guests, and he advertises home church meetings and collects monetary gifts from people then this should not be considered ipso facto illegal. However, these same atheists are unwilling to admit that the rationale used to ban home church meetings contradicts their own previous understandings. As noted below.
Continued
Atheist Imnotandre: “A private 164-seat theatre has to accommodate 164 people and ensure a minimum level of safety. It does not matter if it is private or public. Also the owner is not allowed to turn it into public movie theatre, taking fees from people, but not paying taxes.”
Delete1) I have not given you my religious affiliation. You are, as seems now common, making presumptions.
2) My quote suggests that laws apply equally to public or private accomodations -- how you draw your conclusion is utterly unclear.
“Not liking the public invitations, collecting money in the form of dues, these are not valid complaints under law, and would be dismissed.”
*sigh* Rick, they are not valid complaints for the *neighbors* to make, as a reason for the authorities to take action. They are perfectly valid things for the authorities to take into account in determining whether the gathering is a private or a public one, and therefore under which section of the building codes (if any) the accomodation for it falls.
Circular reasoning used to deny home church Constitutional rights
ReplyDelete1. A large home church meeting exists of more than 12 people.
2. Because it is considered a large religious meeting, it supposedly must meet in a public church building.
3. And public church buildings require very strict codes.
4. The private house does not accommodate strict public church codes.
5. Therefore, the home church is illegal and the pastor must be jailed.
The above logic is based on a false and unconstitutional proposition that a private home meeting of 12 or more people is illegal irrespective of the size of the house. The argument uses circular reasoning in order to place unconstitutional legal burdens on private dwellings. The amount of people permitted to meet in a home should be based on the size of the house, not whether or not religious activities occur. Also, a large game room that is used by children 7 days a week and by guests for a few hours a week may be still considered a game room legally by sensible people. And a person who uses his or her house for specific purposes has a right to claim a tax deduction if in fact it is used for such purposes. A home church is not ipso facto a mega church that requires a public venue, common sense dictates that both the number of guests and the actual size of the building are important questions. There is no indication that the size of the pastor's home was considered in limiting the allowable amount of guests to 12 people.
The officials in Arizona have essentially developed a discriminatory policy against religious people. Instead of creating an artificially small limit of 12 people, they should have taken into consideration the size of the house and determined a more realistic maximum allowable amount of guests.
Though atheists tend to agree with some major Constitutional rights, they tend to hold an over-exuberant passion to restrict religious freedoms, as noted by the contradictory statements in this thread.
Rick, you keep tossing around "unconstitutional" lightly. You have yet to explain why your alleged "square footage" rule is constitutional while setting a specific limit is not. Remember -- just because you don't like a law does not make it unconstitutional. You've acknowledged a state interest in regulation, and if that regulation is evenly applied in controversy, it's constitutional.
DeleteAlso, a large game room that is used by children 7 days a week and by guests for a few hours a week may be still considered a game room legally by sensible people.
And then is not valid for a tax deduction, as the tax deduction has to be for *primary use*. It's why people who work at home can claim only a small portion of their house as "home office".
A home church is not ipso facto a mega church that requires a public venue, common sense dictates that both the number of guests and the actual size of the building are important questions. There is no indication that the size of the pastor's home was considered in limiting the allowable amount of guests to 12 people.
As has been pointed out, that limit was placed after violations on Salman's part.
The officials in Arizona have essentially developed a discriminatory policy against religious people.
*Even* if you had proved your case before, which you have not, you have one case, which is not enough to prove a "policy". And your one case is larded with additional facts and problems.
Let us note also that "game rooms" and "home theatres" don't get to take tax exemptions from the IRS for their space.
Though atheists tend to agree with some major Constitutional rights, they tend to hold an over-exuberant passion to restrict religious freedoms, as noted by the contradictory statements in this thread.
Considering the number of contradictions and omissions you've made in this thread, it is clear you hold an over-exuberant passion to put the defense of religious freedoms above respect for law or honesty.
Churches have parking lots so they can have a bunch of people. Private residences don't, therefore when 80 people meet at some guy's house twice a week it's going to cause problems, innit?
ReplyDeleteR:Public advertising and the collection of money should not impinge upon a person’s right to have meetings in his or her house
ReplyDeletePublic advertising and the collection of money was never an issue in Salman s case.
R:Circular reasoning used to deny home church Constitutional rights
Do tell where the circular reasoning is.
R:2. Because it is considered a large religious meeting, it supposedly must meet in a public church building.
Deliberate distortion of facts. The number of people were up to 80, who met twice a week.
R:4. The private house does not accommodate strict public church codes.
You have omitted the fact that the pastor refused to comply at mutiple occasions to improve the safety of his "game room"
R:The above logic is based on a false and unconstitutional proposition that a private home meeting of 12 or more people is illegal irrespective of the size of the house
Straw man again... No one said that a private home meeting of 12 people should be illegal. Salman s personal prohibition for more than 12 guests is a punishement for refusing to comply to reasonable demands.
R:And a person who uses his or her house for specific purposes has a right to claim a tax deduction if in fact it is used for such purposes.
However, he claimed that it was a Church to the IRC, not a game room.
R:There is no indication that the size of the pastor's home was considered in limiting the allowable amount of guests to 12 people.
Rick, you have already showed that you are a lazy and ignorant man. People asked you three or four times already to look at the court documents that you avoid like the plague.
R:Instead of creating an artificially small limit of 12 people, they should have taken into consideration the size of the house and determined a more realistic maximum allowable amount of guests.
Again, you are distorting the facts. The 12 people max for Salman is a form of punishement for not complying to safety regulations.
It's really amusing, the further you dig into this, the more you find out. From the Examiner comments:
ReplyDeleteAdam Porter · Top Commenter · President/CEO at Atlas Media Group
IMO, given his rhetoric, that attorney has a credibility problem. Further, "it started" when Mr. Salman was forcibly fired from his previous church for attempting to take over, then change the name and and other legal and procedural attributes of the church he had been hired to pastor. Subsequently, he began meeting in his home with "up to 70 people" using amplified sound equipment at least 3 times a week. That creates both a zoning issue and a potential series of public nuisance issues. This was back in 2005, according to published reports. Because Salman was operating an publicly advertised (and later incorporated) church in his home - he even referred to it as a "congregation" in the press and invited the public to come - there were zoning issues then.
I'm sympathetic to a guy who wants to have a home church. I've organized umpteen home Bible studies and helped plant 3 churches that began in homes.
When confronted by his worried, angry and frustrated neighbors, Salman said this:
"I want what is fair and right. It's our property. Why should people be able to tell us what we can and can't do? I don't tell them they can't have horses. How can they tell me I can't have a Christian congregation?"
Then, according to several neighbors, this happened:
"He gave us a lecture on the fact that all of us were going to make money on our property, and if we were true Christians, we ought to be willing to sacrifice a little bit." The message - who cares if what I'm doing hurts your property value. Suck it up.
In light of the recent video Salman made where he chastised the Christians on the city council in public, AFTER they caught him trying to mislead them, it seems his approach has yet to change.
And this from a pastor.
Rick's lack of honesty and maturity still still won't allow him to admit error.
DeleteRick, in light of imnotandrei's latest information, here's another scenario for you:
ReplyDeleteI move into a house, and start hosting bands there, twice a week, with crowds of up to 80 people. I market my house as a music venue, register a company representing it as such, play music through amplifiers, etc. I then build a purpose build structure to house the bands and audience, but on my planning application for it I call it a gaming room. When I'm asked to bring my purpose built venue up to the same level as other band venues, with exit lights, disabled access ramps etc, I simply refuse. When I am fined and given jail time for my repeated flouting of zoning laws, and my continued non-conformance, I claim I'm being presecuted because the city doesn't like my style of music.
To be consistent, I think you should be on my side in that circumstance, and yet I don't see how you could, given the obvious violations of the law.
And yet, simply because it involved your cherished beliefs, you side with a Salman on this. You seem to want Christianity to be treated specially - but that would be unconstitutional :-)
Anonymous and Imnotandrei,
ReplyDelete>No one said that a private home meeting of 12 people should be illegal. Salman s personal prohibition for more than 12 guests is a punishement for refusing to comply to reasonable demands.
- The limit of 12 people was given without explaining it was a "punishment" . If you have a link showing it was only a punishment and not the recommended maximum amount for a home Bible study, please show the link.
In any event, only offering a "punishment" and not a reasonable limit of people as a solution makes your case even worse constitutionally. These were apparently the only choices:
1. Convert your house to a public building with handicap ramps, etc.
2. Receive fines and go to jail.
If no option was allowable for a reasonably sized home church meeting to continue, then this was a more pronounced violation of rights.
As I pointed out earlier, and you both agreed, Boy Scouts should be allowed to have meetings in private homes with a reasonable amount of people that reflect the size of the house. Because the Arizona officials did not allow the option of a reasonably sized meeting to continue, their judgment was discriminatory and unconstitutional. If amplified music was the main problem, that was not noted in any of the major articles that outlined the judgement. It would have been a more fair and non-discriminatory judgement to state that amplified music would not be permitted, but meetings of a reasonable size could continue.
The pastor's personal attitude and comments regarding a former church are a red herring when considering the constitutionality of home church meetings.
Again you have failed to make points that justify the fines and jail sentence in accordance with a non-discriminatory interpretation of the Constitution.
1. Convert your house to a public building with handicap ramps, etc.
DeleteActually, it was "Convert your purpose built church building, which is the home of a registered Church organisation and hold public church meetings of 50+ people twice weekly, to have emergency exit signs and wheelchair ramps, as is required of such public buildings".
Rick, why do you insist on avoiding the actual details of the case?
Is it because you know both you and Salman are in the wrong?
Is it because you're simply unable to comprehend a fellow Christian being as dishonest as Salman appears to be?
Or is it simply that you're unable to accept when you've made a gross mistake in front of non-believers?
These were not "Home bible study" meetings. They were not "Home church meetings". They were meetings of a registered Church organisation, in a building which was not suitable for the number of people, whose planning papers had claimed it was a gaming room. The Pastor was given every opportunity to comply with what appear to be perfectly reasonable conditions, and failed to do so. He is being punished with fines and jail time as a result.
That is the situation.
In any event, only offering a "punishment" and not a reasonable limit of people as a solution makes your case even worse constitutionally.
DeleteNonsense. Many punishments for violations of the law infringe on constitutional rights, and have been upheld -- loss of voting rights, loss of the right to own firearms, and, most basically, loss of freedom to assemble rights when one is imprisoned.
Conditions of probation *often* involve restrictions on movements or activities.
Please, Rick, read some Con Law 101 or something, so you stop making these simple errors.
These were apparently the only choices:
1. Convert your house to a public building with handicap ramps, etc.
2. Receive fines and go to jail.
If no option was allowable for a reasonably sized home church meeting to continue, then this was a more pronounced violation of rights.
Remember, he'd already violated the law at that point -- repeatedly. He'd already shown that he was not willing to stay within the bounds of "reasonable."
Because the Arizona officials did not allow the option of a reasonably sized meeting to continue, their judgment was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Again, see above; punishment for violation often involves loss of rights.
Not to mention, who gets to decide "reasonable", again? You, or the state?
Again you have failed to make points that justify the fines and jail sentence in accordance with a non-discriminatory interpretation of the Constitution.
No, you've gone back to your "I don't believe it, therefore you didn't make your point" position that you do on most everything, Rick. There comes a point, I've seen, in every discussion where you stop even attempting to reply usefully, and persist in ignoring every point of fact that might defeat your underlying thesis. Clearly, we're well past that point here.
Also, as a side note:
DeleteIf amplified music was the main problem, that was not noted in any of the major articles that outlined the judgement.
a) You'll notice there's no mention of "music" in the citation I gave.
b) This would be some of the "Why the neighbors complained" that you've been attributing to them being "snitches" or "tattletales" or trying to write out of existence in your hypotheticals.
This is yet another case of people presenting evidence as to why defending Salman is incorrect/not making the point you want to make, and you ignoring it or dismissing it because it does not support you.
Anonymous and Imnotandrei,
ReplyDeleteI had already posted the link showing where the maximum amount of 12 people was determined. To make it a little easier for you, here is a quote from the link:
"Salman refused, saying the order violated his free exercise rights, and was fined $12,000, sentenced to 60 days in jail and given three years of probation, during which he could not have more than 12 people in his home."
http://www.religiontoday.com/blog/jail-sentence-host-home-bible-studies-arizona.html
As you both know, I don't bother to read Havok's notes of the following reasons:
This is a blog spam-filter reply,
In the interest of avoiding comment moderating for all comments, and for the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commenter named Havok.
Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, that I ignored or did not adequately address valid critiques of articles, such as, "How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence." However, Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.
Instead of apologizing, he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.
Havok also continues to insist that I am "lying" about Richard Dawkins. I have clearly described why Dawkins is shown to be cautiously open-minded towards the moral viability of eugenics in an article,"How Richard Dawkins' Evolution Justifies Racism and Genocide" (VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics). If a third person, a civilized person, believes that Havok has offered a valid point and would like to summarize it in some type of logical format, I would be willing to entertain it. In any event, Havok is a good object lesson. His consistent slander and lies demonstrate that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will continue to deny that it exists.
Funny, for some reason my comment has disapeard, but Rick still did answer me... Do I sense a censor ont this blog? 8)
ReplyDeleteR:I had already posted the link showing where the maximum amount of 12 people was determined.
Rick...Learn reading comprehension...
"...given three years of probation, during which he could not have more than 12 people in his home."
That source states that for 3 years (after his release from jail) Salman will not be allowed to have more than 12 people in his home. That is an individual punishment from the court. It does NOT say that the recommended number for a bible study group is 12 people!
R:As you both know, I don't bother to read Havok's notes of the following reasons
The reason you avoid Havok is ludicrious. But since it is off topic, I am not going to discuss it here.
I have already pointed to you that you need to have a look at the court documents several times. And I am not going to make your life easier by reposting Havok s link. You can either find them by yourself on the net or click Havok s link. Though, if you are not willing to study the case, I cannot force you to.
P.S. I would like still sum up the points from Rick s opponents of why Salman was punished...
ReplyDelete1) He was disturbing the peace in the neirbohood
2) He endangered people by violating building codes
3) He refused to comply to the law at numerous occasions and lied about the usage of his property
If these are not good reasons to punish someone, I have no idea on what grounds anyone can be punished
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete>P.S. I would like still sum up the points from Rick s opponents of why Salman was punished...1) He was disturbing the peace in the neirbohood 2) He endangered people by violating building codes
- If a city has clear laws of what constitutes "disturbing the peace" and offers adequate proof and documentation of noise violations, then enforcement of such laws, then this would be an acceptable judgement. However, there has not been any indication in any quotes whatsoever that either conditions were fulfilled. The following is an example of clear legislation and enforcement for Mass. police:
"City laws ban excessive noise between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., but the law is often broken during the summer by people playing loud music, lighting off fireworks or rumbling through neighborhoods in cars with loud exhausts.
Police will be using noise meters during those late-night and early-morning hours to measure decibel levels. Anyone with a musical device, car or motorcycle exhaust system, or other source of sound that exceeds 50 decibels during those hours will be subject to a $50 fine. All noise exceeding 70 decibels during other hours will also not be permitted."
http://www.hgazette.com/local/x1395101934/Police-use-meters-to-measure-neighborhood-noise-issue-fines/print
Notice that the above law prohibited loud music during the night, not day. If anyone can show me any quote from Arizona court documents, journalists or otherwise that the home meeting broke a law on the books that during the day only a certain level of sound may be produced in neighborhoods please post it here for all of us to see.
If anyone can show that the Arizona home meeting did exceed such noise levels with documented noise meters, please post the evidence here. If not, then there is no quantitative proof they were "disturbing the neighborhood" just some people's personal opinions. It may just be that they heard a faint sound of Christian music and don't like Christian music so they complained.
However, there has not been any indication in any quotes whatsoever that either conditions were fulfilled.
DeleteThere is the evidence that the police went to investigate, and that violations were found; whether they were specifically noise-related, we don't know.
If not, then there is no quantitative proof they were "disturbing the neighborhood" just some people's personal opinions. It may just be that they heard a faint sound of Christian music and don't like Christian music so they complained.
In other words, unless we have access to the police records to learn *exactly* what the complaints were, you are going to cling to the "Salman's neighbors didn't like Christians" instead of the overwhelming evidence that Salman has been a deceitful man throughout this entire process -- he is to be trusted, and conspiracy theories indulged.
You even dismiss the words of another pastor in your zeal to protect Salman -- this again goes to show that you are more interested in your claims than in the truth.
>whether they were specifically noise-related, we don't know.
ReplyDeleteOh, I see. So unlike the Mass case I posted a link to, there probably was no accurate documentation whatsoever.
So apparently the Arizona court documents so much lauded by Anonymous did not actually offer any evidence that actual decibels of noise were recorded. Furthermore, I see no one posting any actual town laws describing legal noise limits or times.
Summary:
1. Noise violations were cited for a private home but no actual, specific measurement of the noise occurred with existing available technology.
2. The town did not present any actual noise laws or codes regarding the incident, but made an arbitrary judgment that music was noise and not acceptable.
3. Because of the undocumented noise and the fact that many people were meeting in a private house, authorities decided that the private house was a safety hazard and must be converted to a public church or only 12 people could meet in the house.
4. There is no record to indicate that the town ever presented an option for a reasonable amount of people to meet in a private house and conduct meetings. No, an arbitrary amount of people was decided upon, 12, who could meet in a private house or else face jail time.
5. This entire case should have been thrown out of court a long time ago for legal vagueness and arbitrary justice. If local residents and police want to enforce laws and judgments upon other people, then laws have to be in place for such a proceeding. If there is no legal basis for making judgments, then there is no basis for legal punishments.
Again, I'll ask: If anyone can present any evidence whatsoever regarding the following:
1. Did police used sound measuring equipment?
2. Were specific noise laws broken?
3. Was an offer ever proposed that a reasonable and specific amount of people may meet in a house without adding handicap ramps and all the other public building requirements?
If you have any evidence - then present it. Otherwise admit that this Arizona case was a travesty of justice.
Regarding 1. You don't know that.
DeleteRegarding 2. You don't know that.
Regarding 3. you don't know that. Not only that, but the 12 person rule was instituted because of repeated violations of zoning laws.
Regarding 4. you don't know that.
Regarding 5. you can't say that, given our ignorance and general inability to assess any arguments regarding this sort of case.
Rick, how about to address the case, as it is actually presented, instead of making these useless asides?
R:If you have any evidence - then present it. Otherwise admit that this Arizona case was a travesty of justice.
ReplyDeleteRead the court documents, Rick. We know about your reding disfunction, but at least try gather the information even with your disability before making idiotic accusations.
R:...and must be converted to a public church or only 12 people could meet in the house.
ReplyDeleteDistortion of facts... No one said that only 12 people could meet in the house. The 12 people limit is a punishement for violating the law.
Rick, not all the court documents are available online, as far as I can tell.
ReplyDeleteWhich means that I don't have full access to the data.
Oh, I see. So unlike the Mass case I posted a link to, there probably was no accurate documentation whatsoever.
Why do you come to this conclusion? Because you want to believe that Salman was persecuted, that's why. You have no evidence to this point; indeed, you have evidence against it -- that multiple courts and judges have ruled against Salman based on the evidence in the complaints.
1. Noise violations were cited for a private home but no actual, specific measurement of the noise occurred with existing available technology. 2. The town did not present any actual noise laws or codes regarding the incident, but made an arbitrary judgment that music was noise and not acceptable.
This is all blatant assertion, as are 3 and 4. They're all based on the assumption that because you and two people on the internet can't find a specific reference you want to a specific detail of law enforcement on a specific case.
I find it amusing that "It is most probable" is a sufficient level of proof for the existence of God, but in order to believe a set of judges, you need to be presented with every minor detail of the conviction, according to *your* precise standards.
3. Was an offer ever proposed that a reasonable and specific amount of people may meet in a house without adding handicap ramps and all the other public building requirements?
He was informed of the problems, and how to fix them -- both at the initial stage, and later, when he was applying for permits. He had *multiple* opportunities to fix the problems presented, that led to his eventual violations and incarceration.
If you have any evidence - then present it. Otherwise admit that this Arizona case was a travesty of justice.
You appear to be intent on doubling down on your rhetorical nonsense -- refusing to listen to any evidence or reasoning that might challenge your insistence on Salman's evidence.
I mean, look at yourself: You're setting "I can't see the details of exactly how this was done" as more important than "Multiple judges, police officers, and district attorneys, whose *job* it is to determine these things, thought things were done according to code, and Salman's own lawyers have not shown any indication of challenging the methodology -- only the underlying right"
Do you really think that if there was a serious challenge to the methodology to make, we wouldn't have heard about it, given the way Salman self-promotes?
Look at yourself, Rick; look at the thinness of the straw you're trying to clutch to in order to preserve your sense of being "right".
>Why do you come to this conclusion? Because you want to believe that Salman was persecuted, that's why.
ReplyDeleteNo, it is quite evident for anyone with an open mind who is willing to look at the facts that police and government officials have been overstepping their Constitutional boundaries with ever increasing abuses.
I've answered one of the questions I asked you:
2. Were specific noise laws broken?
The noise laws in phoenix are not specific at all, but open to capricious abuse:
"If the party, gathering, or event is considered a threat to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the public, anytime during the night or day, the responsible party will be assessed a fee of up to $1,000.00."
How is this noise measured? Not stated.
http://phoenix.gov/police/loud_party_eng.html
No, it is quite evident for anyone with an open mind who is willing to look at the facts that police and government officials have been overstepping their Constitutional boundaries with ever increasing abuses.
DeleteWhether or not that's true, and it's far from proven (the ever-increasing part, that is*) it says *nothing* about this particular case. We have a lengthy record of Salman making false and misleading statements, and yet somehow we're supposed to believe that he's innocent and his neighbors and the police and courts are all out to get him, *despite* his established lies.
You really need to work on your critical thinking skills, Rick.
The noise laws in phoenix are not specific at all, but open to capricious abuse:
Do you really *want* ultra-detailed laws on every conceivable aspect of life? Because that's what you're implying here. Either everything must be rigidly defined as legal or illegal, or there is an opening for *judgment*, which you appear to equate with "capricious abuse".
Really, Rick, why is it so hard to go "You know, I still think that the law is unfairly strict, but this case is not the right one to argue the point on. " Sometimes, Christians can be wrong, and this is one of those cases -- if you look around, you'll see a lot of his fellow-believers saying as much. (You did note the comment from another pastor above, didn't you?)
Are they all part of the "conspiracy" to get Salman?
*I suspect that if you looked at, say, the South in the 1950s and the South now, you'd find a decrease of said abuses per 1,000 people; there's this little thing called the Civil Rights Movement, you might have heard of it?
>Do you really *want* ultra-detailed laws on every conceivable aspect of life?
ReplyDelete- "Ultra detailed?" in "Every aspect of life?" I'm sure there are many who would like it if we could not breath air without the government's permission. When such a day comes, the government should at least have clear laws defining how many breaths we can take per minute before being thrown in jail. I hope you get the point.
If people in some states are being fined and sent to jail for unclear laws and capricious law enforcement, then more detailed laws and more just law enforcement are in order in those locations.
Massachusetts police are more clear when it comes to outlining noise ordinances and resultant fines:
Police will be using noise meters during those late-night and early-morning hours to measure decibel levels. Anyone with a musical device, car or motorcycle exhaust system, or other source of sound that exceeds 50 decibels during those hours will be subject to a $50 fine. All noise exceeding 70 decibels during other hours will also not be permitted.
"It is a zero-tolerance program," said Officer Paul Malone. "If the meter goes past 70 decibels, we will issue a citation."
http://www.hgazette.com/local/x1395101934/Police-use-meters-to-measure-neighborhood-noise-issue-fines/print
Arizona officials need to get their act together before making capricious opinionated judgements not based on clear laws and accurate documentation of infringements. They are in the wrong. Period. End of story.
I'm sure there are many who would like it if we could not breath air without the government's permission. When such a day comes, the government should at least have clear laws defining how many breaths we can take per minute before being thrown in jail. I hope you get the point.
DeleteYou're the one who's missing the point. You said "This law is too vague" -- which sets you up as the arbiter of "too vague" and "just right". I am not surprised that you find a law someone was convicted under "too vague" -- but your alternative is to have very specific laws, which you also mock. You are a hypocrite, Rick, pure and simple.
If people in some states are being fined and sent to jail for unclear laws and capricious law enforcement, then more detailed laws and more just law enforcement are in order in those locations.
The only reason you call it "capricious" is because it came up with a verdict you didn't like, Rick. There's no evidence that it was capricious at all.
Arizona officials need to get their act together before making capricious opinionated judgements not based on clear laws and accurate documentation of infringements. They are in the wrong. Period. End of story.
You are mistaken, Rick. You are substituting your judgment for that of the legislators and law enforcement of Arizona, and there's no reason to believe they're in the wrong and you aren't. You may wish it to be so, but repeating it is not going to win you any respect or any agreement.
>There's no evidence that it was capricious at all.
ReplyDelete- Hmmm. Did you even bother to read the link to the Phoenix police site? Apparently not.
Phoenix "Loud Party Ordinance"
"What does a loud party include? Any large party, gathering, or event with five or more persons who have assembled for a special occasion, social activity or other event on public or private property."
http://phoenix.gov/police/loud_party_eng.html
Notice that the summarized definition of a "loud" party does not even mention the word noise at all, let alone a clear standard of a certain amount of decibels. So, 5 people gathering together can be termed a "loud" party irrespective of how much noise they actually make? Ridiculous. Pay the police some money and you can sick them on any neighbor you want to. Nice.
In their list of offenses "loud music" and "Making excessive noise" are listed but, unlike the Massachusetts ordinance which lists actual decibels that can be objectively determined, they offer no objective legal standard and no prospect for measuring or determining that standard.
In considering the jailing of the pastor, this does not look good at all for the Arizona authorities. I just had to take a web clip image of this webpage. What a joke.
Notice that the summarized definition of a "loud" party does not even mention the word noise at all, let alone a clear standard of a certain amount of decibels.
DeleteThe next paragraph describes that it is at the policeman's judgment.
Pay the police some money and you can sick them on any neighbor you want to.
Rick, learn to read. Or dig a little deeper. The complainant does not pay the police; the costs are paid by the person responsible for the party, *if* the police deems that the complaint was appropriate. It's up to the policeman's judgment.
Also -- there is an established appeals process in the actual *code*, in which the burden of proof is on the *policeman*, rather than the person against whom the cost was levied.
they offer no objective legal standard and no prospect for measuring or determining that standard.
Remember what I said about specificity? You're asking again for very specific laws for a situation -- and if you want it here, to be logically and legally consistent, you need it for *any* such situation.
In considering the jailing of the pastor, this does not look good at all for the Arizona authorities.
Actually, considering that the pastor wasn't jailed for violating noise ordinances, this doesn't look bad at all. The "pastor" was jailed for violating his probation, which sprang from a previous violation of zoning and building safety ordinances. The original complaints at the very beginning of this are no longer under ajudication.
Why are you grasping at straws, Rick? You're ignoring the tax issue, the issue of filing false paperwork, the safety issue, the repeated refusal of opportunities to bring his situation into compliance -- and arguing "There isn't a specific decibel limit in Arizona law" as somehow wiping out all the other issues. This is at best ridiculous. At worst, it is rank hypocrisy.
Imnotandrei,
ReplyDeleteOK, so the offended neighbors don't pay the police, the one who they sick the police on does.
1. If the police understand they will be paid when they claim and convince others that someone is violating a noise ordinance, does that make the police non biased in assessing the judgement? Of course not.
2. The question of taxes relates back to the use of the home. Because a person uses a home for worship services, it is not automatically a public church building for reasons I've pointed out numerous times.
3. Claiming a home as a religious tax deduction for church use does not make a private home a public church building either. A man in florida claimed a church tax deduction for his home "because the residence periodically houses missionaries working in Haiti." "anything from holding worship services to "partaking of meals and fellowship" may be considered valid for a tax deduction in Florida. As I've asked several times already,
4. Show me the specific number of people she may worship in a large private home in Phoenix without having to call a private home a pubic church building. If you cannot, if there is no such determination, then making an arbitrary claim that a home where people meet must be converted into a public building is religious discrimination.
Unless you show that weekly sports TV parties need to be in homes converted into public sports bars and homes where Boy Scouts meet must be converted into public conference rooms, then the recent enforcement in Arizona is clearly unconstitutional. Plain and simple.
1. If the police understand they will be paid when they claim and convince others that someone is violating a noise ordinance, does that make the police non biased in assessing the judgement? Of course not.
DeleteThe police get paid regardless. They get paid a salary. The *state* may claim fines, but the state also has the risk of being sued if they demonstrate bias -- as Salman did sue them, and had his case *dismissed* by a federal judge.
2. The question of taxes relates back to the use of the home. Because a person uses a home for worship services, it is not automatically a public church building for reasons I've pointed out numerous times.
If a person claims a building on his property as a church, then its primary purpose needs to be a church, or they are violating the tax laws -- as has been pointed out to you numerous times.
A man in florida claimed a church tax deduction for his home "because the residence periodically houses missionaries working in Haiti." "anything from holding worship services to "partaking of meals and fellowship" may be considered valid for a tax deduction in Florida.
I would like a citation please -- and I stronly suspect that he does not claim the entire value of his home. If he did, it would mean churches are treated much more *leniently* than other businesses -- home office tax laws apply to only a portion of the house, and have very strict requirements about usage.
This speaks to law bending over backwards to *benefit* religion, rather than inhibit it.
If you cannot, if there is no such determination, then making an arbitrary claim that a home where people meet must be converted into a public building is religious discrimination.
If it was a home, that's one thing. But it's not. It's a 2,000-sq-ft addition that Salman claimed was a "game room" to Phoenix, and a "church" to the IRS. He wanted it both ways, and it came back to bite him. That makes him a liar and a hypocrite, just as it is making you one to keep defending him on repeatedly-refuted grounds and ever more far-reaching technicalities.
Unless you show that weekly sports TV parties need to be in homes converted into public sports bars and homes where Boy Scouts meet must be converted into public conference rooms, then the recent enforcement in Arizona is clearly unconstitutional. Plain and simple.
It's pretty clear; any time you say "plain and simple" you're wrong, at best, and lying, at worst.
If you advertise to the public as a sports bar, sell drinks, and claim your place of residence as a business to the IRS, you need to comply with zoning laws and building codes ,and you'll get kicked out of your neighborhood.
A church gets special *benefit* from zoning law, being allowed in a residential neighborhood. Salman took advantage of the laws over and over again, and when he was called on it, tried to hide behind "religious freedom" to pave over tax evasion or zoning violation. The recent enforcement in Arizona is perfectly constitutional, and Salman is a criminal.
Funny, we stopped discussing Salman s case and now are bickering about the principle of the law. Rick does not like the fact that the Laws in Arizona are not specific enough. Instead of writing to his congressman or trying to change the law with other people(which the majority seems content with and seems to be several decades old), he starts whinning about "recent persecution" of christians
ReplyDelete