25
   

San Diego tries to ban Christianity

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 05:59 am
@Setanta,
No police officers are going house to house looking for people not related living in private homes anywhere in this country.

This is a tool in case you do have a groups of kids renting a home and partying and or fighting and annoying both the neighbors and the police to be able to shut them down.

A large percent of the zoning laws are design to be tools the police can used to end a public nuisance.

The minster had turn his home into a public nuisance and the community is reacting by using the zoning codes to end it.

If he had have a brain in his head he would had bus/shuttle his followers in and there would not had been a problem.

Of course he might be looking for a problem so he can become a nationally known figure for standing up to evil and the attacks on good Christians.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 06:10 am
@BillRM,
Jesus, you're witless. At no time did i suggest that the police were going door to door attempting to enforce zoning laws. It has been well established in this thread quite some time ago that these kinds of things come up because someone complains.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 06:24 am
@Setanta,
Nasty nasty I might just zone you right into my block file as a public nuisance<grin>.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 06:27 am
Help yourself. If it means that you will cease to offer your posts as responses to me, and cease to urge universally admitted ideas as though they were brilliant insights on your part, i'd be quite happy.
cjhsa
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 06:57 am
@Setanta,
Set really doesn't want to play, he'd much rather go roll in poop.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 05:14 am
@cjhsa,
anytime cj shows up in thread we can always count on a thread getting befowled with his chicken **** sensibilities.
0 Replies
 
TexazEric
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 12:51 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang,
This is where we need to look at our Constitution. The right to peaceably assemble on private property is a fundamental Constitutional right. It is NOT a privilege such as driving where you must have a permit. You are incorrect when you say this is not about religion. The counties own letter stated "unlawful use of land," ordering them to either "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit." The issue is intertwined with religion, Having friends over for fellowship and games every week would not require a permit, but simply because they CHOOSE to freely exercise their constitutional right to practice their religious beliefs they must get a permit? The Constitution is clear here, the govn't cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Unless there is a law on the books stating the parking in the neighborhood is strictly for people living in the neighborhood then I don't see how the parking issue is relevant. I have had people in my neighborhood throw a party once a week and line the streets with cars. There is no law against that.
The problem is that people no longer respect the Constitution nor appreciate the rights it gives us. If this was an atheist group or a satanist group for that matter I would say the same. They have the right to peaceably assemble on private property. Unless the parking is clearly a cause of concern for public safety the government should have no say in the matter.

1st Ammendment
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.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 01:00 pm
@TexazEric,
TexazEric wrote:

boomerang,
This is where we need to look at our Constitution. The right to peaceably assemble on private property is a fundamental Constitutional right. It is NOT a privilege such as driving where you must have a permit. You are incorrect when you say this is not about religion. The counties own letter stated "unlawful use of land," ordering them to either "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit." The issue is intertwined with religion, Having friends over for fellowship and games every week would not require a permit, but simply because they CHOOSE to freely exercise their constitutional right to practice their religious beliefs they must get a permit? The Constitution is clear here, the govn't cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Unless there is a law on the books stating the parking in the neighborhood is strictly for people living in the neighborhood then I don't see how the parking issue is relevant. I have had people in my neighborhood throw a party once a week and line the streets with cars. There is no law against that.
The problem is that people no longer respect the Constitution nor appreciate the rights it gives us. If this was an atheist group or a satanist group for that matter I would say the same. They have the right to peaceably assemble on private property. Unless the parking is clearly a cause of concern for public safety the government should have no say in the matter.

1st Ammendment
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.


You are 100% incorrect. The government has every right to regulate that which it cannot outright ban; for example, you have the right to bear arms, but the state can require you to have a license.

I think that if you look specifically at the laws in question for the area, you will indeed find there are ordinances pertaining to parking and the blocking of residents' ability to enjoy their neighborhood. It also bears keeping in mind the fact that one of these people caused an altercation by damaging private property, which likely lead to the authorities getting involved.

When your actions start to inconvenience those around you, the Law comes into play. This isn't about religion in the slightest; if the guy was having people over for Football (a much better use of a Sunday, btw) the rules would remain entirely the same.

Cycloptichorn
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 01:04 pm
There is absolutely no right to assemble on private property guaranteed by the constitution. Tediously, let's have the first amendment once more:

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. (emphasis added)

The right of assembly is not guaranteed on private property, no mention of permissible venues is made at all. The purpose of such assembly is particularly specified--to petition the government for a redress of grievances. That is not what was taking place in San Diego.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 01:49 pm
@TexazEric,
Zoning and other laws of it kind come under the "police powers" of a community and pre-date the constitution by a few hundreds or more years and is design to maintain order inside the community in question.

Any one who creates and maintains a public nuisance such as the good pastor meetings is going to run into the community right to maintain public order and peace.

This have nothing at all to do with religion freedom or the bible or Christianity and I need here to disagree with the claims of a right to have friends over to watch footballs games or whatever reason including bible study.

You would not have that right if by so doing you cause an ongoing public nuisance in this case of a neighborhood overwhelmed with park cars.

The idea also that this should had been deal with by giving out parking tickets to the pastor followers instead of zoning laws is like stating that we should allow a Wal-Mart to set up a store with zero parking and we will control the parking problems that would result in the neighborhood by writing parking tickets to Wal-Mart customers.


farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 01:58 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
There is absolutely no right to assemble on private property guaranteed by the constitution.
.
There is no prohibition as to WHERE peaceble assembly is exercised either. If it doesnt forbid it , its assumed inclusive till otherwise adjuticated. Many states and munis have required "permits" to assemble in a fashion that exceeds a specified amo0unt. In most cases these permits are merely a formality. However, assembly for religious purposes at someones house (IE HOUSE AMISH) is not breaking a law until someone tries a complaint , then 6 times out of ten the religious group will prevail
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 02:05 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Zoning and other laws of it kind come under the "police powers" of a community and pre-date the constitution by a few hundreds or more years and is design to maintain order inside the community in question.
The history of land use and zoning in the US only goes back to the mid 1800's. The NAssau, Suffolk and The 5 boros of NY had adopted speciifc "Use and exclusivity" zones around the civil war. Then the avctual ball got rolling with adoption of Muncipality Planning Codes for the various classes of municipalities in the several states (Some states have county and town governments, other states use township (or parishes) and Borough and city MPC requirements. The actual zoning requirements post date the constitution by almost 100 years.


There are places in the US that still dont have any zoning requirements today. Houston is a well known example as are the "undeveloped townships " of MAine
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 02:05 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

There is absolutely no right to assemble on private property guaranteed by the constitution. Tediously, let's have the first amendment once more:

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. (emphasis added)

The right of assembly is not guaranteed on private property, no mention of permissible venues is made at all. The purpose of such assembly is particularly specified--to petition the government for a redress of grievances. That is not what was taking place in San Diego.

You're parsing that sentence wrong. It is not the right to assemble in order to petition the government. It grants the right to assemble AND the right to petition the government.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 02:17 pm
there's some interesting stuff coming up about this instance.

here's one;

Quote:
Pastor Jones is the pastor of South Bay Christian Fellowship (incorrect. it's supposed to be south bay community church) in San Diego. He and Griffith hope that the Bible study will continue to grow as large as it can. Space is an issue but there could be a chance for additional Bible studies to take place. Regardless they are hopeful that they can reach more people.


http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/273490

and this;


Quote:
In April, the county issued Jones a citation and told him he could no longer host a Bible study group in his home. The county claimed Jones needed a permit to hold religious meetings.

Last Friday, however, county officials reversed the decision.

Jones is looking for an apology and wants the decision inked on paper.

"We don't have anything in writing. We want something very clearly that states people can pray in homes and have friends over and read Bible together and study a bit," said Jones.


the "griffith" referred to is an attorney with the Western Center for Law & Policy. the senior partner, dean broyles, is an acolyte of jay sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice.


i think what is bothering me about this is that this is not the first time dave jones has tried to get away without proper permits. i posted this before, but it fell out. it's also available at the south bay community church site.


   http://lh3.ggpht.com/_4Uy9Dz_BS9s/SKstJInfFDI/AAAAAAAAAWs/zN-wqg-H62Y/scan0106.jpg




DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 02:19 pm
and i forgot to include this;


http://www.wclplaw.org/news/Citation.pdf

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 02:28 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
I wonder how Chula Vista would treat the HOUSE AMISH? See, they worship exclusively in their homes
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 02:39 pm
@farmerman,
Farmerman even if the good pastor had cause this kind of a problem in an area with no zoning laws he more then likely would had been stop under laws concerning maintaining a public nuisance.

I know of no place with the English common law as it foundation that does not have the ability to stop a public nuisance.

This does leave out the state of Louisiana as I zero knowledge of Napoleonic legal code or how it deals with the issue of a public nuisances.

As far as zoning codes going back only to the 1800s that may be true under the name of zoning codes however laws similar to what we would had consider zoning pre-date this country.

If you get a chance to go to Colonial Williamsburg and go to their reenactment of legal hearings from the records of that period you will find one of them deal with an issue that would be under zoning codes now a days.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 02:40 pm
@farmerman,
Well they would not have a problem with cars!
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 02:57 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Hmm if the town does back down I predict the Pastor will be shortly complaining about anti-Christians devil worships harming his follower’s cars or something similar.

Bad things tend to happen when you do not enforce the laws as in people then tend to go outside the law. Hopefully the neighbors will go to court and file a civil action however it look like the neighborhood is not the kind with the funds to do so. If the town fear to do their job because of the fox network ETC I think that area will be interesting to live in if not peaceful.

A highly interesting story to follow and I am very glad I am not one of his neighbors and not because I am a Atheist either.

0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 03:28 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

I wonder how Chula Vista would treat the HOUSE AMISH? See, they worship exclusively in their homes


don't know. how many are there? just family? do they live in an enclave? would they be walking to a single house; or horse and buggy rigs/ cars?

it's kinda moot using the amish in regards to c.v. as there doesn't seem to be an amish community in california.

in any case, it's my opinion that this is a case of religion being used to manipulate existing law. that and a buck will buy me a plain coffee.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/31/2024 at 07:27:33