Amazing impertinence: Arizona Town Bans Home Bible Study
We read:
"The national Alliance Defense Fund says a town code that bars religious assemblies in private homes in the Arizona community of Gilbert is unconstitutional.
The Oasis of Truth church began meeting at Pastor Joe Sutherland's house in November and rotated homes several times a week for Bible study and fellowship.
A Gilbert code compliance officer hit the church with a violation notice after seeing a sign near a road advertising a Sunday service. A zoning administrator told the church that Bible studies, church leadership meetings and fellowship activities are not permitted in private homes.
The Alliance Defense Fund's Doug Napier says no neighbors complained. The Scottsdale-based group has filed an appeal with the town of Gilbert, contending its code violates the U.S. Constitution.
Source
A Bible study would have to be one of the most innocuous and harmless activities known to man. Attempting to ban one has got to be pure hate. The same town has previously tried to ban church signs. There must be something in the water there.
28 comments:
I'll bet they wouldn't bother the local madrassa. I wonder how many old NYC communists have retired to this hell-hole (town) and just can't give up their love of ruling other peoples lives.
I am a Christian and attend church regularly. I don't like the ban they're imposing. But I have to ask, is this really unconstitutional? This doesn't violate the 1st Amendment since the town isn't Congress. The 10th Amendment gives the power to the states/people. Is the ADF now saying that a town council is equal to Congress?
Once again, I am not for banning religious meetings in homes, I'm just curious where the constitutionality of it comes in.
The courts have determined that the 1st amendment does apply to the states, not just congress. They have ruled this way for several of the amendments and are expected to rule that the second amendment also applies to the states shortly as well.
On a broader note, where does the right to regulate lawful activity on private property come from?
This should be an issue of concern for all. The next step is to ban tupperware parties and book clubs.
This looks a lot like a violation of the First Amendment right to free peaceful assembly.
anon 2:16... government shall make
no law respecting the establishment of religion or THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF
Doug,
The 1st Amendment was incorporated with the 14th. Not so much on privileges and immunities, which should work, but on due process.
Doug,
The 1st Amendment was incorporated with the 14th. Not so much on privileges and immunities, which should work, but on due process.
"On a broader note, where does the right to regulate lawful activity on private property come from?"
---Well, there are noise ordinances, and nuisance laws. If my neighbor's prayer meeting is attracting 50 to 100 people that come to my neighborhood and park there once or twice a week, me and my neighbors may get annoyed by that.
While the 1st amendment means only the Federal government can not establish a state church/religion there is one point being missed. That power is left up to the states, however this is not a state doing this, just one city, so it is up to the state government to step in and settle the issue.
The government (state, local, or federal) cannot establish a religion, nor can it interfere with those who wish to practice their religion. This doesn't mean they can't try. People who are unwilling to fight for their freedoms don't deserve any.
Don't call it a bible, call it a book reading club. I'm sure that would be fine especially if it were Harry Pothead.
I'm thinking similarly to Bobby on this one.
While I would be horrified if this town actually thought it could ban private bible study in people's homes it is another thing entirely to have 200 people and their cars turn up to an assembly in a home in a suburban neighbourhood. I don't know of too many folks who'd be ok with that happening on their street on a regular basis.
nobody complained about them, so 200 people (which could NOT fit into a home anyways) are not showing up and bugging people.
It seems many people here do not understand that the first amendment applies to everyone. Where did all the ignorance come from? Our wonderful public schools.
Bobby said;
"Well, there are noise ordinances, and nuisance laws. If my neighbor's prayer meeting is attracting 50 to 100 people that come to my neighborhood and park there once or twice a week, me and my neighbors may get annoyed by that."
So rights will be based on how many people choose to enjoy them? And what if those 50-100 people conduct themselves in a quite and orderly manor, is it still annoying? And what happens on a holiday when you have a large group of friends or family over and your neighbors are annoyed?
town already is dropping the ordinance. Freedom of expression without excuses is back.
The source of all this is a stupidly written zoning ordinance that states "religious assembly uses" are not permitted in residential zones. Another case of too much law as I'm sure the town already has nuisance ordinances. Singling out a specific group is just dumb, not to mention unlawful. Comments about 50-100 or 200 noisy guests are sort of ironic considering the complaint from the zoning enfocement officer cited a church group with a total enrollment of 7, yes 7.
It was one guy working for the city that happened to see a sign and decided to harass the church. He is probably an people hating Atheist.
Old Man - "probably"? - "people hating"? - "Atheist"? - hmm, a lot of assumptions there! Maybe you are even more prejudiced than the guy you criticize - ?)
"And what if those 50-100 people conduct themselves in a quite and orderly manor, is it still annoying?'
---Look, if you want to live alone and do what you want and not answer to anyone then you buy yourself a house in the country in the middle of nowhere and then you don't have to deal with neighbors. But when you're part of a community, you cut your lawn, you park the RV on the back of the house (if the community actually lets you do that), you don't sunbathe naked where your neighbors can see you, and you try to fit in. I think everyone who lives in suburbia understands that.
My sister for example runs her business from home yet her neighbors don't even know she runs a business because instead of getting 50 or 100 clients at the same day, she might get one client a day and there's plenty of guest parking. However, if my sister decided to open a restaurant in her home and you had crowds of people coming in, her neighbors would be pissed and rightly so.
Anon 3:04,
You have to understand that Bobby is the embodiment of the modern liberal. He will tell you that he believes in all free speech, but only until that speech offends him. He will tell you that he hates government intervention, until he disagrees with something (like 7 people meeting for a Constitutional protected religious service) and then he wants the government to crack down on people.
He believes in "freedom" for himself, but not for others unless he agrees with them.
When you pin him down and illustrate how woefully ignorant and hypocritical he is, he will change the subject. Notice how he went from condemning a lawful assembly of religious believers and equating that to his sister running a business out of her home. One is protected by the US and state Constitution, the other is allowed to be regulated by those same Constitutions, yet Bobby sees them as the same.
Wait until he tries to tell you that kids getting drunk and getting into porn and prostitution is a good thing.
He is for that because that is what he likes.
"Wait until he tries to tell you that kids getting drunk and getting into porn and prostitution is a good thing. "
---Explain to me why a 17 year old is allowed to join an army while an 18 year old is not allowed to buy a drink.
Calling me a liberal just because I don't go around imposing my moral values on other people is really stupid.
You're the one who only believe in freedom for those things you like.
My ideas are based on common sense. IF I wanted to live next to a church I would have moved next to a church.
People pay a PREMIUM to live in quiet neighborhoods, it's a COMMUNITY issue.
---Explain to me why a 17 year old is allowed to join an army while an 18 year old is not allowed to buy a drink.
Nice try. We weren't talking about military service. (Although we know you hate the military as well.)
Calling me a liberal just because I don't go around imposing my moral values on other people is really stupid.
Of course you do. Look at this thread. You want the meetings stopped even though you claim to be a proponent of free speech. You claim to agree with the Constitution. The fact of the matter is that you support freedom only when you agree with it. That is the stance of a modern liberal.
My ideas are based on common sense.
There you go again. You believe that because you think something makes sense, that the rest of the world must agree with you.
More liberal hypocrisy from you.
People pay a PREMIUM to live in quiet neighborhoods, it's a COMMUNITY issue.
Do you see anything in the Constitution about "community issues" when it comes to suppressing the freedom of religion?
Once again, you open your mouth and show just how much of a Constitutional hating liberal you are.
Tell me anonymous, if your neighbors were swingers and they where holding weekly events at their property which would mean more traffic, would you be ok with it? Or is freedom only important when it applies to religion?
Or is freedom only important when it applies to religion?
Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the US Constitution. You can try and make up a bunch of scenarios to get around that, but all it does is show your ignorance and hatred of that with which you disagree.
So tell me this, Bobby, if you think that people should be free to do that which they want, why are you against a group of seven people meeting quietly in a home?
"Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the US Constitution."
---Rastafarianism is a religion, they like to smoke pot. Does that mean they can do that legally?
"So tell me this, Bobby, if you think that people should be free to do that which they want, why are you against a group of seven people meeting quietly in a home?"
---If it's only 7 people I'm not against it. If it becomes 50 people and I'm their neighbor, then yes, I'm gonna have a problem. You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect me, traffic and people parking on my lawn affects me.
"Freedom ends where your nose begins." Ever heard that one?
---Rastafarianism is a religion, they like to smoke pot. Does that mean they can do that legally?
Once again, demonstrating your ignorance, let me give you two words: Benny Guerrero.
You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect me, traffic and people parking on my lawn affects me.
No one was parking on any one's lawn so that is simply a spurious argument from you. As to traffic, please cite any legal opinion or Constitutional guarantee that says anything about "traffic that bothers an individual" being illegal.
"Freedom ends where your nose begins." Ever heard that one?
Yes I have. Now is your nose so long Pinocchio that it extends into other people's homes? What gives you the right to say that the tax money that all people pay for streets and sidewalks can only be used in a manner that, in your opinion, doesn't affect you?
Once again, your hypocrisy comes shining through. You want freedom for yourself and not for others.
Post a Comment