Do you know who came up with the idea of the separation of church and state? Are you aware that the man most responsible for the idea cut every supernatural reference out of his bible?
Religion indeed.
Originally posted by: lupi
if there really was this absolute void of religion like so many want to believe, I wonder why so much religion is present in government documents and activities originating with those whom wrote the separation statement.
He says it all started with $220 in car damage.
Jones and his wife, Mary, hold a weekly Bible study at their home that sometimes attracts more than 20 people, with occasional parking issues. Once, a car belonging to a neighbor's visitor got dinged.
David Jones paid for the damage, but he thinks the incident spurred a complaint to the county.
A code enforcement officer warned the couple in April for holding a ?religious assembly? without a permit. The action became an international incident when it was reported last week on the Web site worldnetdaily.com.
..............
Chandra Wallar, the county's general manager of land use and environment, said the county has re-examined the situation and decided that the Joneses don't need a permit after all.
Religious assembly, under the county land-use code, is defined as ?religious services involving public assembly such as customarily occurs in synagogues, temples, and churches.?
Wallar said that definition, which doesn't spell out specific thresholds on when a religious gathering becomes a religious assembly, probably needs to be clarified and that more training may be warranted for code enforcement officers.
She said the county was not targeting the Joneses because they were exercising their religion, but rather it was trying to address parking and traffic issues.
?We've advised the pastor he has the authority to continue to hold his meetings just as he's held them,? Wallar said. ?My hope is we will be able to resolve the traffic concerns.?
Wallar said the person who filed the complaint alleged that Bible study was drawing 30 to 40 cars.
In an interview yesterday, the pastor said at most, there are six additional cars on Bible study day. Jones, pastor of South Bay Community Church in National City, said he has visitors park in a lot that he owns beside his house.
....................
?Even though the county is saying it's about traffic and parking, it's a fake issue. It's a fabricated issue,? Broyles said.
According to Broyles, the code enforcement officer asked a series of pointed questions during her visit with the Joneses ? questions such as, ?Do you sing?? ?Do you say 'amen?' ? ?Do you say 'praise the Lord?' ?
Wallar said the county is investigating what questions were asked and in what context. She said a code enforcement officer does have to ask questions about how a place is being used to determine what land-use codes are applicable.
?Our county simply does not tolerate our employee straying outside what the appropriate questions are,? Wallar said.
Ekard, the top county executive, emphasized in his statement that he would get to the bottom of the matter.
?Should I find that county staff at any level acted in a heavy-handed way; did anything inappropriate under the circumstances; or that a change or revision to our processes and procedures is warranted, I will take appropriate action immediately,? he said.
I meant "selectively enforced" to the extent that only religious assembly complaints are always responded to, while other complaints are not. You know, within the context of this topic.Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't know, Vic. Generally code enforcement is too poorly manned to do anything but respond to complaints. When they get a complaint though, it's a no-brainer to follow-up on it and so they did.Originally posted by: Vic
Exactly. The topic of zoning is a weak red herring both in this thread and by San Diego county.
Are you insinuating that the County of San Diego is somehow selectively enforcing zoning laws? If you can prove that, more power to you, but somehow I doubt you can.
Uhh... ALL laws in ALL jurisdictions are selectively enforced, in large part because law enforcement forces are perpetually undermanned relative to the number and scope of the laws they are tasked to enforce (the real problem IMO), and also because most people do break the law in some shape or form on a regular basis. Case in point: are you ticketed everytime you speed on the highway? And what do you suppose San Diego county's code enforcement division's backlog and turn around time in responding to complaints is right now?
You're also implying that a zoning complaint must be valid simply because there was a complaint. Hardly.
That's great, however HOA's also PROTECT homeowners from asshats like the ones referenced in the OP's article. Absolute unregulated freedom sounds like a great thing until your idiot neighbor starts throwing garbage all over his front yard, parking his 10 "project" cars all over the neighborhood because he runs a mechanic shop out of his garage, etc., etc..Originally posted by: Vic
Which is exactly why I won't live in a fascist HOA, now or ever. The reason why Californians think they have to live under those conditions is because their state govt is little more than a corrupt pawn for special interests, especially the developers.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
That's great, however HOA's also PROTECT homeowners from asshats like the ones referenced in the OP's article. Absolute unregulated freedom sounds like a great thing until your idiot neighbor starts throwing garbage all over his front yard, parking his 10 "project" cars all over the neighborhood because he runs a mechanic shop out of his garage, etc., etc..Originally posted by: Vic
Which is exactly why I won't live in a fascist HOA, now or ever. The reason why Californians think they have to live under those conditions is because their state govt is little more than a corrupt pawn for special interests, especially the developers.
I agree, some HOAs go extreme from time-to-time. Nothing's perfect.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't know, Vic. Generally code enforcement is too poorly manned to do anything but respond to complaints. When they get a complaint though, it's a no-brainer to follow-up on it and so they did.Originally posted by: Vic
Exactly. The topic of zoning is a weak red herring both in this thread and by San Diego county.
Are you insinuating that the County of San Diego is somehow selectively enforcing zoning laws? If you can prove that, more power to you, but somehow I doubt you can.
Uhh... ALL laws in ALL jurisdictions are selectively enforced, in large part because law enforcement forces are perpetually undermanned relative to the number and scope of the laws they are tasked to enforce (the real problem IMO), and also because most people do break the law in some shape or form on a regular basis. Case in point: are you ticketed everytime you speed on the highway? And what do you suppose San Diego county's code enforcement division's backlog and turn around time in responding to complaints is right now?
You're also implying that a zoning complaint must be valid simply because there was a complaint. Hardly.
You're assuming parking is plentiful. Have you seen the neighborhood first hand? I live in a suburban neighborhood and parking is NOT plentiful. 15 extra cars in my neighborhood would definitely be noticed and most definitely be a nuisance.Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
That's great, however HOA's also PROTECT homeowners from asshats like the ones referenced in the OP's article. Absolute unregulated freedom sounds like a great thing until your idiot neighbor starts throwing garbage all over his front yard, parking his 10 "project" cars all over the neighborhood because he runs a mechanic shop out of his garage, etc., etc..Originally posted by: Vic
Which is exactly why I won't live in a fascist HOA, now or ever. The reason why Californians think they have to live under those conditions is because their state govt is little more than a corrupt pawn for special interests, especially the developers.
I agree, some HOAs go extreme from time-to-time. Nothing's perfect.
No one is talking about absolute unregulated freedom here. A private gathering at someone's home is not in any way the same as all the egregious examples you've cited in this thread. Which BTW is why the religious argument keeps coming up, because otherwise it's had to figure out why you (or anyone for that matter) think they're the same or even similar.
In a suburban neighborhood (like this one), where parking is typically plentiful, the only reason I can think of that someone would be upset about his neighbor having a lot of cars over regularly is if they were blocking his driveway.
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For all of those that have had their panties in a super-glued wad over this....did anyone bother to read any follow up stories that weren't on their favorite Rupert Murdoch owned media outlets?
Full Story
He says it all started with $220 in car damage.
Jones and his wife, Mary, hold a weekly Bible study at their home that sometimes attracts more than 20 people, with occasional parking issues. Once, a car belonging to a neighbor's visitor got dinged.
David Jones paid for the damage, but he thinks the incident spurred a complaint to the county.
A code enforcement officer warned the couple in April for holding a ?religious assembly? without a permit. The action became an international incident when it was reported last week on the Web site worldnetdaily.com.
..............
Chandra Wallar, the county's general manager of land use and environment, said the county has re-examined the situation and decided that the Joneses don't need a permit after all.
Religious assembly, under the county land-use code, is defined as ?religious services involving public assembly such as customarily occurs in synagogues, temples, and churches.?
Wallar said that definition, which doesn't spell out specific thresholds on when a religious gathering becomes a religious assembly, probably needs to be clarified and that more training may be warranted for code enforcement officers.
She said the county was not targeting the Joneses because they were exercising their religion, but rather it was trying to address parking and traffic issues.
?We've advised the pastor he has the authority to continue to hold his meetings just as he's held them,? Wallar said. ?My hope is we will be able to resolve the traffic concerns.?
Wallar said the person who filed the complaint alleged that Bible study was drawing 30 to 40 cars.
In an interview yesterday, the pastor said at most, there are six additional cars on Bible study day. Jones, pastor of South Bay Community Church in National City, said he has visitors park in a lot that he owns beside his house.
....................
?Even though the county is saying it's about traffic and parking, it's a fake issue. It's a fabricated issue,? Broyles said.
According to Broyles, the code enforcement officer asked a series of pointed questions during her visit with the Joneses ? questions such as, ?Do you sing?? ?Do you say 'amen?' ? ?Do you say 'praise the Lord?' ?
Wallar said the county is investigating what questions were asked and in what context. She said a code enforcement officer does have to ask questions about how a place is being used to determine what land-use codes are applicable.
?Our county simply does not tolerate our employee straying outside what the appropriate questions are,? Wallar said.
Ekard, the top county executive, emphasized in his statement that he would get to the bottom of the matter.
?Should I find that county staff at any level acted in a heavy-handed way; did anything inappropriate under the circumstances; or that a change or revision to our processes and procedures is warranted, I will take appropriate action immediately,? he said.
Now, there are a number of questions/points that this brings up.
1. Even the Pastor himself states that it frequently brings in more than 20 (not 15) guests. Did he lie or understate previously or is his attorney or WorldNetDaily.com (or originally "broke" the story) lying?
2. The Pastor himself states that his meetings often cause parking troubles and that one person did have their property damaged. Do you notice that he admits that his meetings are causing violations? I don't think you understand the meaning of "cause." The meetings did not cause a door ding, that was caused by someone's carelessness. The parking troubles are NOT violations - otherwise there would have been an obvious solution for the county: ticket the cars.
3. The law is written very ambiguously and as such, could mean that a gather of even 2 people could (by the letter of the law) be identified as an "assembly" therefore requiring a permit. the point of that was explaining how it was possible for the code enforcement officer to over-react.
4. Maybe it was the person who's property they damaged that called in the complaint and the county is obligated by law to investigate it. The complaint stated that there were 30-40 cars. That's a little more than our resident ATP&N "experts" hypothesizing about how many cars can fit into a driveway and cul-de-sac that they have never seen anywhere else but from Google Maps. And you believe the complaint of 30 to 40 cars to be accurate and not an exaggeration? 40 cars? Seriously? I hope everyone came alone and no one brought someone with them.
5. The lawyer's claims -- of course the county officials had to ask if they sing, prayer and shout out their allegiance to their god. How else are they supposed to identify whether or not the gathering meets the poorly defined description of a religious assembly in the first place? Wrong. As pointed out by the county's general manager, they do NOT need a permit & may continue meeting.
6. The lawyer is blowing this way out of proportion to get a fat 1st Amendment violation payday/settlement from the county That may be true. That's his job - represent his client and make as much money for his client as he can (and for himself)
7. The county is going to follow up on their own actions and take any disciplinary actions needed (which personally doesn't sound like any are to me).
i.e. they're admitting that the code wasn't clear enough for the code enforcement officers to realize that what was going on is NOT a violation.Wallar said that definition, which doesn't spell out specific thresholds on when a religious gathering becomes a religious assembly, probably needs to be clarified and that more training may be warranted for code enforcement officers.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow, that's insane! You completely do not understand the zoning laws that are being enforced in this case. It's not based on the topic of conversation, you moron, it's based on using your property contrary to the county zoning laws. Get it straight!Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Wow, that's insane.
[snip!]
The idea that there could be a restriction on a private gathering based on the topic of conversation astounds me, and it seems to go against the principle of freedom of religion in this country...
Right, it's ok to restrict people's right to assemble because zoning laws make it ok. Your argument is akin to voter requirements: they didn't state that black people couldn't vote, they simply made literacy a requirement to register. People like you back then would say, "Hey, we're not restricting their right to vote! They just need to learn how to read before they can be registered to vote." :roll:
No one's saying they can't assemble, rather they're saying that if they're going to run a weekly church service out of their home, they need a permit to do so. Great strawman you've got going there though.
Originally posted by: Citrix
at first i was going to flame the county. but having 15 people over for church in a neighborhood is a bit much. if one of my neighbors did that i would be pissed as well. i don't care if it is bible study, poker night. the pastor is being a nussiance to his neighbors and i don't blame them for siccing the law on him.
15 people isnt bible study, its church.
Well it seems it's up to the Priests neighbors to take matters in their own hands.Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For all of those that have had their panties in a super-glued wad over this....did anyone bother to read any follow up stories that weren't on their favorite Rupert Murdoch owned media outlets?
Full Story
He says it all started with $220 in car damage.
Jones and his wife, Mary, hold a weekly Bible study at their home that sometimes attracts more than 20 people, with occasional parking issues. Once, a car belonging to a neighbor's visitor got dinged.
David Jones paid for the damage, but he thinks the incident spurred a complaint to the county.
A code enforcement officer warned the couple in April for holding a ?religious assembly? without a permit. The action became an international incident when it was reported last week on the Web site worldnetdaily.com.
..............
Chandra Wallar, the county's general manager of land use and environment, said the county has re-examined the situation and decided that the Joneses don't need a permit after all.
Religious assembly, under the county land-use code, is defined as ?religious services involving public assembly such as customarily occurs in synagogues, temples, and churches.?
Wallar said that definition, which doesn't spell out specific thresholds on when a religious gathering becomes a religious assembly, probably needs to be clarified and that more training may be warranted for code enforcement officers.
She said the county was not targeting the Joneses because they were exercising their religion, but rather it was trying to address parking and traffic issues.
?We've advised the pastor he has the authority to continue to hold his meetings just as he's held them,? Wallar said. ?My hope is we will be able to resolve the traffic concerns.?
Wallar said the person who filed the complaint alleged that Bible study was drawing 30 to 40 cars.
In an interview yesterday, the pastor said at most, there are six additional cars on Bible study day. Jones, pastor of South Bay Community Church in National City, said he has visitors park in a lot that he owns beside his house.
....................
?Even though the county is saying it's about traffic and parking, it's a fake issue. It's a fabricated issue,? Broyles said.
According to Broyles, the code enforcement officer asked a series of pointed questions during her visit with the Joneses ? questions such as, ?Do you sing?? ?Do you say 'amen?' ? ?Do you say 'praise the Lord?' ?
Wallar said the county is investigating what questions were asked and in what context. She said a code enforcement officer does have to ask questions about how a place is being used to determine what land-use codes are applicable.
?Our county simply does not tolerate our employee straying outside what the appropriate questions are,? Wallar said.
Ekard, the top county executive, emphasized in his statement that he would get to the bottom of the matter.
?Should I find that county staff at any level acted in a heavy-handed way; did anything inappropriate under the circumstances; or that a change or revision to our processes and procedures is warranted, I will take appropriate action immediately,? he said.
Now, there are a number of questions/points that this brings up.
1. Even the Pastor himself states that it frequently brings in more than 20 (not 15) guests. Did he lie or understate previously or is his attorney or WorldNetDaily.com (or originally "broke" the story) lying?
2. The Pastor himself states that his meetings often cause parking troubles and that one person did have their property damaged. Do you notice that he admits that his meetings are causing violations? I don't think you understand the meaning of "cause." The meetings did not cause a door ding, that was caused by someone's carelessness. The parking troubles are NOT violations - otherwise there would have been an obvious solution for the county: ticket the cars.
3. The law is written very ambiguously and as such, could mean that a gather of even 2 people could (by the letter of the law) be identified as an "assembly" therefore requiring a permit. the point of that was explaining how it was possible for the code enforcement officer to over-react.
4. Maybe it was the person who's property they damaged that called in the complaint and the county is obligated by law to investigate it. The complaint stated that there were 30-40 cars. That's a little more than our resident ATP&N "experts" hypothesizing about how many cars can fit into a driveway and cul-de-sac that they have never seen anywhere else but from Google Maps. And you believe the complaint of 30 to 40 cars to be accurate and not an exaggeration? 40 cars? Seriously? I hope everyone came alone and no one brought someone with them.
5. The lawyer's claims -- of course the county officials had to ask if they sing, prayer and shout out their allegiance to their god. How else are they supposed to identify whether or not the gathering meets the poorly defined description of a religious assembly in the first place? Wrong. As pointed out by the county's general manager, they do NOT need a permit & may continue meeting.
6. The lawyer is blowing this way out of proportion to get a fat 1st Amendment violation payday/settlement from the county That may be true. That's his job - represent his client and make as much money for his client as he can (and for himself)
7. The county is going to follow up on their own actions and take any disciplinary actions needed (which personally doesn't sound like any are to me).
Seriously, do you have brain damage, mild retardation, or some other impairment which prevents you from comprehending what you're reading and what the most important points are? "Chandra Wallar, the county's general manager of land use and environment, said the county has re-examined the situation and decided that the Joneses don't need a permit after all." This is despite the pastor saying 20 people, the complaint of 30-40 cars, etc. The rest is the county trying to cover their asses.
And, in the following section, the part you bolded completely misses the point - the unbolded portion:i.e. they're admitting that the code wasn't clear enough for the code enforcement officers to realize that what was going on is NOT a violation.Wallar said that definition, which doesn't spell out specific thresholds on when a religious gathering becomes a religious assembly, probably needs to be clarified and that more training may be warranted for code enforcement officers.
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Hello.....
Do any of the appalled and incensed want to address the matter of the Pastor himself stating that his gathering caused parking issues and damage to other people's property or that his number of visitors are higher than the number presented by the lawyers, Fox News and WorldNetDaily?
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Hello.....
Do any of the appalled and incensed want to address the matter of the Pastor himself stating that his gathering caused parking issues and damage to other people's property or that his number of visitors are higher than the number presented by the lawyers, Fox News and WorldNetDaily?
How does requiring a permit solve this? Write parking violation tickets. A permit is simply a way of stopping this gathering, rather than enforcing the correct laws.
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Wow, that's insane.
My housemates and I host a weekly Bible study that's usually between 10-15 people.
Cars:
We deliberately picked a house with lots of on-site parking and so we usually only have 2-3 cars parked on the street during study. We've have the cops called on us once because a car was in a spot that a neighbor perceived as blocking their driveway (they have a big SUV and have trouble pulling out if we're parked on the opposite side of the street). We immediately agreed to move the car and informed everyone not to park there again. The next day I went and introduced myself to the neighbor, gave him my phone number and said he could call any time of the day or night if our cars were in the way and we'd happily move them.
Noise:
We don't do any music and we're never louder than loud laughter, sometimes outside on the back deck. One of the housemates goes to sleep early so by 9:30 we are at a low level of volume too quiet to wake her up, much less bother then neighbors.
Rotate homes:
everyone in the study pretty much lives in 1 or 2 bedroom apartments except us. We're in a six bedroom house that we rent collectively (7 people).
Do it at church:
We all belong to different, or no, churches. We don't have a church in common that we could meet at. For all formal organization purposes this is a group of friends getting together to hang out. The only thing that differs between this and a group of friends is that we're focused on a particular topic. The only thing that differs between this and a book club is that we pray at the end.
The idea that there could be a restriction on a private gathering based on the topic of conversation astounds me, and it seems to go against the principle of freedom of religion in this country...
Way to even read the thread/news links provided.
As RightisWrong mentioned earlier, you have to just laugh at the irony of this situation. Fundies have no problem trying to control what happens in the privacy of other peoples homes...but when the tables turn oh the injustice!
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow, that's insane! You completely do not understand the zoning laws that are being enforced in this case. It's not based on the topic of conversation, you moron, it's based on using your property contrary to the county zoning laws. Get it straight!Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Wow, that's insane.
[snip!]
The idea that there could be a restriction on a private gathering based on the topic of conversation astounds me, and it seems to go against the principle of freedom of religion in this country...
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For all of those that have had their panties in a super-glued wad over this....did anyone bother to read any follow up stories that weren't on their favorite Rupert Murdoch owned media outlets?
Full Story
He says it all started with $220 in car damage.
Jones and his wife, Mary, hold a weekly Bible study at their home that sometimes attracts more than 20 people, with occasional parking issues. Once, a car belonging to a neighbor's visitor got dinged.
David Jones paid for the damage, but he thinks the incident spurred a complaint to the county.
A code enforcement officer warned the couple in April for holding a ?religious assembly? without a permit. The action became an international incident when it was reported last week on the Web site worldnetdaily.com.
..............
Chandra Wallar, the county's general manager of land use and environment, said the county has re-examined the situation and decided that the Joneses don't need a permit after all.
Religious assembly, under the county land-use code, is defined as ?religious services involving public assembly such as customarily occurs in synagogues, temples, and churches.?
Wallar said that definition, which doesn't spell out specific thresholds on when a religious gathering becomes a religious assembly, probably needs to be clarified and that more training may be warranted for code enforcement officers.
She said the county was not targeting the Joneses because they were exercising their religion, but rather it was trying to address parking and traffic issues.
?We've advised the pastor he has the authority to continue to hold his meetings just as he's held them,? Wallar said. ?My hope is we will be able to resolve the traffic concerns.?
Wallar said the person who filed the complaint alleged that Bible study was drawing 30 to 40 cars.
In an interview yesterday, the pastor said at most, there are six additional cars on Bible study day. Jones, pastor of South Bay Community Church in National City, said he has visitors park in a lot that he owns beside his house.
....................
?Even though the county is saying it's about traffic and parking, it's a fake issue. It's a fabricated issue,? Broyles said.
According to Broyles, the code enforcement officer asked a series of pointed questions during her visit with the Joneses ? questions such as, ?Do you sing?? ?Do you say 'amen?' ? ?Do you say 'praise the Lord?' ?
Wallar said the county is investigating what questions were asked and in what context. She said a code enforcement officer does have to ask questions about how a place is being used to determine what land-use codes are applicable.
?Our county simply does not tolerate our employee straying outside what the appropriate questions are,? Wallar said.
Ekard, the top county executive, emphasized in his statement that he would get to the bottom of the matter.
?Should I find that county staff at any level acted in a heavy-handed way; did anything inappropriate under the circumstances; or that a change or revision to our processes and procedures is warranted, I will take appropriate action immediately,? he said.
Now, there are a number of questions/points that this brings up.
1. Even the Pastor himself states that it frequently brings in more than 20 (not 15) guests. Did he lie or understate previously or is his attorney or WorldNetDaily.com (or originally "broke" the story) lying?
2. The Pastor himself states that his meetings often cause parking troubles and that one person did have their property damaged. Do you notice that he admits that his meetings are causing violations?
3. The law is written very ambiguously and as such, could mean that a gather of even 2 people could (by the letter of the law) be identified as an "assembly" therefore requiring a permit.
4. Maybe it was the person who's property they damaged that called in the complaint and the county is obligated by law to investigate it. The complaint stated that there were 30-40 cars. That's a little more than our resident ATP&N "experts" hypothesizing about how many cars can fit into a driveway and cul-de-sac that they have never seen anywhere else but from Google Maps.
5. The lawyer's claims -- of course the county officials had to ask if they sing, prayer and shout out their allegiance to their god. How else are they supposed to identify whether or not the gathering meets the poorly defined description of a religious assembly in the first place?
6. The lawyer is blowing this way out of proportion to get a fat 1st Amendment violation payday/settlement from the county
7. The county is going to follow up on their own actions and take any disciplinary actions needed (which personally doesn't sound like any are to me).
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For all of those that have had their panties in a super-glued wad over this....did anyone bother to read any follow up stories that weren't on their favorite Rupert Murdoch owned media outlets?
Full Story
He says it all started with $220 in car damage.
Jones and his wife, Mary, hold a weekly Bible study at their home that sometimes attracts more than 20 people, with occasional parking issues. Once, a car belonging to a neighbor's visitor got dinged.
David Jones paid for the damage, but he thinks the incident spurred a complaint to the county.
A code enforcement officer warned the couple in April for holding a ?religious assembly? without a permit. The action became an international incident when it was reported last week on the Web site worldnetdaily.com.
..............
Chandra Wallar, the county's general manager of land use and environment, said the county has re-examined the situation and decided that the Joneses don't need a permit after all.
Religious assembly, under the county land-use code, is defined as ?religious services involving public assembly such as customarily occurs in synagogues, temples, and churches.?
Wallar said that definition, which doesn't spell out specific thresholds on when a religious gathering becomes a religious assembly, probably needs to be clarified and that more training may be warranted for code enforcement officers.
She said the county was not targeting the Joneses because they were exercising their religion, but rather it was trying to address parking and traffic issues.
?We've advised the pastor he has the authority to continue to hold his meetings just as he's held them,? Wallar said. ?My hope is we will be able to resolve the traffic concerns.?
Wallar said the person who filed the complaint alleged that Bible study was drawing 30 to 40 cars.
In an interview yesterday, the pastor said at most, there are six additional cars on Bible study day. Jones, pastor of South Bay Community Church in National City, said he has visitors park in a lot that he owns beside his house.
....................
?Even though the county is saying it's about traffic and parking, it's a fake issue. It's a fabricated issue,? Broyles said.
According to Broyles, the code enforcement officer asked a series of pointed questions during her visit with the Joneses ? questions such as, ?Do you sing?? ?Do you say 'amen?' ? ?Do you say 'praise the Lord?' ?
Wallar said the county is investigating what questions were asked and in what context. She said a code enforcement officer does have to ask questions about how a place is being used to determine what land-use codes are applicable.
?Our county simply does not tolerate our employee straying outside what the appropriate questions are,? Wallar said.
Ekard, the top county executive, emphasized in his statement that he would get to the bottom of the matter.
?Should I find that county staff at any level acted in a heavy-handed way; did anything inappropriate under the circumstances; or that a change or revision to our processes and procedures is warranted, I will take appropriate action immediately,? he said.
Now, there are a number of questions/points that this brings up.
1. Even the Pastor himself states that it frequently brings in more than 20 (not 15) guests. Did he lie or understate previously or is his attorney or WorldNetDaily.com (or originally "broke" the story) lying?
2. The Pastor himself states that his meetings often cause parking troubles and that one person did have their property damaged. Do you notice that he admits that his meetings are causing violations? I don't think you understand the meaning of "cause." The meetings did not cause a door ding, that was caused by someone's carelessness. The parking troubles are NOT violations - otherwise there would have been an obvious solution for the county: ticket the cars.
3. The law is written very ambiguously and as such, could mean that a gather of even 2 people could (by the letter of the law) be identified as an "assembly" therefore requiring a permit. the point of that was explaining how it was possible for the code enforcement officer to over-react.
4. Maybe it was the person who's property they damaged that called in the complaint and the county is obligated by law to investigate it. The complaint stated that there were 30-40 cars. That's a little more than our resident ATP&N "experts" hypothesizing about how many cars can fit into a driveway and cul-de-sac that they have never seen anywhere else but from Google Maps. And you believe the complaint of 30 to 40 cars to be accurate and not an exaggeration? 40 cars? Seriously? I hope everyone came alone and no one brought someone with them.
5. The lawyer's claims -- of course the county officials had to ask if they sing, prayer and shout out their allegiance to their god. How else are they supposed to identify whether or not the gathering meets the poorly defined description of a religious assembly in the first place? Wrong. As pointed out by the county's general manager, they do NOT need a permit & may continue meeting.
6. The lawyer is blowing this way out of proportion to get a fat 1st Amendment violation payday/settlement from the county That may be true. That's his job - represent his client and make as much money for his client as he can (and for himself)
7. The county is going to follow up on their own actions and take any disciplinary actions needed (which personally doesn't sound like any are to me).
Seriously, do you have brain damage, mild retardation, or some other impairment which prevents you from comprehending what you're reading and what the most important points are? "Chandra Wallar, the county's general manager of land use and environment, said the county has re-examined the situation and decided that the Joneses don't need a permit after all." This is despite the pastor saying 20 people, the complaint of 30-40 cars, etc. The rest is the county trying to cover their asses.
And, in the following section, the part you bolded completely misses the point - the unbolded portion:i.e. they're admitting that the code wasn't clear enough for the code enforcement officers to realize that what was going on is NOT a violation.Wallar said that definition, which doesn't spell out specific thresholds on when a religious gathering becomes a religious assembly, probably needs to be clarified and that more training may be warranted for code enforcement officers.
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Wow, that's insane.
My housemates and I host a weekly Bible study that's usually between 10-15 people.
Cars:
We deliberately picked a house with lots of on-site parking and so we usually only have 2-3 cars parked on the street during study. We've have the cops called on us once because a car was in a spot that a neighbor perceived as blocking their driveway (they have a big SUV and have trouble pulling out if we're parked on the opposite side of the street). We immediately agreed to move the car and informed everyone not to park there again. The next day I went and introduced myself to the neighbor, gave him my phone number and said he could call any time of the day or night if our cars were in the way and we'd happily move them.
Noise:
We don't do any music and we're never louder than loud laughter, sometimes outside on the back deck. One of the housemates goes to sleep early so by 9:30 we are at a low level of volume too quiet to wake her up, much less bother then neighbors.
Rotate homes:
everyone in the study pretty much lives in 1 or 2 bedroom apartments except us. We're in a six bedroom house that we rent collectively (7 people).
Do it at church:
We all belong to different, or no, churches. We don't have a church in common that we could meet at. For all formal organization purposes this is a group of friends getting together to hang out. The only thing that differs between this and a group of friends is that we're focused on a particular topic. The only thing that differs between this and a book club is that we pray at the end.
The idea that there could be a restriction on a private gathering based on the topic of conversation astounds me, and it seems to go against the principle of freedom of religion in this country...
Way to even read the thread/news links provided.
As RightisWrong mentioned earlier, you have to just laugh at the irony of this situation. Fundies have no problem trying to control what happens in the privacy of other peoples homes...but when the tables turn oh the injustice!
I DID read the news article and understood it. Let me break it down for you:
- I have a weekly gathering in my home of about 15 people
- Without any additional information, this does not violate zoning laws
- This is not a formal registered non-profit organization otherwise known as a church; this is a gathering of friends to discuss a topic of mutual interest
- Because of the nature of the topic the officer at the scene is arbitrarily declaring this a religious assembly and causing problems.
The same gathering at the same place at the same time with the same number of people would not have been asked the same questions if they were an Oprah book club.
Per the nature of the resolution article posted, the city apparently agrees with me. The questions asked by the officer show an intent to make this issue about the nature of their gathering rather than the traffic infraction that was actually the legitimate issue.
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Wow, that's insane.
My housemates and I host a weekly Bible study that's usually between 10-15 people.
Cars:
We deliberately picked a house with lots of on-site parking and so we usually only have 2-3 cars parked on the street during study. We've have the cops called on us once because a car was in a spot that a neighbor perceived as blocking their driveway (they have a big SUV and have trouble pulling out if we're parked on the opposite side of the street). We immediately agreed to move the car and informed everyone not to park there again. The next day I went and introduced myself to the neighbor, gave him my phone number and said he could call any time of the day or night if our cars were in the way and we'd happily move them.
Noise:
We don't do any music and we're never louder than loud laughter, sometimes outside on the back deck. One of the housemates goes to sleep early so by 9:30 we are at a low level of volume too quiet to wake her up, much less bother then neighbors.
Rotate homes:
everyone in the study pretty much lives in 1 or 2 bedroom apartments except us. We're in a six bedroom house that we rent collectively (7 people).
Do it at church:
We all belong to different, or no, churches. We don't have a church in common that we could meet at. For all formal organization purposes this is a group of friends getting together to hang out. The only thing that differs between this and a group of friends is that we're focused on a particular topic. The only thing that differs between this and a book club is that we pray at the end.
The idea that there could be a restriction on a private gathering based on the topic of conversation astounds me, and it seems to go against the principle of freedom of religion in this country...
Way to even read the thread/news links provided.
As RightisWrong mentioned earlier, you have to just laugh at the irony of this situation. Fundies have no problem trying to control what happens in the privacy of other peoples homes...but when the tables turn oh the injustice!
I DID read the news article and understood it. Let me break it down for you:
- I have a weekly gathering in my home of about 15 people
- Without any additional information, this does not violate zoning laws
- This is not a formal registered non-profit organization otherwise known as a church; this is a gathering of friends to discuss a topic of mutual interest
- Because of the nature of the topic the officer at the scene is arbitrarily declaring this a religious assembly and causing problems.
The same gathering at the same place at the same time with the same number of people would not have been asked the same questions if they were an Oprah book club.
Per the nature of the resolution article posted, the city apparently agrees with me. The questions asked by the officer show an intent to make this issue about the nature of their gathering rather than the traffic infraction that was actually the legitimate issue.
I'd add to this as it is all relevant to what I was going to post that I don't care what ANYBODY does in the privacy of their own house with consenting housemates, whether it is play video games, smoke pot, get drunk, or have sex.
Some people need to seriously think about this. Revenge is NEVER the answer.
Just because you don't like some church folk, doesn't mean you should erode our civil rights to try and "one up" them.
The law shouldn't be so hateful, prosecuting people for pointless infractions and filling our jails with non-violent offenders like it does.
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Hello.....
Do any of the appalled and incensed want to address the matter of the Pastor himself stating that his gathering caused parking issues and damage to other people's property or that his number of visitors are higher than the number presented by the lawyers, Fox News and WorldNetDaily?
How does requiring a permit solve this? Write parking violation tickets. A permit is simply a way of stopping this gathering, rather than enforcing the correct laws.
The permit may make the group decide that that cost is not worth it and move their gathering elsewhere.
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Hello.....
Do any of the appalled and incensed want to address the matter of the Pastor himself stating that his gathering caused parking issues and damage to other people's property or that his number of visitors are higher than the number presented by the lawyers, Fox News and WorldNetDaily?
How does requiring a permit solve this? Write parking violation tickets. A permit is simply a way of stopping this gathering, rather than enforcing the correct laws.
The permit may make the group decide that that cost is not worth it and move their gathering elsewhere.
That's retarded. So if these people were rich and could afford the permit, who gives a shit about parking. But if these people aren't rich and can afford this pointless permit, they can cause all the parking problems they want?
Don't you see how fucking bogus that is? Requiring a permit is simply a tool being used to limit their rights. This case is not about parking, if it was parking tickets would be issued. This case is about stopping these people from being 'bible thumpers'.
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Hello.....
Do any of the appalled and incensed want to address the matter of the Pastor himself stating that his gathering caused parking issues and damage to other people's property or that his number of visitors are higher than the number presented by the lawyers, Fox News and WorldNetDaily?
How does requiring a permit solve this? Write parking violation tickets. A permit is simply a way of stopping this gathering, rather than enforcing the correct laws.
The permit may make the group decide that that cost is not worth it and move their gathering elsewhere.
That's retarded. So if these people were rich and could afford the permit, who gives a shit about parking. But if these people aren't rich and can afford this pointless permit, they can cause all the parking problems they want?
Don't you see how fucking bogus that is? Requiring a permit is simply a tool being used to limit their rights. This case is not about parking, if it was parking tickets would be issued. This case is about stopping these people from being 'bible thumpers'.
What makes you assume they would be granted the permit.
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Do any of the appalled and incensed want to address the matter of the Pastor himself stating that his gathering caused parking issues and damage to other people's property or that his number of visitors are higher than the number presented by the lawyers, Fox News and WorldNetDaily?