Religious persecution, or overbearing regulations? (11 Viewers)

[Devildog]

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.

Yes, it is. If it was about zoning laws and getting permits, fine. They should have just told them to get the permits or find a different venue for their activities. There is absolutely no reason for the police to ask those questions like that. Common sense left a long time ago.

I would also say the same thing for whatever type of meetings were going on there.

 

[dtc]

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:



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.

You're missing it. The inspector was asking because this obviously is a religious meeting and ordinances probably address regularly scheduled worship. Wait until the rest comes out, but these people are probably having an occasional 100 people where they're singing, chanting and having a good time at the expense of the neighbors and in violation of zoning ordinances. The fact that they were praying is evidence of violation of the code and has nothing to do with religious persecution.

 

[GhostFace]

Yes, it is. If it was about zoning laws and getting permits, fine. They should have just told them to get the permits or find a different venue for their activities. There is absolutely no reason for the police to ask those questions like that. Common sense left a long time ago.

I would also say the same thing for whatever type of meetings were going on there.

I will give you a reason, again. Neighbors complain of loud "praise the lords", "amens" etc being said in unison by a bunch of people. Cop does his job by investigating.

 

[Saint Mike]

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

It's not necessarily about Christianity, it's about religion in general. I know that the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has successfully defended similar cases in other states involving Buddhists, Hindus, and other religious groups.

 

[St. Widge]

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.

It has to do with religion by nature because the activity being done is a religious activity. Which is protected by the 1st Amendment. So, if you restrict it in any way, regardless of if you intend it or not, there is a question of the First Amendment Right of the free exercise of your religion. Now, based on the case law posted by JE, SCOTUS has held that this type of restriction would not violate the First Amendment Right to free exercise of religion. But, that does not mean that the right to freedom of assembly, also guaranteed by the First Amendment is nto also implicated. In the end, I think that too would be found not to be violated because the proper "due process" is being done in investigations and hearings. However, to say there is no Constitutional issue here is patently false, it turns out that I think that Constitutional rights are not being violated, although I could argue it the other way, but just because the end conclusion is that rights are not being violated does not mean that there are not Constitutional, in this instance freedom of religion and freedom of assembly involved. This really should not be that difficult for people to understand.

 

[Devildog]

It has to do with religion by nature because the activity being done is a religious activity. Which is protected by the 1st Amendment. So, if you restrict it in any way, regardless of if you intend it or not, there is a question of the First Amendment Right of the free exercise of your religion. Now, based on the case law posted by JE, SCOTUS has held that this type of restriction would not violate the First Amendment Right to free exercise of religion. But, that does not mean that the right to freedom of assembly, also guaranteed by the First Amendment is nto also implicated. In the end, I think that too would be found not to be violated because the proper "due process" is being done in investigations and hearings. However, to say there is no Constitutional issue here is patently false, it turns out that I think that Constitutional rights are not being violated, although I could argue it the other way, but just because the end conclusion is that rights are not being violated does not mean that there are not Constitutional, in this instance freedom of religion and freedom of assembly involved. This really should not be that difficult for people to understand.

Thank you.

 

[Devildog]

I will give you a reason, again. Neighbors complain of loud "praise the lords", "amens" etc being said in unison by a bunch of people. Cop does his job by investigating.

For what? Who cares if they're saying amen or go satan? Seems like you do. I don't. The article even states that there was no complaint of traffic or parked cars. Again, it makes no difference why they were gathered there.

Would you need a permit for a gathering of people for Monday Night Football as the article states. They sometimes gather more than 20 people.

From the article:

>Chandra Wallar, the county's general manager of land use and environment, said the county has re-examined the situation and decided that the Joneses don't need a permit after all.

Religious assembly, under the county land-use code, is defined as “religious services involving public assembly such as customarily occurs in synagogues, temples, and churches.<

 

[GhostFace]

For what? Who cares if they're saying amen or go satan? Seems like you do. I don't. The article even states that there was no complaint of traffic or parked cars. Again, it makes no difference why they were gathered there.

Would you need a permit for a gathering of people for Monday Night Football as the article states. They sometimes gather more than 20 people.

From the article:

>Chandra Wallar, the county's general manager of land use and environment, said the county has re-examined the situation and decided that the Joneses don't need a permit after all.

Religious assembly, under the county land-use code, is defined as “religious services involving public assembly such as customarily occurs in synagogues, temples, and churches.<

I have already addressed and explained every point you make because you continue to respond with the same points regardless of what I say. If I keep saying something is orange, and you keep asking "why isn't it brown" and I keep saying "because it is orange" then truth has ceased to matter.

 

[GhostFace]

It has to do with religion by nature because the activity being done is a religious activity. Which is protected by the 1st Amendment. So, if you restrict it in any way, regardless of if you intend it or not, there is a question of the First Amendment Right of the free exercise of your religion. Now, based on the case law posted by JE, SCOTUS has held that this type of restriction would not violate the First Amendment Right to free exercise of religion. But, that does not mean that the right to freedom of assembly, also guaranteed by the First Amendment is nto also implicated. In the end, I think that too would be found not to be violated because the proper "due process" is being done in investigations and hearings. However, to say there is no Constitutional issue here is patently false, it turns out that I think that Constitutional rights are not being violated, although I could argue it the other way, but just because the end conclusion is that rights are not being violated does not mean that there are not Constitutional, in this instance freedom of religion and freedom of assembly involved. This really should not be that difficult for people to understand.

You are acting as if religion and government restrictions are virgin partners. Freedom of religion in the original version of the constitution and Freedom of religion in the current state of the constitution are two different things. The contemporary version exists with many rights "restricted", from tax issues to polygamy. It would be delusional to pretend that the rights you reference are relevant in this current constitutional climate. Once again, I think it is horrible anytime the government sticks its nose in, but this case has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the restrictions we indulge in, biting back.

 

[Richard]

From the article:

Wallar said the person who filed the complaint alleged that Bible study was drawing 30 to 40 cars.

In an interview yesterday, the pastor said at most, there are six additional cars on Bible study day. Jones, pastor of South Bay Community Church in National City, said he has visitors park in a lot that he owns beside his house.

Now not being there to witness it myself, I have no way of knowing if the person complaining is closer to being correct about the number of cars or the pastor was correct in saying "at most, there are six additional cars...." But if he has his visitors park in a vacant lot beside his home, and there had not been a complaint in the five years that the gatherings had been taking place, I don't think it's unreasonable to deduce that this issue was less about parking or neighborhood inconvenience as it was an individual angry that his car had been dinged by one of the visitors (the pastor/neighbor reportedly paid for the damages).

None of the reports speak of neighbors being deluged by the sounds emanating from the pastor's home, none mention singing, loud proclamations or other noise problems and none mention large numbers of people. They only mention the nature of the gathering. And since the warning was not for parking or traffic violations, there is reason to believe that at least the stated purpose of the inquiries was to determine the nature of the meetings. So I return to my question relating to the type of questions asked by the code enforcement officer (who is not to my knowledge a law enforcement officer, such as a policeman). Wouldn't a simple question like "Is this regular meeting of a religious nature?" and leave it at that, if that was all they were trying to ascertain? What could the possible benefit to her investigation be to ask if they say amen, pray or engage in any other activity? Therein lies the rub for me, in many ways.

Remove religion from the equation for a moment, as some would like to do. Say you have a weekly grill night and poker game with around 15-20 friends and spouses. Most, if not all, of your guests park in a vacant lot by your home and all activities of the group take place indoors, except for the cooking. The weekly group gets together for five years without incident before a code enforcement office knocks on your door and starts to ask questions.

"Do you have a group that meets here every week?"
"Does any of your party pitch in financially for any of the things they eat or drink?" (the officer may have an issue with whether your are profiting from these gatherings and therefore need a business license)
"Does any of your party drink alcohol in your home?" (the officer may have an issue with the age of those involved in drinking or combined with the previous question may think you need a liquor license)
"Does anyone tell crude jokes?"
"Does anyone smoke in your home?"
"Do you smoke pot?"
"Do you have sex with your spouse or anyone else's spouse after these gatherings?"

None of these activities are illegal (except the pot smoking) and can't possibly justify a probing investigation of your activities in your own home.

OK, the questions are pretty silly, but the point is that the code enforcement officer needed only determine whether there was a religious nature to the meetings to justify (wrongly it turns out) the warning and the more probing questions (if they in fact took place) were IMO unwarranted, invasive and improper. What I do in my home is none of the government's business if it is not illegal. A group meeting for any lawful purpose is none of their business. So if the officer asked the question in a straightforward manner and it was answered honestly, why the more penetrating questions?

 

[primadox]

From the article:


Now not being there to witness it myself, I have no way of knowing if the person complaining is closer to being correct about the number of cars or the pastor was correct in saying "at most, there are six additional cars...." But if he has his visitors park in a vacant lot beside his home, and there had not been a complaint in the five years that the gatherings had been taking place, I don't think it's unreasonable to deduce that this issue was less about parking or neighborhood inconvenience as it was an individual angry that his car had been dinged by one of the visitors (the pastor/neighbor reportedly paid for the damages).

None of the reports speak of neighbors being deluged by the sounds emanating from the pastor's home, none mention singing, loud proclamations or other noise problems and none mention large numbers of people. They only mention the nature of the gathering. And since the warning was not for parking or traffic violations, there is reason to believe that at least the stated purpose of the inquiries was to determine the nature of the meetings. So I return to my question relating to the type of questions asked by the code enforcement officer (who is not to my knowledge a law enforcement officer, such as a policeman). Wouldn't a simple question like "Is this regular meeting of a religious nature?" and leave it at that, if that was all they were trying to ascertain? What could the possible benefit to her investigation be to ask if they say amen, pray or engage in any other activity? Therein lies the rub for me, in many ways.

Remove religion from the equation for a moment, as some would like to do. Say you have a weekly grill night and poker game with around 15-20 friends and spouses. Most, if not all, of your guests park in a vacant lot by your home and all activities of the group take place indoors, except for the cooking. The weekly group gets together for five years without incident before a code enforcement office knocks on your door and starts to ask questions.

"Do you have a group that meets here every week?"
"Does any of your party pitch in financially for any of the things they eat or drink?" (the officer may have an issue with whether your are profiting from these gatherings and therefore need a business license)
"Does any of your party drink alcohol in your home?" (the officer may have an issue with the age of those involved in drinking or combined with the previous question may think you need a liquor license)
"Does anyone tell crude jokes?"
"Does anyone smoke in your home?"
"Do you smoke pot?"
"Do you have sex with your spouse or anyone else's spouse after these gatherings?"

None of these activities are illegal (except the pot smoking) and can't possibly justify a probing investigation of your activities in your own home.

OK, the questions are pretty silly, but the point is that the code enforcement officer needed only determine whether there was a religious nature to the meetings to justify (wrongly it turns out) the warning and the more probing questions (if they in fact took place) were IMO unwarranted, invasive and improper. What I do in my home is none of the government's business if it is not illegal. A group meeting for any lawful purpose is none of their business. So if the officer asked the question in a straightforward manner and it was answered honestly, why the more penetrating questions?

lus-un2: Very well said, Richard.

 

[Devildog]

I have already addressed and explained every point you make because you continue to respond with the same points regardless of what I say. If I keep saying something is orange, and you keep asking "why isn't it brown" and I keep saying "because it is orange" then truth has ceased to matter.

Richard's post explains it a lot better than I could have. And if you think this is simply about code enforcement, well, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[St. PJ]

sounds like overbearing regulations, but you never know, they could be worshipping Osama Bin Laden as the second coming and proclaiming it over a bull horn and disturbing neighbors or something that would cause the police to look for something to get them on.

edit-- just read richard's post. plus one

 

[kcirdor]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UtYoUR44QsY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UtYoUR44QsY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Sailorsaint]

Closest topic I could find for this…

At least 7 Oklahoma superintendents are refusing to show Ryan Walters' video to students

Leaders of seven large school districts say they won't show a video in which state Superintendent Ryan Walters talks about a new office in his agency.

www.oklahoman.com