Pastor arrested for holding home Bible study

[Ariux]

I didn't notice the article saying a word about parking. I think a lot of people are making assumptions and reading into it what they want to see.

Innocent until proven guilty. The guy has 4.5 acres of land. There should be no assumption that his guests are parking on the street.

 

[Ariux]

Fox News covered this:

Pastor jailed over private church services

Bottom line is because they assemble to pray rather than drink, the government is angry.

It's not a public accommodation so the zoning restrictions shouldn't apply.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Quite true. I know people who have 20+ friends over every weekend to drink and hang out, and as long as they keep the noise down, the city feels no need to start arresting people and invoking "zoning laws" and "fire hazards".

Try that in a residential family zone in Baton Rouge. Its not possible unless everyone walks, because you aren't allowed to park on the street, and you may only park in your front yard if the surface is durable. Plus owners are not allowed to rent a home to any group of people where there is more than a single person un-related to the rest. I used to live i such a neighborhood, and although the parking pigs never actually did anything, I was consistently nagged by the neighbors and threatened with enforcement (mostly in the form of cowardly anonymous notes) so that me, my brother, and my cousin, who all lived there, wound up with our 3 cars lined up on the driveway, having to bother each other to move them when needed.

Of course this is all in the lily white Romney voting areas of Baton Rouge where they prize individual liberty.

Perhaps that's why I - and the good pastor - live in conservative Arizona, rather than liberal-run Louisiana: because we'd like at least a shot at having our civil liberties respected.

Now please say something that's relevant to the story, because Baton Rouge ain't it.

Liberal run Louisiana?

What are you, a ******* moron?


The governor - Republican.

The Louisiana House and Senate - Republican

6 of 7 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives - Republican

1 of 2 seats in the U.S. Senate - Republican

 

[tererun]

So I guess for right wingers it is OK to use zoning laws to stop legitimate religious sites like mosques, but we should just toss out all the laws when it is a bunch of christians doing something they knew violated the law?

Seriously, they should find a ******* church like everyone else and not **** the neighborhood up by making a compound to christ on their property.

 

[Noomi]

So I guess for right wingers it is OK to use zoning laws to stop legitimate religious sites like mosques, but we should just toss out all the laws when it is a bunch of christians doing something they knew violated the law?

Seriously, they should find a ******* church like everyone else and not **** the neighborhood up by making a compound to christ on their property.

Yes, yes, ******* yes! You are absolutely right and I am surprised it took this long for someone to actually say that!

 

[Ravi]

The guy enjoys tax exempt status as a church. He is not also entitled to avoid zoning laws.

Imagine my surprise that conservatives support this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The guy enjoys tax exempt status as a church. He is not also entitled to avoid zoning laws.

Imagine my surprise that conservatives support this.

If he enjoyed tax exempt status as a church there wouldn't be any problem with the zoning laws because he would have a commercial use permit for his property.

 

[Katzndogz]

Was he passing a collection plate? If he wasn't, it wasn't a church. When the government can unilaterally qualify any building with a bible in it as a church, we have really lost freedom of religion. It's okay as long as its the Christian religion. Sacrificing animals in the living room is still okay.

 

[pinqy]

Was he passing a collection plate?

Yes, yes he was.

Let's go through the facts (from City of Phoenix):

■A house of worship is allowed in any zoning district in the City of Phoenix

So it's not about not allowing a church....He's allowed to have a church.

■The case is about the building that is used for regular assembly does not meet construction and fire code requirements for assembly
■All houses of worship in the City of Phoenix must conform to the same codes

But he does have to follow the laws about zoning, construction, and safety for a place of regular assembly.

Mr. Salman had regular gatherings of up to 80 people. He held services twice a week and collected a tithe at the services. The building that he held services in had a dais and chairs were aligned in a pew formation. He held himself out as a being a church through the media (Harvest Christian Church) and claimed a church status for tax exemption purposes on his property.

So why for zoning purposes is he claiming it's no more than 20 people and not a church?

Due to the regular, reoccurring high vehicular traffic in this quiet residential neighborhood, neighbors repeatedly complained about the public assembly occurring on his property. Because of the multiple, reoccurring complaints, the City investigated the activity and discovered numerous building code violations primarily related to fire safety standards.

Parking was not a problem (except his failure to have handicapped spaces), but neighbors complained, not about religion, but about the traffic.

Once apprised of these violations, the City could be held liable for not enforcing safety code requirements in the event anyone was injured on the premises. Prior to commencement of prosecution, Mr. Salman was asked, repeatedly, to comply with the safety codes of the City. He chose to ignore these requests for voluntary compliance prior to the commencement of any proceedings.

Why would he refuse? And here's the thing...he refused to obey the laws and now he complains about being arrested for it. How does that work?

In 2008, Mr. Salman's church, Harvest Christian Fellowship Community Church, is issued a Building Permit to construct a 2,000 square foot private game room accessory to an existing single family residence. The permit states, "Any other occupancy or use (business, commercial, assembly, church, etc.) is expressly prohibited pursuant to the City of Phoenix Building Code and Zoning Ordinances."

How was he unclear on what that meant?

On January 4, 2010, Harvest Christian Fellowship Community Church is found responsible for 96 civil code violations. The Court notes, "[T]he State is not saying the Salmans can't run a church or have worship services at the location, but the State is saying that if they do so, they must do it properly and in accord with the building, fire, and zoning codes."

On August 30, 2010, Mr. Salman was found guilty of 67 Class 1 Misdemeanors. The Court stated, "Everyone is entitled under the United States Constitution to worship as they please. But there is a reason for these codes and that is for public safety. And that, I believe, is all that the State is asking is that the Code violations be rectified."

So how is this an issue of religion?

 

[Katzndogz]

I want to see the zoning ordinance against mexican birthday parties.

 

[pinqy]

When the government can unilaterally qualify any building with a bible in it as a church,

Please show that any building in the US has ever been qualified as a church solely because of the presence of a Bible. Oh, wait, you can't.

It's okay as long as its the Christian religion.

Please show any difference in the application of zoning/construction laws towards Christian or non-Christian places of worship. Oh, wait, you can't.

Sacrificing animals in the living room is still okay.

Please give your source for that.

Oh, wait, you're just making all this up with no actual connection to reality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Try that in a residential family zone in Baton Rouge. Its not possible unless everyone walks, because you aren't allowed to park on the street, and you may only park in your front yard if the surface is durable. Plus owners are not allowed to rent a home to any group of people where there is more than a single person un-related to the rest. I used to live i such a neighborhood, and although the parking pigs never actually did anything, I was consistently nagged by the neighbors and threatened with enforcement (mostly in the form of cowardly anonymous notes) so that me, my brother, and my cousin, who all lived there, wound up with our 3 cars lined up on the driveway, having to bother each other to move them when needed.

Of course this is all in the lily white Romney voting areas of Baton Rouge where they prize individual liberty.

Perhaps that's why I - and the good pastor - live in conservative Arizona, rather than liberal-run Louisiana: because we'd like at least a shot at having our civil liberties respected.

Now please say something that's relevant to the story, because Baton Rouge ain't it.

Liberal run Louisiana?

What are you, a ******* moron?


The governor - Republican.

The Louisiana House and Senate - Republican

6 of 7 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives - Republican

1 of 2 seats in the U.S. Senate - Republican

First of all, you ignorant cow, Louisiana didn't have a single Republican governor from 1877 until 1980. Since then, 4 of their 8 governors have been Democrats, so don't give me that bullshit about how they're miraculously a "conservative" state just because they happen to have recently started electing people with R's after their names occasionally. That's like saying Massachusetts was a red state because Romney was governor there once.

And let me remind you that we ALL got to see how "conservative" the policies and people running Louisiana were during Hurricane Katrina. You may have tried to blame them on everyone else, the way leftists always do, but trust me that no one in the nation was buying your victim routine that time.

Furthermore, as far as I can tell, Baton Rouge specifically seems to have a city council that's dominated by Democrats. So the "It's the Republicans' fault!" thing ain't gonna work on this one, either.

FACT: Your state's been riddled with liberal and Democrat bullshit since the Civil War, and it's a little late now to elect Republicans to fix it and then blame all the problems on them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So I guess for right wingers it is OK to use zoning laws to stop legitimate religious sites like mosques, but we should just toss out all the laws when it is a bunch of christians doing something they knew violated the law?

Seriously, they should find a ******* church like everyone else and not **** the neighborhood up by making a compound to christ on their property.

"Seriously, people should do things they way I approve of, and stop thinking their personal property actually belongs to them."

Who the hell are YOU to tell people how they should prefer to worship? And what law gives you the right to do so? Certainly not the Constitution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So I guess for right wingers it is OK to use zoning laws to stop legitimate religious sites like mosques, but we should just toss out all the laws when it is a bunch of christians doing something they knew violated the law?

Seriously, they should find a ******* church like everyone else and not **** the neighborhood up by making a compound to christ on their property.

Yes, yes, ******* yes! You are absolutely right and I am surprised it took this long for someone to actually say that!

Noomi, you arrogant twerp, what makes you think you're qualified to comment on the laws and traditions of someone else's country? What makes you think you know jack shit about America or Americans? And what, for the love of God, makes you think anyone in the United States gives shit one what you think?

If you're happy having your government micromanage your life, then fine. Stay there and have at. I don't think anyone was inviting you to come join us, anyway. But keep your peculiarities to yourself. Shockingly enough, not everyone in the world wants to be Australia, or would take Australia on a frigging silver platter if it was offered to them. Please disabuse yourself of the notion that you and your pissant country are anything the rest of the world aspires to, or even freaking notices.

 

[Ariux]

■The case is about the building that is used for regular assembly does not meet construction and fire code requirements for assembly
■All houses of worship in the City of Phoenix must conform to the same codes

So how is this an issue of religion?

You link to a website that goes to great lengths to prove this is a church and then you ask how this is an issue of religion?

Going with your shit-brained analysis, a family of four sitting down for dinner in their house is illegal. It's an assembly, a regular assembly, right?

Not every assembly constitutes an assembly under city code. It looks like the city defines a church as an assembly. So, this is an assembly because it's a church, therefor it is an issue of religion. If the only difference was that these same people gathered in that same building to drink rather than worship, the city would leave them alone.

 

[Ariux]

Parking was not a problem (except his failure to have handicapped spaces), but neighbors complained, not about religion, but about the traffic.

In our previous episode, we established that you're a shithead for denying it's about religion, even when the City's case hinges on this being a church. Now, you accept jewish lies that there's a traffic problem.

How much traffic could a tiny church generate? Even one new house built on the road could generate more traffic, with a couple of family members going places every day, and occasionally having friends over to drink, not worship. The traffic complaint is just anti-Christian bigots looking for excuses to attack a church while denying it's about religion.

(I would agree with that Jewish neighbor if these guest were parking on the street, but they're not.)

Why would he refuse? And here's the thing...he refused to obey the laws and now he complains about being arrested for it. How does that work?

Shithead, he's trying to stand up for his rights. If he thinks the city's orders are a violation of his rights, he's going to think being arrested for not complying is also a violation of his rights. You sure are stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So why for zoning purposes is he claiming it's no more than 20 people and not a church?

Regular gatherings of up to 80 people and no more than 20 people who show up regularly are not mutually exclusive statements. Most churches have 4 to 5 times as many people show up on Easter than they do during their regular service. It is actually possible that both sides are telling the truth, just emphasizing different things to defend their position.

Parking was not a problem (except his failure to have handicapped spaces), but neighbors complained, not about religion, but about the traffic.

How many neighbors complained, and how much extra traffic did the meetings actually produce?

The only side that is offering details here other than a vague people complained is the church. They say their nearest neighbor is 100 feet away, that no one ever complained directly to them, and that a traffic counter placed on the street by the city actually recorder over 2000 cars a week. That does not sound like a quiet residential street to me.

Why would he refuse? And here's the thing...he refused to obey the laws and now he complains about being arrested for it. How does that work?

Maybe because, according to him the city also asked him to pay to add curbs to his street for 300 feet in both directions, and they wanted him to widen the street. Personally, I agree with him that is ridiculous.

How was he unclear on what that meant?[/quote[]

He claims that he was holding services in his yard. Given that the police actually had to ask for a key to the building when they searched his property after rounding all of his guests up and putting them in his living room, I think he just might be telling the truth.

So how is this an issue of religion?

How is it not?

Believe it or not, administrative judges often have a loose interpretation of the rules of evidence. When it comes down to the city saying one thing, and a person saying the opposite, you are essentially guilty until proven innocent. Personally, I want to see more of the actual evidence the city has from their 90 minute search of his property to see if they actually found evidence he was holding services inside the rec room, and not using it for people to get together after services to watch moves and play Pinochle.

Then again, I tend to think the government is run by a bunch of petty thugs with nothing better to do than make life hard for regular people.

 

[Againsheila]

So why for zoning purposes is he claiming it's no more than 20 people and not a church?

Regular gatherings of up to 80 people and no more than 20 people who show up regularly are not mutually exclusive statements. Most churches have 4 to 5 times as many people show up on Easter than they do during their regular service. It is actually possible that both sides are telling the truth, just emphasizing different things to defend their position.

Parking was not a problem (except his failure to have handicapped spaces), but neighbors complained, not about religion, but about the traffic.

How many neighbors complained, and how much extra traffic did the meetings actually produce?

The only side that is offering details here other than a vague people complained is the church. They say their nearest neighbor is 100 feet away, that no one ever complained directly to them, and that a traffic counter placed on the street by the city actually recorder over 2000 cars a week. That does not sound like a quiet residential street to me.



Maybe because, according to him the city also asked him to pay to add curbs to his street for 300 feet in both directions, and they wanted him to widen the street. Personally, I agree with him that is ridiculous.

How was he unclear on what that meant?[/quote[]

He claims that he was holding services in his yard. Given that the police actually had to ask for a key to the building when they searched his property after rounding all of his guests up and putting them in his living room, I think he just might be telling the truth.

So how is this an issue of religion?

How is it not?

Believe it or not, administrative judges often have a loose interpretation of the rules of evidence. When it comes down to the city saying one thing, and a person saying the opposite, you are essentially guilty until proven innocent. Personally, I want to see more of the actual evidence the city has from their 90 minute search of his property to see if they actually found evidence he was holding services inside the rec room, and not using it for people to get together after services to watch moves and play Pinochle.

Then again, I tend to think the government is run by a bunch of petty thugs with nothing better to do than make life hard for regular people.

ditto

 

[Ariux]

Personally, I want to see more of the actual evidence the city has from their 90 minute search of his property to see if they actually found evidence he was holding services inside the rec room, and not using it for people to get together after services to watch moves and play Pinochle.

There's no question that the man is running a church. The issue is if the city has the right to equate his church with public or commercial assemblies. As a private or non-commercial church, on residential property, the answer is no. Legitimately, to the city, it's just a bible study or a book club.

The government has no constitutional or moral right to apply religious tests to this man's private activities.

The city's claim that there's safety issues is also absurd. It's a one-room building. Safety doesn't require sprinklers. If there's a fire, everyone will see it right away and everyone will be able to safely leave through one of the two doors. It's not like people could get trapped inside because of a fire.

 

[katsung47]

Some said the pastor broke the law. Then this law is an evil law. Because it violates the basic civil right that people have the freedom to gathering and freedom of speech.

Government used to pass evil law to give them extra power to rule people such like Patriot Act, NDAA.....

I think the reason is in that group there is no snitch of the Feds so the big brother is suspicious. The Feds used to control any organization by planting informants in it. This one may lack one so it has a problem.

You also can tell that the snitches are so popular these days, from the those who defend the government behave. What they rely on is that unreasonable "law" dispite it violates civil right.