Posts
According to WorldNetDaily,
A San Diego pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a county official and warned they will face escalating fines if they continue to hold Bible studies in their home.I would be tempted to sarcasm: "Pardon me, I thought that The Sopranos had finished its run." Even for California, you don't see this nonsense carrying on much longer.
The couple, whose names are being withheld until a demand letter can be filed on their behalf, told their attorney a county government employee knocked on their door on Good Friday, asking a litany of questions about their Tuesday night Bible studies, which are attended by approximately 15 people.
"Do you have a regular weekly meeting in your home? Do you sing? Do you say 'amen'?" the official reportedly asked. "Do you say, 'Praise the Lord'?"
The pastor's wife answered yes.
She says she was then told, however, that she must stop holding "religious assemblies" until she and her husband obtain a Major Use Permit from the county, a permit that often involves traffic and environmental studies, compliance with parking and sidewalk regulations and costs that top tens of thousands of dollars.
Smitty
ReplyDeleteAgain I beg to differ
As a resident of Cal I expect it to go on for a long time. Our Gov is a practising(?) Roman Catholic atheist. He does not care for religion; in particular evangelical Christianity type religion. He dose share Bush's deep respect for the Religion of Peace ( Term GWB coined 7 years ago; which the MSM used to beat Republicans with for the next 6 years.)
Terminator is no longer popular but he is still Gov and the Assembly is as anti evangelical as he is even if they are in a different party.
Arnie had some home schoolers nailed last year because they were teaching their kids Jesus died for their sins. Which Arnie said violated the seperation of church and state so important in education - unless you teach about Mohamed!
an old exJarhead
Cerritos, Cal
You have to filter this story through a couple of facts:
ReplyDelete1. WND has a tendency to overstate some of their stories, presumably to stir up their audience.
2. I have lived in a number of homes where I had thoughtless and inconsiderate neighbors who have held seemingly innocent Bible studies, but their guests were consistently rude, parking too close to driveways, encroaching on fire hydrants, occupying parking spots normally used by homeowners, racing up and down the street as they arrived and departed, etc., not to mention the regular late-night noise-makers who don’t understand that some of us wake up early; which are among the many reasons we have zoning laws.
3. Most municipalities don’t have the resources to patrol for zoning violations; therefore it’s extremely likely that a neighbor triggered the investigation by a complaint for one of the reasons above or another, which resulted in the Q & A from the county.
4. I am not familiar with their zoning code, but it’s hard to believe that the county would require a Major Use Permit for such a limited, part-time activity unless, of course, they are violating the zoning code more frequently than Tuesday nights only. It’s more likely they simply need to apply for a variance or Conditional Use Permit, which is a very simple process.
5. Finally, the Bible requires Christians to obey every ordinance of man: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (1 Pet. 2:13). In other words, Scripture obligates this couple to conform to the zoning code of their county, which obviously precludes filing a complaint with the media where they can muster up sympathy.
In short, this one’s a no-brainer. If this couple wants to be good examples to their neighbors, they should shut up and obey the law.
Any smart leader, when confronted with a war to the death with islam would call the mudering savages "a religion of peace", given the fact that the MSM is aligned with the head chopping savages.
ReplyDeleteWow. Two Anonymouses. Anonymousi?
ReplyDeleteTo Anonumous.2, question: Do we really think that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion requires a permit from anyone?
If so, we have fallen a long, long way from the Constitution.
I'm suspicious of this WND story. Name the couple. More importantly, name the county official. If the story is indeed true, then there needs to be some explaining from the county. And this county functionary needs to be reacquainted with what, precisely, "the public good" means.
ReplyDeleteThe line of questioning and the requirement of a conditional use permit sounds like a blatant "undue burden" case to me. This is a free exercise issue, not an establishment clause issue, and if the facts of this case have evidence to back them up, that line of questioning was itself an undue burden. If the police had stuck to nuisance, noise, parking issues, and so forth, then these people might have a problem. A conditional use permit to pray in a private home? Ridiculous. These people should hire a civil liberties attorney, it would likely be worth HIS or HER time.
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:30, what you describe is worthy of a nuisance call out by police not a zoning issue.
ReplyDeleteActually, it would be a matter for a bit of talk with a neighbor.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteYou asked the wrong question. The question you should have asked is, “Does the freedom of religion clause guarantee the right to practice one’s religion in any place, at any time, and in any manner seen fit by the religious person?” And the answer is, of course, “No.” For example, what if I exercised my freedom of religion by slaughtering a bullock to YAWEH in my front yard? Perhaps I’m wrong, but I suspect that even WND would have problems with that. Let me put it this way: Your right to swing your elbow ends where my nose begins, and in like manner, your right to practice your religion ends where it encroaches on my private property, in flagrant violation of the zoning code. The freedom of religion guaranteed by our Constitution does not trump everything and it does not give you the right to break other laws.
Anon,
You have framed a straw man because none of us have any of the relevant facts in this case. We may assume that this is a zoning violation of some sort, such as a public gathering in an R-1 neighborhood, but we don’t even have that information.
Ronsonic,
Your point is valid, but the two (nuisances and zoning) intersect. If the nuisance violation takes place because of an ongoing zoning violation, then the authorities have cause of action to address both, and they would most likely violate their own code if they did not. Furthermore, I agree with you that a polite conversation should remedy these kinds of problems, but it has been my experience that they produce no results because in the end no one can police the behavior of others. You always get the handful of jerks who drive too fast, park too close, and talk too loud; the people who do not understand the meaning of courteous behavior; the rotten apples who force us to resort to the black letter of the zoning code.
For crying out loud, 15 people is about what you get for a bridge-group, or perhaps poker group.
ReplyDelete"If this couple wants to be good examples to their neighbors, they should shut up and obey the law."
ReplyDeleteI see. I take it you advocate for zoning requirements and/or permits to have political meet-up group meetings, bridge games, book clubs and dinner parties in private homes as well.
Some want to separate Church and State, except for when they don't.
As another example of the State imposing its will on Churches, the only reason a gay marriage law didn't pass in NH was because it had a religious protection clause. The legislature wants to force all NH Churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies.
Talk about a slippery slope! And that is why the tack should be to get the government out of the marriage business altogether.
I, for one, don't want or need the gubmint to recognize my marriage. But then, I don't want anything from the gov't. save to protect my Constitutional rights, and national defense (not to be confused with national offense i.e. the Bushbama Doctrine), and leave me the hell alone. Fat chance, I know.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090520/ts_nm/us_gaymarriage_newhampshire
Dad29,
ReplyDeleteStop your crying. If the bridge club or poker gang are official organizations that meet weekly at someone’s residence, then technically speaking they are in the same position as this church (at least according to most permitted activities in R-1 zones). The only difference is that, presumably, someone filed a complaint against the church and the odds are very good that the complaint was triggered by a consistent pattern of thoughtless behavior. Bottom line: if they obey the law then all these problems disappear.
Seriously, where do these blog trolls like Anon2 come from? Does he really believe that people should just shut up and obey arbitrary and capricious harassment by half-wit inspectors simply because the morons are on the public payroll? Please, this pastor's home's primary use is as a residence. Having 15 people over one night a week does not turn his house into a church building even if the purpose of those weekly get-togethers is bible study and prayer. That he has turned his home into another type of building seems to be what this particular county apparatchik is saying in attempting to cite the family for not getting a MAJOR Use permit. He ought to be fired for making such an absurd nuisance of himself.
ReplyDeleteAnon3
Rae:
ReplyDeleteWriting of me, you state, “I take it you advocate for zoning requirements and/or permits to have political meet-up group meetings, bridge games, book clubs and dinner parties in private homes as well.”
You may take this, but it is not position. I do not affirm these things as you represent them and you cannot find one instance in this thread otherwise. However, rather than nitpick with you, let’s test your consistency. You wrote, “I don’t want anything from the gov’t. save to protect my Constitutional rights . . . and leave me the hell alone.”
Assuming you live in an R-1 district, what exactly would you do if your next-door neighbor opened a pig farm in his backyard, claiming that he didn’t need no stinking zoning permit and he wanted the government to leave him the hell alone?
Anon 3:
You ask, “Does he really believe that people should just shut up and obey arbitrary and capricious harassment by half-wit inspectors simply because the morons are on the public payroll?”
No, I don’t really believe that. However, I do believe that you have misrepresented me in order to frame a strawman.
You continue, “Please, this pastor’s home’s primary use is as a residence. Having 15 people over one night a week does not turn his house into a church building even if the purpose of those weekly get-togethers is bible study and prayer.”
This is not true when it is an official organizational use, as in this case.
You continue, “That he has turned his home into another type of building seems to be what this particular county apparatchik is saying in attempting to cite the family for not getting a MAJOR Use permit. He ought to be fired for making such an absurd nuisance of himself.”
I seriously doubt the veracity of the MUP claim; nevertheless, zoning administrators have no latitude in these cases. Most codes require them to investigate all complaints, which probably accounts for this man’s line of inquiry, and since most zoning codes contain glossaries, I suspect he asked specific questions to see if their use of their home fit the definition of a “church.” Regardless, if the couple believes he is mistaken, they may always appeal his decision to the county commissioners; it happens all the time. I promise you, however, that they won’t obtain relief by complaining to WND.
Finally, and just to make a point, most people don’t know that Jesus Christ enforced the Hebrew zoning code when he cleansed the temple in John 2. The OT Scriptures revealed very clearly HOW that temple could be used, and flea-market activities were not a permitted use. The point is that zoning codes are not frivolous and it behooves all of us to consider our neighbors.
Now, if you don’t mind, I have a slaughtered bullock in my front yard that needs my attention.
Official organizational use? Unless the bible study group is incorporated there is no official organization. People getting together in someone's house, even on a regular basis does not constitute an official organizational use.
ReplyDeleteLast evening I and others were in the backyard of one of the neighbors, a place he calls the Biergarten, enjoying a brew and some company. Perhaps his house should be classified as a tavern? The strawman is all yours.
Anon3
Anon3,
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Biergarten: First, it’s a false analogy. Second, when your friend starts charging for admittance, then he has a problem. Third, I suggest you look up the definition of straw man.
Incorporation is irrelevant because churches do not have to incorporate. The two relevant points in the article are:
A. They used the home for “religious assembly”; and
B. They used the home for this purpose “regularly,” as in weekly.
The article implied that the couple conducted this “regular” “religious assembly” as a function of their church, and I’d bet money that they announced this Bible study in their weekly bulletin, which would cement the deal. You may take issue with this, or you may wish to parse words or uses, but that does not remove the fact of this illegal use and it does not remove the many reasons for zoning codes, not least of which is to protect property values. Let’s stretch the point: Currently, the couple hosts 15 people every Tuesday night and this doesn’t bother you. Assuming you live in an R-1 district, if your next-door neighbor hosted 150 people every Tuesday night, would that bother you? And if didn’t bother you but it did disturb another neighbor, would he be wrong to seek relief via the zoning code?
I'm sorry, what? Are you now claiming that admission was charged for this bible study? Are you claiming that because this bible study was probably announced in the church bulletin that it is classified as an official church function? Because none of that information is in the article and you are taking this discussion farther and farther from the facts with your speculations.
ReplyDeleteFor your information, bible studies in homes are common occurrences in the communities of many churches. You don't hear about zoning officials visiting private homes claiming that all the provisions made in a public assembly building now be made in a private residence for get-togethers that occur off church property. There is a reason you don't. It is nonsensical.
Fifteen people in a home sharing drinks or fifteen people discussing the bible...what is the difference? As far as municipal codes go, there is none.
Anon3:
ReplyDeleteRead. Think. Comprehend. Then read again. Then think before your write.
You ask, “Are you now claiming that admission was charged for this bible study?” No, I make no such claim.
You ask, “Are you claiming that because this bible study was probably announced in the church bulletin that it is classified as an official church function?” Yes, I am absolutely making this claim.
You say, “Because none of that information is in the article and you are taking this discussion farther and farther from the facts with your speculations.” This is not true. The article affirms two facts, which I noted. The third point about the church bulletin was pure speculation, which I noted as well.
You continue, “For your information, bible studies in homes are common occurrences in the communities of many churches. You don’t hear about zoning officials visiting private homes claiming that all the provisions made in a public assembly building now be made in a private residence for get-togethers that occur off church property. There is a reason you don’t. It is nonsensical.”
Yes, Bible studies are common occurrences, but just because you or I don’t hear about zoning officials doing this or that does not mean that they don’t. You are arguing from silence, which is nonsensical, and you are ignoring my point: If the code prohibits “religious assemblies” in their zoning district, and if someone complains about the religious assembly in their home, then the state has an affirmative responsibility to investigate the matter, determine its legality, and enforce the code. And if they don’t like it, they can always appeal their case and make the same arguments that you’re making, which is another way of saying that they don’t have a prayer.
Now, back to my question, which you have not answered: Apparently a neighbor complained about these 15 people, presumably because of some nuisance factor; moreover, you don’t care about 15 people meeting in a home for a religious assembly, which is your right; but what if 150 people met every week in the home next door to you and they regularly encroached upon your property, would have a problem with that? And if you didn’t have a problem with it but another neighbor filed a complaint, then I ask you which party is in the right?