Religious persecution, or overbearing regulations? (1 Viewer)

[Richard]

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.

Why would you think they were being uncooperative? If I am having around 15 people over to my house weekly for dinner and a Bible study and a code enforcement officer asks me what religion I belong to or what we are doing, I would reply by questioning the relevance of his questions. Again, if the report is accurate as to the questions asked, how could those questions be relevant in any code enforcement context?

According to reports, this group met in that home for five years without complaint. You are likely correct and this warning would never had been given had there not been a complaint.

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.

Why are her assumptions any more ridiculous than the assumptions made by others on this thread? You know, I don't know any "poor me Christians" and I don't know that I have ever met one. They must exist because I see people post about them and there must be a lot of them because, according to some, Christians are playing the victim all of the time. It must really be huge somewhere.

 

[St. Widge]

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....

Yeah, I'm well know for my wild eyed, Christian Fundamentalist stance on things. I'm probably letting my devotion to Christianity cloud my judgment and of course I have a Christian persecution complex.

Or maybe, just maybe, I'm an atheist who happens to think that rights like freedom of assembly and even freedom of religion are important. And, I can see past the biased reporting to the issues that are actually present without making a judgment with the lack of facts and while not ignoring the actual Constitutional issues involved while making sure to stereotype everyone that disagrees with me as a right wing, Christian nut job that is getting :christianmad: at the prompting of Fox News.

 

[Richard]

The TV station's article was poorly written as many TV stations' web pages are when done by people accustomed to writing for TV news rather than print media.

Here's a better one from the San Diego Union-Tribune:

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stor...00-county-wont-force-permit-bible-stud/?metro

Excerpt:

Dean Broyles, president of the Western Center for Law & Policy, a nonprofit organization in Escondido that supports religious liberty, is representing the Joneses. He said traffic issues were not raised when the code enforcement officer first visited the Joneses in response to the complaint. The warning itself does not mention traffic or parking problems.

“Even though the county is saying it's about traffic and parking, it's a fake issue. It's a fabricated issue,” Broyles said.

According to Broyles, the code enforcement officer asked a series of pointed questions during her visit with the Joneses – questions such as, “Do you sing?” “Do you say 'amen?' ” “Do you say 'praise the Lord?' ”

Wallar said the county is investigating what questions were asked and in what context. She said a code enforcement officer does have to ask questions about how a place is being used to determine what land-use codes are applicable.

“Our county simply does not tolerate our employee straying outside what the appropriate questions are,” Wallar said.

Ekard, the top county executive, emphasized in his statement that he would get to the bottom of the matter.

“Should I find that county staff at any level acted in a heavy-handed way; did anything inappropriate under the circumstances; or that a change or revision to our processes and procedures is warranted, I will take appropriate action immediately,” he said.

Having had experience with code enforcement people who lack tact, I can easily see how the officer handled his/her duties poorly and certain officials overstepped, making the county look bad. I don't believe the county administration nor Ekard had any part in this, except to have to field calls and take heat for what others may have done.

 

[brophy]

#1 there are is ONE SIDE presented this issue. We are hearing only the "facts" they are wishing to present. Ever hear one side of a divorce? That other person always sure sounds like an SOB, don't they?

#2 the claims have not been vetted and if true, what context did they occur in? While likely not appropriate, I could definitely see how that would be asked, especially if the plaintiff was being uncooperative and denying they were meeting for religous bible study.

#3 when you willfully only look at one side of the story, and cnveniently omit other relevant information, just to present a case of discrimination, it is easy to see the victimization sympathy one is looking to invoke. Somehow, I don't see the same people (in this thread) coming to the defense of a black person crying foul over claims of racial discrimination, but I could be wrong

#4 what could the rest of the story be? is there any conceivable scenario within this city's zoning laws that would make the counter argument viable?

 

[Shawn]

Why would you think they were being uncooperative? If I am having around 15 people over to my house weekly for dinner and a Bible study and a code enforcement officer asks me what religion I belong to or what we are doing, I would reply by questioning the relevance of his questions. Again, if the report is accurate as to the questions asked, how could those questions be relevant in any code enforcement context?

According to reports, this group met in that home for five years without complaint. You are likely correct and this warning would never had been given had there not been a complaint.


Why are her assumptions any more ridiculous than the assumptions made by others on this thread? You know, I don't know any "poor me Christians" and I don't know that I have ever met one. They must exist because I see people post about them and there must be a lot of them because, according to some, Christians are playing the victim all of the time. It must really be huge somewhere.

There are gaping chasms in the information about this case. What's omitted would likely shed a lot of light upon what happened, one way or the other. But she (primadox and others, and perhaps unintentionally) has filled in the gaps with assumptions that would assume some sort of persecution. The facts aren't there.

The original point I tried to make on this thread was that the dramatic, sensationalized nature of the story almost immediately discredits it, in my book. 99.99999% of the time I hear such outrageous accusations (orphans being tortured, nuns being dressed up like clowns, politicians eating puppies alive, whatever), well they're almost always false stories.

Could they have been "persecuted"? It's possible. But the pastor's story is just a little too neat and innocent and perfect for me. He certainly could be right, but I find the righteous indignation awfully premature, when there are so many facts missing.

If you want to play Columbo on this case, you don't really even need that many facts. What would the county's motivation be for shutting them down? Why would they bother? The theory being proposed is that the county is evil and hates Christians. Except that San Diego county is already and extremely conservative area, and there are no shortage of Christians in the community and the government. So that premise is pretty unbelievable. Add in the general inertia of government, the fact that they are overworked, the fact that they are going to be averse to cases which bring bad publicity, etc, etc), and I just can't buy into it.

 

[St. Widge]

Somehow, I don't see the same people (in this thread) coming to the defense of a black person crying foul over claims of racial discrimination, but I could be wrong

Yeah, I forgot, not only am I a Christian Fundamentalist Right Wing Nut Job, I'm also a redneck, rebel flag waiving, sheet wearing racist. Are there any other convenient stereotypes that you would like to throw out as ad hominen attacks against the people who disagree with you or would you like to actually discuss the issue?

 

[primadox]

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.

If my assumptions are ridiculous, based on what may have been a poorly-written article, then many in this thread and beyond are equally "ridiculous". Bottom line, according to the article, the line of questioning had nothing to do with parking and traffic issues, and everything to do with the purpose of their meetings; they were then cited. What are we supposed to assume? Sorry, but that's not "poor me", and if you think it is, that's your right to feel that way.

And I know from experience that it just takes ONE overly sensitive neighbor to cause something like this. I had a neighbor who complained about my dogs "that barked all night" -- my dogs were always inside and crated at night, so it was impossible for it to be my dogs that he heard. Nevertheless, I was investigated and from that day on had Animal Control patrolling our neighborhood, checking out my facilities for the dogs. This guy knew that I had 5-6 dogs at a time, and was determined that I shouldn't have that many (and I was in compliance with all local licensing and rabies laws). I asked all my other neighbors if they ever heard my dogs at night, and they said no (even though I knew there was NO WAY he heard my dogs). So, it was ONE NEIGHBOR, and an unreasonable one at that, which caused me to be scrutinized by officials up until the day we moved. So, and this is another assumption so take it that way, there is a possibility that it was ONE neighbor, like my old neighbor, who simply didn't like cars on the street, period, and rather than confront the pastor directly (my neighbor never confronted me directly either), they moved directly to an official complaint.

 

[Richard]

#1 there are is ONE SIDE presented this issue. We are hearing only the "facts" they are wishing to present. Ever hear one side of a divorce? That other person always sure sounds like an SOB, don't they?

Someone from both sides was quoted in both of the linked stories. But why so angry and jumping to the conclusion that the story as told by the pastor is untrue? It may be, but I don't know that. Since I don't live in that area, I will have to rely on the various news reports and draw conclusions from that. But once again, I was primarily interested in the story from the standpoint of the government's ability to restrict what one does in their home and the zoning issues that may have been involved.

#2 the claims have not been vetted and if true, what context did they occur in? While likely not appropriate, I could definitely see how that would be asked, especially if the plaintiff was being uncooperative and denying they were meeting for religous bible study.

The claim has been vetted and the warning withdrawn. The county told tham they could continue to meet as they have for the last five years.

My question to you is -- What business could it be of the county's what I am doing with 15 friends each week? And while there is no evidence that the man had been uncooperative, why should I cooperate beyond a simple answer that what I am doing in my home is not unlawful?

#3 when you willfully only look at one side of the story, and cnveniently omit other relevant information, just to present a case of discrimination, it is easy to see the victimization sympathy one is looking to invoke. Somehow, I don't see the same people (in this thread) coming to the defense of a black person crying foul over claims of racial discrimination, but I could be wrong

I am speechless.

#4 what could the rest of the story be? is there any conceivable scenario within this city's zoning laws that would make the counter argument viable?

Could be but I've given this one about all of the time I plan to.

 

[FullMonte]

My question to you is -- What business could it be of the county's what I am doing with 15 friends each week?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it may be because zoning laws in that area state what you can and can't do in a residential area.

And while there is no evidence that the man had been uncooperative, why should I cooperate beyond a simple answer that what I am doing in my home is not unlawful?

again...going out on a limb...since the zoning laws say that religious assembly in a residential home requires a permit...and the permit wasn't obtained...couldn't that be considered an unlawful act?

 

[primadox]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it may be because zoning laws in that area state what you can and can't do in a residential area.



again...going out on a limb...since the zoning laws say that religious assembly in a residential home requires a permit...and the permit wasn't obtained...couldn't that be considered an unlawful act?

But it's also a matter of what defines "religious assembly". We have a small group at our church, about 15+ counting kids, and we get together regularly. Sometimes it's just for dinner or games, but we may sing some songs and we'll definitely pray. Does that fall into the category of "religious assembly" and therefore I need a permit? Many, many, MANY people have Bible study groups in their homes...it's not "church", but more of an additional gathering to study the Word together with a smaller group of friends. If this is defined as a "religious assembly", then they need a permit? Does that mean every time I have a ladies group for a women's Bible Study in my home, I need a permit?

That's where there's way, way too many gray areas to make a blanket application of zoning laws to any religious assembly. If he was having Sunday church services in his home and was publicly advertising the services, then that's one thing. I agree that zoning laws would apply. But having a small group of people in your home to study the Bible is no different than having people over to play Pictionary, IMO.

 

[GhostFace]

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.

You have the freedom to get the proper permit. This is a situation that has nothing to do with religion. The only issue here is human bodies and vehicles and their effect on the immediate environment.

 

[primadox]

You have the freedom to get the proper permit. This is a situation that has nothing to do with religion. The only issue here is human bodies and vehicles and their effect on the immediate environment.

With that definition, any group the size of the group in question would have to get a permit. If you had a regular poker game at your house, or a group that got together monthly for a bar-b-que, or for whatever reason, do you really want to have to go get a permit? Isn't that overregulation? Don't our authorities have better things to do than to worry about the parking and permit issues involved with a gathering of friends in your own home?

 

[GhostFace]

But it's also a matter of what defines "religious assembly". We have a small group at our church, about 15+ counting kids, and we get together regularly. Sometimes it's just for dinner or games, but we may sing some songs and we'll definitely pray. Does that fall into the category of "religious assembly" and therefore I need a permit? Many, many, MANY people have Bible study groups in their homes...it's not "church", but more of an additional gathering to study the Word together with a smaller group of friends. If this is defined as a "religious assembly", then they need a permit? Does that mean every time I have a ladies group for a women's Bible Study in my home, I need a permit?

That's where there's way, way too many gray areas to make a blanket application of zoning laws to any religious assembly. If he was having Sunday church services in his home and was publicly advertising the services, then that's one thing. I agree that zoning laws would apply. But having a small group of people in your home to study the Bible is no different than having people over to play Pictionary, IMO.

If you have people over to play pictionary, every week, and they park all down the street half in people's yards, and in unison the entire group says "praise the lord" over and over and over, aggravating the crap out of your neighbors, who may be sleeping, watching a movie, making babies, etc. but can't go about these things because of constant chatter, car doors slamming, people walking down the street, singing and collective loud proclamations, then you will be in the same boat.

 

[GhostFace]

With that definition, any group the size of the group in question would have to get a permit. If you had a regular poker game at your house, or a group that got together monthly for a bar-b-que, or for whatever reason, do you really want to have to go get a permit? Isn't that overregulation? Don't our authorities have better things to do than to worry about the parking and permit issues involved with a gathering of friends in your own home?

Overregulation?absolutely. My point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

As for cops having better things to do in relation to my home rights...
When I moved into my current neighborhood I the trash day was different to my last, but I didn't know it. I put the trash out on sunday thinking trash passed on Monday. I left for work Monday and noticed the trash but it was 5:30am and I thought they may run later than by previous situation. Returned form work Monday, saw trash was still there, asked neighbor and realized the trash runs on tues, so, it being Monday night I left the trash out to be picked up Tues morn. Well Tuesday afternoon the police arrive at my house saying that a neighbor accross the street called the police because I left my trash out 3 days. No joke. The police came to my house over a trash can in MY yard, a clean, city issued trash can. Is that cool? Nope. I violated an ordinance and it had nothing to do with religion.

 

[dtc]

Unconstitutional - the questions the county official asked

No, its not. There are activities permitted in certain zoned locations. If a neighbor complained because an "AVERAGE" of 15 people were coming over 2 times per wk and taking up every parking spot and making a racket chanting and singing then the authorities are charged with investigation. Part of that investigation is to ascertain what is happening to lead to the complaint. If an organized prayer fest is going on 2 or 3 nights per week and zoning says churches and religious activity is confined to commercial zoning then they are perfectly within their means.

And why does this have to be about Christians? Wouldn't the neighbors complain equally if they were inside chanting to jabooty? Yes.