Religious persecution, or overbearing regulations? (14 Viewers)

[primadox]

The county wanted a major use permit.

It looks to me like an attempt to make it look like a religious freedom issue when it's really about local ordinances that require a permit if you're going to have regular gatherings of significant numbers of people.

Not really enough info for more than speculation though.

It reminds me of the stories about people with enormous flags in their front yards that whip in the wind and make lots of noise, and when officials try to do something about the noise, they're blasted for persecuting someone for being "too patriotic."

This certainly isn't a constitutional dilemma. But to engage on the merits...
The issue isn't what goes on inside your home, but instead the "externalites" that your meeting imposes on your neighbors.
When you live in a city with finite parking space in your neighborhood, your neighbors have a right to care about the cars parked on the street in front of their house.

If you disagree, then are there any limits? What if I want to hold a "Phish" concert in my backyard?

[/realityEndsThisThread]

If the issue was a zoning/parking/ordinance issue, then the questions asked, "Do you pray?", "Do you say amen?", "Do you praise the Lord?" were completely unnecessary. Unless the activity is an illegal one (drugs, for example), what does it matter why they were meeting if the issue was parking? What is the difference between this and someone who hosts a weekly book club meeting in their home? Following parking rules applies to all, I agree, but the questions asked of the pastor sure seems to indicate that this was not the intent. I can see them following up on the denial of their rights since the line of questioning seemed to have more of a connection to the purpose of the gathering and not the logistics involved.

 

[brophy]

That is because of how (poorly) it was written.

It is a backwards formula for journalism (which would make it propaganda)

Have an agenda
Make an assertion
Then find evidence to support that assertion



But then again, that IS how journalism is these days
Would this have been posted if it had read "man cited for neighborhood parking violation"?

Whatever sells
Especially when you're selling "the muslim Black Obama is gunna take our guns,bibles, and make us communists!" (Which is how I've seen this article presented before)

 

[St. Widge]

This certainly isn't a constitutional dilemma. But to engage on the merits...
The issue isn't what goes on inside your home, but instead the "externalites" that your meeting imposes on your neighbors.
When you live in a city with finite parking space in your neighborhood, your neighbors have a right to care about the cars parked on the street in front of their house.

If you disagree, then are there any limits? What if I want to hold a "Phish" concert in my backyard?

[/realityEndsThisThread]

Of course there is a Constitutional dilemma. You have a conflict here between freedom of religions/freedom of assembly and a city ordinance that restricts one or both of those rights. You might think that the issue should be resolved in favor of the city, but the dilemma is still there. There are questions here regarding whether this is a reasonable restriction of freedom of assembly and there will also be questions on if the city ordinance is unconstitutionally vague, meaning that it is so unclear that it violated the notice requirement of Due Process.

 

[Richard]

This certainly isn't a constitutional dilemma. But to engage on the merits...
The issue isn't what goes on inside your home, but instead the "externalites" that your meeting imposes on your neighbors.
When you live in a city with finite parking space in your neighborhood, your neighbors have a right to care about the cars parked on the street in front of their house.

If you disagree, then are there any limits? What if I want to hold a "Phish" concert in my backyard?

[/realityEndsThisThread]

I have to say that if the article's information is correct and the attorney's description of the questioning is true, then these people were certainly targeted and it is most definitely a Constitutional issue. The impetus may have been a neighbor who was upset about parking, but the questions asked were unrelated to parking. In the comments below the article was this statement:

The problem is that the line of questioning had nothing to do with parking. It had to do with what they do in the house...pray and worship God. THAT is completely protected by the Constitution. So yes, it does sound like they are being targeted.

If "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' 'Yes.'", then that was certainly inappropriate, no matter the zoning laws. I know a little something about zoning laws, having been in city government, and it's hard to get one so broadly defined that you could restrict someone's personal use of their own home. The article states around 15 people met, so I can see how a dozen or so extra cars on an already crowded street might be an inconvenience for residents of that street. But what if the group met at a church and rode a couple of minivans to the house in question? From the questioning, I get the impression that the number of vehicles parked nearby wasn't as important to the county as the nature of the activity inside.

I know, during Saints games, I have said "Amen," "Praise the Lord" and prayed. If I had enough people over to watch the game each week, I could be accused of trying to establish a church.

 

[brophy]

Maybe it was just a neighbor who called the complaint in, simply because they were tired of having all parking areas overrun by non-residents?

The issue is parking.....NOT the reason they are attending the house (function)

But heaven forbid we let facts get in the way of a red-blooded christian-persecution hysteria fest

Ah, the american christian....a legacy of minority status and history of discrimination....queue the Ray Boltz music....

 

[Richard]

Maybe it was just a neighbor who called the complaint in, simply because they were tired of having all parking areas overrun by non-residents?

The issue is parking.....NOT the reason they are attending the house (function)

But heaven forbid we let facts get in the way of a red-blooded christian-persecution hysteria fest

Ah, the american christian....a legacy of minority status and history of discrimination....queue the Ray Boltz music....

Reading comprehension is your friend.

What kind of parking issue was at hand if they were asked, "Do you say amen? 'Do you pray? Do you say praise the Lord?"

 

[brophy]

Yes......a plaintiff and their attorney makes a claim to push a lawsuit against the city. I am SURE there is no other side to the story.

What was the (direct)quote from the city clerk?
What was the quote from the city administrator?
What was the quote from the mayor?


Hmmmm, nice journalism.

Reading comprehension back at ya, Goebbels

The Bible Study wasn't shut down because it was religious. The city got complaints about the parking.

Granting exemptions to religious activity unless the regulation prevents the free expression of relgion would turn the 1st Amendment on its head. If it's part of their religion that they can only meet in areas zoned as residential, then they would have a case.

Otherwise, you're making an argument for exemption churches from all health and safety laws as well.

Is it inappropriate for a city to create zones for industry, residential, apartments, churches, schools, etc?

Is it at all possible that having regular worship services with a gathering of guests allows the dwelling to be considered a church?

Just as someone who turns their dwelling into a daycare finds themselves being treated as a school?

Or someone who starts taking in lodgers ends up being treated as a hotel?

I may not always like zoning laws, but I don't believe they're unconstitutional.

 

[Shawn]

It had to be a complaint by a neighbor. The link was the only one I saw, but it is on Drudge, so I'm sure national attention is going to ferret out the rest of the story. IIRC, they did the same thing to a sex club in Florida not too long ago, but they used the "residential not business" zoning regs, due to the "pay to play" nature of the club.

Another thing: I flat out don't believe the version of the story put forth by the pastor.

If indeed they were asked some of the questions they claim they were asked--and that part is probably true--there could be very good reasons for it. Were they in fact using the meetings for some other purpose (selling tupperware...who knows?)...were some meetings religiious, and others were not? ...then there would be a need to find out if, in fact, they were really meeting for religious purposes. Of course, it could well be that a neighbor concocted some stories about them in the first place--in which case all the blame doesn't fall on the shoulders of the county. They have a duty to ascertain facts.

Honestly, who knows? It's all too sketchy and ambiguous.

 

[KardiacKat]

I have a great tolerance for religious beliefs and defend those who have them vehemently. That said, could Christians please stop playing the victim all the time? It's like those people who claim that prayer in school has been banned. No it hasn't. The only thing being banned is the forced participation/compliance of students in a prayer led by a school official, which is a GOOD thing. Seems like here there is no ban on having Bible studies, just a ban on disrupting the neighborhood with them. DO UNTO OTHERS. What would this pastor say if the Wiccans next door were having their eight sabbats a year with 15 or 20 people (and a bonfire!)?

 

[Three Monkeys]

This has everything to do with the use and the county is trying to establish what the house is being used for.

Here is the link to the San Diego code of ordinance.
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/zoning/z2000.pdf

Religious assembly IS allowed in in single family residential area., but "with the issuance of a Major Use Permit". And the ordinance specifically says "religious assembly" and not church.

And how many prayer meetings are being held a day/week/month? If it's happening 1x a day, I'd say the people living in the neighborhood have a legitimate beef.

 

[Richard]

I have always thought a parking or traffic problem was at the root of whatever complaint the county received. The county has every right to address those issues, but the warning was for holding a religious assembly without a permit. And, assuming the report is accurate, surely there is a more direct way of determining whether people are having a religious assembly without asking the questions they were asked, like asking them if they are holding a religious assembly. Asking if they say amen or praise the Lord or pray seems a little more invasive than asking the simple question.

 

[primadox]

I have always thought a parking or traffic problem was at the root of whatever complaint the county received. The county has every right to address those issues, but the warning was for holding a religious assembly without a permit. And, assuming the report is accurate, surely there is a more direct way of determining whether people are having a religious assembly without asking the questions they were asked, like asking them if they are holding a religious assembly. Asking if they say amen or praise the Lord or pray seems a little more invasive than asking the simple question.

Our church is large, and we have small groups that meet weekly in each others homes. Usually it's for a Bible study, but sometimes it's for more of a social evening, when we just play games and have a meal, for example. So, with the exact same group of people attending, and the same number of cars involved, I could NOT have my group meet for a Bible study, but I COULD have them over for games and dinner? Ridiculous. That DOES violate freedom of religion, IMO.

And SO WHAT if they were having a religious assembly in their home?? If the parking was an issue, I can see that, but if it was purely due to the fact that it was a meeting to praise God, then that is persecution. And no, I'm not a "poor me Christian", whining about how we're so mistreated. I'm an American who is livid over the fact that the right these people have to gather in their own home with those who share similar beliefs and have a small assembly is being denied.

 

[Shawn]

I have always thought a parking or traffic problem was at the root of whatever complaint the county received. The county has every right to address those issues, but the warning was for holding a religious assembly without a permit. And, assuming the report is accurate, surely there is a more direct way of determining whether people are having a religious assembly without asking the questions they were asked, like asking them if they are holding a religious assembly. Asking if they say amen or praise the Lord or pray seems a little more invasive than asking the simple question.

But again, you don't know what the overall line of questioning may have been. Were they being uncooperative? If I ask you what your meetings were for, and you say "they were religious"...and I ask what religion or what were you doing---and then you refuse to answer...there's just too many different directions this could have taken. To pull a couple of questions out of context as proof that you were being harassed is unfair.

And I'll repeat what I said earlier--if their story was true, I find it extremely hard to believe that they would have run afoul of either their neighbors, or the county. The county has better things to do with their time. There may be laws on the books requiring them to get a permit, but that would never, ever be enforced if it hadn't been brought to the county's attention.

I also find it hard to believe that there would be a traffic or parking problem if, as they say, the meetings usually had about 15 people.

I think they are lying, or they became so uncooperative and arrogant towards their neighbors, that people finally just got fed up with them. The persecution angle sounds like a complete smokescreen.

 

[Shawn]

Our church is large, and we have small groups that meet weekly in each others homes. Usually it's for a Bible study, but sometimes it's for more of a social evening, when we just play games and have a meal, for example. So, with the exact same group of people attending, and the same number of cars involved, I could NOT have my group meet for a Bible study, but I COULD have them over for games and dinner? Ridiculous. That DOES violate freedom of religion, IMO.

And SO WHAT if they were having a religious assembly in their home?? If the parking was an issue, I can see that, but if it was purely due to the fact that it was a meeting to praise God, then that is persecution. And no, I'm not a "poor me Christian", whining about how we're so mistreated. I'm an American who is livid over the fact that the right these people have to gather in their own home with those who share similar beliefs and have a small assembly is being denied.

You're making all kinds of ridiculous assumptions based on the notion that they were somehow being persecuted. Which makes you sound exactly like a "poor me" Christian.

You might dislike those kind of laws--I know that I do--but I've never, ever known them to be enforced unless the issue was forced by other people in the community/neighborhood.

 

[brophy]

Primadox,

That is EXACTLY why the article was written (as poorly) as it was.

It is a red herring and it apparently did what it intended to do (increase web hits)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin