Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Not News: Man faces 60 days in jail. Fark: For hosting Bible study in his own home   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Bibles, building codes, 3TV, seminaries, Bible study, jail term, Courts of Arizona  
•       •       •

14928 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jul 2012 at 12:34 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



397 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-07 10:21:22 PM  

Pincy: Tyranicle: Yes, I understand zoning safety issues, the point I'm trying to make is zoning laws regarding people congregrating at ones home is crap and goes againt freedom of association. People should have the right voluntarily congregate on ones property, less it causes harm to those beyond the property line.

He's running a frickin church on his property. He's subject to the same laws other churches are subject to. If he can comply with the laws, then fine. Otherwise, he needs to move his church somewhere where it is legal.


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.

So I'll ask you one question. Why do you think local zoning codes trump the first amendment?
 
2012-07-07 10:25:56 PM  

Tyranicle: fark the court. That's the point. Some laws are wrong.


So get the laws repealed the right way. Committing crimes to make your point only reinforces the politicians reasoning for writing the laws in the first place. Case in point, according to the police and politicians, every single drug bust is just more proof that the War on Drugs™ is justified and should get even more funding.
 
2012-07-07 10:27:40 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Pincy: Tyranicle: Yes, I understand zoning safety issues, the point I'm trying to make is zoning laws regarding people congregrating at ones home is crap and goes againt freedom of association. People should have the right voluntarily congregate on ones property, less it causes harm to those beyond the property line.

He's running a frickin church on his property. He's subject to the same laws other churches are subject to. If he can comply with the laws, then fine. Otherwise, he needs to move his church somewhere where it is legal.

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.

So I'll ask you one question. Why do you think local zoning codes trump the first amendment?


Oh Christ, they are not preventing him from practicing his religion. This isn't a first amendment issue. No one is saying he can't start his own church. They are just telling him he has to follow the laws just like everyone else.

Christian persecution complex FTW!
 
2012-07-07 10:29:17 PM  

Pincy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Pincy: Tyranicle: Yes, I understand zoning safety issues, the point I'm trying to make is zoning laws regarding people congregrating at ones home is crap and goes againt freedom of association. People should have the right voluntarily congregate on ones property, less it causes harm to those beyond the property line.

He's running a frickin church on his property. He's subject to the same laws other churches are subject to. If he can comply with the laws, then fine. Otherwise, he needs to move his church somewhere where it is legal.

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.

So I'll ask you one question. Why do you think local zoning codes trump the first amendment?

Oh Christ, they are not preventing him from practicing his religion. This isn't a first amendment issue. No one is saying he can't start his own church. They are just telling him he has to follow the laws just like everyone else.

Christian persecution complex FTW!


Christians should have the right to create a fire hazard in a residential area...in Arizona!

/Fire respects property lines.
 
2012-07-07 10:31:01 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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.


What part of that quote cites unsafe structures as a protected right? The guy is free to continue holding meetings in his yard, in his home, in his car, or even on his roof, but he may not hold meetings in this unsafe structure.

Unless his religion strictly states that every meeting must be held in a structure built specifically to be a church, his first amendment rights are untouched.
 
2012-07-07 10:36:53 PM  

the ha ha guy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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.

What part of that quote cites unsafe structures as a protected right? The guy is free to continue holding meetings in his yard, in his home, in his car, or even on his roof, but he may not hold meetings in this unsafe structure.

Unless his religion strictly states that every meeting must be held in a structure built specifically to be a church, his first amendment rights are untouched.


Your only argument is "unsafe structure". This is like arguing with a brainwashed child.
 
2012-07-07 10:37:29 PM  

Tyranicle: the ha ha guy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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.

What part of that quote cites unsafe structures as a protected right? The guy is free to continue holding meetings in his yard, in his home, in his car, or even on his roof, but he may not hold meetings in this unsafe structure.

Unless his religion strictly states that every meeting must be held in a structure built specifically to be a church, his first amendment rights are untouched.

Your only argument is "unsafe structure". This is like arguing with a brainwashed child.


As opposed to "I don't care about facts, I don't like it!".
 
2012-07-07 10:38:20 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So I'll ask you one question. Why do you think local zoning codes trump the first amendment?


Because, once again for the people who haven't read the thread, THIS ISN'T A QUESTION OF ASSEMBLY. They aren't fining people for being there, they aren't saying people aren't allowed to congregate, they're saying that the owner of the building (and only him) is running a firetrap. The compelling government interest in requiring such things as emergency exits and sprinkler systems in gathering places such as concert halls, theaters, restaurants, and yes, churches, is well-documented and enshrined in precedent. Or are you going to argue that the government has no place trying to prevent people burning to death because a building is unsafe?

Saying that a building violates the fire code because it's not safe for use the way it's being used is closer to boarding up a building that's about 5 minutes away from collapsing then it is a first amendment violation. If you seriously want to argue that zoning laws and fire codes are unconstitutional, go ahead, but I really suggest you do some research first.
 
2012-07-07 10:39:04 PM  

sillydragon: gunga galunga: Don't mind me. I'm just here to watch you libs continue to pretend that you aren't waging a war against Christianity.

I live with my mom

You need to try being more subtle with the initial hook, then you can turn on the derp.


The newbies don't even seem to try any more.
 
2012-07-07 10:39:21 PM  

Pincy: Oh Christ, they are not preventing him from practicing his religion. This isn't a first amendment issue. No one is saying he can't start his own church. They are just telling him he has to follow the laws just like everyone else.

Christian persecution complex FTW!


I bolded the important parts so that even people like you shouldn't have had any trouble. How the hell did you fail so hard? The right to peaceably assemble cannot be infringed. Do you think people who lived in dry wooden houses heated exclusively by fire (the ones who wrote the first amendment) didn't know about fire hazards? Nothing's changed that should affect this. If the first amendment hasn't been overturned by the set legislative standards as far as I'm aware, and the text is straightforward. Any court rulings that nullify this have quite honestly overstepped their bounds.
 
2012-07-07 10:43:07 PM  
Here's your fact....he broke the law. My fact....no he didn't and even if he did, the law is wrong and tyrannicle.

Going to bed.
 
2012-07-07 10:51:38 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Pincy: Oh Christ, they are not preventing him from practicing his religion. This isn't a first amendment issue. No one is saying he can't start his own church. They are just telling him he has to follow the laws just like everyone else.

Christian persecution complex FTW!

I bolded the important parts so that even people like you shouldn't have had any trouble. How the hell did you fail so hard? The right to peaceably assemble cannot be infringed. Do you think people who lived in dry wooden houses heated exclusively by fire (the ones who wrote the first amendment) didn't know about fire hazards? Nothing's changed that should affect this. If the first amendment hasn't been overturned by the set legislative standards as far as I'm aware, and the text is straightforward. Any court rulings that nullify this have quite honestly overstepped their bounds.


I agree. Fark em. What's the point anyway. We should let them all burn..I just hope their neighbors don't suffer from their selfish negligence. I would think that one persons rights end where another's begin... but I guess that isn't a christian concept. Christian concept: I have the first amendment right to at least inconvenience... at worst possibly even kill my neighbors. Jesus would be so proud of their priorities.
 
2012-07-07 10:52:59 PM  

Tyranicle: Here's your fact....he broke the law. My fact....no he didn't and even if he did, the law is wrong and tyrannicle.


Does the first amendment also give this guy the right to lie to the courts and threaten his neighbors? Because he broke both of those laws as well.
 
2012-07-07 11:10:53 PM  

zamboni: I agree. Fark em. What's the point anyway. We should let them all burn..I just hope their neighbors don't suffer from their selfish negligence. I would think that one persons rights end where another's begin... but I guess that isn't a christian concept. Christian concept: I have the first amendment right to at least inconvenience... at worst possibly even kill my neighbors. Jesus would be so proud of their priorities.


Sure, people must build according to building codes, but once a building is approved, the government really doesn't have a right to say someone can't use it for a gathering. Especially a gathering as low as 15 people, which is lower than most parties and family gatherings I've seen. Just the fact that so many here are against a guy who's having 15 people over, shows how utterly ridiculous the fark community is becoming. Honestly, I'd love to hear someone spout this kind of shiat in a public place, literally everyone would think you're morons who don't live in the real world.
 
2012-07-07 11:12:09 PM  

the ha ha guy: Tyranicle: Here's your fact....he broke the law. My fact....no he didn't and even if he did, the law is wrong and tyrannicle.

Does the first amendment also give this guy the right to lie to the courts and threaten his neighbors? Because he broke both of those laws as well.


Yes, the first amendment gives the right for anyone to lie and give threats. It also gives the right to tell the truth and speak freely as one pleases to do so. The first amendment is beautiful. Enjoy it while it lasts.
 
2012-07-07 11:17:53 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Sure, people must build according to building codes, but once a building is approved, the government really doesn't have a right to say someone can't use it for a gathering.


Unless he lies about the purpose to avoid actually having to build to a stricter code...which he did.
 
2012-07-07 11:21:02 PM  

Sabyen91: RoyBatty: Last Man on Earth: s the part where it's a damn firetrap, one that puts his congregation at risk. That's the part he's being charged for.

This is the part I don't understand (but I've never owned any building). How hard could it be for this guy to add a few more doors to his place?

And I realize I may be overestimating the construction industry, but it's relatively new construction that had some sort of permit and inspection on it. How far out of fire compliance could it be?

The Phoenix article says he doesn't have the money. He would need plumbing, electricity and anything else a regular home would need. As it is it is just a giant shed. The guy was trying to provoke the government into doing something so he could sue them (he claimed he had contacts at the DoJ and they would help). The guy is a top-notch delusional farktard.


Phoenix is full of them. Some decent folks who live in the city and the surrounding area--heck a few decent Farkers as well--but there is a confluence of batsh*t crazy that runs down the bones of the city too...
 
2012-07-07 11:29:31 PM  

Sabyen91: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Sure, people must build according to building codes, but once a building is approved, the government really doesn't have a right to say someone can't use it for a gathering.

Unless he lies about the purpose to avoid actually having to build to a stricter code...which he did.


Because 15 people would never be in a game room, right? RIGHT? That's your response, seriously? Pool, darts and cards, one fairly small room to accommodate them all and that's easily 15. What the hell is the difference if they'd be playing games or reading a farking book? You people don't even know how stupid you sound.
 
2012-07-07 11:34:19 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Sabyen91: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Sure, people must build according to building codes, but once a building is approved, the government really doesn't have a right to say someone can't use it for a gathering.

Unless he lies about the purpose to avoid actually having to build to a stricter code...which he did.

Because 15 people would never be in a game room, right? RIGHT? That's your response, seriously? Pool, darts and cards, one fairly small room to accommodate them all and that's easily 15. What the hell is the difference if they'd be playing games or reading a farking book? You people don't even know how stupid you sound.


15 people? I keep hearing this. Ohhh, you bought the Daily Fail narrative and ignored the Phoenix New Times story.
 
2012-07-07 11:39:07 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Pincy: Oh Christ, they are not preventing him from practicing his religion. This isn't a first amendment issue. No one is saying he can't start his own church. They are just telling him he has to follow the laws just like everyone else.

Christian persecution complex FTW!

I bolded the important parts so that even people like you shouldn't have had any trouble. How the hell did you fail so hard? The right to peaceably assemble cannot be infringed. Do you think people who lived in dry wooden houses heated exclusively by fire (the ones who wrote the first amendment) didn't know about fire hazards? Nothing's changed that should affect this. If the first amendment hasn't been overturned by the set legislative standards as far as I'm aware, and the text is straightforward. Any court rulings that nullify this have quite honestly overstepped their bounds.


So all laws governing where people can be are null and void if those people are speaking to their imaginary friends while they are in said place....because the First Amendment?
 
2012-07-07 11:43:42 PM  

StrikitRich: 1st Amendment - 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.

So city ordinances now outweigh the Bill of Rights?


The city wasn't interfering with their right to peaceably assemble, they were interfering with him building a large, separate, purpose-built, unpermitted structure as a dedicated church, in his backyard, against city ordinances and his HOA regs, that didn't meet any fire codes for assembly occupancy, in an area not zoned for it in any case.

Not about Bill of Rights, not even close. No one violated his rights, but he sure violated a hell of a lot of others peoples, and the law.

/So, are you taking the stance that it is his right to trample all others rights in the area because he believes in jesus, taking the stance that he can violate all laws with impunity because he believes in jesus, or both?
//Perhaps you will make the (false) claim you believe its about religious freedom in general, that its not just the jesus thing thats setting you off. how would you react to a Muslim neighbor building and operating an illegal unpermitted mosque next door? Or even a legal one on commercial property on the other side of your town? Thought so.
 
2012-07-07 11:54:17 PM  
Fox News and the Daily Fail? Didn't happen.
 
2012-07-08 12:46:23 AM  

Tyranicle: the ha ha guy: Tyranicle: Here's your fact....he broke the law. My fact....no he didn't and even if he did, the law is wrong and tyrannicle.


That's not a fact, that's just like, your opinion, man. And it's not his fact, it's reality's fact.

Does the first amendment also give this guy the right to lie to the courts and threaten his neighbors? Because he broke both of those laws as well.

Yes, the first amendment gives the right for anyone to lie and give threats. It also gives the right to tell the truth and speak freely as one pleases to do so. The first amendment is beautiful. Enjoy it while it lasts.


No it doesn't.
 
2012-07-08 12:50:48 AM  

Tman144: Tyranicle: the ha ha guy: Tyranicle: Here's your fact....he broke the law. My fact....no he didn't and even if he did, the law is wrong and tyrannicle.

That's not a fact, that's just like, your opinion, man. And it's not his fact, it's reality's fact.

Does the first amendment also give this guy the right to lie to the courts and threaten his neighbors? Because he broke both of those laws as well.

Yes, the first amendment gives the right for anyone to lie and give threats. It also gives the right to tell the truth and speak freely as one pleases to do so. The first amendment is beautiful. Enjoy it while it lasts.

No it doesn't.


Hmm...
 
2012-07-08 12:51:18 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Pincy: Oh Christ, they are not preventing him from practicing his religion. This isn't a first amendment issue. No one is saying he can't start his own church. They are just telling him he has to follow the laws just like everyone else.

Christian persecution complex FTW!

I bolded the important parts so that even people like you shouldn't have had any trouble. How the hell did you fail so hard? The right to peaceably assemble cannot be infringed. Do you think people who lived in dry wooden houses heated exclusively by fire (the ones who wrote the first amendment) didn't know about fire hazards? Nothing's changed that should affect this. If the first amendment hasn't been overturned by the set legislative standards as far as I'm aware, and the text is straightforward. Any court rulings that nullify this have quite honestly overstepped their bounds.


Holy Fark just how dense are you? He built a new structure on his property. The structure must meet certain codes. No one is infringing on his right to peaceably assemble. They don't have to meet in that particular structure. But if they want to then he has to bring it up to code. There are no First Amendment issues here. That you continue to insist so either means you are functionally illiterate or a troll.
 
2012-07-08 12:51:30 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Pincy: Oh Christ, they are not preventing him from practicing his religion. This isn't a first amendment issue. No one is saying he can't start his own church. They are just telling him he has to follow the laws just like everyone else.

Christian persecution complex FTW!

I bolded the important parts so that even people like you shouldn't have had any trouble. How the hell did you fail so hard? The right to peaceably assemble cannot be infringed. Do you think people who lived in dry wooden houses heated exclusively by fire (the ones who wrote the first amendment) didn't know about fire hazards? Nothing's changed that should affect this. If the first amendment hasn't been overturned by the set legislative standards as far as I'm aware, and the text is straightforward. Any court rulings that nullify this have quite honestly overstepped their bounds.


The right to peaceably assemble can absolutely be infringed. Try inviting 200 of your closest friends and family to "peaceably assemble" in the middle of the busiest street in your town. Let me know how long you last before the police show up and infringe the shiat out of you.
 
2012-07-08 12:56:44 AM  

Tyranicle: Tman144: Tyranicle: the ha ha guy: Tyranicle: Here's your fact....he broke the law. My fact....no he didn't and even if he did, the law is wrong and tyrannicle.

That's not a fact, that's just like, your opinion, man. And it's not his fact, it's reality's fact.

Does the first amendment also give this guy the right to lie to the courts and threaten his neighbors? Because he broke both of those laws as well.

Yes, the first amendment gives the right for anyone to lie and give threats. It also gives the right to tell the truth and speak freely as one pleases to do so. The first amendment is beautiful. Enjoy it while it lasts.

No it doesn't.

Hmm...


You disagree? There aren't any restrictions to the freedom of speech when it comes to lying and threats?
 
2012-07-08 01:08:24 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Pincy: Tyranicle: Yes, I understand zoning safety issues, the point I'm trying to make is zoning laws regarding people congregrating at ones home is crap and goes againt freedom of association. People should have the right voluntarily congregate on ones property, less it causes harm to those beyond the property line.

He's running a frickin church on his property. He's subject to the same laws other churches are subject to. If he can comply with the laws, then fine. Otherwise, he needs to move his church somewhere where it is legal.

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.

So I'll ask you one question. Why do you think local zoning codes trump the first amendment?


Well, the fact that the government does basically have a sort of "Your rights end where my nose begins" policy might have a little bit to do with it.

(Some examples re the government prohibiting a full free exercise of religion--pretty much people who are not members of Federally recognised Indian tribes (including members of legitimate First Nations that may have state recognition but either lost Federal recognition or never had formal treaty status--a lot of remnant bands in the US are in this situation, and most of these aren't members of the Wannabe Tribe) generally can't use eagle feathers in traditional religious ceremonies (as it's been ruled that the need to protect eagles as (originally) a threatened species and (now) the national bird overrule the rights of non-Dawes-Act First Nations to practice traditional religious ceremonies.

(Same also goes with the use of peyote if you aren't a member of the Native American Church, and IT has had a hell of a time getting an exemption for the use of peyote as a sacrament. Same goes for a Brazilian faith group called União do Vegetal (heavily based on indigenous practices and similar in respects to the Native American Church) which uses ayahuasca as a sacrament. Hell, the Rastafarians still haven't gotten the exemption that the Native American Church and União do Vegetal have gotten (for their use of sacramental plants that are also Schedule I drugs per the DEA) for their sacramental use of marijuana.

(Hell, for that matter (speaking of sacramental plants that are legal), First Nations peoples who use tobacco as a sacrament have come under increasing difficulty--good luck getting a job in the healthcare field, for one--and indigenous kids who have medicine bags with tobacco in them (the rough equivalent of a believing Christian wearing a cross or crucifix or an observant orthodox Jewish person wearing a yarmulke) have gotten in trouble with public schools and "zero tolerance" policies re tobacco on campus.)

Seriously, I can list lots more. Lots more. Have I mentioned I actually personally know one of the folks who fought to actually get Wicca and neopagan religions recognised by the Armed Forces so that they COULD have their "right to peacefully assemble" in circle to worship the Lord and the Lady?

(Mind, you probably only count it as religious oppression if it's a Jesus Camper being told he can assemble as long as he follows the building codes and doesn't violate the Ninth Commandment1 so that he might violate the Tenth Commandment2...)

1 The Ninth Commandment (generally agreed and paraphrased): "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour". Usually interpreted broadly by members of Abrahamic faiths as a compunction against lying, in context it is a prohibition specifically against what would be referred to nowadays as perjury--specifically, lying in the context of a legal proceeding, specifically in testimony given in court or a community mediation. Lying in requests for zoning clearances would have likely been considered a variant of this under halachic law during the Mosaic period.

2 The Tenth Commandment is worded in different ways depending on which particular version of the original text of the Old Testament is used and whether Exodus or Deuteronomy's text is used, but in general is a compunction against coveting--or lusting after--possessions of a third party which do not belong to you legally, as this was seen as a temptation to theft.

This becomes relevant as Preacher-Man apparently lives in an HOA neighbourhood (where building projects can be deed-restricted as things like community access and, to a limited extent, property can be seen as a partially common holding depending on the specific legal verbage of the HOA agreement) and apparently wants to set up a full-on dominionist church complex (complete with a number of commercial businesses such as a "Christian gym" and "Christian daycare") despite the wishes of his neighbours. In fact, he pretty much explicitly admitted he purchased the land in a residential area to set up his church as he wore out the welcome of a previous timesharing agreement and felt actually following the rules to set up a church properly (including a lease or purchase of commercial or unoccupied church territory) would be "too expensive". Preacher-man has also admitted his ultimate intent is to force a First Amendment lawsuit in order to force Maricopa County to pay for the church, which is not only false witness (9th Commandment) but also coveting over Maricopa County's funds and possibly more appropriate land to house the church (10th Commandment).
 
2012-07-08 01:24:37 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: zamboni: I agree. Fark em. What's the point anyway. We should let them all burn..I just hope their neighbors don't suffer from their selfish negligence. I would think that one persons rights end where another's begin... but I guess that isn't a christian concept. Christian concept: I have the first amendment right to at least inconvenience... at worst possibly even kill my neighbors. Jesus would be so proud of their priorities.

Sure, people must build according to building codes, but once a building is approved, the government really doesn't have a right to say someone can't use it for a gathering. Especially a gathering as low as 15 people, which is lower than most parties and family gatherings I've seen. Just the fact that so many here are against a guy who's having 15 people over, shows how utterly ridiculous the fark community is becoming. Honestly, I'd love to hear someone spout this kind of shiat in a public place, literally everyone would think you're morons who don't live in the real world.


A few things:

a) Building code approvals, by and large, generally assume that the person requesting a building code approval or variance is not committing perjury by willfully making a false statement. (Not only was this a violation of the 9th Commandment, as noted, but in this particular case it's also a violation of law--which is why this is now going to criminal court and is not just a case of the HOA smacking him down for putting up an unapproved shed.)

b) Let's just say the figure of "15 people" is...considerably understated; the actual population of the congregation is between 40 and 70 people, which (even on the low end) is big enough even for a not-for-profit group to require special zoning variances and special building codes for high-occupancy buildings that require signing-off from a fire marshal.

(And yes, this is true for churches and Freemason halls and Moose lodges just as much as it's true for restaurants and pool-halls and grocery stores. This is because there have historically been some rather horrendous fires where people died because they couldn't get out quickly enough, and firefighters really don't like removing bodies like cordwood when this happens. It tends to result in really shiatty weekends for them, you know. Especially when kids are involved.)

c) Yes, in some circumstances, even a building with a maximum occupancy of fifteen persons can require fire marshal inspection--specifically if it's open to the public.

d) There is a rather large body of evidence (very neatly laid out in an article in the Phoenix New Times which has been linked several times already in this thread) that shows that the pastor in question has...quite the history of not only blatant deception/violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments (quite ironic for him being a pastor of a "born-again" pentecostal church!) but pretty much planned all along to build an entire compound with church and church-related commercial services that would operate essentially 24/7/365, wore out the welcome at not one but two prior churches, and got his ordination via mail order in a method only slightly more legitimate than the Universal Life Church (which will be happy to ordain your cat online, of note).

e) In addition to this, the pastor in question has been involved with a rather skeevy sort of "tax protester" sovereign-citizen scheme targeting fundamentalist Christian churches which basically claimed members of these churches were exempt from all federal and state laws because they were really "citizens of the Kingdom of God" and "ambassadors of Heaven" without US citizenship (and with full diplomatic immunity). These schemes were especially popular in the 90s, and are STILL run into on occasion by policemen out west.

f) I've been around enough "Prosperity Gospel" hucksters in my life to not only look askance when someone pulls a gambit like this (to basically force a government to hand them something they would not otherwise be able to afford) but to be especially wary when it's a guy who's had a history like this pastor has. (Then again, having had members of my family who have died due to being suckered in by folks like this makes me more than a bit wary.)
 
2012-07-08 01:30:13 AM  

Great Porn Dragon: BraveNewCheneyWorld: zamboni: I agree. Fark em. What's the point anyway. We should let them all burn..I just hope their neighbors don't suffer from their selfish negligence. I would think that one persons rights end where another's begin... but I guess that isn't a christian concept. Christian concept: I have the first amendment right to at least inconvenience... at worst possibly even kill my neighbors. Jesus would be so proud of their priorities.

Sure, people must build according to building codes, but once a building is approved, the government really doesn't have a right to say someone can't use it for a gathering. Especially a gathering as low as 15 people, which is lower than most parties and family gatherings I've seen. Just the fact that so many here are against a guy who's having 15 people over, shows how utterly ridiculous the fark community is becoming. Honestly, I'd love to hear someone spout this kind of shiat in a public place, literally everyone would think you're morons who don't live in the real world.

A few things:

a) Building code approvals, by and large, generally assume that the person requesting a building code approval or variance is not committing perjury by willfully making a false statement. (Not only was this a violation of the 9th Commandment, as noted, but in this particular case it's also a violation of law--which is why this is now going to criminal court and is not just a case of the HOA smacking him down for putting up an unapproved shed.)

b) Let's just say the figure of "15 people" is...considerably understated; the actual population of the congregation is between 40 and 70 people, which (even on the low end) is big enough even for a not-for-profit group to require special zoning variances and special building codes for high-occupancy buildings that require signing-off from a fire marshal.

(And yes, this is true for churches and Freemason halls and Moose lodges just as much as it's true for restaurants and pool-halls and gr ...


But he is Christian so...s'all good.
 
2012-07-08 01:47:36 AM  

Sabyen91: Tyranicle: Tman144: Tyranicle: the ha ha guy: Tyranicle: Here's your fact....he broke the law. My fact....no he didn't and even if he did, the law is wrong and tyrannicle.

That's not a fact, that's just like, your opinion, man. And it's not his fact, it's reality's fact.

Does the first amendment also give this guy the right to lie to the courts and threaten his neighbors? Because he broke both of those laws as well.

Yes, the first amendment gives the right for anyone to lie and give threats. It also gives the right to tell the truth and speak freely as one pleases to do so. The first amendment is beautiful. Enjoy it while it lasts.

No it doesn't.

Hmm...

You disagree? There aren't any restrictions to the freedom of speech when it comes to lying and threats?


Was trying to prove a point. We won't end up in chains or in a gulag no matter what we say, at the moment. Enjoy Fark, enjoy your freedom.
 
2012-07-08 01:51:44 AM  

Tyranicle: Sabyen91: Tyranicle: Tman144: Tyranicle: the ha ha guy: Tyranicle: Here's your fact....he broke the law. My fact....no he didn't and even if he did, the law is wrong and tyrannicle.

That's not a fact, that's just like, your opinion, man. And it's not his fact, it's reality's fact.

Does the first amendment also give this guy the right to lie to the courts and threaten his neighbors? Because he broke both of those laws as well.

Yes, the first amendment gives the right for anyone to lie and give threats. It also gives the right to tell the truth and speak freely as one pleases to do so. The first amendment is beautiful. Enjoy it while it lasts.

No it doesn't.

Hmm...

You disagree? There aren't any restrictions to the freedom of speech when it comes to lying and threats?

Was trying to prove a point. We won't end up in chains or in a gulag no matter what we say, at the moment. Enjoy Fark, enjoy your freedom.


Word, bro.

ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-07-08 03:54:15 AM  
FTFA:
Mr Salman has insisted that the building is not a house of worship.

Also FTFA:
"We started worshiping in that building every weekend."
 
2012-07-08 05:44:57 AM  
I was pretty much on this guys side until it read the part where he built a special structure that sat 40 people. And oh yeah he erected cross in front of it.

Having a few friends over on occasion to discuss religion is a bible study. Having three dozen ppl over 3x a week? I'm not entirely sure where the line between bible study and church service is, but I'm pretty damn sure that crosses the line.
 
2012-07-08 06:20:28 AM  
Too bad there's no higher authority to turn to for help.
 
2012-07-08 07:56:59 AM  

Pincy: Tommy Moo: I'm a hardened atheist and I think this is stupid. Let the man host his dumb meetings. The way to win this cultural war is not through censorship;

This has nothing to do with culture wars. They are violating zoning laws.


Yes, but if they were violating zoning laws to host a poker game, everyone would be calling it a stupid overreaction to put him in jail. The sudden support for draconian enforcement of zoning laws is nothing more the Schadenfreude.
 
2012-07-08 01:12:22 PM  

Tyranicle: Sabyen91: Tyranicle: Tman144: Tyranicle: the ha ha guy: Tyranicle: Here's your fact....he broke the law. My fact....no he didn't and even if he did, the law is wrong and tyrannicle.

That's not a fact, that's just like, your opinion, man. And it's not his fact, it's reality's fact.

Does the first amendment also give this guy the right to lie to the courts and threaten his neighbors? Because he broke both of those laws as well.

Yes, the first amendment gives the right for anyone to lie and give threats. It also gives the right to tell the truth and speak freely as one pleases to do so. The first amendment is beautiful. Enjoy it while it lasts.

No it doesn't.

Hmm...

You disagree? There aren't any restrictions to the freedom of speech when it comes to lying and threats?

Was trying to prove a point. We won't end up in chains or in a gulag no matter what we say, at the moment. Enjoy Fark, enjoy your freedom.


Are you completely unaware of Terroristic Threat laws? You do end up in chains if you say certain things to people.
 
2012-07-08 01:44:52 PM  

Tommy Moo: Pincy: Tommy Moo: I'm a hardened atheist and I think this is stupid. Let the man host his dumb meetings. The way to win this cultural war is not through censorship;

This has nothing to do with culture wars. They are violating zoning laws.

Yes, but if they were violating zoning laws to host a poker game, everyone would be calling it a stupid overreaction to put him in jail. The sudden support for draconian enforcement of zoning laws is nothing more the Schadenfreude.


Then he would be in jail for building an unlicensed and unzoned casino. There is a difference between a hosting a home meeting and building a goddamn church in your backyard, same as the difference between home poker game and building and running a farking illegal casino.
 
2012-07-08 01:49:04 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So I'll ask you one question. Why do you think local zoning codes trump the first amendment?


I'll ask another; What the hell do you think the zoning code even has to DO with the First Amendment in this case?

No one is interfering with his right to assemble, only to build nonconforming unlicensed buildings in areas that aren't zoned for it.

/If 'Right to Peaceably Assemble' means the ability to ignore all laws, common sense, and rights of others, I would like to hold a large week-long rave on the street in front of your house.
 
2012-07-08 01:49:31 PM  

Tommy Moo: Yes, but if they were violating zoning laws to host a poker game, everyone would be calling it a stupid overreaction to put him in jail. The sudden support for draconian enforcement of zoning laws is nothing more the Schadenfreude.


He was NOT put in jail for violating zoning law, he was put in jail for lying to the courts and violating a court order.

Reverend Monkeypants: "We started worshiping in that building every weekend."


Don't forget this one:
"Eventually, the city can pay for the church!"
 
2012-07-08 01:53:37 PM  

CliChe Guevara: /If 'Right to Peaceably Assemble' means the ability to ignore all laws, common sense, and rights of others, I would like to hold a large week-long rave on the street in front of your house.


According to the guy building the church, it means exactly that.
"In 1994, Salman had filed paperwork claiming that he belonged to the Embassy of God. That meant, the document claimed, that he didn't need to follow United States law."
 
2012-07-08 04:32:31 PM  

the ha ha guy: Here's an even more in-depth (but long) article that speaks volumes about this guy's true motives:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-01-17/news/michael-salman-wants- to -build-a-church-in-his-backyard-his-neighbors-aren-t-buying-it/

"In July 1992, hoping to scare the hell out of a kid who'd been messing with his girlfriend's little brother, police reports say, Salman donned a Raiders T-shirt and fired five rounds from a .38 special into the kid's house. The boy's mother was home at the time; she told police that one of the bullets nearly grazed her hairline."

"In 1994, Salman had filed paperwork claiming that he belonged to the Embassy of God. That meant, the document claimed, that he didn't need to follow United States law."

"[In 2002,]The Church of All Nations hired him to be its pastor. [...] According to a lawsuit the church's leadership filed against Salman, one of the new pastor's first moves was to put up a sign saying "Harvest Christian Fellowship." That wasn't what they'd bargained for: They were the Church of All Nations, and proud of it. [...] They voted to oust him, and when he fought back and refused to leave, they filed a "forcible detainer" to have him evicted. The judge granted it."

"The city may have to pay for our church to be built," Michael Salman says. The excitement in his voice is unmistakable."



Cult.

 
2012-07-08 04:33:06 PM  

the ha ha guy: Tommy Moo: Yes, but if they were violating zoning laws to host a poker game, everyone would be calling it a stupid overreaction to put him in jail. The sudden support for draconian enforcement of zoning laws is nothing more the Schadenfreude.

He was NOT put in jail for violating zoning law, he was put in jail for lying to the courts and violating a court order.

Reverend Monkeypants: "We started worshiping in that building every weekend."

Don't forget this one:
"Eventually, the city can pay for the church!"


WOW! Nutter!
 
2012-07-08 07:24:24 PM  

dickfreckle: "If this guy were having 12-15 cars jammed on his block for BBQs every single week, the same complaint would be made."



...Except that plenty of people DO, and the same complaint ISN'T. And nobody else gets hauled off to jail.

Out of everyone here claiming that this guy isn't being hassled on religious grounds, can a single one of you bring up an example of any non-religious regular social gathering -- BBQ, pool party, poker night, study session, book group, Tupperware party, Bingo game...anything (except maybe an out-of-control frat party) -- that has been broken up to the tune of a 2-month jail sentence for the host?

Until you do, this guy might be technically in violation of the law (and/or a douchebag), but he's making a far more valid and credible point than any of you.
 
2012-07-08 08:23:33 PM  

spmkk: dickfreckle: "If this guy were having 12-15 cars jammed on his block for BBQs every single week, the same complaint would be made."


...Except that plenty of people DO, and the same complaint ISN'T. And nobody else gets hauled off to jail.

Out of everyone here claiming that this guy isn't being hassled on religious grounds, can a single one of you bring up an example of any non-religious regular social gathering -- BBQ, pool party, poker night, study session, book group, Tupperware party, Bingo game...anything (except maybe an out-of-control frat party) -- that has been broken up to the tune of a 2-month jail sentence for the host?

Until you do, this guy might be technically in violation of the law (and/or a douchebag), but he's making a far more valid and credible point than any of you.


Are the Tupperware parties on a weekly basis? Because if that's the case, yes, that's out of line for the same reasons.

As for a jail sentence, I agree that it's harsh. But something tells me that it's one of those crimes where no one actually goes to jail but the language is included in the law.
 
2012-07-08 08:29:24 PM  

spmkk: Out of everyone here claiming that this guy isn't being hassled on religious grounds, can a single one of you bring up an example of any non-religious regular social gathering -- BBQ, pool party, poker night, study session, book group, Tupperware party, Bingo game...anything (except maybe an out-of-control frat party) -- that has been broken up to the tune of a 2-month jail sentence for the host?


Please try reading something besides the Daily Fail.

This gathering had been going on in his home for months without incident, so the gathering itself was never the issue. The problems only started when he lied to the zoning department about the purpose of his construction, lied to the courts about running a church, and refused a court order to stop stuffing 30 people into an incomplete and unsafe shed with dozens of outstanding fire code violations. And even with the court orders being violated, it took years of continuous tri-weekly gatherings to even consider putting him in jail.

This is not a case of one idiot police officer who wanted to break up a party, this is a guy who was been given years of leniency after violating multiple court orders.
 
2012-07-09 12:34:41 AM  

spmkk: dickfreckle: "If this guy were having 12-15 cars jammed on his block for BBQs every single week, the same complaint would be made."


...Except that plenty of people DO, and the same complaint ISN'T. And nobody else gets hauled off to jail.

Out of everyone here claiming that this guy isn't being hassled on religious grounds, can a single one of you bring up an example of any non-religious regular social gathering -- BBQ, pool party, poker night, study session, book group, Tupperware party, Bingo game...anything (except maybe an out-of-control frat party) -- that has been broken up to the tune of a 2-month jail sentence for the host?

Until you do, this guy might be technically in violation of the law (and/or a douchebag), but he's making a far more valid and credible point than any of you.


He violated a court order dillweed. This has nothing to do with religion.
 
Displayed 47 of 397 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report