San Diego tries to ban Christianity

So far you are the only one on this site looking ahead to the possible ramifications. The rest are looking at it as a religious thing only.

not me, i've brought up parking and football repeats too

I don't need lessons from you, FM, on how ordinances are written. The only thing i can find to agree with you about is that whoever was the spokesman for San Diego County was rather stupid to have mentioned the religious nature of the gathering. Otherwise, i consider that the county is on solid ground.

I'm not trying to settle this at this site, i'm just commenting, as is everyone else. Don't get all snotty and self-righteous about this. And be careful what you write. In this latest post . . .



. . . while in the post to which i originally responded . . .

Oh bullshit, plenty of people here have been quick to point out that this is about land use ordinance and not religion. What is going on in San Diego County is precisely what Gunga Dim is trying to do here--make it about religion because otherwise these clowns don't have a leg to stand on.

Despite FM's certainty, i'm not at all sure that the holy rollers have a case which they can successfully defend, precisely because they're trying to make it about religion when it ain't.

Pansy asses. Comon, I want another Waco.

I agree that it is not about trying to ban religion. Apparently the amount of cars is becoming a problem in that area. There are other things the pastor could do to easily help out his neighbors by easing the congestion his friends are causing by meeting there at his house.

Honestly, if he were being considerate of his neighbors, he would agree to either finding another place to meet that would accomodate the numbers that are attending or ask them to car pool to cut down on the number of cars. Whichever worked best. Playing the victim never looks good, especially in these cases. I have no patience for it.

((SET)) good to see you...see you are your usually cranky self...I love me some cranky old men.

The only one whose getting snotty and self righteous is you sir. Might I suggest that you settle back and try not to make every interaction with human beings a test of will.
As far as reading something snotty into my statement about writing ordinances, Im sorry that your so damn touchy. (Like hell I am-you are quite predictable with that famous setanta "hair trigger")

just to make sure of the accuracy of the news story as presented. We have the following (gunga also presented this but, ...

The specific information is connecting a shaky "Unlawful use of land" and "Stop religious assembly". Seems I recall the various subcases that resulted from the Wisconsin v Yoder days.
Free expression of ones religion does not exclude assembies of the faithful. Free expression , to me, is whatever means one uses to practice ones religion, be it alone , in a group, or in a fellowship/study group.

I guess that Ill reluctantly have to agree with GUNGASNALE on this one. Most of you folks are missing where this is going. Its a waste of time and money because some douche bag public official couldnt even word a nusiance information properly. Either the pastors get togethers were, like an eternal yard sale messing with the free expression of traffic or theres an implied nuisance with a weekly gathering of over a given number of people unrelated to the household . Bringing the religious aspect into it was the Municipalities choice and a particularly stupid one because the case is gonna cost millions.

So now you're losing it even more, FM . . . what i referred to as snotty was your claim that i'm trying to settle it at this site. I'm not. I'm just commenting, like everyone else.

I've not seen you in a while, Miss Mi, you ol' sugar pie . . . i hope you're keeping well.

I think they're saying "Stop religious assembly" to describe what it is he's supposed to stop, to differentiate it from, say, "stop loud parties", which is not something he was doing. Had the cause of the disturbance been repeated loud parties, that's what they would have said. You've got to describe the activity somehow, after all. It's not an attempt to restrict religion, per se, it's an attempt to maintain orderly public assembly.

here's a picture of the guy's house. i don't see how you could get 15 cars, or even 1/2 that number parked in this driveway. which means neighbors are being impacted.



http://www.10news.com/news/19595677/detail.html#

just more wedge bullshit.

i wonder if gunga and his pals would be so outraged about the dude's rights if the weekly parties were for the local chapter of moveon or something like.

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you so damn insecure that if people dont agree with every fuckin thing you say you start name calling , feces throwing and otherwise acting a loudmouth fool?. You certainly did go postal about how "I didnt need to instruct you on writing ordinances" First off you read that as as some kind of challenge to your status? I merely wanted to present the fact that codification of ordinances has always (at least in my state) invloved trimming and making sure the ordinance was in line with all other existing regs.


Now Im goin fishin you old ****. If you wanna carry on later fine, Ill be glad to swap insults. In the meantime, Take a valium.

Precisely. That unfortunate phraseology is gonna come back to haunt the Municipality in an expensive case that they could lose.

Jeeze, Buddy, i hope for your sake you don't have high blood pressure.

That adequately describes how you're acting. I didn't call you any names, nor engage in "feces throwing." I simply pointed out that i know how ordinances are written, and i didn't get all bent out of shape about it.

Maybe you should take that valium. I wasn't trading insults with you, and you have really gone off the deep end. I'm not the author of your personal miseries, so i'd prefer that you take them out on somebody else.

so... san diego is not trying to ban christianity?

Probably not . . . but i don't want to jump the gun . . . let's wait until Gunga Dim enlightens us further . . .

I predict that one of the following two things will happen:

1. the county will not enforce this regulation against pastor Jones
2. the county will try to enforce it, pastor Jones will bring the case to trial, and the courts will wipe the floors with San Diego's regulation, which is just what it deserves.

My money is on the first option. But either way, it's going to be a tempest in a teapot. Hey, it's good television!

That doesn't change the fact that gunga and his pals might be right this time.

I cannot see how they can be right. The county's spokesman certainly stepped on county government's collective dick by the manner in which he described the action taken. But otherwise, i don't see that there is a problem with the county taking steps to control traffic and parking, nor in mandating land use regulations. I see this as little different, perhaps no different at all, from zoning regulations.