jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (93 posts)

Taking a dump on the constitution

  1. Onusonus profile image86
    Onusonusposted 5 years ago

    A California city is suing a family for holding bible studies in their home. So where's the UCLA when their basic rights are being violated?
     
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/califor … heir-home/

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Los Angeles.

      1. Onusonus profile image86
        Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Very Ironic. The city of Angels.

    2. recommend1 profile image72
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe the idea of indoctrinating children and vulnerable adults goes against ideas of freedom ?

      1. Onusonus profile image86
        Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        not in America dude.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Freedom and government are antonyms.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Somalia is the freest country in the world. It must be paradise!

          1. recommend1 profile image72
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Unusually I have to side with Evan here !!!     Somalia has a strong and actively fierce government in its tribal warlords - as every country would with no organised government.

  2. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    Did you even bother to read the article?

    City officials in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. say Chuck and Stephanie Fromm are in violation of municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit. Stephanie hosts a Wednesday Bible study that draws about 20 attendees, and Chuck holds a Sunday service that gets about 50.

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, I read the article. What's your point?

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's not a dump on the Constitution and for you to claim it is means you apparently only read what you wanted from the article without realizing that the law applies to all.

        No one's individual rights were trampled on by what occurred in the article.

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes they were.

          1. recommend1 profile image72
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            From what we read it appears that these people are starting a church business without a licence - and have to comply with the same law everyone complies with - how is that infringing their freedom ?

            1. Onusonus profile image86
              Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              A business? Lol! That's probably because you live in China where you have no religious freedoms, and because you have such rules imposed on you, you are jealous of the religious freedoms of Americans.

              1. recommend1 profile image72
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What else is it but a business.

                You are seriously misinformed as usual - There is complete religious freedom in China - it is totally legal to practice any religion you like that is not patently harmful to others.  I have been in Catholic, Baptist, Taoist and Buddhist temples or churches all over China.  They are all practising away without interference, even the evangelical christian fools trying to sell their flat earth nonsense to a small community of gullible old women.

                1. Onusonus profile image86
                  Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this
                  1. recommend1 profile image72
                    recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    There was no infringement of religious freedom by China stopping [b]outside[b] religious demonstrations - the law against proselytising is very simple and easy to follow and also very sensible.

                    You can so any religious mumbo jumbo you like in your own house or designated places of worship - ie licenced premises.

                    People do not want to see a bunch of people wandering around holding up the traffic because of their strange beliefs, any more than a bunch of nudists would be tolerated excercising their 'freedom' to gather in public.

                  2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Are you confusing Chinas intolerance of political dissent with religious freedoms perhaps?

          2. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If that's how you see it, then apparently you don't have all the information you need to come to the correct conclusion. I guess it's time you go learn more about California laws and what exactly these people were doing in the home.

            1. Onusonus profile image86
              Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If you seriously believe that it is a constitutional law then one would have to assume that you hold some sort of bias towards the individual rights of the religious.

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Again, that would be a poorly perceived notion. I have no bias with regards to individual rights of those who are religious. And, to say that I do, only means you don't know me. I guess that's not a surprise.

                Like I said, apparently there are other factors involved with the article doesn't touch on. So get real.

                1. Onusonus profile image86
                  Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I would love to see whatever viable information you find concerning this incident that caused California's fair and unbiased legal system to invade the privacy of an individuals home and fine them for exercising their constitutionally protected first amendment rights.

                  1. Cagsil profile image60
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Since I don't live in California, I'll have to make an example of the state I live in.

                    I once opened a business in my home. The article claims "non-profit" section of laws. And, you're claiming first amendment violations. But, when I opened a business in my home, I was specifically told that if traffic in and out of my home exceeded a specific amount, then I could run into legal issues. High traffic coming and going into and from a home that has a "non-profit" status, is subjected to other things.

                    This is why I said you don't understand.

                  2. thisisoli profile image56
                    thisisoliposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Why is this protected under the first amendment?

                  3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "I would love to see whatever viable information you find concerning this incident that caused California's fair and unbiased legal system to invade the privacy of an individuals home and fine them for [violating their towns zoning ordinances]."

                    There, fixed it for you.

                    roll

    2. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The municipal code is clearly unconstitutional. It violates the rights to worship freely and to assemble. It's harrassment pure and simple!

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Untrue, depend on other factors. So, go haunt someone else who doesn't know or understand the laws and constitutional rights.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Correct. Reasonable zoning rules are constitutional. They consider such factors as available parking, traffic congestion, etc., in residential areas. We have churches in our residential neighborhood, but they are on huge pieces of property with parking lots behind the church buildings. Sometimes political fund raisers and graduation parties cause traffic and parking congestion on our side street, but they aren't regular, weekly affairs attended by 50 people. My guess is that some of the atheists in the neighborhood objected to the weekly church services.

    3. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds like a reasonable opportunity for a little civil disobedience.  If one can host a large Sunday Night NFL game night then why not a Bible study or a religious or, for that matter, non-religious gathering.

      Sounds like the ordinance could be challenged in a court.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Your example is meaningless considering your comparing apples to oranges. But, again A+ for effort on trying to distort, as per usual.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          A private gathering in a private home.  You're right apples and oranges.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Again, coming from the master of distortion. Good show. roll

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, he sort of has a point.

        If a 50-person Football Night happened every week in someone's house, and the town let it continue in spite of a neighbor's complaint, then we'd see that this is a clear case of religious discrimination.

        But that hasn't happened as far as we know.

        Also, if we agree that a person should be allowed to use his home for whatever purpose he wants to, and that the zoning law is unjust regardless of what kind of gathering it's preventing, then yeah, it is a good time for some civil disobedience.

        But there's a difference between hosting a big party once or twice a year, and hosting a big party once or twice a week.

        Also, if you go to the mat for the right of this church to gather in this guys' house, no fair complaining when a druidic circle or witches coven or, heaven forbid, a poetry writers' workshop starts meeting every week across the street.

  3. thisisoli profile image56
    thisisoliposted 5 years ago

    Interestingly enough it isn't. For the same reason state law can protect religion in ways that federal law cannot (against the wishes of the founding fathers) it can also restrict it.

  4. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Is it so tragic that they need to get a permit to run what is essentially a church? Why not just get the permit? If/when it is denied I will agree their rights are under attack, until the they are defending the non-existent "right" to not do boring paperwork. Bureaucratic paperwork is something you render unto Caesar.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "If/when it is denied I will agree their rights are under attack,"
      Not necessarily. They're essentially running a church in an area zoned residential, without a parking lot large enough to accommodate said church. 

      They aren't being discriminated against any more than anybody else who was trying to run, say, a two-nights-a-week martial arts academy, or a twice a week actors' workshop in their basement. It's not what they're doing. It's the traffic congestion generated by the large group doing whatever in a residential neighborhood.

      Of course, the right wing will try to pretend that this is discrimination against Christians. It isn't, but pretending that it is reinforces the siege mentality to so many wing-nuts are trying to perpetuate.

      They don't want real religious freedom. They want their religion to have a privileged status over all others.

  5. Lindy's World profile image84
    Lindy's Worldposted 5 years ago

    The only reason the city should be required to intervene is if their meetings are causing a safety hazard. I just find that it is kind of interesting that if these same people had the same amount of people over once a twice a week for a BBQ no one would care.  But since it is in the context of this group of people expressing and enjoying their right to religious freedom it is an issue.  That should be something we all need to think about.

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are exactly correct. This is an outright attack on individual rights, and it is directed at the religious freedoms of American citizens.

      1. Lindy's World profile image84
        Lindy's Worldposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The scary thing is that there are so many people out their that don't feel that this is a right worth protecting.  This "freedom" is the cornerstone of our country.  It is what made us who we are as a country.  Today it is our right to assembly and religious freedom (as in this case), what will be next our freedom of speech.  All I can say to that is bye bye hubpages, blogs or anything else we hold dear.

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sure we will see more and more stories like this in the future as our individual rights are foregone through a "just" litigation process.

          1. Lindy's World profile image84
            Lindy's Worldposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And as Americans we should be ashamed of ourselves for just rolling over and throwing our Constitution out the window for the sake of political correctness.   It is a sad thing and our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, Onusonus, Lindy's World is exactly incorrect.

        This is a zoning problem, and nothing more. Pretending that it's an incidence of religious discrimination is not helping anything except the perpetuation of the right-wing conservative Christian siege mentality delusion.

        There is no evidence that "if these same people had the same amount of people over once a twice a week for a BBQ no one would care." None. Lindy's World just made that up. It's pure speculation.

  6. thisisoli profile image56
    thisisoliposted 5 years ago

    "Ok then, Enjoy your totalitarian regime."

    Thou shalt worship no god before me...

    Which totalitarian regime?

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So you are saying God is a totalitarian regime? Interesting, Wrong but interesting.

      1. thisisoli profile image56
        thisisoliposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How is it wrong, God has said unequivocally that you will worship him, no one else, and if you do decide to worship someone else you go to hell for eternity. If you do things he doesn't like you will also go to hell for varying lengths of time.

  7. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    OMG, they broke a law, they got cited. 

    Anything else is just posturing.  The law applies to everyone and obviously SOMEONE had a complaint that brought it to law enforcement's attention.  Did that SOMEONE have something against Christianity.... possibly... or maybe he just wanted to get in his dang driveway.

    Regardless, once it was brought to the attention of the local authorities they were constrained to act.  To ignore a complaint BECAUSE the gathering was religious in nature would have been just as biased as the meeting group is claiming they were by enforcing it.

    If they expect special treatment because of their religion, then they need to put on their big girl panties... or maybe get the appropriate permits/find a legal meeting place.

    1. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You're missing the point, the law is wrong!

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I've read the whole law.  It's a simple zoning law that prohibits gatherings in low-density residential communities. Non-profit groups are listed as conditional... which in legalese means "get permission first".  Bed and breakfasts, day cares, residential care facilities, and swimming pools are also conditional.

        There are zoning laws for a reason.  Large gatherings of people should not be in residential areas.  Especially light density residential areas... the traffic patterns are not arranged for it, generally the parking is not sufficient, and it brings the land value down.  These particular zoning laws are very heavy on maintaining the natural flow of the land and limit quite a few different kinds of structures.  My guess is the city likes it's low density areas very much as they are probably bringing in the most property taxes.  It's not about religion.  It about maintaining the investments of it's citizens.

        If you want to slog through the law, here is the link.  It is dry, much like every piece of zoning law ever written.

        http://library.municode.com/index.aspx? … California

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I cannot agree with you here.  I grew up in a fairly small Christian sect (although world wide) that believes Jesus taught that worship sessions were to be held in private homes, not in churches.  It has been around for something over 100 years.

          Assuming that the city merely wants money in order for people to worship, it would seem to be in violation of at least the spirit of the constitution if not the letter. 

          If the city is declaring that it is a zoning matter, with parking and other similar problems as be the root of the question it again very definitely violates the spirit of the constitution.  These people believe in worshipping in their homes as directed by God and Uncle Sam cannot declare otherwise (yes I realize the constitution only addresses federal restrictions and not state, but courts generally seem to interpret it otherwise).  The city will not generally allow private homes on commercial land; by restricting worship to just such places it denies a religion that has been around longer than any such zoning law.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            However, you're overlooking the obvious. Religion cannot and will not dictate laws. wink So, therefore, religion loses and rights are not infringed upon.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              A side issue, but I find religion can and does dictate laws.  A great many of our laws come right out of the church.

              As far as this thread it would seem that the law(s) being discussed here will prevent this small sect from worshipping as they have done for a hundred years - the sect will have to change their beliefs to conform to the new laws.  This in turn seems to me to violate the constitution; yes I know that it merely says govt cannot set up its own religion, but by refusing to allow a long standing church to exist I think a court would hold it as unconstitutional.

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Used to, which laws are still on the books, because they don't only apply to those who are religious but to mass society's overall existence.
                Untrue. It doesn't have to change it's beliefs. It has to change it's location.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  But it can't.  You can't generally put a home into the commercial zoned area which a church would occupy (I think, anyway - not really up on zoning laws).  Therefore you can't live in a church, which is what their religion requires.

                  1. Cagsil profile image60
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No religion that I know requires anyone to live in a church. But, that's off topic with regards to this thread.

                    Zoning laws need to be in place for the well being of social communities. Not all communities are based on religion and even if entire community was solely based on a religious belief, it must not be able to dictate laws. Yes, I know it was that way in the long dead past, but not anymore, because of social acceptance of individual rights.

                  2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Rastafarianism uses marijuana smoking as a sacrament. Pot is still illegal.

                    Some Mormon splinter groups practice polygamy. Polygamy is still illegal*.

                    Some Muslim women wear face coverings as an article of faith. But they can't get a driver's license without taking off the face covering.

                    You can't just say, "Oh, it's my religion" and get special dispensation to break the law.

                    *Polygamy between informed, competent, consenting adults actually shouldn't be illegal, imo. When children are coerced into a polygamous relationship, or when a person marries more than one spouse without the knowledge of all spouses involved, that is and should be illegal.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "Assuming that the city merely wants money in order for people to worship, it would seem to be in violation of at least the spirit of the constitution if not the letter."

            If this rule applied only to church groups, you'd have a good case, and I'd be right there with you.

            But if it applies to any regular gathering of a large number of people in a residential zone, as it seems to, then you're asking for privileged status for churches as opposed to secular book clubs, karate schools, folk music circles, etc.

            1. psycheskinner profile image82
              psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Quite.

              If they had been having a Richard Dawkin's reading circle or Wiccan coven meeting exactly the same thing would have happened.

              Something that does not discriminate based on religion, cannot be religious discrimination.

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Don't churches always get privileged status anyway?  No taxes on buildings designed for worship for instance.  OK to ding dong the big bells early in the morning, parking only on the public street, etc.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                They do get tax-free status, which I don't so much like, but as long as the same status is equally available to all churches, I'm not going to gripe so much.

                And again, nobody is trying to stop anybody from worshipping in this instance. They're trying to get the homeowner to comply with local zoning ordinances, which the owner either knew about or ought to have known about when he bought his home.

                Some localities don't allow campaign signs on lawns. This is spelled out in the bylaws of the local homeowners' association. If someone wants to put campaign signs on their lawn, they either need to live somewhere where it's allowed or else get their neighbors to agree to change the rule.

                Same kind of thing here. The church can get a permit, and continue to operate. Or they can not get a permit and continue to get fined. Or they can campaign to get the rules changed to allow gatherings of 50 or more people without a permit in their area.

                My point is that while the rule may or may not be a good rule (and I have no opinion yet on whether it is good or not), it is still a rule that applies across the board for everyone. This is not a case of religious discrimination, as some folks would have us believe.

      2. psycheskinner profile image82
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't see how needing a license for your church is any more wrong than needing a license for your car or dog.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Unless the dog is Christian, in which case it is obviously above the law...

          Wait a minute....D O G...G O D...

      3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So you believe that zoning laws are wrong?

        Or you just think that Christians should be allowed to do whatever they want and everyone else should just let them, since they're Christians?

  8. Kangaroo_Jase profile image82
    Kangaroo_Jaseposted 5 years ago

    This doesn't look like a local law that's interfering with the US Constitution 1st Amendment at all.

    Consider the interpretation of the 1st Amendment - Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.

    Consider if my religion allows me the practice of human sacrifice. If I was a US citizen, I can do this under the constitution. Yet I cannot due to state or local law. (In regards to laws about murder or manslaughter).

    May be one for the legal eagles to debate, I'm an Australian looking at the outside in, but that's how I interpret the constitution and the local law.

    So for this couple, their right to practice religion , and the right to assemble is not either, but to do in their house without a permit is against local law, yet still protected under the 1st Amendment.

  9. Ralph Deeds profile image72
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    The Political forum sure seems to attract a lot of "experts" on the Constitution!

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Experts" who can't tell the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. smile

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      ... said the man who ignores the 10th amendment...

  10. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    Wonder how they would feel if 50 gays descended into their neighborhood weekly for a meeting.  They would be the first ones screaming.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And secretly fantasizing about close encounters...

  11. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    I'm an atheist, and this sort of stuff pisses me off.

    Freedom will always win out against tyranny, and it looks like LA is going with the latter.

    1. psycheskinner profile image82
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Based on the fact that someone who didn't bother to apply for a permit got charged with not applying for a permit.

      There are a lot of tragedies in the world; this is not one of them.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Requiring permits for large gatherings in a residential area.  Absolutely Hitleresque!! mad

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      As long as we're railing against the injustice of zoning ordinances and not pretending that this is part of some paranoid war-against-Christ delusional fantasy, I can see your point.

      I'm not sure I agree that zoning ordinances are a bad thing by definition, but I agree that they can and do unnecessarily infringe on private property rights.

      As long as I don't create a nuisance for my neighbors, I should be able to use my property as I see fit.

      But if I do create a nuisance for my neighbors (traffic congestion, loud noises, bad smells, smoke, etc) that interferes with their enjoyment of their own property rights, then yeah, I ought to cut it out. And if I keep infringing on my neighbors' rights, then the township ought to make me cut it out.

      The difficulties arise when the obnoxious jerk who refuses to stop burning leaves, or turn his music down, or whatever, argues, "Hey, there's no law against [obnoxious thing that's bugging the neighbors]."

      It sounds like the township in this case has found a middle ground: Do what you like on your property. We've got laws on the books against large gatherings, but as long as your gatherings don't bother anybody, we won't stop you from having them. But if we get a call, we're going to give you a warning, and if we get a second call, we're going to give you a citation.

      Seems reasonable to me.

 
working