Religious Persecution???

[ClarkLZeuss]

Did the police overreact, go overboard, and outstep their reach by trying to ban these meetings outright because of the permit law? Yes, I believe so.However, I still think they were just looking for a way to make the complainant happy, rather then trying to stifle their religious practices.

And that's exactly the problem. By trying to enforce one law (parking violations), the government broke another law (freedom of assembly). Actually two laws (freedom to worship). Free means free. It means you don't have to pay the government squat for exercising your constitutional rights. Just like you don't have to pay the government for a permit to say what you want, write what you want, you also don't have to pay to worship how you want, with who you want.

Imagine if instead of a Bible Study, it was a weekly gathering of homosexual activists who were planning ways to protest Prop 8. What if the county official had asked them, "Excuse me, do you have your ($10,000) land use permit for planning a protest?" Or imagine if was just some friends who hang out every week for burgers and beer. "Excuse me, do you have your restaurant and alcohol permits in order?" Both of these are also examples of people exercising their constitutional right to "peaceably assemble." None of them should be harassed for it. The parking violations? Sure! But to make the issue the assembly is a major breach of the constitution.

Regardless of what the original problem was, the County decided to make the issue about the religious gathering, and they intentionally tried to put an end to it, on the grounds that it was a religious gathering, and how a permit was (illegally) required for that.

[The Annoyed Man]

I host a Friday morning men's Bible study in my home at 6:15 a.m. every Friday. Attendance can be anywhere from one, like this morning, to a dozen. That means anywhere from one to twelve cars are parked out in front of my house and my neighbors' houses. I live on a narrow, 1 block long side street, so whenever someone on our block is having an event with a lot of parked cars, it does impact the convenience of the other neighbors. Granted, my Bible study is early enough that, by the time everyone leaves, there is seldom a parking issue for my neighbors.

That said, I check from time to time with my neighbors who are affected to make sure this is not a problem for them. In fact, I invite them to join us. It is called "being a good neighbor," something which the pastor in question apparently hasn't yet twigged to. If parking for this group ever became an issue, I would move the meetings from my home, forsaking the convenience to me, to an offsite location - such as at our church campus, or at a local coffee shop. That is called "behaving sacrificially," also something that the pastor in question has not apparently twigged to either. In any case, it is hard for me to imagine a situation in which my neighbors would go straight to the city instead of appealing to me first, so that I could have a chance to ameliorate the situation before the police became involved.

Now, was the city employee wrong in trying to frame this in the context infringing religious liberty? Absolutely. But my take on it is that this would have never happened if the pastor hosting the Bible study had been both a responsible neighbor and a responsible pastor.

[C-dub]

I agree with T.A.M. It's not always about me me me. Too many people are "starring in their own movie" and could care less or are oblivious to others around them.

The city should not have approached this from a religious standpoint. However, some people have claimed to be a church or religion with some really wild beliefs and customs just to try and avoid paying property taxes and other things. I'm sure that's not the case here, but the fact that the city asked about permits makes me wonder if actual churches pay for these permits. I guess I'll have to stop by my Pastor's office and ask him later today.

[longhorn_92]

I host a Friday morning men's Bible study in my home at 6:15 a.m. every Friday. Attendance can be anywhere from one, like this morning, to a dozen. That means anywhere from one to twelve cars are parked out in front of my house and my neighbors' houses. I live on a narrow, 1 block long side street, so whenever someone on our block is having an event with a lot of parked cars, it does impact the convenience of the other neighbors. Granted, my Bible study is early enough that, by the time everyone leaves, there is seldom a parking issue for my neighbors.

That said, I check from time to time with my neighbors who are affected to make sure this is not a problem for them. In fact, I invite them to join us. It is called "being a good neighbor," something which the pastor in question apparently hasn't yet twigged to. If parking for this group ever became an issue, I would move the meetings from my home, forsaking the convenience to me, to an offsite location - such as at our church campus, or at a local coffee shop. That is called "behaving sacrificially," also something that the pastor in question has not apparently twigged to either. In any case, it is hard for me to imagine a situation in which my neighbors would go straight to the city instead of appealing to me first, so that I could have a chance to ameliorate the situation before the police became involved.

Now, was the city employee wrong in trying to frame this in the context infringing religious liberty? Absolutely. But my take on it is that this would have never happened if the pastor hosting the Bible study had been both a responsible neighbor and a responsible pastor.

[boomerang]

And that's exactly the problem. By trying to enforce one law (parking violations), the government broke another law (freedom of assembly). Actually two laws (freedom to worship). Free means free. It means you don't have to pay the government squat for exercising your constitutional rights. Just like you don't have to pay the government for a permit to say what you want, write what you want, you also don't have to pay to worship how you want, with who you want.

Like concealed carry? How is this any different than a cop in California arresting someone for having a handgun without a permit?

Or a Texas cop for that matter? The CHL is far from cheap, much less free. Is the CHL law persecution of gun owners?

[Dave01]

A few years ago, I was thinking about starting up a home based business. I first contacted my HOA to make sure I would not be in violation of any rules. They said that as long as I did not have any signs, and as long as my business was not open to the public then there were no issues. They also suggested I contact the city to make sure there were no zoning problems (the business I was thinking about was an art glass studio which required some "light industrial" ovens and such. The plan was to start in the garage and move to a rental space if things went well). I kinda got the runaround from the city, and ultimately decided that I didn't want to take the risk of self employment, so I bagged the idea.

I bring this up because the questions that were asked by the county suggest that they were trying to determine if the bible study group was actually a church. If so, I suspect there might be some zoning issues associated with a church (or business) on a residential street. The requirement for a major use permit suggests the county came to the conclusion that the house was being used as a church. Perhaps they misunderstood what was actually taking place there, or perhaps there is more to the story than actually reported. Either way, I don't believe this was an overt attempt to quash religious freedoms.

Dave

[nitrogen]

Freedom of assembly is fine as long as it's not inhibiting other peoples use of their property; which I think is what the problem here is.

I'm sure this is codified in caselaw somewhere, but I will not pretend to know for sure.

I'm pretty sure that this fellow could get some public space to hold his bible study for free or a reduced cost, or people could carpool to his house to reduce the number of cars being left out.

I'm sure something could be worked out to benefit EVERYONE.

I will say that going RIGHT to the enforcement steps was pretty lame, you could at LEAST start by talking to people and trying to reasonably fix the situation via discussion.

[ClarkLZeuss]

And that's exactly the problem. By trying to enforce one law (parking violations), the government broke another law (freedom of assembly). Actually two laws (freedom to worship). Free means free. It means you don't have to pay the government squat for exercising your constitutional rights. Just like you don't have to pay the government for a permit to say what you want, write what you want, you also don't have to pay to worship how you want, with who you want.

Like concealed carry? How is this any different than a cop in California arresting someone for having a handgun without a permit?

Or a Texas cop for that matter? The CHL is far from cheap, much less free. Is the CHL law persecution of gun owners?

That's actually a good question, and I don't have a real great answer to it. But some people have protested the very idea of having to buy a license to exercise 2A (opencarry.org and others, I presume) out of concerns like this. Not saying I necessarily agree or disagree, but I understand the point. Can you imagine the heck that would be raised if the government started requiring a Freedom of Speech License? Or a Freedom from Unlawful Search and Seizure License? And if you didn't pay big bucks for these licenses, the government could imprison you for "unpatriotic speech," or could search you at any time for any reason?

I guess the middle ground is that our Deadly Force Statutes in the TPC allow for the use of deadly force without the requirement of a license. And (in most places) you don't have to buy a license to own a weapon in your home. CHL is about bringing weapons into the public square, and here I guess it comes down to the government allowing people their right to self defense VS. keeping the public safe. I happen to believe that some regulation of arms is necessary and good for all (otherwise everyone would be carrying around bazookas), and in a few narrow circumstances regulation of speech is warranted (yelling "fire" in a movie theater, inciting violence, etc.) but there shouldn't be any expensive licensing required for speech, press, worship or assembly.

If this is inconsistent, I don't know. It's a good question, like I said!

[Oldgringo]

Not being there, I dunno' the reality of the situation...either.

I tend to share the The Annoyed Man's take on the situation. There are some folk who believe that their way is the only way and if you don't subscribe, heart and soul, to their beliefs and concept of the Almighty, etc., etc., you are headed straight to in a handbasket. These same folk would think that they are doing you a favor by holding their service in your front yard or driveway.

I ain't got much use for such unilateral self-rightous and self-serving carrying-ons either. Call the law!

[bryang]

I tend to agree with TAM, also. A little bit of diplomacy goes a long way in resolving conflicts between neighbors, or anyone for that matter. I am sure this did not come up over night it was probably an on going escalating problem until the authorities became involved. I have held Bible studies before in my home and have gone to Bible studies in other peoples homes, however, it was not on a regular schedule each week at the same home. We also held Bible Studies at homes where there was ample parking without imposing on the neighbours.

Hopefully there will be more information that will clear this up.

-geo

[LarryH]

Good news:

SAN DIEGO, CA - San Diego County has rescinded its citation and apologized to a pastor who was warned that he needed a permit to hold weekly Bible studies in his home.

David Jones and his wife Mary had been warned that they could be fined $100 to $1,000 if they held religious assemblies without a major use permit. (See earlier article)

Their attorney, who argued that the Jones' constitutional rights were being violated, has now released two responses he received from San Diego County officials.

A letter from the county attorney rescinds the citation and says the permit is not required.

In a second letter, Chief Administrative Officer Walter Ekard apologizes and assures the couple that steps are being taken so that similar religious gatherings won't be issued citations in the future.

[Purplehood]

Ignoring the issue of which rights are being respected and which ones are not, it seems to me that this comes down to one single issue. Folks just aren't good neighbors anymore. We are way too insulated in the suburbs and the city.

I knew everyone on my block as a kid (Aurora, CO). Now I know maybe two people in my Condo Association and say hi to just a few more.

[frazzled]

Agreed there Purplehood. On the positive we know more neighbors now then we have in years.

I believe the attroney noted (from other articles) was in the process of suing the relevant agency citing the things noted here.