San Diego County officials shut down home Bible study

[strollingbones]

oddly enough isnt this what christians did to other sects...

 

[KittenKoder]

oddly enough isnt this what christians did to other sects...

Often, yes. Many will abuse the laws to try to "punish" the others. But the sad fact is that it's still legal, thus why abusing the law often goes unpunished itself. Still though, I would rather someone get more of the facts involved, everything posted still has a religious slant to it.

 

[Amanda]

Oh please, KK... they are on a cul de sac... there is no cost. Someone complained and that is the only reason the city is even involved. Someone objected to their gathering and that is the only reason we're hearing about it. Either you support people being able to freely assemble or you don't, where do you stand?

 

[strollingbones]

my neighbors are free will baptist....i can hear their sermons clearly at my house...they must live a block away....not live but hold services...the preacher walks on the back of the pews etc...they also having parking problems....and they do not pay taxes on the land they own in the churches name..they are all for paying fair shares as long as it is you paying....and as for bible meetings in one homes....if this is weekly...then its more than a tupperware party and last time i played poker....their were maybe 15 of us..and we all parked in my drive....(long drive) if they are causing noise, leaving trash, taking up others parking then they are simply being bad neighbors which by the way i have found christians to be bad neighbors more often than not

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh please, KK... they are on a cul de sac... there is no cost. Someone complained and that is the only reason the city is even involved. Someone objected to their gathering and that is the only reason we're hearing about it. Either you support people being able to freely assemble or you don't, where do you stand?

Um ... there is a cost for road work in cul de sacs ... sorry, but I don't want to pay extra taxes for religious gatherings, pay enough as it is. Also no, complaints about using the parking spaces are what most likely caused the inquiry, and is extremely common in areas where parties are not the "norm". As I said, a lot of facts were avoided by the writer of the article, until I see more there is nothing to show that it was more than the city enforcing a law, period. Also, nothing is "free", everything costs money.

 

[strollingbones]

i wonder how pagans will treat christians when we become the majority....which is slowly happening

 

[strollingbones]

someone complained...probably the people who had their drive ways blocked....or were sick of the screaming and shit...i dont wanna hear amen and all that all evening

 

[KittenKoder]

someone complained...probably the people who had their drive ways blocked....or were sick of the screaming and shit...i dont wanna hear amen and all that all evening

Based on the city, I would guess it was more about the drive ways being blocked.

 

[editec]

An over-zealous interpretation of city codes, I think.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

This is par for the course when it comes to what San Diegans deal with...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/us/01statue.html

LOS ANGELES — A Latin cross that looms over San Diego from a hilltop city park can stay put, a federal judge has ruled, turning aside complaints that its presence violates the United States Constitution.
The ruling on Tuesday was the latest over the cross, the subject of a nearly 20-year-long legal dispute. The fight is among the longest-running involving a monument and questions of the separation of church and state.

Advocates of the concrete cross, which is 29 feet tall (43 feet with its base) and stands atop Mount Soledad in the La Jolla district, believe this latest turn could prove definitive. It was the first ruling since the cross and the property immediately around it were turned over to the federal government in 2006 to be maintained as a veterans memorial, and it was the first time a judge had based a ruling on the United States Constitution, rather than the State Constitution.

The judge, Larry Alan Burns of Federal District Court in San Diego, said in his ruling that the group that had sued to have the cross taken down, which consisted of an atheist and Jewish war veterans, had failed to prove that the cross’s primary purpose was religious.

Defenders of the cross argued that although religious services had been held at the site, the cross had evolved to serve a more secular function as a memorial to the nation’s war veterans, with some 2,400 plaques in tribute to them, arranged in six concentric rings at the base.

“The memorial is not designed for worship services, and there is no evidence the cross, which is surrounded by a tall fence and not approachable by visitors, is — or is intended to be — the object of religious devotion,” Judge Burns wrote, adding, “The primary effect of the Mount Soledad memorial is patriotic and nationalistic.”

James E. McElroy, a lawyer for Steve Trunk, the atheist who had filed suit, said an appeal would be filed within a couple of weeks with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. McElroy said that court would probably not rule for more than a year.

Mr. McElroy said Judge Burns had “clearly got it wrong” and had strived to avoid what Mr. McElroy saw as the central point: that a pre-eminent religious symbol, which he argued was placed with religious intent, should not be permitted to stand on federal property.

The case has already been to the United States Supreme Court on technical issues, and supporters of the cross say they believe that if the case returns there they will prevail, owing to the leanings of at least four and perhaps five or six of the justices in such cases.

“I feel real good about that,” said Charles LiMandri, a lawyer for a citizens’ group backing the cross. “We have a 75 percent chance of winning in the Ninth Circuit, and I think an 85 percent chance, maybe 90 percent, with the Supreme Court.”

 

[KittenKoder]

This is par for the course when it comes to what San Diegans deal with...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/us/01statue.html

LOS ANGELES — A Latin cross that looms over San Diego from a hilltop city park can stay put, a federal judge has ruled, turning aside complaints that its presence violates the United States Constitution.
The ruling on Tuesday was the latest over the cross, the subject of a nearly 20-year-long legal dispute. The fight is among the longest-running involving a monument and questions of the separation of church and state.

Advocates of the concrete cross, which is 29 feet tall (43 feet with its base) and stands atop Mount Soledad in the La Jolla district, believe this latest turn could prove definitive. It was the first ruling since the cross and the property immediately around it were turned over to the federal government in 2006 to be maintained as a veterans memorial, and it was the first time a judge had based a ruling on the United States Constitution, rather than the State Constitution.

The judge, Larry Alan Burns of Federal District Court in San Diego, said in his ruling that the group that had sued to have the cross taken down, which consisted of an atheist and Jewish war veterans, had failed to prove that the cross’s primary purpose was religious.

Defenders of the cross argued that although religious services had been held at the site, the cross had evolved to serve a more secular function as a memorial to the nation’s war veterans, with some 2,400 plaques in tribute to them, arranged in six concentric rings at the base.

“The memorial is not designed for worship services, and there is no evidence the cross, which is surrounded by a tall fence and not approachable by visitors, is — or is intended to be — the object of religious devotion,” Judge Burns wrote, adding, “The primary effect of the Mount Soledad memorial is patriotic and nationalistic.”

James E. McElroy, a lawyer for Steve Trunk, the atheist who had filed suit, said an appeal would be filed within a couple of weeks with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. McElroy said that court would probably not rule for more than a year.

Mr. McElroy said Judge Burns had “clearly got it wrong” and had strived to avoid what Mr. McElroy saw as the central point: that a pre-eminent religious symbol, which he argued was placed with religious intent, should not be permitted to stand on federal property.

The case has already been to the United States Supreme Court on technical issues, and supporters of the cross say they believe that if the case returns there they will prevail, owing to the leanings of at least four and perhaps five or six of the justices in such cases.

“I feel real good about that,” said Charles LiMandri, a lawyer for a citizens’ group backing the cross. “We have a 75 percent chance of winning in the Ninth Circuit, and I think an 85 percent chance, maybe 90 percent, with the Supreme Court.”

Meh, different horse. But I think that graveyards are exactly what crosses are for, they are a sign of death, thus in a place of death they are fitting.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

I guess you had to be here. San Diegans have an inferiority complex over their conservative neighbors to the north, Orange County, and seem to want to overcompensate with a lot of over the top lefty sabre rattling.

 

[KittenKoder]

I guess you had to be here. San Diegans have an inferiority complex over their conservative neighbors to the north, Orange County, and seem to want to overcompensate with a lot of over the top lefty sabre rattling.

Meh ...

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Has anyone ever told you you just basically say the opposite of what anyone else says?

 

[KittenKoder]

Has anyone ever told you you just basically say the opposite of what anyone else says?

Meh ... depends on that topic, but I do like to play devil's advocate. I can see any issue from any angle, agree or not, I still see the other side.

 

[Gunny]

*shrug* the issue is that he seems to be clogging up the street each week, which the county has the right to regulate. They seem to be going about it in a poor manner, but this isn't about what hes allowed to do in his home, its about not being a nuisance to the community.

From that POV, I can agree. The people should not be a nuisance to their community and the county has the right to regulate it. Parking in SD is a premium and pain in the ass on a good day, so I can easily understand it.

That's not what I'm seeing though. What I'm seeing though is the man is being told to cease and desist from having meetings that involve "X" number of people or apply for a license to hold such meetings.

I seriously doubt someone is just going to pull that statute out his rear without it being served with it.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

They have done this for some time, and neighbors never complained. It was only when an outsider was in the neighborhood, on occasion, found out what was happening, and made trouble.

Right out of the lefty handbook.

 

[wvulax]

It sounds like one of their neighbors had a friend in the local government who used their contacts to bring this shit storm upon the couple. I agree it's ridiculous.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Remember, Google tailors your search results based on what you typically search for, for me it came up around page 10, there are several "major use" permits in Washington state, and since I live here most of my searches include the word Washington or Seattle, so those all came up first, Seattle, followed by Renton and other cities, all of which had several within the "major use" type. Many of which were construction permits (which is odd but meh) and some were for event planning. All were Major Use: something-or-other.

Um... ok KK, whatever.

Some of us will grasp at any excuse... i guess you fall into that category. I'm a 'drunken teen in KC' and had no trouble finding the info but for you it's impossible. Sure.... whateva.

You must be drunk, since I didn't say impossible, just slower. Page 10, that's a lot of search pages to look through since I forgot to add the word California thinking that they would have the same permits. I was wrong in thinking they would all be the same, but that doesn't mean I was lying. You are however being dishonest. This whole issue is still not about religion, and so far only the reports on the story are all with religious whining, no one is stating "just the facts", but what more can I expect from a bunch of American Idol worshipers.

It most assuredly is about religion. The County SPECIFICALLY requires a permit for ANYONE yo have a home bible study. That is, in my opinion UnConstitutional. It Violates the 1st Amendment. The State has no business requiring licenses to have small gatherings in your home for religion. Nor the County or the City.

 

[Care4all]

well, in my opinion....the constitution doesn't necessarily protect your freedom to have rowdy beer bashes every week, if your town legislates against it....I lived in a DRY city in new jersey for a bit and there was nothing i could do to change that, as a one person army.

but MOST CERTAINLY the constitution DOES protect the FREE exercise of religion, and practicing ones religion, and if that means having a very small gathering at your home every week to sing and pray and have bible study, then there is nothing the government can legally do about it without breaking the 1st amendment of our very constitution.

care