Arizona pastor jailed for home bible study

These types of "John Crow" laws are spreading across the country. However it is not only Christians that are being harassed.

These laws are equivalent to the Jim Crow laws about voting and black civil rights. Here the government is not targets a specific group but they are creating an atmosphere of complete control.

I can sympathize with the local residents but this is just another right that even them have been taken away from them with their consent.

What if any neighbor has a party or groups of people all the time then they would fall into the same trap of non-compliance with local building codes for residential versus commercial properties?

This is about control and nothing else.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
They found ways to make peace and find a balance with the neighbors though, so it works.
...
This guy seems to have figured the Martyr role looked promising. By how the media coverage has changed so dramatically, maybe he called it right, too.

I grew up with the sayings, "Live and let live", "It takes all kinds to make the world go round." I'm not naive enough to say that there was a golden age when everyone in practice was allowed to just live, or tolerance of someone or something, especially when it did no harm, was always practiced.

We have come a long way, but "there's always room for improvement."

I also grew up with the idea of rights AND responsibilities. What happened in your town, finding a balance to make peace so something works, seems to embody all these good old fashioned values.

It seems nowadays people want rights without responsibilities. And I see people taking advantage of others' tolerance, "live and let live", and becoming martyrs, to gain an advantage for their own selfishness.

When he oversteps a limit and is pulled back, he often reacts with anger and frustration, possibly with a temper tantrum or sullen rage. He may even strike back by hitting, biting, or kicking. ...he just doesn’t have much control over his emotional impulses, so his anger and frustration tend to erupt suddenly in the form of crying, hitting, or screaming. It’s his only way of dealing with the difficult realities of life. He may even act out in ways that unintentionally harm himself or others. It’s all part of being two.

Yes, I throw this out here, because, in so many ways, I see much of what is happening these days, a pervasiveness, as individuals and society acting at the level of a two year old. There have to be rules to live by, to obtain that balance, that peace.

If one does not internalize the idea of rules, and internalize the skills to negotiate through Life, one does as the above. And if one does not "grow up", and accept the notion of responsibility, one will go through Life blaming others for their own failings, and feel justified to do so.

Failure to take responsibility for your own failings can just add a greater burden on you, and make Life a living Hell for those around you.

Originally posted by desert
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

God bless ya, Wrabbit!

Hey, I think you got lumped in with the "lefties". ...

Originally posted by LIGHTvsDARK
All the lefties are right, he should have gotten his proper licenses,

Here I go again...when I was growing up, decades ago, before all this "born again" got big time, if someone heard the Lord calling them to preach, s/he would rent a hole-in-the-wall business and start a congregation. Still happens in my small town, to some extent.

As far as the nutters who stood on street corners preaching (yelling) to "repent because the end of the world is near", well, we just walked around them.

Now, since religion is big business, complete with tax write offs and income disguised as tithes, I become suspicious of some "preachers." And it wouldn't surprise me if someone with a criminal background sets up church/business as a preacher/charlatan.

Hi Desert, I think we can both agree that the big business church model you spoke about applies to almost every 501C I can think of?

I sympathize with this man's goals, even his anti-authoritarian posturing a little. In the end though, isn't he disregarding the Golden Rule...to love one's neighbors as himself?

Originally posted by LIGHTvsDARK
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

JPZ, you grouchy old fart, it is BARE arms!

ya know, JPZ might be a grouchy old fart, but he is completely correct whereas you are mistaken ... read it for yourself ...

constitution.org...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it sure would be nice if both ppl and government would quit trying to manipulate each other.

Originally posted by LIGHTvsDARK
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Since YOU do not know why commercial buildings are REQUIRED to open outwards, tell me, what happens when there is a fire and everyone goes screaming to the exit doors and they open inwards?

OHHHHH, the firefighters find a pile of dead bodies at the exit because the people are not able to open the doors because of everyone pushing against them.

LIKE I SAID, people that have no idea about building codes and dealing with government permitting should just keep their mouths shut. I have dealt with 100s of jurisdictions in regards to building and each one is just a little bit different. WHY? Because government is all about power and control, once YOU realize that, you might actually get a clue.

though I agree with you on the building codes I still see it a a gross violation of our civil rights...

these laws are about control and money..... I understand that some morons might do things that are a real hazard but as long as it on their own property ...it is none of anybody else's business...

I know...some of the thngs I have seen people do on foreclosed homes makes you wonder if they have a brain but that should not impede on the rights of another person.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by LIGHTvsDARK
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

JPZ, you grouchy old fart, it is BARE arms!

ya know, JPZ might be a grouchy old fart, but he is completely correct whereas you are mistaken ... read it for yourself ...

constitution.org...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it sure would be nice if both ppl and government would quit trying to manipulate each other.

But we still have the right to "bare" our arms don't we? Sunblock isn't mandatory yet I hope!

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

though I agree with you on the building codes I still see it a a gross violation of our civil rights...

these laws are about control and money..... I understand that some morons might do things that are a real hazard but as long as it on their own property ...it is none of anybody else's business...

What about the rights of his neighbors? What about the tax evasion? I mean, is it a church or is it a bible study? Either he lied to the zoning authorities, or he lied to the IRS. Either way he is a liar, and that is not a civil right.

As for the property, were all 80 cars parked on his property? Twice per week? I HIGHLY doubt his activities were confined to his property, they were likely taking up the whole neighborhood, and that is what sparked the complaints in the first place.

This is not a violation of his civil rights, his actions were a violation of the "peaceful enjoyment" right of all his neighbors.

reply to post by getreadyalready

But we still have the right to "bare" our arms don't we? Sunblock isn't mandatory yet I hope!

sometimes ... but, do i have to look ??
not sure about your "zone" but in mine, YES ... sunblock is mandatory

reply to post by Annee


I do agree about this and I'm not trying to argue that putting people at risk is alright. Who knows? Maybe they weren't thinking it was unsafe. I just think other action could have been taken. Not sure what.

Originally posted by desert
It seems nowadays people want rights without responsibilities. And I see people taking advantage of others' tolerance, "live and let live", and becoming martyrs, to gain an advantage for their own selfishness.

That one needs repeating and bolding.

We are People living on top of People - - for the most part. Laws serve a purpose. The more condensed a population is - - the more it needs laws and especially building codes.

This man was not responsible and considerate of his neighbors - - - and those using God as an excuse - - need their heads examined.

As far as government interfering in my life: I LIKE SEWERS.

And can you imagine if every individual was responsible for the street in front of their property?

I for one have no interest in Anarchy.

Originally posted by cassiper
reply to post by Annee

 

I do agree about this and I'm not trying to argue that putting people at risk is alright. Who knows? Maybe they weren't thinking it was unsafe. I just think other action could have been taken. Not sure what.

Thank you for your politeness.

I know God is a passionate subject - - and many often react with passion first.

This man seems extreme. Extreme people don't usually just become extreme one day. I doubt this is his first run in with the law.

Note: don't ever let my direct style of posting upset you. Its just the style I use.

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
Hi Desert, I think we can both agree that the big business church model you spoke about applies to almost every 501C I can think of?

Here's my opinion. I think the tradition in America of exempting churches from paying taxes (for reasons of their contributions to society) should still stand. Traditionally, Americans wanted to draw a line in the sand between govts and churches, something that hadn't been drawn where the Europeans came from. I say let the tradition continue.

However, with that said, I am not naive enough to believe that every 501C, whether secular or religious, is set up with honest intentions. There are people who set up such things (and other IRS legalities) knowing they do so more as a legitimate scam. Shady people understand the con or scam, and thus will use it.

The proliferation of 501(c)s might not necessarily mean that America is becoming more charitable; rather, that certain Americans are taking advantage of them as a way to disguise true intentions. I don't have a tax accountant, but I'll bet the shady people involved in shady 501(c)s do.

From the link BH posted way back on page 1. Here it is again for those that missed it.

Fact Sheet Regarding the Michael Salman Case

This paragraph pretty much sums it up.

Mr. Salman had regular gatherings of up to 80 people. He held services twice a week and collected a tithe at the services. The building that he held services in had a dais and chairs were aligned in a pew formation. He held himself out as a being a church through the media (Harvest Christian Church) and claimed a church status for tax exemption purposes on his property.

Look, I'm a Christian - but this isn't bible study this guy was having. Bible study is usually having a few people over (like 2-8) a once or twice a week.

This guy was having 80 people over, collecting tithe, calling it a church and claiming tax exempt status as a church.

He wasn't having Bible Study. He was holding church services in his house. Some churches do start this way. The difference is they all either rent a place to have services or buy a building.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

How is this not a violation of the free exercise clause of the 2nd Amendment?

People's safety comes first?

Building codes - - hmmmm. Makes me think of the ruble from earthquakes in areas that don't have building codes.

Sometimes logic trumps God.

And yet those folks in the other country died with more liberty than we enjoy here in the good ol US of A. We don't own land. We lease it from the government.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

How is this not a violation of the free exercise clause of the 2nd Amendment?

People's safety comes first?

Building codes - - hmmmm. Makes me think of the ruble from earthquakes in areas that don't have building codes.

Sometimes logic trumps God.

And yet those folks in the other country died with more liberty than we enjoy here in the good ol US of A. We don't own land. We lease it from the government.

Well good - - I hope they enjoy their liberty being dead.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LIGHTvsDARK
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

In my Arizona town - - Christians marched on city hall to stop a Mosque from being built siting building codes.

Do you support their action?

edit on Sun Aug 5 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

Absolutely not. Muslims fall under the free exercise clause also. If they want to build a mosque on their own land let them. Rights extend to all people, not only just people who look like us and think like us. Nowadays "liberty" means we can freely choose to do what the government demands.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

How is this not a violation of the free exercise clause of the 2nd Amendment?

People's safety comes first?

Building codes - - hmmmm. Makes me think of the ruble from earthquakes in areas that don't have building codes.

Sometimes logic trumps God.

And yet those folks in the other country died with more liberty than we enjoy here in the good ol US of A. We don't own land. We lease it from the government.

Well good - - I hope they enjoy their liberty being dead.

It's better to die in liberty than live under the thumb of government.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Absolutely not. Muslims fall under the free exercise clause also. If they want to build a mosque on their own land let them. Rights extend to all people, not only just people who look like us and think like us. Nowadays "liberty" means we can freely choose to do what the government demands.

They did.

After a mass of Christians marched on City Hall - - - and found loopholes that the property the Mosque would be built on could be designated as historical - - the city had to revoke ownership of the property.

An all-faith community church offered them space to hold services - - - and the city helped them find new property.

The Mosque is now built.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

It's better to die in liberty than live under the thumb of government.

I'll take Life and a democratic republic - - - over death - no building codes - and Anarchy.