Arizona pastor jailed for home bible study

In 1984 a nice little movement was started in a one bedroom apartment, to have weekly classes of yoga and meditation. IT grew to be popular so it established itself as a religion in 1989. It attracted university students so this nice little group called itself the religion of the elite. The founder tied religious phrases to popular cartoons, toys and anime. Then accusations started coming out that members were being held against their will and were forced to give over money. One was later found to be killed.

In 1994 they were the first in the world to use biological weapons, released it on a town, killing 7 and wounding 200.


I see a lot of potential cult members on this thread, who because a leader claims to be christian, run to their side to defend them under the name of freedom, everyone else be damned.

These people are total Manson fodder.

reply to post by beezzer

If he'd have NOT filed for tax exempt status, I'd have still supported him. But now?

What the hell makes a church liable for any tax to begin with? Do you know of any statute of the tax code imposing a tax upon a church? What the hell what that tax be? A federal direct tax upon the property of a church? Is it some specified taxed activity taxing the free exercise of religion? What the hell makes a church liable for a tax to begin with?

Is it possible not a thing makes any church liable for a tax? If a church is not liable for any tax then why the hell do they need tax exemption to begin with?

In your willingness to research the history of a man, are you willing to research the tax code and find that statute that actually imposes a tax upon a church? In order to obtain tax exempt status one would have to be subject to the applicable revenue law to begin with. How is it that churches have become subject to the IRS?

Are you aware Scientology, in an attempt to illustrate their validity as a religion, show yellow highlighted assertions by the IRS that they are indeed a "bona-fide" religion? Imagine that! Congress has created a revenue collection agency that is also, apparently, the one who determines what churches are "bona-fide" and what churches are not.

How the hell have we come to this point that we all just casually accept that churches have "tax exempt" status from a federal agency that is expressly prohibited by Constitution from establishing religion? How is declaring a church "bona-fide" not establishing that religion?

You have touched upon a fraud that goes far deeper than some silly zoning ordinances in a single town, Beez.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Pastor jailed is no surprise to endtime christians who read their bible and you havent seen anything yet. They attack the strongest area like USA because so many of you believe in Jesus, im sorry to hear my brothers and sisters being persecuted but we knew these days were going to come. We are becoming the problem to these people because they are being used by the opposition to accompish a long planned goal and we keep getting in the way. Jesus is real people and He came to save us all? Do you know Him today? Please search for Him, ask Him into your life, confess your sins and He will forgive and let Him show you the only way to eternal life, THE TIME IS NOW.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


JPZ, I'm a simple man. I can honestly say that I'm not as wise as you.

The way I see it, he benefitted from the tax exempt status. So he used the law in such a way that it benefitted him. Yet he ignored the law when it didn't benefit him. To me, this illustrates dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

Now I know we all have feet of clay, but I would expect more from a pastor. If he didn't use the tax exempt status for monetary gain, then I would have admired his integrity.

Alas. . . . .

At least tht is my take on it. Hell, I admitted to being wrong once already on this thread, I'd take another serving of humble pie.

HOLD IIIIIIIITTTTTTT!

Direct violation of the 1st amendment of the US constitution.

Those that are involved with this arrest should be in jail right now.

Sorry, police that includes you.

reply to post by nixie_nox

I see a lot of potential cult members on this thread, who because a leader claims to be christian, run to their side to defend them under the name of freedom, everyone else be damned. These people are total Manson fodder.

Hell nixie, why limit your prognostications to Manson? Christians have been guilty of a series of crusades using the New Testament as an excuse to "restore Christian access to holy places". Manson comes off as a gnat on a donkey's ass when you compare Vatican atrocities.

Of course, if we're going to point to killing in the name of ideology, why stop with religion? And if we're going to show some concern about people in this thread and what they support, such as nationalism or government impositions, why not address Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, and everybody's favorite Hitler and Nazism.

Why limit yourself so when coyly linking members to atrocities? Why not get the biggest bang for your buck?

reply to post by beezzer

The way I see it, he benefitted from the tax exempt status.

You yourself have withdrawn your support of this man for the simple reason of "tax exemption". I don't expect you to scour a tax code that is a five volume set with a gazillion bazillion bobazillion words, most of them tautological, and is so complex it compelled Einstein to say it's "the hardest thing in the world to understand". I know you well enough to know you are wise enough to know that such complexities in law become highly suspect, and if you don't know anything of the Void for Vagueness doctrine, I know damn well you're wise enough to look it up and grasp its simple concept.

I don't expect you to scour a five volume set of a tax code to find a statute that doesn't exist. I know your wise enough to understand what I mean when I say if one is not subject to the applicable revenue law and therefore not liable for a tax, no "tax exemption" is necessary.

This man has gone to jail, and now, because of a 501c3 scheme, a fraudulent invitation by the IRS to voluntarily make oneself subject to their jurisdiction, you've withdrawn your support of this man. How is that a benefit?

It's really annoying when people comment on threads without actually reading them through.

The thread title is misleading - a pastor was not jailed for bible study, he was jailed for knowingly building a church in a neighborhood where he wasn't allowed to build one. No one is being unduly prosecuted here. If this man wants to start a church then he needs to find an appropriate place for it. Why should the rules change for him?

To the people who actually take the time to read threads and, if the facts present themselves, amend their opinion accordingly - you are what I thought this site was supposed to be about - stars aplenty for you. The rest is just argument for argument's sake.

Nothing more to see here. Moving on...

'lion of judah ' = sphinx, egyptian Sekhmet lion goddess.

Go and read the original greek;
you ll see it reads "...CONQUER the lion of judah, TO CAN open the seals "

why ? - because the Lord is NOT a 'lion ', but a LAMB.

besides - He s from " Benjamin ", not from " the tribe of juda ".

Now do your homework, my friend.

Again -
i m here to catch your back. But i will let you down if you refuse.

bless.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The key issue is; is the building a church?

If it is a church, as he stated to obtain the tax exempt status, then there are existing laws that he was well aware of.

Yet his defense (and mine initially) was that the place of worship was his home. Now you can modify your home into a church and still call it a home. That is legal. The police even acknowledged that it was legal.

I see his actions less as a freedom to worship than a monitary gain.

Now we can debate the legitimacy of the tax exempt codes, zoning codes all day long. The fact is, he had initially beat the system by calling the church his "rec" room. He was free and clear and protected by the existing laws.

Then he got greedy. By using the law, he attemptd to obtain financial gain, and didn't want to spend the additional money to legitimise his "rec" room.

(side note; I hope I'm making sense. I have a seriously bad infection and am on huge quantities of pain killers and anti-biotics right now )

reply to post by otherpotato

The thread title is misleading - a pastor was not jailed for bible study, he was jailed for knowingly building a church in a neighborhood where he wasn't allowed to build one. No one is being unduly prosecuted here. If this man wants to start a church then he needs to find an appropriate place for it. Why should the rules change for him?

Let's take a look at the rules, shall we?

Arizona State Legislature Preamble:

We the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.

Here we have, as point of law, the People of Arizona declaring that their liberty was granted by God, not any human or government.

Article II, The Declaration of Rights, Section 1:

Section 1. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.

The People of Arizona have a lawful obligation to frequently return their attention to the fundamental principles, the rule of law, that secures all people's rights.

Section 2:

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

It is the People of whom government serves, not the other way around.

Section 3:

Section 3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

This leads us to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of that Constitution for the United States of America:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No prohibitions to the free exercise of religion.

These are the rules and the fundamental principles by which every state within this Union have an obligation to uphold, protect, and defend. All subsequent statutes, codes and ordinances must be harmonious with these fundamental principles if they are to have any weight or force of law. These are the rules.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


No prohibitions to the free exercise of religion.

These are the rules and the fundamental principles by which every state within this Union have an obligation to uphold, protect, and defend. All subsequent statutes, codes and ordinances must be harmonious with these fundamental principles if they are to have any weight or force of law. These are the rules.

Your argument speaks to the broader picture, re; tax exempt status and what the "state" defines as a church. But it also is up to the individual, is it not, to what he calls it?

The AZ pastor could have called his room anything he wanted and used it accordingly. But since he officially called it a church, he supplied the ammunition for his own ambush.

reply to post by beezzer


When I grew up, it wasn't just my parents, there were many in the community who held the conviction that it was just no ones business how much another person makes. The IRS existed then, but somehow then there was a code of ethic, a moral that respected the privacy of other people. Today, far, far, far too many people, otherwise reasonable people, concern themselves with how much money the other guy makes and justify it through "income" taxation. I was always a rebellious kid and did not just accept stupid thing adults told me as Gospel truth. However, the respect of privacy made sense then, and it makes sense now.

As I stated, I don't expect you to scour a tax code to find a statute that doesn't even exist, but I do expect you to understand that since you are not going to find this statute making churches subject to and/or liable for any "income" tax, then it is not okay to keep presuming that this church is liable. I understand he applied for a 501c3 status, but can you blame him? Look at you. You keep operating on the assumption he had an obligation to do so, and now because he fulfilled that presumed obligation, you castigate him for doing so.

The simple fact of the matter, and I say this as a point of Law, is that neither you, I, or anyone else in this thread has any lawful authority to make a church subject to this ever so and increasingly odious "income" tax.
That he applied for this 501c3 status, which the IRS charges a ridiculous fee as a condition of acceptance, is hardly enough evidence to condemn a man over a tax law not a single goddamned soul understands.

If I don't understand the tax code, you don't, and no one else here understands that tax code, then how can you be so damn sure that it is this "tax exempt" status that now condemns this man, and since when does a pastor a priest not have a right to earn a living?

reply to post by beezzer

Your argument speaks to the broader picture, re; tax exempt status and what the "state" defines as a church. But it also is up to the individual, is it not, to what he calls it?

The state has absolutely no lawful authority what-so-ever to define any church. It is, as it has always been, up to the individual what makes a church.

The AZ pastor could have called his room anything he wanted and used it accordingly. But since he officially called it a church, he supplied the ammunition for his own ambush.

Why persecute this man for being as ignorant as way too many. I am doing my level best, particularly because of the infection you are fighting, to not persecute you for any ignorance, but you know me well enough to know that I work hard and diligently to make sure individuals understand the simple common law principle of ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

In the United States, which includes every state within that Union, there are no "official" churches. This is precisely the purpose of the Establishment Clause.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The simple fact of the matter, and I say this as a point of Law, is that neither you, I, or anyone else in this thread has any lawful authority to make a church subject to this ever so and increasingly odious "income" tax.
That he applied for this 501c3 status, which the IRS charges a ridiculous fee as a condition of acceptance, is hardly enough evidence to condemn a man over a tax law not a single goddamned soul understands.

I understand. (the percocet is kicking in, I'm soon to sleep in the arms of Morpheus but I have some time left)

But he vouluntarily applied for this status knowing that caveats would be introduced with this change.

Should a simple line on an IRS form dictate the status? No.

I will add, that with this information that you've supplied, it has broadened my view on this issue even further. I do understand that his ignorance of the law may have been his undoing. Yet this has been an ongoing issue for 6 years.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Given that he was trying to work the tax system to his advantage I'm not sure he would welcome your defense. I'm just sayin.'

At any rate I see where you are trying to go but this is not a subject I feel like debating today.

reply to post by beezzer

But he vouluntarily applied for this status knowing that caveats would be introduced with this change. Should a simple line on an IRS form dictate the status? No.

He's not in jail or in any trouble because of any IRS status. You know that. You've withdrawn your support of this man over the IRS status.

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Given that he was trying to work the tax system to his advantage I'm not sure he would welcome your defense. I'm just sayin.'

At any rate I see where you are trying to go but this is not a subject I feel like debating today.

He is not in any trouble for trying to work the tax system and you were the one that wanted to castigate people for not reading through the thread entirely but here I am repeating myself over and over again.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by beezzer

 

But he vouluntarily applied for this status knowing that caveats would be introduced with this change. Should a simple line on an IRS form dictate the status? No.

He's not in jail or in any trouble because of any IRS status. You know that. You've withdrawn your support of this man over the IRS status.

I supported him because I thought this was an issue of worship.

I didn't change my opinion because of zoning laws, but because, I felt, that he applied for the status change to benefit himself and did not comform to the regulations that were required.

And with that, good sir, I must bid goodnight. I'll be on tomorrow, hopefully with clarity of mind.

Thank you, as always, for providing (and taking the time for) an education.