County Officials Attempt to Stop Home Bible Study

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,874
2
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski


It was well thought out, because it summarized your post without being overly verbose. Congrats on your state of being, now may I suggest working on your Intellect?

Still, you address no points and merely spread hate against those who don't do as you wish on their own private property.

Thanks for playing, have a bagel.

Made points earlier in thread. This has nothing to do with Religion. Total Fail on your part, sorry.

This is exactly why I quoted a post talking about how arbitrary the enforcement of the ordinance is.

I also added that I am in favor of private property rights, not for any particular religious exception.

Why don't you stop trolling? You make theflyingpig look like a valuable contributor.
 

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,874
2
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Sometimes I see people having parties and the street full of parked cars for parties of all kinds and I have never called the police as long as my driveway is not blocked. I dont have a problem with cars being parked on the street. If it is a public road, who cares? As long as it is not an Illegal Activity, no one has a right to complain.

In some places, I realize it is illegal to park on the street. So if that is the case it is just a municipal law. It is typical to have a few friends over to eat or have dinner. So even if they wanted to pray and sing a Hymn, it is no one's business. Where do you think visitors are suppose to park?

I knew a man that ran a computer user's Support Group one Saturday night each month. No one complained about his meetings.

Exactly.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,849
6,386
126
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski


It was well thought out, because it summarized your post without being overly verbose. Congrats on your state of being, now may I suggest working on your Intellect?

Still, you address no points and merely spread hate against those who don't do as you wish on their own private property.

Thanks for playing, have a bagel.

Made points earlier in thread. This has nothing to do with Religion. Total Fail on your part, sorry.

This is exactly why I quoted a post talking about how arbitrary the enforcement of the ordinance is.

I also added that I am in favor of private property rights, not for any particular religious exception.

Why don't you stop trolling? You make theflyingpig look like a valuable contributor.

If you had read the details of the case, Private Property is also not an issue. This revolves around Public Property usage.
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski


It was well thought out, because it summarized your post without being overly verbose. Congrats on your state of being, now may I suggest working on your Intellect?

Still, you address no points and merely spread hate against those who don't do as you wish on their own private property.

Thanks for playing, have a bagel.

Made points earlier in thread. This has nothing to do with Religion. Total Fail on your part, sorry.

This is exactly why I quoted a post talking about how arbitrary the enforcement of the ordinance is.

I also added that I am in favor of private property rights, not for any particular religious exception.

Why don't you stop trolling? You make theflyingpig look like a valuable contributor.

If you had read the details of the case, Private Property is also not an issue. This revolves around Public Property usage.



You (and others) have made valid points about requiring a permit for parking reasons and they denying said permit based on lack of parking. I'll admit that if this is the cities angle, than it is legit. With that said though, I think there are many better alternatives to handle this case. Did any of the neighbors ever talk to the Pastor and mention that all the cars are a nuisance? Also, we used to have some tolerance for annoyances in America. People annoy me all the time, but I do not try to make laws to outlaw what they do so that I may not be annoyed in life. To me, this is one of the great things about living in this country, we have a lot of freedoms (something I am scared we are losing everyday). If the cars were parked along the streets but not truly causing anyone any major issues, than it shouldn't be a big deal. After all, I don't think the Pastor is calling the cops when the neighbor has a football party or graduation party.

It just seems that to many in this thread are to easily writing off the rights of individuals for the common good. This is fine, to a certain extent. But I think we've reached that extent in most circumstances and we are slowly moving toward a common good > individual rights society. Another name for that is Communism. Something that works good in theory, but in practice absolutely sucks and something that we have fought against for the better part of a century.

Sure, this particular case isn't Communist in anyway. But the reason so many rush so quickly to defend it, is because so many changes we are making in this country, so my rules that are being written, new policies, taxes, changes... they are all of common good > individual rights. Its a scary thing. Sugar tax anyone?
 

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,874
2
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski


It was well thought out, because it summarized your post without being overly verbose. Congrats on your state of being, now may I suggest working on your Intellect?

Still, you address no points and merely spread hate against those who don't do as you wish on their own private property.

Thanks for playing, have a bagel.

Made points earlier in thread. This has nothing to do with Religion. Total Fail on your part, sorry.

This is exactly why I quoted a post talking about how arbitrary the enforcement of the ordinance is.

I also added that I am in favor of private property rights, not for any particular religious exception.

Why don't you stop trolling? You make theflyingpig look like a valuable contributor.

If you had read the details of the case, Private Property is also not an issue. This revolves around Public Property usage.

It says in the case that this is the reason behind the law being created, but the small bible study group says parking is not a problem in the story.

Unless they take up all the feasible parking I think this is just a way to infringe on their rights.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,849
6,386
126
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski


It was well thought out, because it summarized your post without being overly verbose. Congrats on your state of being, now may I suggest working on your Intellect?

Still, you address no points and merely spread hate against those who don't do as you wish on their own private property.

Thanks for playing, have a bagel.

Made points earlier in thread. This has nothing to do with Religion. Total Fail on your part, sorry.

This is exactly why I quoted a post talking about how arbitrary the enforcement of the ordinance is.

I also added that I am in favor of private property rights, not for any particular religious exception.

Why don't you stop trolling? You make theflyingpig look like a valuable contributor.

If you had read the details of the case, Private Property is also not an issue. This revolves around Public Property usage.



You (and others) have made valid points about requiring a permit for parking reasons and they denying said permit based on lack of parking. I'll admit that if this is the cities angle, than it is legit. With that said though, I think there are many better alternatives to handle this case. Did any of the neighbors ever talk to the Pastor and mention that all the cars are a nuisance? Also, we used to have some tolerance for annoyances in America. People annoy me all the time, but I do not try to make laws to outlaw what they do so that I may not be annoyed in life. To me, this is one of the great things about living in this country, we have a lot of freedoms (something I am scared we are losing everyday). If the cars were parked along the streets but not truly causing anyone any major issues, than it shouldn't be a big deal. After all, I don't think the Pastor is calling the cops when the neighbor has a football party or graduation party.

It just seems that to many in this thread are to easily writing off the rights of individuals for the common good. This is fine, to a certain extent. But I think we've reached that extent in most circumstances and we are slowly moving toward a common good > individual rights society. Another name for that is Communism. Something that works good in theory, but in practice absolutely sucks and something that we have fought against for the better part of a century.

Sure, this particular case isn't Communist in anyway. But the reason so many rush so quickly to defend it, is because so many changes we are making in this country, so my rules that are being written, new policies, taxes, changes... they are all of common good > individual rights. Its a scary thing. Sugar tax anyone?

The Rules in question have existed for Decades.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,849
6,386
126
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski


It was well thought out, because it summarized your post without being overly verbose. Congrats on your state of being, now may I suggest working on your Intellect?

Still, you address no points and merely spread hate against those who don't do as you wish on their own private property.

Thanks for playing, have a bagel.

Made points earlier in thread. This has nothing to do with Religion. Total Fail on your part, sorry.

This is exactly why I quoted a post talking about how arbitrary the enforcement of the ordinance is.

I also added that I am in favor of private property rights, not for any particular religious exception.

Why don't you stop trolling? You make theflyingpig look like a valuable contributor.

If you had read the details of the case, Private Property is also not an issue. This revolves around Public Property usage.

It says in the case that this is the reason behind the law being created, but the small bible study group says parking is not a problem in the story.

Unless they take up all the feasible parking I think this is just a way to infringe on their rights.

They say, sure, what did you expect them to say. Apparently it was a problem as a neighbours property was damaged. It has been resolved from what I've read, butthe main point of this is that it had nothing to do with Religion or Private Property Rights.

The Fail is in assuming that it was about Religion/Private Property.
 

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,874
2
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski


It was well thought out, because it summarized your post without being overly verbose. Congrats on your state of being, now may I suggest working on your Intellect?

Still, you address no points and merely spread hate against those who don't do as you wish on their own private property.

Thanks for playing, have a bagel.

Made points earlier in thread. This has nothing to do with Religion. Total Fail on your part, sorry.

This is exactly why I quoted a post talking about how arbitrary the enforcement of the ordinance is.

I also added that I am in favor of private property rights, not for any particular religious exception.

Why don't you stop trolling? You make theflyingpig look like a valuable contributor.

If you had read the details of the case, Private Property is also not an issue. This revolves around Public Property usage.

It says in the case that this is the reason behind the law being created, but the small bible study group says parking is not a problem in the story.

Unless they take up all the feasible parking I think this is just a way to infringe on their rights.

They say, sure, what did you expect them to say. Apparently it was a problem as a neighbours property was damaged. It has been resolved from what I've read, butthe main point of this is that it had nothing to do with Religion or Private Property Rights.

The Fail is in assuming that it was about Religion/Private Property.

Well yeah, I don't like one-sided stories either way. Just not much in the way of objective facts to go on.

I still don't see how this get together is any different than the gaggle of parties I see all summer long.

If they damaged property fine them for it, that's fine.

The part where I mentioned religion was mostly to address the posters in the prior pages saying "LOL Fundies get theres!".

Also, it is not disconnected from private property, as the right to assemble in the property is still being infringed upon.
 

Liberator21

Golden Member
Feb 12, 2007
1,003
0
0
I haven't read through this thread, but first NONE of the neighbors had complained, only a guest of one of the neighbors. ONE guest visiting the neighborhood.

And second, this is strikingly similar to former Socialist European countries when people would fear "the knock." You didn't want the knock on the door, because it was the corrupt or disingenuous or totalitarian government suppressing fundamental rights with no recourse available.

---

How municipal governments could blatantly disregard the most basic and fundamental of laws, because one person was offended not because of noise or disrupting activities but because of the simple act of having a religious service in the neighborhood, is astounding and extremely troubling.

---
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Does anyone think that this whole thread would have taken a different turn if this was a meeting for gays or blacks to gather? All of the same participants would be here but the sides taken would probably be quite different.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Does anyone think that this whole thread would have taken a different turn if this was a meeting for gays or blacks to gather? All of the same participants would be here but the sides taken would probably be quite different.

Or Muslims.......
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,447
133
106
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Does anyone think that this whole thread would have taken a different turn if this was a meeting for gays or blacks to gather? All of the same participants would be here but the sides taken would probably be quite different.

The thread, probably. I would have had the same reaction personally.

If the cops questions were not, "are you praying, did you say amen," but instead were, "are you having gay sex, are you engaged in casual hookups?" I would fear for the rights of private citizens being trampled by the government. Admittedly part of the reason I would fear the action being taken against gays is that, once the government has that power over one group, they can come up with justification to use it against any group, which might include people like me. Rights for all or rights for none, it really comes down to that.

Call me paranoid and hand me a tinfoil hat but I fear power in the hands of government when used to restrict private activity on private property.

So nobody calls me a liar I'll restate my position on gay marriage: I support eradication of marriage from government entirely (anybody should be able to get a civil union, for romantic or non-romantic purposes, the federal gov should shrink, etc.)
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: sandorski


It was well thought out, because it summarized your post without being overly verbose. Congrats on your state of being, now may I suggest working on your Intellect?

Still, you address no points and merely spread hate against those who don't do as you wish on their own private property.

Thanks for playing, have a bagel.

Made points earlier in thread. This has nothing to do with Religion. Total Fail on your part, sorry.

This is exactly why I quoted a post talking about how arbitrary the enforcement of the ordinance is.

I also added that I am in favor of private property rights, not for any particular religious exception.

Why don't you stop trolling? You make theflyingpig look like a valuable contributor.

If you had read the details of the case, Private Property is also not an issue. This revolves around Public Property usage.

It says in the case that this is the reason behind the law being created, but the small bible study group says parking is not a problem in the story.

Unless they take up all the feasible parking I think this is just a way to infringe on their rights.

If you would have read more of the thread, you would have seen where the Pastor confirmed that parking had been a past problem:


 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I really can't understand why some people here are so adamant about shutting this bible study down. I mean , wow... all these nitpicking laws meant to control every aspect of our lives so often. One thing I've always thought that was great about the US was the general sense of independence and just letting people do what they want as long as they don't hurt others.
I really can't understand why some people here are so adamant that religious people are somehow above the laws of our land? Just because it's a bible study, we should all look the other way, and none of our laws apply?

What does the title of the book being discussed have to do with it? How is this different than a group meeting at a house for a weekly poker game or to watch sports? I'm as anti-organized religion as you'll get but IMO the government has no place telling these people they can't meet to talk about the bible or whatever other book/activity they want to do together.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I really can't understand why some people here are so adamant about shutting this bible study down. I mean , wow... all these nitpicking laws meant to control every aspect of our lives so often. One thing I've always thought that was great about the US was the general sense of independence and just letting people do what they want as long as they don't hurt others.
I really can't understand why some people here are so adamant that religious people are somehow above the laws of our land? Just because it's a bible study, we should all look the other way, and none of our laws apply?

What does the title of the book being discussed have to do with it? How is this different than a group meeting at a house for a weekly poker game or to watch sports? I'm as anti-organized religion as you'll get but IMO the government has no place telling these people they can't meet to talk about the bible or whatever other book/activity they want to do together.

Again, it's not the topic of the meeting, it's the nuisance it's creating in the neighborhood. Why is that so difficult to understand? And why do you think the gov't told these people they can't meet. They said no such thing.

This thread is full of hyperbole, massive slippery-slope logical fallacy and dangerous Glenn Beck "I'm scared for my nation" type thinking. It's a wonder anyone can even type out a rational thought in here. Geeze.
 

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If they can allieve the parking situation they should be able to continue, if they can't then they should stop. It's not about those people getting together, it's all about the nuisance all their cars are towards the residents of that street.

LOL. What a joke of an arguement.

That is just like saying the county should fine poor people with "older" cars for parking on the street and not fine more wealthy people with nicer cars. The nicer cars "look better" and are "less of a nuisance" to the neighborhood.

The homeowner pays taxes, and can can park whereever he (or his guests) damn well please. If the street was private, different story, but this is a PUBLIC road.
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
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.

Its amazing that people seem to bold other parts in previous quotes here, yet conveniently overlook my bolded part.

30-40 cars is CLEARLY an exaggeration. I don't think my family could fit 30-40 cars outside in the neighborhood - nor could we fit inside that many occupants inside the house in a manner that promotes discussion. Plus-- If he drew 40 people did EACH AND EVERY PERSON drive separately? Give me a break, someone stretched the truth and made it out to be more than it is.

A typical Bible Study that I hold has about 15 people - most of which grab rides with others. There isn't praise and worship (Though it wouldn't matter if there was- 15 people singing isn't that much noise - it isn't like they scream "bloody murder" at the top of their longs) it is merely 15 people sitting around in a circle and just talking about the G-Man (The G-Man is good - not to be confused with the typical use referring to HL2 or a government agent, or the NY Giants. God calls me his friend, so he gets a cool little nick name :) )

Some people need to grow up and stop pointing fingers at left or right wing activists. There are 15 people who merely want to hang out and talk - let it alone!

-Kevin
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: ExarKun333
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If they can allieve the parking situation they should be able to continue, if they can't then they should stop. It's not about those people getting together, it's all about the nuisance all their cars are towards the residents of that street.

LOL. What a joke of an arguement.

That is just like saying the county should fine poor people with "older" cars for parking on the street and not fine more wealthy people with nicer cars. The nicer cars "look better" and are "less of a nuisance" to the neighborhood.

The homeowner pays taxes, and can can park whereever he (or his guests) damn well please. If the street was private, different story, but this is a PUBLIC road.

You don't seem to understand... SOMEBODY MIGHT THINK IT'S A FREAKING NUISANCE!!!!!

DefCon1 man, having gatherings where people park in the streets is a crisis situation and must be dealt with immediately by the proper authorities. And don't you dare argue about it you Glen Beck loving nutcase.
 

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
Originally posted by: OCguy
I am an agnostic leaning towards athiest, so lets get that out of the way. I despise religion being any part of public policy.

Besides the blatant violation of the constitution here, I worry about the other implications the article brings up.

What if I have 10-15 people over on Fridays for poker? Monday night football?

Why is the county counting visitors to your home?

"SAN DIEGO -- A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold bible studies in their home, 10News reported."




http://www.10news.com/news/19562217/detail.html

No surprise that this is happening in California, the petrie dish for Communism run amock.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I really can't understand why some people here are so adamant about shutting this bible study down. I mean , wow... all these nitpicking laws meant to control every aspect of our lives so often. One thing I've always thought that was great about the US was the general sense of independence and just letting people do what they want as long as they don't hurt others.
I really can't understand why some people here are so adamant that religious people are somehow above the laws of our land? Just because it's a bible study, we should all look the other way, and none of our laws apply?

What does the title of the book being discussed have to do with it? How is this different than a group meeting at a house for a weekly poker game or to watch sports? I'm as anti-organized religion as you'll get but IMO the government has no place telling these people they can't meet to talk about the bible or whatever other book/activity they want to do together.

Again, it's not the topic of the meeting, it's the nuisance it's creating in the neighborhood. Why is that so difficult to understand? And why do you think the gov't told these people they can't meet. They said no such thing.

This thread is full of hyperbole, massive slippery-slope logical fallacy and dangerous Glenn Beck "I'm scared for my nation" type thinking. It's a wonder anyone can even type out a rational thought in here. Geeze.

Really? It's the nuisance? Thank you, Captain Obvious. :laugh:

That said, WTF did the officers question the people about what they were doing in the house? Seems to me they were trying to use the topic of the meeting to stop them. In the end, if the cars are parked illegally they should be ticketed and/or towed. If the cars are parked legally there's not much that can be said or done. Some neighbors are inconsiderate assholes. My friend has a renter next door with 3 cars, a boat, and a camper overflowing the driveway to the lawn.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Really? It's the nuisance? Thank you, Captain Obvious. :laugh:

That said, WTF did the officers question the people about what they were doing in the house? Seems to me they were trying to use the topic of the meeting to stop them. In the end, if the cars are parked illegally they should be ticketed and/or towed. If the cars are parked legally there's not much that can be said or done. Some neighbors are inconsiderate assholes. My friend has a renter next door with 3 cars, a boat, and a camper overflowing the driveway to the lawn.

Well, you seemed confused about it. Re-reading your comments simply reinforces that.

Regardless, it wasn't "officers," rather it was an "official." Furthermore, I don't know if I believe whether the official actually asked those questions, remember this is a completely one-sided account, but even if he or she did, it was only to obtain the nature of the meeting and whether it qualified as a religious service or not.

And still, regardless of your feelings on how to handle asshole neighbors, some people aren't so tolerant. I don't think it's overkill to simply complain to the proper authorities and then let them decide for themselves whether it's a violation or not. If someone feels it's a nuisance, I'd rather go through the proper channels to complain and have it dealt with. Wouldn't you?
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,526
605
126
Not all nuisances are illegal.

Anybody can park on a public street, even if they don't live there.

But we have a 12hr parking law in my town.

Vehicles can't be parked on the street more that 12hrs in a row..then they can get a ticket.

Long Driveway FTW!
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: OCguy
I am an agnostic leaning towards athiest, so lets get that out of the way. I despise religion being any part of public policy.

Besides the blatant violation of the constitution here, I worry about the other implications the article brings up.

What if I have 10-15 people over on Fridays for poker? Monday night football?

Why is the county counting visitors to your home?

"SAN DIEGO -- A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold bible studies in their home, 10News reported."




http://www.10news.com/news/19562217/detail.html

No surprise that this is happening in California, the petrie dish for Communism run amock.


After the Socialists take away your religion they are coming for you guns.


Capice, Comrade?
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Is 15 people a normal size for a friendly poker game?

No, but it's one person shy of a four table bridge party, and fewer people than I've seen at a family barbeque.

I'm no fan of religion, but I'm no fan of harrassing a group of people gathering peacefully for bible studies, either.

:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Robor
Really? It's the nuisance? Thank you, Captain Obvious. :laugh:

That said, WTF did the officers question the people about what they were doing in the house? Seems to me they were trying to use the topic of the meeting to stop them. In the end, if the cars are parked illegally they should be ticketed and/or towed. If the cars are parked legally there's not much that can be said or done. Some neighbors are inconsiderate assholes. My friend has a renter next door with 3 cars, a boat, and a camper overflowing the driveway to the lawn.

Well, you seemed confused about it. Re-reading your comments simply reinforces that.

Regardless, it wasn't "officers," rather it was an "official." Furthermore, I don't know if I believe whether the official actually asked those questions, remember this is a completely one-sided account, but even if he or she did, it was only to obtain the nature of the meeting and whether it qualified as a religious service or not.

And still, regardless of your feelings on how to handle asshole neighbors, some people aren't so tolerant. I don't think it's overkill to simply complain to the proper authorities and then let them decide for themselves whether it's a violation or not. If someone feels it's a nuisance, I'd rather go through the proper channels to complain and have it dealt with. Wouldn't you?

So... you still think 15 or so people getting together to hang out and talk about the bible should be considered "religious service" and that these people should either have to take it to a church or get a permit?