PDA

View Full Version : Religion Couple: County Trying To Stop Home Bible Studies


petegz28
05-28-2009, 09:47 PM
What the fuck is this country coming too? What happened to "Freedom of Religion"? This is exactly why we have the Separation clause.


http://www.10news.com/news/19562217/detail.html

SAN DIEGO -- A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold Bible studies in their home, 10News reported.

Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife.

Broyles said, "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.'"

The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.

Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit" -- a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

"For churches and religious assemblies there's big parking concerns, there's environmental impact concerns when you have hundreds or thousands of people gathering. But this is a different situation, and we believe that the application of the religious assembly principles to this Bible study is certainly misplaced," said Broyles.

News of the case has rapidly spread across Internet blogs and has spurred various reactions.

Broyles said his clients have asked to stay anonymous until they give the county a demand letter that states by enforcing this regulation the county is violating their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.

Broyles also said this case has broader implications.

"If the county thinks they can shut down groups of 10 or 15 Christians meeting in a home, what about people who meet regularly at home for poker night? What about people who meet for Tupperware parties? What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers?" Broyles asked.

Broyles and his clients plan to give the County their demand letter this week.

If the County refuses to release the pastor and his wife from obtaining the permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

InChiefsHell
05-28-2009, 09:49 PM
Velkommen to Kalifornia...

KILLER_CLOWN
05-28-2009, 09:50 PM
Yup i've seen this coming for years, you have the right to religious freedom as long as you have a 501c3 permit which then allows the government to dictate what you can teach.

petegz28
05-28-2009, 09:51 PM
I'm not even a Chrsitian but damn man! What the ****? I thought this was America? Isn't this America? I thought we were in America? I'm sorry I thought this was America.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-28-2009, 09:53 PM
I'm not even a Chrsitian but damn man! What the ****? I thought this was America? Isn't this American? I thought we were in America? I'm sorry I thought this was America.

Well it is as long as the government can dictate and enforce their views on you.

banyon
05-28-2009, 09:53 PM
I looked for an alternate explanation and didn't find any. I don't see any good explanation for this. Appears to be an overzealous county employee.

irishjayhawk
05-28-2009, 09:54 PM
Great thread. ROFL

petegz28
05-28-2009, 09:55 PM
I looked for an alternate explanation and didn't find any. I don't see any good explanation for this. Appears to be an overzealous county employee.

There isn't one. This is either harrasment or the State being so fucking starved for money they are now picking on home schooled Christians. :eek:

petegz28
05-28-2009, 09:58 PM
<a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=754461">Arresting me for what?</a><br/><object width="425px" height="360px" ><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><param name="movie" value="http://mediaservices.myspace.com/services/media/embed.aspx/m=754461,t=1,mt=video"/><embed src="http://mediaservices.myspace.com/services/media/embed.aspx/m=754461,t=1,mt=video" width="425" height="360" allowFullScreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"></embed></object>

petegz28
05-28-2009, 10:09 PM
I want to know why 15-20 people can get together to watch football without the homeowner having to charge for admission and have a permit but if you get together and talk about the Bible you are breaking the law?

irishjayhawk
05-28-2009, 10:25 PM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/mhULzrzz8nyxkjeiHrvHeAHGo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1243657500&Signature=7LPp1YKy6KdUQjBKGMAVR60ok3c%3D

petegz28
05-28-2009, 10:28 PM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/mhULzrzz8nyxkjeiHrvHeAHGo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1243657500&Signature=7LPp1YKy6KdUQjBKGMAVR60ok3c%3D

Is this how your mom found out you were gay?

HolyHandgernade
05-28-2009, 10:30 PM
Sounds to me like a neighbor got fed up with the streets lined with cars on each night of the meetings. I have no idea what all the questions about what went on at the meeting was about, and I doubt we got the full context. Probably something along the lines of:

"Reports say your holding a church service here each week."

"It's just a Bible study group."

"Do you have a regular place of worship outside of this home?"

"No."

"Do you have a regular meeting in your home?"

"Yes."

"At these Bible study groups, 'Do you say amen?'"

"Yes."

"Do you pray?"

"Yes."

"Do you say praise the Lord?"

"Yes."

"Then you have an unlawful use of land and must stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit."

-HH

blaise
05-28-2009, 10:31 PM
Great thread. ROFL

You're right, there should only be threads ridiculing religion allowed.

irishjayhawk
05-28-2009, 10:32 PM
You're right, there should only be threads ridiculing religion allowed.

That's not what I said, is it? I said it was a great thread.

blaise
05-28-2009, 10:33 PM
Sounds to me like a neighbor got fed up with the streets lined with cars on each night of the meetings. I have no idea what all the questions about what went on at the meeting was about, and I doubt we got the full context. Probably something along the lines of:

"Reports say your holding a church service here each week."

"It's just a Bible study group."

"Do you have a regular place of worship outside of this home?"

"No."

"Do you have a regular meeting in your home?"

"Yes."

"At these Bible study groups, 'Do you say amen?'"

"Yes."

"Do you pray?"

"Yes."

"Do you say praise the Lord?"

"Yes."

"Then you have an unlawful use of land and must stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit."

-HH

Yeah, I'll bet those 10-15 people really clogged the street right up.

blaise
05-28-2009, 10:35 PM
That's not what I said, is it? I said it was a great thread.

Nope, that's not what you said. And I'm sure the next time I see an anti-religious thread of similar nature I'll see the same reaction from you.

irishjayhawk
05-28-2009, 10:36 PM
Nope, that's not what you said. And I'm sure the next time I see an anti-religious thread of similar nature I'll see the same reaction from you.

What reaction?

SNR
05-28-2009, 10:37 PM
Sounds to me like a neighbor got fed up with the streets lined with cars on each night of the meetings. I have no idea what all the questions about what went on at the meeting was about, and I doubt we got the full context. Probably something along the lines of:

"Reports say your holding a church service here each week."

"It's just a Bible study group."

"Do you have a regular place of worship outside of this home?"

"No."

"Do you have a regular meeting in your home?"

"Yes."

"At these Bible study groups, 'Do you say amen?'"

"Yes."

"Do you pray?"

"Yes."

"Do you say praise the Lord?"

"Yes."

"Then you have an unlawful use of land and must stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit."

-HHI doubt it. That would be some stretch the reporter would be making just to put up a big headline.

It COULD be something as simple as a neighborhood parking issue, sure. But other than that, I don't see much that could excuse this kind of crap.

blaise
05-28-2009, 10:38 PM
What reaction?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed to me you were implying the quality of the thread's premise was poor, and you did so in a smarmy fashion.
If I'm mistaken and you honestly think it's a good thread then I apologize.

blaise
05-28-2009, 10:39 PM
I doubt it. That would be some stretch the reporter would be making just to put up a big headline.

It COULD be something as simple as a neighborhood parking issue, sure. But other than that, I don't see much that could excuse this kind of crap.

I bet the ACLU is speeding over there right now.

KC native
05-28-2009, 10:56 PM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/mhULzrzz8nyxkjeiHrvHeAHGo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1243657500&Signature=7LPp1YKy6KdUQjBKGMAVR60ok3c%3D

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

wild1
05-28-2009, 10:59 PM
Yup i've seen this coming for years, you have the right to religious freedom as long as you have a 501c3 permit which then allows the government to dictate what you can teach.

taxation is the key that will open the front door of every home and institution in the country.

just remember, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear from your friends with the government

Psyko Tek
05-28-2009, 11:02 PM
What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers

will the chargers have that many fans this year?

but that is bullshit

unless their gonna outlaw tuperware parties too

KILLER_CLOWN
05-28-2009, 11:40 PM
taxation is the key that will open the front door of every home and institution in the country.

just remember, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear from your friends with the government

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Ronald Reagan.

orange
05-29-2009, 12:13 AM
This is not a freedom of religion matter, it is a simple matter of zoning laws.

I, a non-lawyer in Denver CO, could find the relevant ordnance in about half an hour. I assume the clergyman could have if he bothered - or his lawyer should have already known about it.

The relevant regulations:

San Diego County Use Regulations

2140

RU# URBAN RESIDENTIAL USE REGULATIONS

2140 INTENT
The provisions of Section 2140 through Section 2149, inclusive, shall be known as the RU Urban Residential Use Regulations. The RU Use Regulations are intended to create and enhance areas where permanent family residential uses are permited and institutional residential care uses are conditionally permitted and civic uses are permitted when they serve the needs of the residents.


2145 USES SUBJECT TO A MAJOR USE PERMIT.
The following use types are permitted by the RU Use Regulations upon issuance of a Major Use Permit.

a. Civic Use Types.

Administrative Services
Ambulance Services (see Section 6900)
Child Care Center
Clinic Services
Community Recreation
Group Care
Lodge, Fraternal and Civic Assembly
Major Impact Services and Utilities
Parking Services
Postal Services
Religious Assembly

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/zoning/z2000.pdf

KILLER_CLOWN
05-29-2009, 12:18 AM
This is not a freedom of religion matter, it is a simple matter of zoning laws.

I, a non-lawyer in Denver CO, could find the relevant ordnance in about half an hour. I assume the clergyman could have if he bothered - or his lawyer should have already known about it.

The relevant regulations:

San Diego County Use Regulations

2140

RU# URBAN RESIDENTIAL USE REGULATIONS

2140 INTENT
The provisions of Section 2140 through Section 2149, inclusive, shall be known as the RU Urban Residential Use Regulations. The RE Use Regulations are intended to create and enhance areas where permanent family residential uses are permited and institutional residential care uses are conditionally permitted and civic uses are permitted when the serve the nees of the residents.


2145 USES SUBJECT TO A MAJOR USE PERMIT.
The following use types are permitted by the RU Use Regulations upon issuance of a Major Use Permit.

a. Civic Use Types.

Administrative Services
Ambulance Services (see Section 6900)
Child Care Center
Clinic Services
Community Recreation
Group Care
Lodge, Fraternal and Civic Assembly
Major Impact Services and Utilities
Parking Services
Postal Services
Religious Assembly

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/zoning/z2000.pdf

Great so you would agree this is constitutional? You need a license to study books with others?

orange
05-29-2009, 12:20 AM
You "need a license" to hold a meeting in a residential-zoned area.

Good luck fighting Zoning regulations on Constitutional/Bill of Rights grounds.

That's never gotten anywhere.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-29-2009, 12:22 AM
You "need a license" to hold a meeting in a residential-zoned area.

Good luck fighting Zoning regulations on Constitutional/Bill of Rights grounds.

That's never gotten anywhere.

Well then I guess it's not the Supreme law of the land? I mean who would enforce this? There are quite a few BS laws on the books that are never enforced.

orange
05-29-2009, 12:24 AM
This is nothing new for San Diego County. Here's a story from 2005:

Buddhist group sues county over cease-and-desist order
By TOM PFINGSTEN, NC Times Staff Writer, June 10, 2005
Bonsall, CA (USA) -- A Buddhist congregation seeking to establish a temple in Bonsall has filed a lawsuit against the county asking that the group be allowed to resume temporary religious observances and meditation at its Camino del Rey property.

The suit seeks relief from a county cease and desist order issued April 4 that forbids the group from assemblinge or practicing organized meditation at the site until a major use permit is issued, a spokesman for the congregation said Thursday.

In the text of the suit, the group points out that the county had allowed services at the Camino del Rey site in the past, and said the cease and desist order "will severely harm (the congregation's) religious exercise."

The complaint, which names the San Diego County and Department of Planning and Land Use Director Gary Pryor as defendants, was filed June 3 in the San Diego U.S. District Court.

Organized formally in 2001 as the nonprofit "Vietnamese Buddhist Meditation Congregation Inc.," the group has practiced its religion regularly at the site for more than a year, project spokesman Chris Brown said Thursday.

Brown said that the cease and desist order sent to the congregation in April included several speculative reasons for blocking religious assemblies.

"The county has told us to stop all activities out at the site, religious or otherwise," Brown said. "That's a point of contention, how much the county can limit a group's ability to practice its religion."

The lawsuit alleges that the county changed its stance toward the congregation because of "community hostility," presumably on the part of Bonsall residents who are opposed to the temple. The suit also accuses the county of discrimination in the way it applied land use ordinances.

Last year, the group said it would seek to build a temple complex with a 6,196-square-foot main hall, a 7,664 meditation hall, an 8,936-square foot dormitory for its monks and parking for 72 vehicles.

Brown said Thursday that the nature of the proposal has not changed significantly since then, though a revised application was filed in April. Updated square footage was not available.

Eliot Alazraki, senior deputy counsel for the county, said Thursday the reason for issuing the cease and desist order was that the group had fallen behind in processing its major use permit, which is required for organizing religious assemblies on land designated for agricultural purposes.

"The property is zoned for limited agricultural use, which allows a lot of different uses," Alazraki said of the parcel at 6326 Camino del Rey. "Most civic uses require a major use permit, including religious assembly."

He said that anyone seeking to use land zoned as agricultural for a child care center, community recreation or a cultural exhibit, for example, would also require a major use permit.

"What frequently happens is that someone begins using property ... and they don't know a permit is required," he continued. "If they pursue a permit diligently, the county may allow them to use the property while their permit is pending."Alazraki said the Buddhist congregation had fallen about six months behind schedule in processing the major use permit application.

"The county told them to stop their religious assembly, based on the fact that ... they were very far behind in processing their permit," he said.

The next step for the lawsuit, said attorney Bill Fischbeck, who is representing the Buddhist group, is to seek an injunction that would prohibit the county from enforcing their cease and desist order.

"It would allow (the congregation) to do all those things that they have been doing that they would like to continue with," he said, pointing out that the lawsuit only addresses what will happen between now and when the congregation is issued a permit. "They're fully compliant with all of the county's use permit application procedures, and they are (processing) their application under those rules."

In the past, Sunday morning activities at the site have drawn protestors, who cited concerns of noise and traffic that the temple would create in the residential neighborhood.

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=65,1313,0,0,1,0

Please note that it is NOT "Christianity under attack"

KILLER_CLOWN
05-29-2009, 12:30 AM
Please note that it is NOT "Christianity under attack"

I know it's Intelligence that's under attack. Heres an example of Kansas laws which are probably never enforced either.

Pedestrians crossing the highways at night must wear tail lights.

If two trains meet on the same track, neither shall proceed until the other has passed.

Hitting a vending machine that stole your money is illegal.

Riding an animal down any road is against the law.

All cars entering the city limits must first sound their horn to warn the horses of their arrival.

It is against the law to leave your car running unattended.

It is illegal to drive one’s car through a parade.

No one may sing the alphabet on the streets at night.

Snowball fights are illegal.

Dead chickens may not be hauled across Kansas Avenue.

No one may scream at a haunted house.

The installation of bathtubs is prohibited.

Before proceeding through the interesection of Douglas and Broadway, a motorist is required to get out of their vehice and fire three shot gun rounds into the air.

Any person caught using or carrying bean snappers or the like shall upon conviction, be fined.

orange
05-29-2009, 12:35 AM
You "need a license" to hold a meeting in a residential-zoned area.

Good luck fighting Zoning regulations on Constitutional/Bill of Rights grounds.

That's never gotten anywhere.

Well then I guess it's not the Supreme law of the land? I mean who would enforce this? There are quite a few BS laws on the books that are never enforced.

Here's a 42 page essay on this very subject, The Intersection of Zoning Regulations, Religious House Meetings, and the Constitution

http://www.washburnlaw.edu/wlj/48-1/articles/green-samuel.pdf

Ultra Peanut
05-29-2009, 12:43 AM
Broyles said, "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.'"

The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.

Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit" -- a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.That is really dumb.

And San Diego's so whitebread.

HolyHandgernade
05-29-2009, 01:01 AM
I know, and that's why I think the report is slanted for sensationalism. If this is one of those particularly loud Bible groups and for the past six months, every Friday night I come home and can't park my car in front of my house, I would start to get a little peeved as well. I just find it rather incredulous that some code enforcement official is going to lead off with the line of questions that were printed in the paper. Somebody in the neighborhood complained, they probably investigated to see if it was a regular meeting, and then they issued the citation. But, that's not enough for the paper, they have to make the code guy Nero. Believe me, San Diego, Riverside and Orange counties are some of the most socially and religiously conservative areas out here. This isn't a case of the "People's Republik of Kalifornia" trying to stamp out religion. Its just a sensationalized code violation.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
05-29-2009, 01:04 AM
Yeah, I'll bet those 10-15 people really clogged the street right up.

You would be surprised on the residential streets in this area.

petegz28
05-29-2009, 06:25 AM
You "need a license" to hold a meeting in a residential-zoned area.

Good luck fighting Zoning regulations on Constitutional/Bill of Rights grounds.

That's never gotten anywhere.

BULLSHIT! If they were watching football no one would have said shit!

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 07:14 AM
Unfortunately Kalifornia is a bell weather state for America. Let's hope this pilot project of socializing that state into a hell remains just that. They've also been trying to stop home schooling under the guise of incompetence when it's really about doing away with certain values parents want to give their children.

The goal of socialists is to get rid of religion by making it harder and harder to practice. That way everyone can depend on the state instead...with no higher authority in one's conscience. The religion of the state instead replaces it with secular humanism, itself deemed a religion by our own SC. ( which it is)

But, but, but....the so-called liberals of today are not socialists now are they?

petegz28
05-29-2009, 07:18 AM
Unfortunately Kalifornia is a bell weather state for America. Let's hope this pilot project of socializing that state into a hell remains just that. They've also been trying to stop home schooling under the guise of incompetence when it's really about doing away with certain values parents want to give their children.

The goal of socialists is to get rid of religion by making it harder and harder to practice. That way everyone can depend on the state instead...with no higher authority in one's conscience. The religion of the state instead replaces it with secular humanism, itself deemed a religion by our own SC. ( which it is)

But, but, but....the so-called liberals of today are not socialists now are they?


Well my whole take is if people want to get together to talk about the Bible that is their Right. If someone wants to have 15 people in their house that is their Right. Like I said before, I am not a Chrisitian. But if people don't start speaking out about this shit then there won't be anyone left to speak out when they come for you.

And I have a strange, gut feeling that if this were Muslims then we would not be having this discussion because the State\County would not have said shit.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 07:23 AM
Well my whole take is if people want to get together to talk about the Bible that is their Right. If someone wants to have 15 people in their house that is their Right. Like I said before, I am not a Chrisitian. But if people don't start speaking out about this shit then there won't be anyone left to speak out when they come for you.

And I have a strange, gut feeling that if this were Muslims then we would not be having this discussion because the State\County would not have said shit.

That's pretty much my point of view. But the left thinks they're true liberals. ROFL Especially in the mold of our Founders. LMAO

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 07:41 AM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's all right there.

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 07:45 AM
Here's a 42 page essay on this very subject, The Intersection of Zoning Regulations, Religious House Meetings, and the Constitution

http://www.washburnlaw.edu/wlj/48-1/articles/green-samuel.pdf

Even by the biggest stretch of the imagination they do not violate what the SCOTUS as ruled. I mean are the police out there because of domestic disturbance realted to the house in question? I would imagine even the dope pf dope journalist would report that if it were true. Further more if there is just one other such meeting where their is home religous practive and they aren't being bothered, then it's certianly arbitrary.

The Court concluded that it is
constitutionally permissible for states and local governments to issue

zoning regulations, provided the regulations have a “
substantial relation
to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare,” and so long as
they are reasonable and not arbitrary.

29 Thus, such ordinances and
regulations “must find their justification in some aspect of the police
power, asserted for the public welfare.”

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 07:46 AM
Even by the biggest stretch of the imagination they do not violate what the SCOTUS as ruled. I mean are the police out there because of domestic disturbance realted to the house in question? I would imagine even the dope pf dope journalist would report that if it were true.

The Court concluded that it is
constitutionally permissible for states and local governments to issue
zoning regulations, provided the regulations have a “substantial relation
to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare,” and so long as
they are reasonable and not arbitrary.29 Thus, such ordinances and
regulations “must find their justification in some aspect of the police
power, asserted for the public welfare.”


You can't argue with a religion hater who covertly wants to do away with it in our society altogether or make everybody shut up about it.
JHC this country was originally inhabited by those who were persecuted for their religion.

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 07:47 AM
You can't argue with a religion hater who covertly wants to do away with it in our society altogether or make everybody shut up about it.

Oh yeah I can. I can argue with a red brick wall that it's actaully every other color but red. :)

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 07:48 AM
Oh yeah I can. I can argue with a red brick wall that it's actaully every other color but red. :)

True. I wouldn't want to restrain your liberty...it was just a way to save you time and waste.

Radar Chief
05-29-2009, 07:50 AM
I don’t get it, why would the county give a shit? Are these people making money off of their bible study group? Are they claiming their house as a tax shelter because of the bible studies?
What makes this one bit different than the weekly football get-together? Lord knows I’ve “prayed” said “amen” at the end of that prayer and “praised the Lord” during games. Of course I’ve also cussed and used his name in vain. :hmmm: Maybe that’s the difference. Maybe what they need to do is tell the county “the Lord says to **** off” and they’ll get left alone. :shrug:

banyon
05-29-2009, 08:17 AM
I don’t get it, why would the county give a shit? Are these people making money off of their bible study group? Are they claiming their house as a tax shelter because of the bible studies?
What makes this one bit different than the weekly football get-together? Lord knows I’ve “prayed” said “amen” at the end of that prayer and “praised the Lord” during games. Of course I’ve also cussed and used his name in vain. :hmmm: Maybe that’s the difference. Maybe what they need to do is tell the county “the Lord says to **** off” and they’ll get left alone. :shrug:

I kind of wonder this too.

orange
05-29-2009, 08:18 AM
The goal of socialists is to get rid of religion by making it harder and harder to practice. That way everyone can depend on the state instead...with no higher authority in one's conscience. The religion of the state instead replaces it with secular humanism, itself deemed a religion by our own SC. ( which it is)

But, but, but....the so-called liberals of today are not socialists now are they?



And I have a strange, gut feeling that if this were Muslims then we would not be having this discussion because the State\County would not have said shit.


That's pretty much my point of view. But the left thinks they're true liberals. ROFL Especially in the mold of our Founders. LMAO

You can't argue with a religion hater who covertly wants to do away with it in our society altogether or make everybody shut up about it.
JHC this country was originally inhabited by those who were persecuted for their religion.

The Left and its ongoing campaign to destroy Christianity is to blame? :eek:

Local government regulation of zoning and land use has become nearly universal since it was first upheld by the Supreme Court in 1926. The First Amendment of the Constitution contains two guarantees involving religious freedom: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution applies these same limitations to the states and their various political subdivisions. For decades, the Court used the two part test set forth in Sherbert v. Verner to review legislation challenged as violating the First Amendment, asking first whether a law substantially burdened a religious practice, and second whether a compelling governmental interest could justify such an impact. This test demanded more justification from government than a mere rational basis for laws burdensome to religious activities. In 1990, the Court abandoned the heightened scrutiny of such laws, resulting in attempts by Congress to reinstate it, including RLUIPA.

The Sherbert test was squeezed out of existence in Employment Div. v. Smith. That case involved the discharge of two drug rehabilitation counselors for using peyote for sacramental purposes during a religious ceremony at the Native American Church, in violation of their employer’s policy prohibiting the use of illegal drugs. The two counselors applied for unemployment insurance benefits and were denied benefits because of their violation of the policy. Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, refused to require the State of Oregon to show a compelling state interest to justify its denial of benefits. The Court reasoned that: (1) the law did not have the purpose of burdening religious practice and only incidentally burdened its practice, and (2) that a claim for a religious exclusion requires the state to show a compelling state interest only if it prohibits conduct central to the religion.

Once can not help but wonder how the Court might deal with the use of a different drug, such as wine used for sacramental purposes in a dry county by a Christian denomination. Congress apparently was bothered by the implications. In response to Smith, Congress attempted to resurrect heightened scrutiny by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.


http://www.dcba.org/brief/marissue/2003/art20303.htm
ROFL:doh!::doh!:ROFL

orange
05-29-2009, 08:21 AM
I don’t get it, why would the county give a shit? Are these people making money off of their bible study group? Are they claiming their house as a tax shelter because of the bible studies?
What makes this one bit different than the weekly football get-together? Lord knows I’ve “prayed” said “amen” at the end of that prayer and “praised the Lord” during games. Of course I’ve also cussed and used his name in vain. :hmmm: Maybe that’s the difference. Maybe what they need to do is tell the county “the Lord says to **** off” and they’ll get left alone. :shrug:

I kind of wonder this too.

The county responded to complaints by the neighbors - like in every other neighborhood zoning dispute ever. At the link in the OP there is a video giving a response by the county.

banyon
05-29-2009, 08:24 AM
The Left and it's ongoing campaign to destroy Christianity is to blame? :eek:

Local government regulation of zoning and land use has become nearly universal since it was first upheld by the Supreme Court in 1926. The First Amendment of the Constitution contains two guarantees involving religious freedom: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution applies these same limitations to the states and their various political subdivisions. For decades, the Court used the two part test set forth in Sherbert v. Verner to review legislation challenged as violating the First Amendment, asking first whether a law substantially burdened a religious practice, and second whether a compelling governmental interest could justify such an impact. This test demanded more justification from government than a mere rational basis for laws burdensome to religious activities. In 1990, the Court abandoned the heightened scrutiny of such laws, resulting in attempts by Congress to reinstate it, including RLUIPA.

The Sherbert test was squeezed out of existence in Employment Div. v. Smith. That case involved the discharge of two drug rehabilitation counselors for using peyote for sacramental purposes during a religious ceremony at the Native American Church, in violation of their employer’s policy prohibiting the use of illegal drugs. The two counselors applied for unemployment insurance benefits and were denied benefits because of their violation of the policy. Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, refused to require the State of Oregon to show a compelling state interest to justify its denial of benefits. The Court reasoned that: (1) the law did not have the purpose of burdening religious practice and only incidentally burdened its practice, and (2) that a claim for a religious exclusion requires the state to show a compelling state interest only if it prohibits conduct central to the religion.

Once can not help but wonder how the Court might deal with the use of a different drug, such as wine used for sacramental purposes in a dry county by a Christian denomination. Congress apparently was bothered by the implications. In response to Smith, Congress attempted to resurrect heightened scrutiny by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.


http://www.dcba.org/brief/marissue/2003/art20303.htm
ROFL:doh!::doh!:ROFL

Careful, if you don't watch out, she's going to put you on fake ignore! Don't challenge her ideas too vigorously, only a light challenge is permitted.

Sully
05-29-2009, 08:27 AM
I think this is someone who clearly got a bit carried away with his or her power stick.

That said, it reminds me of the dustup with the KCayor holding govt meetings at his house because he's codependent.

blaise
05-29-2009, 08:41 AM
The Left and its ongoing campaign to destroy Christianity is to blame? :eek:

Local government regulation of zoning and land use has become nearly universal since it was first upheld by the Supreme Court in 1926. The First Amendment of the Constitution contains two guarantees involving religious freedom: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution applies these same limitations to the states and their various political subdivisions. For decades, the Court used the two part test set forth in Sherbert v. Verner to review legislation challenged as violating the First Amendment, asking first whether a law substantially burdened a religious practice, and second whether a compelling governmental interest could justify such an impact. This test demanded more justification from government than a mere rational basis for laws burdensome to religious activities. In 1990, the Court abandoned the heightened scrutiny of such laws, resulting in attempts by Congress to reinstate it, including RLUIPA.

The Sherbert test was squeezed out of existence in Employment Div. v. Smith. That case involved the discharge of two drug rehabilitation counselors for using peyote for sacramental purposes during a religious ceremony at the Native American Church, in violation of their employer’s policy prohibiting the use of illegal drugs. The two counselors applied for unemployment insurance benefits and were denied benefits because of their violation of the policy. Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, refused to require the State of Oregon to show a compelling state interest to justify its denial of benefits. The Court reasoned that: (1) the law did not have the purpose of burdening religious practice and only incidentally burdened its practice, and (2) that a claim for a religious exclusion requires the state to show a compelling state interest only if it prohibits conduct central to the religion.

Once can not help but wonder how the Court might deal with the use of a different drug, such as wine used for sacramental purposes in a dry county by a Christian denomination. Congress apparently was bothered by the implications. In response to Smith, Congress attempted to resurrect heightened scrutiny by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.


http://www.dcba.org/brief/marissue/2003/art20303.htm
ROFL:doh!::doh!:ROFL

I'll be honest. I don't really get what point you're trying to make here. That Scalia was as hostile to Native Americans as some claim liberals are to Christians?

blaise
05-29-2009, 08:45 AM
I think the San Diego code is poorly written, unless somewhere else it defines "religious assembly". What constitutes religious assembly? If myself and one other person are watching a television broadcast of a church service I need a permit? And why specify "religious assembly"? Why not just assembly? A religious assembly is in greater need of a permit than a non-religious assembly of people? Why?

orange
05-29-2009, 08:46 AM
I'll be honest. I don't really get what point you're trying to make here. That Scalia was as hostile to Native Americans as some claim liberals are to Christians?



My point is that the Freedom to Exercise Religion was curtailed by The Right acting against unpopular religions - not The Left acting against Christianity as claimed by petegz28 and BucEyedPea and others (including maybe you?) in their ongoing war against reality.

The Court continued in the same vein. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act mentioned above was also thrown out, resulting in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 which has not yet been tossed.

A little flock of chickens coming home to roost for the religious right.

Ultra Peanut
05-29-2009, 08:46 AM
I'll be honest. I don't really get what point you're trying to make here. That Scalia was as hostile to Native Americans as some claim liberals are to Christians?If it's the San Diego County government, it's not liberal.

HolyHandgernade
05-29-2009, 08:49 AM
BULLSHIT! If they were watching football no one would have said shit!

You're assuming the group had only a few meetings. They have probably been meting every week for quite some time and the neighbors finally had enough. This article doesn't have all the pertinent information. You don't know where they were doing it (was it outside in the garage), how much noise they were making (were they singing or shouting disturbing other people), and how much they impacted traffic in the area. This isn't Kansas where each house sits on half an acre. Most houses are right next to each other. People can have spontaneous and infrequent social gathering but not regular meetings.

-HH

petegz28
05-29-2009, 08:50 AM
So when I have my family over for Thanksgiving or X-mas dinner and we say a prayer before the meal, how many people are allowed to say "Amen" before I get fined?

blaise
05-29-2009, 08:51 AM
My point is that the Freedom to Exercise Religion was curtailed by The Right acting against unpopular religions - not The Left acting against Christianity as claimed by petegz28 and BucEyedPea in their ongoing war against reality.

Scalia didn't curtail their Freedom to Exercise Religion. They weren't prevented from exercising their religion.

blaise
05-29-2009, 08:52 AM
If it's the San Diego County government, it's not liberal.

I wasn't referencing San Diego stance, more the opinion of other posters on the board who orange seemed to be directing his post toward.

petegz28
05-29-2009, 08:52 AM
You're assuming the group had only a few meetings. They have probably been meting every week for quite some time and the neighbors finally had enough. This article doesn't have all the pertinent information. You don't know where they were doing it (was it outside in the garage), how much noise they were making (were they singing or shouting disturbing other people), and how much they impacted traffic in the area. This isn't Kansas where each house sits on half an acre. Most houses are right next to each other. People can have spontaneous and infrequent social gathering but not regular meetings.

-HH


Who the fuck cares? Where I live in kasnas I have about 10 ft between mee and the houses next to me. So WHAAA!

orange
05-29-2009, 08:52 AM
I think the San Diego code is poorly written, unless somewhere else it defines "religious assembly". What constitutes religious assembly? If myself and one other person are watching a television broadcast of a church service I need a permit? And why specify "religious assembly"? Why not just assembly? A religious assembly is in greater need of a permit than a non-religious assembly of people? Why?

I would agree that much depends on that definition. I couldn't find it and it got late...

orange
05-29-2009, 08:54 AM
Scalia didn't curtail their Freedom to Exercise Religion. They weren't prevented from exercising their religion.

For decades, the Court used the two part test set forth in Sherbert v. Verner to review legislation challenged as violating the First Amendment, asking first whether a law substantially burdened a religious practice, and second whether a compelling governmental interest could justify such an impact. This test demanded more justification from government than a mere rational basis for laws burdensome to religious activities. In 1990, the Court abandoned the heightened scrutiny of such laws, resulting in attempts by Congress to reinstate it, including RLUIPA.

You don't understand that?

blaise
05-29-2009, 08:56 AM
My point is that the Freedom to Exercise Religion was curtailed by The Right acting against unpopular religions - not The Left acting against Christianity as claimed by petegz28 and BucEyedPea and others (including maybe you?) in their ongoing war against reality.

The Court continued in the same vein. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act mentioned above was also thrown out, resulting in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 which has not yet been tossed.

A little flock of chickens coming home to roost for the religious right.

Yes, my ongoing war with reality. Tell you what, if I start being a douche to you feel free to start doing the same with me, until then try not to be one.

blaise
05-29-2009, 09:00 AM
For decades, the Court used the two part test set forth in Sherbert v. Verner to review legislation challenged as violating the First Amendment, asking first whether a law substantially burdened a religious practice, and second whether a compelling governmental interest could justify such an impact. This test demanded more justification from government than a mere rational basis for laws burdensome to religious activities. In 1990, the Court abandoned the heightened scrutiny of such laws, resulting in attempts by Congress to reinstate it, including RLUIPA.

You don't understand that?


Explain how they were curtailed from exercising their religion.

orange
05-29-2009, 09:02 AM
Explain how they were curtailed from exercising their religion.

They lost their jobs and benefits because of their religious use of peyote.

That case involved the discharge of two drug rehabilitation counselors for using peyote for sacramental purposes during a religious ceremony at the Native American Church, in violation of their employer’s policy prohibiting the use of illegal drugs. The two counselors applied for unemployment insurance benefits and were denied benefits because of their violation of the policy.

It's right there in my original post, repeated here. Scalia's decision left those actions in place.

blaise
05-29-2009, 09:07 AM
They lost their jobs and benefits because of their religious use of peyote.

That case involved the discharge of two drug rehabilitation counselors for using peyote for sacramental purposes during a religious ceremony at the Native American Church, in violation of their employer’s policy prohibiting the use of illegal drugs. The two counselors applied for unemployment insurance benefits and were denied benefits because of their violation of the policy.

It's right there in my original post, repeated here. Scalia's decision left those actions in place.

Losing your job doesn't cause you to lose or curtail your freedom to exercise religion. In your case the central issue is whether an employer can discharge the employee based on conduct. They weren't discharging them due to their religion. In the San Diego case the people were told to specifically cease assembling for religious purposes.

MagicHef
05-29-2009, 09:08 AM
Who cares if it's coming from the left or the right?

orange
05-29-2009, 09:11 AM
Losing your job doesn't cause you to lose or curtail your freedom to exercise religion. In your case the central issue is whether an employer can discharge the employee based on conduct. They weren't discharging them due to their religion. In the San Diego case the people were told to specifically cease assembling for religious purposes.

Unemployment benefits were lost. Government.

In San Diego, the people were told to cease assembling until they filed their Major Land Use plan. p.s. They have been allowed to continue the meetings pending resolution.

orange
05-29-2009, 09:13 AM
Who cares if it's coming from the left or the right?

See posts #37-#44

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 09:13 AM
In San Diego, the people were told to cease assembling until they filed their Major Land Use plan. p.s. They have been allowed to continue the meetings pending resolution.

Nice control put on them there.

Control of the major means of production which by definition is the people or you and I.

HolyHandgernade
05-29-2009, 09:14 AM
So when I have my family over for Thanksgiving or X-mas dinner and we say a prayer before the meal, how many people are allowed to say "Amen" before I get fined?

No. It has nothing to do with religion. You couldn't hold regular AA meetings there. I can't run a small business out of my home where customers come to my home. There just zoning laws meant to ensure everyone has their right to a relative tranquility at their home. You can have celebrations, you can have infrequent get togethers. You can't have an established weekly meeting meant for purposes of business or religious congregation. It has nothing to do with a family prayer at mealtime.

-HH

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 09:15 AM
Originally Posted by orange View Post
My point is that the Freedom to Exercise Religion was curtailed by The Right acting against unpopular religions - not The Left acting against Christianity as claimed by petegz28 and BucEyedPea and others (including maybe you?) in their ongoing war against reality.
Where did I say that? Nice strawman or dubbing in words because you extrapolated them on your own.
Notes: I used the word religion. No wonder you have dictionary issues with terminology.

This is just over regulation through the back door.

petegz28
05-29-2009, 09:16 AM
No. It has nothing to do with religion. You couldn't hold regular AA meetings there. I can't run a small business out of my home where customers come to my home. There just zoning laws meant to ensure everyone has their right to a relative tranquility at their home. You can have celebrations, you can have infrequent get togethers. You can't have an established weekly meeting meant for purposes of business or religious congregation. It has nothing to do with a family prayer at mealtime.

-HH


Hello HH. Let me introduce you to Sarcasm.

HolyHandgernade
05-29-2009, 09:17 AM
Who the **** cares? Where I live in kasnas I have about 10 ft between mee and the houses next to me. So WHAAA!

Well, you can make a decision for yourself, you can't make a decision for other people about what they should have to put up with, that's the job of government. We had a house that had similar religious meetings half a block down the street and I could faintly hear them singing and shouting. Didn't bother me much, but if I lived right next door, and this went on every Wednesday night, it might get on my nerves too.

orange
05-29-2009, 09:18 AM
Hello HH. Let me introduce you to Sarcasm.



2145 USES SUBJECT TO A MAJOR USE PERMIT.
The following use types are permitted by the RU Use Regulations upon issuance of a Major Use Permit.

a. Civic Use Types.

Administrative Services
Ambulance Services (see Section 6900)
Child Care Center
Clinic Services
Community Recreation
Group Care
Lodge, Fraternal and Civic Assembly
Major Impact Services and Utilities
Parking Services
Postal Services
Religious Assembly

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/zoning/z2000.pdf

Your weekly orgies are out, too, I'm afraid.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 09:18 AM
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade View Post
No. It has nothing to do with religion. You couldn't hold regular AA meetings there. I can't run a small business out of my home where customers come to my home.
Are these folks charging fees for a service or gather as individuals in someone's home due to some common interest?

This is unecessary regulation through the back door. There's a lot more of this in Cali than just on religion. It's part of that control mentality...as in over controlling to the point where liberty is slowly swept away.

What's the control on home-day care there? Is that allowed?

blaise
05-29-2009, 09:18 AM
Unemployment benefits were lost. Government.

In San Diego, the people were told to cease assembling until they filed their Major Land Use plan. p.s. They have been allowed to continue the meetings pending resolution.

Unemployment benefits are lost when a company discharges an employee for cause. The cause in the case was not due to religion, but do to drug use. The employer had cause to discharge according to the court. They simply said religion could not be used as a defense, but that in no way curtailed their freedom from exercising their religion.

And I understand that the San Diego people just need a permit, but I think the fact that the code is written as "religious assembly" makes it inherently discriminatory in my opinion. Unless, like I said, there's another place that better defines "religious assembly". Maybe there's a tax code reason or something. It's possible the law was written to prevent residents from claiming they're churches in order to get out of paying certain taxes. I don't know.

MagicHef
05-29-2009, 09:19 AM
See posts #37-#44

Perhaps I should have worded that differently. Let's try this:

Why should I care whether it's coming from the left or the right?

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 09:21 AM
Perhaps I should have worded that differently. Let's try this:

Why should I care whether it's coming from the left or the right?

Because someone created a strawman argument to deflect.

Whatever happened to freedom of assembly?

orange
05-29-2009, 09:21 AM
Where did I say that? Nice strawman or dubbing in words because you extrapolated them on your own.
Notes: I used the word religion. No wonder you have dictionary issues with terminology.

This is just over regulation through the back door.


Here:
Unfortunately Kalifornia is a bell weather state for America. Let's hope this pilot project of socializing that state into a hell remains just that. They've also been trying to stop home schooling under the guise of incompetence when it's really about doing away with certain values parents want to give their children.

The goal of socialists is to get rid of religion by making it harder and harder to practice. That way everyone can depend on the state instead...with no higher authority in one's conscience. The religion of the state instead replaces it with secular humanism, itself deemed a religion by our own SC. ( which it is)

But, but, but....the so-called liberals of today are not socialists now are they?

... and here:
That's pretty much my point of view. But the left thinks they're true liberals. ROFL Especially in the mold of our Founders. LMAO

... and here:
You can't argue with a religion hater who covertly wants to do away with it in our society altogether or make everybody shut up about it.
JHC this country was originally inhabited by those who were persecuted for their religion.

HolyHandgernade
05-29-2009, 09:22 AM
Losing your job doesn't cause you to lose or curtail your freedom to exercise religion. In your case the central issue is whether an employer can discharge the employee based on conduct. They weren't discharging them due to their religion. In the San Diego case the people were told to specifically cease assembling for religious purposes.

That's only based on an article snipet. Since the late 1800's the SC ruled that religion is not above the law. You have the right to believe whatever you want, you do not have the right to act in any way you want. This was a ruling against polygamy. They violated zoning laws that says you can't have religious assemblies in residential areas, religion is not above the law. They have to find another place that's zoned for it, their religious liberties are not impinged upon.

-HH

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 09:22 AM
And I understand that the San Diego people just need a permit, but I think the fact that the code is written as "religious assembly" makes it inherently discriminatory in my opinion.

I'd have to agree with this myself. It's an infringement of a natural fundamental right.

HolyHandgernade
05-29-2009, 09:23 AM
Hello HH. Let me introduce you to Sarcasm.

But, I assume it was sarcasm with a point, right? More like hyperbole?

-HH

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 09:23 AM
Here:


... and here:


... and here:

No where is the word Christianity used which is what you added to my words. I used the word religion in general.
Please read or use a dictionary because religion doesn't just mean Christianity. Someone has trouble with words and their definition.

petegz28
05-29-2009, 09:24 AM
But, I assume it was sarcasm with a point, right? More like hyperbole?

-HH

Dude it is Friday....lighten up.

orange
05-29-2009, 09:25 AM
Are these folks charging fees for a service or gather as individuals in someone's home due to some common interest?

This is unecessary regulation through the back door. There's a lot more of this in Cali than just on religion. It's part of that control mentality...as in over controlling to the point where liberty is slowly swept away.

What's the control on home-day care there? Is that allowed?



2145 USES SUBJECT TO A MAJOR USE PERMIT.
The following use types are permitted by the RU Use Regulations upon issuance of a Major Use Permit.

a. Civic Use Types.

Administrative Services
Ambulance Services (see Section 6900)
Child Care Center
Clinic Services
Community Recreation
Group Care
Lodge, Fraternal and Civic Assembly
Major Impact Services and Utilities
Parking Services
Postal Services
Religious Assembly

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/zoning/z2000.pdf


Read and learn.

HolyHandgernade
05-29-2009, 09:27 AM
Are these folks charging fees for a service or gather as individuals in someone's home due to some common interest?

This is unecessary regulation through the back door. There's a lot more of this in Cali than just on religion. It's part of that control mentality...as in over controlling to the point where liberty is slowly swept away.

What's the control on home-day care there? Is that allowed?


Zoning laws have been around for ages. It has nothing to do whether fees are collected (and, if it were, how do you know there wasn't an offering plate being passed around?) Its about traffic control and safety. Yards aren't big out here and kids play in the street. You increase the amount of traffic, both moving and parked, and increases the chance for accident. My point about business was not that transactions are taking place, but that it is an activity that increases the traffic level of an area beyond what it was designed for.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
05-29-2009, 09:29 AM
No where is the word Christianity used which is what you added to my words. I used the word religion in general.
Please read or use a dictionary because religion doesn't just mean Christianity. Someone has trouble with words and their definition.

I wish people would keep that in mind when they try to interpret the 1st amendment and argue we are a "Christian Nation".

-HH

orange
05-29-2009, 09:30 AM
No where is the word Christianity used which is what you added to my words. I used the word religion in general.
Please read or use a dictionary because religion doesn't just mean Christianity. Someone has trouble with words and their definition.

Well my whole take is if people want to get together to talk about the Bible that is their Right. If someone wants to have 15 people in their house that is their Right. Like I said before, I am not a Chrisitian. But if people don't start speaking out about this shit then there won't be anyone left to speak out when they come for you.

And I have a strange, gut feeling that if this were Muslims then we would not be having this discussion because the State\County would not have said shit.That's pretty much my point of view. But the left thinks they're true liberals. ROFL Especially in the mold of our Founders. LMAO

Just stop!

El Jefe
05-29-2009, 09:30 AM
There isn't one. This is either harrasment or the State being so ****ing starved for money they are now picking on home schooled Christians. :eek:

Indeed.

HolyHandgernade
05-29-2009, 09:31 AM
Dude it is Friday....lighten up.

Considered me lightened. :D

-HH

blaise
05-29-2009, 09:32 AM
That's only based on an article snipet. Since the late 1800's the SC ruled that religion is not above the law. You have the right to believe whatever you want, you do not have the right to act in any way you want. This was a ruling against polygamy. They violated zoning laws that says you can't have religious assemblies in residential areas, religion is not above the law. They have to find another place that's zoned for it, their religious liberties are not impinged upon.

-HH


I don't have a problem with a code requiring a permit, and I'm not suggesting that religion should be above the law, nor am I saying the left has some vast far reaching conspiracy against Christianity. My points really were that I think the analogy orange drew was fairly weak, and secondly that I think the manner in which the code was written leaves the door open for discriminatory practices. Not that this was a case of discrimination, but when you word the code poorly you're leaving too much room for problems. Why not better define assembly based on the problems you're trying to prevent? Why not say "X number of people gathering X number of days a week"? Even the "Community Recreation" line is vague to me. What does that specifically mean?
Unless, like I said there's something specific about religious assembly that makes it different than non-religious assembly that I'm missing.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 09:33 AM
I wish people would keep that in mind when they try to interpret the 1st amendment and argue we are a "Christian Nation".

-HH

Well, that depends on what that means, doesn't it? It happens to be one of the largest denominations in this country. So one can say it is a Christian country as opposed to the nation which implies the national govt—only.

Ya' know what I mean—the culture and the society of the people. That means laws at the local level that concern morality and police powers for it at a public level are based on someone's values. I don't care whether the values stem from Secular Humanist belief/philosophical system or Christianity but all law is based on someone's values. Laws based on the customs of the people are generally easier to enforce. I know that bothers you and your deep seated prejudice.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 09:36 AM
Just stop!

That still doesn't say what you claim. You're still assuming a reality that I did not make a case for. It's full of fail.

I'm agreeing with pete there that modern liberals would allow Muslims to do this. I agree that Muslims should be allowed to practice or assemble in their home for prayer or whatever. Just as a Christian or even a Wiccan should. Assume much?

Have you heard of Hooked on Phonics? It works. Time for some reading remediation.

orange
05-29-2009, 09:40 AM
My points really were that I think the analogy orange drew was fairly weak.

Not surprising since I drew no analogy at all. I simply stated the fact that that the ability of government to circumscribe religious activity was written into law by right-winger Antonin Scalia, not some leftist as claimed by BEP and it was not targeted at Christianity as implied by petegz28.

HolyHandgernade
05-29-2009, 09:40 AM
I don't have a problem with a code requiring a permit, and I'm not suggesting that religion should be above the law, nor am I saying the left has some vast far reaching conspiracy against Christianity. My points really were that I think the analogy orange drew was fairly weak, and secondly that I think the manner in which the code was written leaves the door open for discriminatory practices. Not that this was a case of discrimination, but when you word the code poorly you're leaving too much room for problems. Why not better define assembly based on the problems you're trying to prevent? Why not say "X number of people gathering X number of days a week"? Even the "Community Recreation" line is vague to me. What does that specifically mean?
Unless, like I said there's something specific about religious assembly that makes it different than non-religious assembly that I'm missing.

Laws are always written in a general sense, otherwise you'll create what most people say they don't want, an over litigious society. This is why you can argue your case on whether or not you broke the "spirit of the law" rather than the "letter of the law". The fact is, nobody cares until someone complains. This is why if the teenagers are throwing a loud party next door you can call the cops and shut it down. But, its also why, you can inform your neighbors beforehand, and if you get their "OK", you can have as big a party as you want. Code Enforcement is not out hunting group gatherings in residential areas. They are responding to complaints.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
05-29-2009, 09:42 AM
Well, that depends on what that means, doesn't it? It happens to be one of the largest denominations in this country. So one can say it is a Christian country as opposed to the nation which implies the national govt—only.

Ya' know what I mean—the culture and the society of the people. That means laws at the local level that concern morality and police powers for it at a public level are based on someone's values. I don't care whether the values stem from Secular Humanist belief/philosophical system or Christianity but all law is based on someone's values. Laws based on the customs of the people are generally easier to enforce. I know that bothers you and your deep seated prejudice.

Culturally, there is no doubt this is a "Christian Nation", but laws are made for the secular social purposes, and the Constitution does not address a "Christian Nation", but it does affect Christians (and any other group) within the nation.

-HH

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 09:43 AM
Not surprising since I drew no analogy at all. I simply stated the fact that that the ability of government to circumscribe religious activity was written into law by right-winger Antonin Scalia, not some leftist as claimed by BEP and it was not targeted at Christianity as implied by petegz28.

I was not responding to your argument or post on that. I skipped over it, never saw it and just added my own pov in general. That still does not change the fact and ample evidence that many socialists feel religion is the opiate of the people and they want it regulated out of existence as much as they can.

Nice try though.

orange
05-29-2009, 09:44 AM
That still doesn't say what you claim. You're still assuming a reality that I did not make a case for. It's full of fail.

I'm agreeing with pete there that modern liberals would allow Muslims to do this. I agree that Muslims should be allowed to practice or assemble in their home for prayer or whatever. Just as a Christian or even a Wiccan should. Assume much?

Have you heard of Hooked on Phonics? It works. Time for some reading remediation.

You're utterly laughable.

blaise
05-29-2009, 09:47 AM
Not surprising since I drew no analogy at all. I simply stated the fact that that the ability of government to circumscribe religious activity was written into law by right-winger Antonin Scalia, not some leftist as claimed by BEP and it was not targeted at Christianity as implied by petegz28.

Sorry, the juxtaposition was weak.

petegz28
05-29-2009, 09:47 AM
I was not responding to your argument or post on that. I skipped over it, never saw it and just added my own pov in general. That still does not change the fact and ample evidence that many socialists feel religion is the opiate of the people and they want it regulated out of existence as much as they can.

Nice try though.

Have to agree here.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 09:49 AM
Culturally, there is no doubt this is a "Christian Nation", but laws are made for the secular social purposes, and the Constitution does not address a "Christian Nation", but it does affect Christians (and any other group) within the nation.

-HH

No that is not true. That is solely your preference based on your values. You want to force your values on others just as much as you rail against the Christians who you hate. Just because they are secular has no bearing...it's projection.

All law is based on some morality or someone's morality which deals with harmful or non-harmful behaviors due to externalities they can create. I don't care where they originally stem from but all law is still based on someones values. You cannot draw a hard line that one is religious based and another is not.

I never said the Constitution addresses a Christian nation either.

We've had this argument before citing Madison etc. At the time the Con was written the some states had officially established Churches. The Constitution as written did not force them to do away with such insitutions it addresses restraints Federal govt except where it can make the states do or refrain from something.

I'm not interested in resurrecting the entire argument again.

orange
05-29-2009, 09:49 AM
Sorry, the juxtaposition was weak.

No, I think it was quite strong actually. It's induced at least one of them to deny she ever said what she said.


... though I see now that petegz28 is made of sterner stuff.

blaise
05-29-2009, 09:49 AM
Laws are always written in a general sense, otherwise you'll create what most people say they don't want, an over litigious society. This is why you can argue your case on whether or not you broke the "spirit of the law" rather than the "letter of the law". The fact is, nobody cares until someone complains. This is why if the teenagers are throwing a loud party next door you can call the cops and shut it down. But, its also why, you can inform your neighbors beforehand, and if you get their "OK", you can have as big a party as you want. Code Enforcement is not out hunting group gatherings in residential areas. They are responding to complaints.

-HH


I understand that, and if that's they way they did it it would be fine with me, but the fact is they specifically put the word "religious" in there. Leave the word out and I don't have a problem.

HolyHandgernade
05-29-2009, 10:00 AM
No that is not true. That is solely your preference based on your values. You want to force your values on others just as much as you rail against the Christians who you hate. Just because they are secular has no bearing...it's projection.

All law is based on some morality or someone's morality which deals with harmful or non-harmful behaviors due to externalities they can create. I don't care where they originally stem from but all law is still based on someones values. You cannot draw a hard line that one is religious based and another is not.

I never said the Constitution addresses a Christian nation either.

We've had this argument before citing Madison etc. At the time the Con was written the some states had officially established Churches. The Constitution as written did not force them to do away with such insitutions it addresses restraints Federal govt except where it can make the states do or refrain from something.

I'm not interested in resurrecting the entire argument again.

I just thought it was funny when you tried to differentiate your point with Orange, you emphasized the word "religion" as a generic term to suit your argument/defense of it. Then, when I call you on it, you come up with a completely different take to defend a different position. Now, "religion" reflects the "values" and it isn't a general term. It must get confusing to keep it all strait.

-HH

Silock
05-29-2009, 11:00 AM
No. It has nothing to do with religion. You couldn't hold regular AA meetings there. I can't run a small business out of my home where customers come to my home. There just zoning laws meant to ensure everyone has their right to a relative tranquility at their home. You can have celebrations, you can have infrequent get togethers. You can't have an established weekly meeting meant for purposes of business or religious congregation. It has nothing to do with a family prayer at mealtime.

-HH

A get-together of religious nature is not necessarily "religious assembly." Churches are different in that they are still running some kind of payroll (Pastors, secretaries and workers at the church do get paychecks). So, I can see why a church needs a permit.

Tell me -- where EXACTLY is the line between freedom of religious assembly and the point where you need a permit?

Silock
05-29-2009, 11:01 AM
Zoning laws have been around for ages. It has nothing to do whether fees are collected (and, if it were, how do you know there wasn't an offering plate being passed around?) Its about traffic control and safety. Yards aren't big out here and kids play in the street. You increase the amount of traffic, both moving and parked, and increases the chance for accident. My point about business was not that transactions are taking place, but that it is an activity that increases the traffic level of an area beyond what it was designed for.

-HH

So anyone that has a number of people over for a neighborly party must also have a permit?

Mile High Mania
05-29-2009, 11:10 AM
This is so incredibly lame... they should define how many people constitutes a religious assembly... 10-15 people is not likely what was intended when they wrote that law.

Three people praying and reading the bible is a religious assembly, so they should go after each christian based home.

This should be thrown out immediately.

blaise
05-29-2009, 11:41 AM
This is how San Diego defines religious assembly:

The County definition of religious assembly is:

1370 RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY.
The Religious Assembly use type refers to religious services involving public
assembly such as customarily occurs in synagogues, temples, and churches.

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/zoning/z1000.pdf

***SPRAYER
05-29-2009, 12:09 PM
I'm not even a Chrsitian but damn man! What the ****? I thought this was America? Isn't this America? I thought we were in America? I'm sorry I thought this was America.


SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!

http://www.ghwk.de/engl/catalog/eichmann.jpg

Hydrae
05-29-2009, 12:11 PM
I better check with my local laws. We have regular family get togethers with 10-20 people. I would hate to find out I needed a permit for this.

***SPRAYER
05-29-2009, 12:12 PM
That still doesn't say what you claim. You're still assuming a reality that I did not make a case for.

He does that alot. All the moonbats do.

:)

orange
05-29-2009, 01:30 PM
This is how San Diego defines religious assembly:

The County definition of religious assembly is:

1370 RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY.
The Religious Assembly use type refers to religious services involving public
assembly such as customarily occurs in synagogues, temples, and churches.

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/zoning/z1000.pdf

:)

Really, now. Did you think it would be that simple? What country have you been living in?

Even if you're unfamiliar with the concept of "bureaucracy," your first clue that that wasn't the whole story should have been right at the top of the first page: "PART ONE: BASIC PROVISIONS"


Here's a little more elaboration:

Section 1370 Religious Assembly
1. Churches
2. Missions
3. Places of Worship
4. Religious Assembly
5. Religious Reading Rooms
6. Synagogues
7. Temples

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/ADMNLST.pdf

Here's a partial definition of Residential Zones and what's permitted

§131.0420 Use Regulations of Residential Zones

The regulations of Section 131.0422 apply in the residential zones unless otherwise specifically provided by footnotes indicated in Table 131-04B. The uses permitted in any zone may be further limited if environmentally sensitive lands are present, pursuant to Chapter 14, Article 3, Division 1 (Environmentally Sensitive Lands Regulations).

(a) Within the residential zones, no structure or improvement, or portion thereof, shall be constructed, established, or altered, nor shall any premises be used or maintained except for one or more of the purposes or activities listed in Table 131-04B. It is unlawful to establish, maintain, or use any premises for any purpose or activity not listed in this section or Section 131.0422.

(b) All uses or activities permitted in the residential zones shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building unless the use or activity is traditionally conducted outdoors.

(c) Accessory uses in the residential zones may be permitted in accordance with Section 131.0125.

(d) Temporary uses may be permitted in the residential zones for a limited period of time with a Temporary Use Permit in accordance with Chapter 12, Article 3, Division 4.

(e) For any use that cannot be readily classified, the City Manager shall determine the appropriate use category and use subcategory pursuant to Section 131.0110. (Added 12-9-1997 by O-18451 N.S) (Amended 10-18-1999 by O-18691 N.S.; effective 1-1-2000.)



Table 131-04b and related table show that "Religious Assemblies" are allowed with:

Conditional Use Permit Required. Regulations are located in Chapter 14, Article 1 (Separately Regulated Use Regulations).

http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter13/Ch13Art01Division04.pdf

orange
05-29-2009, 01:38 PM
That brings us to Chapter 14.

§141.0404 Churches and Places of Religious Assembly
Churches and places of religious assembly are permitted as a limited use in the zones
indicated with an “L” in the Use Regulations Tables in Chapter 13, Article 1 (Base
Zones) subject to Section 141.0404(a). Churches and places of religious assembly
that do not comply with Section 141.0404(a) may be permitted with a Conditional
Use Permit decided in accordance with Process Three subject to Section 141.0404(b).
Churches and places of religious assembly may also be permitted with a Conditional
Use Permit decided in accordance with Process Three in the zones indicated with a
“C” in the Use Regulations Tables in Chapter 13, Article 1 (Base Zones) subject to
Section 141.0404(b).

(a) Limited Use Regulations
(1) Churches and places of religious assembly are not permitted within the
MHPA or in floodplains located in the Coastal Overlay Zone.
(2) Churches and places of religious assembly are permitted as a limited
use in existing buildings only.
(3) The gross floor area of the church or place of religious assembly shall
not exceed 50 percent of the maximum gross floor area permitted for
the premises.
(4) The church or place of religious assembly shall not be the only use on
the premises.

(b) Conditional Use Permit Regulations
(1) Churches and places of religious assembly are not permitted within the
MHPA or in floodplains located the Coastal Overlay Zone.
(2) The design of the structures shall incorporate a variety of architectural
elements that help to diminish building bulk.
(3) Structures shall be placed on the site so that larger or high-activity
buildings are placed away from adjacent property with smaller
structures and lower levels of activity.
(4) Off-street parking shall be located away from adjacent residential
property.
(5) Conditions addressing the following issues may be imposed by the
decision maker:
(A) Limitations on the intensity of additional uses, such as schools
and child care facilities, as well as the facilities housing these
activities, to a level that is commensurate with the size of the
site, the levels of intensity of surrounding development, and the
capacity of streets serving the facility; and
(B) Limitations on the number of on-premises fund-raising or
social activities to a specific number of occurrences each year.(Added 12-9-1997 by O-18451 N.S.; amended 10-18-1999 by O-18691 N.S.; effective
1-1-2000.)

http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter14/Ch14Art01Division04.pdf


There's more, of course. Pursuant to this particular complaint, we have Table 142-05F Parking Ratios for Specified Non-Residential Uses

Churches and places of
religious assembly

1 per 3 seats; or 1 per 60 inches of
pew space; or 30 per 1,000 square
feet assembly area if seating is
not fixed

2% of Auto Minimum for bicycles

http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter14/Ch14Art02Division05.pdf

There's more I'm sure - here is a search pointing to all occurences of "Religious Assembly" in San Diego's Municipal Code:

http://google.sannet.gov/search?site=scs_municode&partialfields=&requiredfields=PATH%3Amunicode&client=scs_ocd&filter=0&config=municode.js&layout_type=title&getfields=TITLE&proxystylesheet=scs_ocd&output=xml_no_dtd&proxyreload=1&num=100&sort=&ie=UTF-8&show_results=true&fulltext_search_results=true&q=religious+assembly


... and we haven't even begun to look for case law.


Why do you think people pay lawyers so much money?

blaise
05-29-2009, 02:13 PM
I appreciate the fact that you looked all that up and posted it (and mind you, I do know a bit about the legal system and law codes and how they're written, my wife is an attorney), but a lot of that really deals with the reasons for codes regarding organized meetings. I'm not disputing that codes such as those are needed. I wouldn't want a bunch of people going in and out of my neighborhood, parking cars up and down the street and making noise twice a week. My issue is more about why there should be a differentiation between religious and non religious assemblies, and whether this is in fact a religious assembly.
First of all, I don't know that just because "religious reading rooms" is listed it means these people constituted a religious assembly. I think that's open to interpretation on a case by case basis. Without knowing all the facts of thise case it's hard for me to say. I don't know how often it occurred, exactly how many people, or the amount of traffic or development in the area. To me the spirit of the law seems to me to be more about preventing churches from setting up shop in neighborhoods and not about preventing small groups of 10-15 people from getting together to pray.
Secondly, as long as the same type of rules are applied to non-religious groups then that's fine. I noticed there was a listing for "civic associations" on the list of groups that need a permit, but at a cursory glance those seem to be defined as non-profit type organizations such as the Lions club. If they're saying that a Bible study group that meets once a week needs a permit then any other group meeting should need one too, whether it be to play video games, poker, bocce, watch football or anything else.
In short, I just don't see much reason to specify "religious" when you're talking about enforcing these codes. What makes a religious assembly different than any other assembly of people for any number of other reasons? Like I said before, it seems like you're inviting discriminatory practices.

orange
05-29-2009, 02:18 PM
I think it's a case of throwing in everything they could think of to include - in that link you posted, most of the definitions were added by ordinance when they came up - they weren't originally in the Code.

Also, things not on their list can't be done in a Residential Zone; only housing units. By designating Religious Assemblies, they are providing for greater protection - with defined limitations to keep the neighbors happy.

Also, this issue is kind of a ChiefsPlanet exclusive. The actual Pastor isn't claiming he isn't holding Religious Assemblies. The point about discrimination may well be argued if this goes to court. It's one of the few successful approaches in that essay I posted above - but I doubt it would fly in this case, because the San Diego ordinance is actually less vague and more inclusive of other types of land use than the examples the essayist gave.

Also, there are more facts at the link in the OP in the videos there. Keep in mind it's a TV station - the written version is not their main thrust.

Pioli Zombie
05-29-2009, 10:00 PM
Go fuck yourself San Diego.
Posted via Mobile Device