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.
That’s right, a house can’t be used as a church. It’s against zoning laws.
Broyles said, “The county asked, ‘Do you have a regular meeting in your home?’ She said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you say amen?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you pray?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you say praise the Lord?’ ‘Yes.’”
Does anyone actually believe this conversation happened? I’m thinking it’s at least a partial lie. When was the last time a nonChristian said “Do you praise the Lord”?
The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.
Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed “unlawful use of land” and told them to “stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit” — a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Right. That’s the law. Same as everyone else.
Broyles said his clients have asked to stay anonymous until they give the county a demand letter that states by enforcing this regulation the county is violating their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
Broyles also said this case has broader implications.
“If the county thinks they can shut down groups of 10 or 15 Christians meeting in a home, what about people who meet regularly at home for poker night? What about people who meet for Tupperware parties? What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers?” Broyles asked.
10-15 cars parked on my street every Sunday morning affects neighbors a lot more than a 1-time tupperware party. Come on. The law is the law, and this couple is simply trying to use religion to shield themselves from breaking it. They want to avoid paying their fees. They want, essentially, a free ride at the expense of their neighbors because they are Christian.
But business is business, and this pastor needs a permit just like everyone else. THIS IS THE REASON THERE ARE ZONING LAWS! Businesses in residential townships hurt property values and create burden for the neighbors by increasing noise and traffic. Somehow, this is not addressed in the article.
This isn’t a “they won’t let me pray” thing, it’s a “they won’t let me treat my residence like it’s zoned for commercial use” thing. This whole persecution thing is so old. Just obey the damn laws.
The religious certainly shouldn’t get any special privileges, but to me this one falls under live and let live. I’m not sure I see the distinction between between a poker game and a Bible study, if anything poker is more of a business. Let them waste their time studying the Bible if that’s what they want to do.
I think we need more facts here to see which side of the line this case falls in.
A) Is this is private group of people praying or meeting about god? This would be the equivalent of a friendly poker game every Sunday. If so, obviously no permit should be required.
B) Is this a public group where anyone is welcome, and where the Pastor/owner of the house collects money from people? This would be the equivalent of a for profit public poker game, where anyone can come join and where the house takes a cut of the pot each round.(like a small time casino).
I think more details about this case would help everyone determine whether its category A or B. Does everyone in these meetings know each other? Is anyone welcome to join? IS there a profit being generated(collections?). What is the size of the meetings?
I doubt the government in conservative San Diego would dare cross the line into Category A unless there was a clear evidence that a business or church was being run, and not just a private religious meeting between friends.
Does anyone know more facts or is there any public records available(affidavits or complaints)?
But business is business, and this pastor needs a permit just like everyone else.
As I understand the article, this is an independent prayer meeting and not a business. Personally, I feel that this government imposition on private citizens is ridiculous. I don’t have the best knowledge of zoning laws, but I feel like if I met with a group of atheists to swap intellectual ideas on a regular basis and I was confronted with similar treatment to this, I would fight back and probably honestly have feelings of persecution.
I think this is a matter of the infringement of a constitutional right, not a group of christians trying to use their religion to abuse the legal system. There may be more to the story here, perhaps this is not the first regularly congregating group that has been treated this way in the area and only this story has been given public view because of it’s religious implications. In that case, feelings of persecution would certainly be unjustified, however I would strongly urge the community to take the issue to court and request a re-writing of their zoning laws to better protect their right to peaceably assemble.
I don’t want anyone telling me what I can and can’t do in my own home. Therefore I feel it’s vitally important to protect everyone else’s right to the same, even if I happen to disagree with them on a personal level.
Dave, you know I like you, and support what you’re doing, BUT?
Do you want the city to require you to have a liquor licence to have a few friends over for a couple of beers?? Do you want the city to impose a business license on you if you entertain some friends to watch a dvd that only YOU paid for. God help you if you asked them to contribute to the party ball or popcorn? The difference may seem obvious to you, but it’s not to a judge trying to weigh a case on existing law.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I am left asking why you are wasting your time with people using their home for prayer groups (a battle you cannot win), when a colonel in the military is using his position to distribute religious material in a theater of war?? Contrary to the objectives of the stated
mission???? I like you Dave, but, you need a publicist.
NeoWolfe
Yeah, I don’t find this cool @ all. I think the only actual violation here would be if they tried to claim tax exempt status & collected a bundle of money in the process. Otherwise, it borders on persecution.
10-15 cars on a usual street? No big deal? 25 -30 every Sunday? Big deal. So what are the facts?
I lived in Albuquerque 10 years ago. Around the corner lived a preacher who lived on a big lot with lots of grass and trees – a perfect spot to hold wedding ceremonies. And he did. So every 2 -3 months there were be 50-100 vehicles parked in our neighborhood with all the accompanying noise and litter. It was a residential area at the preacher knew he was creating a disturbance and his behavior was unlawful yet he continued despite the protests of his neighbors. Eventually the law put a stop to this selfish behavior.
“The law is the law, …”
That’s your argument? How about the anti-gay marraige law in California that you just railed against? The law is the law. How about segregation or slavery? Those were the law too, before somebody stood up to change them.
There may be very good reasons for not allowing this bible study or church or whatever to meet where and when it does, but saying “the law is the law” is about the least convincing reason I’ve ever heard.
The legal issue will be and turn on whether the Courts view this as a fundamental right being infringed by government action. If, so “strict scrutiny” will apply and government will be required to prove a “compelling government interest”.
If the zoning regs do NOT advance a COMPELLING governmental interest the 1st Amndmnt rights of free exercise and assembly will trump the govt reg.
The article doesn’t say anything about the couple using this as a tax break, for which, AFAIK, they would need a license/permit to hold such meetings, and their home would then be a church of sorts and might conflict with zoning laws.
I think they are doing what we ask them to do- keep their religion in their own homes or churches. The relatively small number of cars weekly doesn’t seem like a problem. Did a neighbor make a complaint? Are they leaving the prayer meeting and going door-to-door spreading the word? No mention of either. This is petty; leave them alone.
It reminds me of an article I read in the last several months about a couple who was arrested for having sex parties in their home. I can’t find a link to it, and can’t recall where I read it, sorry. There didn’t seem to be any laws being broken there, either.
And Dave, just because someone asks, “Do you praise the Lord”? it shouldn’t be assumed s/he is non-Christian.
I agree that the claims of religious persecution are probably bogus. That said, there are three issues here:
1. Is the zoning law a good law or a bad law? It does seem overly restrictive to me. If the law is intended to bar private prayer groups and poker games and tupperware parties, that seems excessive to me. If it’s not, then, it needs to be rewritten to draw the distinction between the things it’s supposed to prohibit and those it’s not supposed to prohibit.
2. Is the law being applied fairly, and if not why not? If the only times this law gets enforced is when a certain group or class of people breaks it, that’s a real problem. I doubt that the local government is actually singling out religious groups, but it doesn’t hurt to check. Is the test for whether you’re a business or not being applied fairly? What triggered this enforcement? What other organizations have gotten the same treatment, and what similar groups haven’t?
3. “10-15 cars parked on my street every Sunday morning affects neighbors a lot more than a 1-time tupperware party. Come on.” This is essentially an argument that it’s okay for some kinds of groups to break the law but not okay for others, which flies in the face of the basic argument that this group should just obey the law. And you choose the tupperware party because it’s a one-time thing but don’t respond to the point about a regular poker night or game watching. Those might arguably be _more_ of an imposition on neighbors if they involve drinking and/or loud noise. If you want to shut down the prayer meeting you probably do have to shut down those other kinds of events. And if you want to shut down the prayer meeting but you don’t want to shut down the poker game, you might consider your motives.
Again, I doubt there’s any actual religious persecution in this case and that the pastor is just trying to score political points, but that doesn’t mean we should be fair about assessing the issue.
You have to read the zoning law to know what’s what in a case like this. Lots of them are poorly written, and are discriminatory. If these people really were interrogated as Dave describes, if the question whether they were practising a religion in their home actually has a bearing on whether they were breaking the law, then there is probably a First Amendment problem with this law.
The bottom line is: Religious gatherings should be treated exactly the same way as any other kind of gathering, Tupperware party, poker nite, wife-swapping party, or anything else.
wife swapping? Can you hook me up? Oh, wait, I don’t have a wife. I could swap a hooker…..but the problem with that is that the hooker is probably hotter than the wife. Never mind.
NeoWolfe
Maybe Phreeky or JCC can help you out.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”
Sounds to me like this local zoning law is treading on the First Amendment big time. There would have to be some other compelling reason to prohibit this activity. Too many cars on the street?..ok, *possibly*. Too much noise…praying…I doubt it. Are they charging for the service and thus running a business?
I would expect American Atheists, as a pro-separation organization, to at least verbally support this group’s right to expect that separation to be protected.
Furthermore, this group, like anyone, is not obligated to obey the law if they are not actually committing a crime, or if the law itself is illegal. The law is not the final world in a free society.
Show me some evidence that a crime is being committed and I will change my mind.
mdetrano said:
“Furthermore, this group, like anyone, is not obligated to obey the law if they are not actually committing a crime”
Response: You must know that’s an oxymoron.
.
NeoWolfe
Breaking the law and committing a crime are two separate things. If you break the law they can arrest and try you. If you commit a crime they can convict you.
I disagree mdetrano. As I understand it, a law establishes whether a particular act is a crime. One can be arrested when one is suspected of committing such an unlawful act.
The conviction process establishes whether a crime was committed by the accused, but doesn’t establish whether an act was criminal.
Just one more note, you can’t be arrested, tried or convicted of committing an act that has not been defined by law as criminal.
I’m with mdetrano,
I’m no expert in constitutional law, but this sure smells like government infringement on religious freedom.
And, too many cars parked on the street is an entirely separate issue. A law limiting the number of cars that can be parked on any particular street doesn’t require unconstitutionally limiting the public’s right to peacefully assemble and practice their faith. ‘Parking limits’ is not a compelling argument for the restriction of 1st amendment rights, in my view.
Mdetrano, just wanted to point out that the law is what defines whether something is a crime or whether it isn’t. But as you wrote, certainly a law can be unlawful – and I believe this particular zoning law is.
As I understand it (I am not a lawyer!, please consult your own), whether or not someone committed a crime is one of things that a jury must decide…this is part of the judicial branch of government, not the executive or legislative.
For instance, in the 1800′s those in the north who helped escaped slaves move on up to Canada were breaking the fugitive slave law, but they were not committing any crimes and for this reason many juries did not convict those people. The laws establishing slavery were in fact criminal.
If breaking the law == committing a crime there would be hardly any need for trials. Only if the act itself was in question. This is why you are completely within your right to plead innocent even if you know you broke the law. If pleading innocent meant you were denying having done an act then you would be perjuring yourself simply by attempting to get a fair hearing.
Again, I am just rehashing what I have seen on the subject (no legal advice here).
If it were 30 cars on a daily basis then what would those of you that have weighed-in think?
So far it is only the pastor’s lawyer that has mentioned the number of vehicles or the disturbance level. The lawyer may be misrepresenting the facts or may be unaware of them.
If it were 30 cars on a daily basis then what would those of you that have weighed-in think?
The fact is, it isn’t 30 cars on a daily basis. Your questions smells a lot like the kinds of typical questions conversion minded christians tend to ask – proposing “what if” scenarios as if just by proposing a single agenda driven possibility among an infinite number of imaginable possibilities somehow validates your position. It’s a group of people getting together to talk about ideas, everyone has the right to that.
Also, I feel there is something negative to be said for the ever so fickle “the law is the law” mentality. If you believe in a strict adherence to laws in every situation then you have a valid position, but if you pick and choose which laws are to be followed without question and which laws should be challenged, than you are in danger of becoming a hypocrite, no better than a fundamentalist christian personality wrapped in an atheist skin.
Pinko
The fact is that there are few facts. Sorry if I gave you the impression that I have formed a judgment about this case. As I have said, we have only heard from the pastor’s lawyer. These meetings may be creating far more disturbance than they will admit. Until the other sides have had their say I am reserving judgment. Sound rational?
Yeah, that’s rational.
I concede that it is about as well informed of a comment to say that it isn’t 30 cars a day as to say that it is considering the information and singular perspective of the posted article.
However, I do still strongly maintain that under the parameters set by the article posted and this article outlining the county’s response to the issue (which by the way specifically says this group of 10-15 people meet once a week for dinner, not 30 people every day) that it crosses a line constitutionally for the county to order this group to ‘stop hosting his “religious assemblies”‘ rather than dealing with parking, as that seems to have been the issue that caused a complaint and therefore an investigation in the first place.
Though I will say, I completely retract my concern about this being a legitimate question of persecution. And personally, I HATE it when someone parks in front of my house. It makes me irrationally upset.
Pinko
Ah! Thanks for the link. The article pointed out that the street in question is a cul-de-sac. 15 cars is more problematic in such a situation. I will still reserve my judgment.
What,
I have no problem with laws limiting the number of cars that can be parked on a residential street. In this case, I’d say the Pastor needs to inform his flock that they’ll need to carpool, ride a bike, or walk.
That would certainly be the neighborly thing to do.
If AA thinks they can make home prayer meetings illegal, it’s LMM (litigious mental masturbation). One can hope that someday they will fade away through education, but this isn’t China.
NeoWolfe
Oh those poor Christians. How hard it must be to for them to be hemmed in by the laws of their own religion, and further hamstrung by federal, state and local ordinances.
it all depends on what they are teaching if it is pentecostal crap for example they should be thrown in jail but if it is orthodox teaching there is no problem.we have too many kinds of religion and agnostic/christian church like the state church in sweden is all we need.
My cat wants to know if the Church of Sweden recognizes his right to hunt ground squirrels.
(*Yawn*)
The county official’s line of questioning is questionable; and her superiors have noted it was the wrong line of questioning. This is being touted as a “religious liberty” or “freedom of religion” issue incorrectly though. This is an issue of them violating zoning and fire codes, that coincidentally is for a religious gathering.
The county stated that there have been several filed complaints from neighbors because their guests make access to the neighborhood difficult. The county typically checks then disregards single or periodic reports; but when they were made aware that it was a weekly scheduled ‘event’ they could not ignore it. The parking problem has apparently led the county to enforcing the zoning codes.
The county zoning codes, which were passed by public vote, do have an article for religious assembly. I’m not sure why, and I can’t find a reason why; but I would speculate it relates to them typically filing tax-exempt status in conjunction – so a religious assembly gets filed different. Why they wouldn’t write the article to just apply to *all non-profit* is beyond me.
Chandra L. Wallar (the general manager of San Diego County’s Land Use and Environment Group) has stated that the issue has been taken out of context. She noted for a start that on the date of the most recent complaint, the guests’ vehicles were park in a manner that would have prevented emergency vehicles from access that part of the neighborhood.
She also noted that there is no problem with the estimated “15 to 25 people” attending, and *especially* no problem with people praying or having Bible study in their home; but with the number of vehicles parked in violation of code, on a scheduled basis. She noted that simply carpooling or spreading the parking more evenly down the street would clear things up. She also indicated that rotating who hosted could alleviate the problem with it being a “weekly scheduled assembly.”
“The county is not saying don’t pray at home, what the county is saying is be a good neighbor” said Chandra L. Wallar.
“I deeply regret that a routine code enforcement issue has transformed into a debate over religious freedom in San Diego County,” said County Chief Administrative Officer Walter Ekard. “I want to say in the most direct terms: the County has never tried to stifle religious expression and never will.”
Major use permits are what churches typically apply for; this allows officials to take into account traffic concerns, engineering issues, architecture considerations and more. The main purpose is to assess the feasibility of large gatherings occurring at a particular location. Pastor Jones had to apply for this permit for his nearby church, and should have been aware of the process.
Another tid-bit: Why not utilize the church? Or at the very least have the people park at the church and walk or carpool to the house? Apparently the church is only a few miles away from the pastor’s home. Also, from some of the posts I’ve seen from people in the San Diego area, parking is a premium in many neighborhoods. So one might speculate that this is just a neighborhood squabble that spilled over into getting the county involved, and somehow morphed into a religious freedoms issue.
Johnny
Excellent post. It’s amazing what a few facts can do!
/sarcasm on
It’s amazing to me that theists, of all people, couldn’t somehow manage to be neighborly.
/sarcasm off
I say let them pray in their basement who gives a fuck its not personally hurting anyone is it. And think we get crap all the time for what we belive who are we to stop someone from doing what they think is right, unless it is personally harming others or themself who gives a shit
I found this on Snopes.com, which gives more facts in a clear progression. Snopes is really good at debunking sensationalistic news matters:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/biblestudy.asp
I’ve stated on another thread earlier that AA does itself a disservice by jumping on this kind of issue, especially without all the facts. It makes AA seem petty, instead of showing true concern about Seperation issues. Yes, we need to protect our rights, but we cannot do that at the expense of others. Either we all have equal rights, or we become a tyrrany (in other words, we don’t want to become what we accuse the religious of being).
I wouldn’t care the reason for the weekly gathering as much as I would care about how the consistent gathering would not be considered residential….
The police weren’t called in simply because they were cracking down on pesky Christians and their secret meetings. Obviously there had to have been a complaint or, more likely, enough complaints to warrant police intervention.
When it gets to the point that people are calling the cops on a disturbance, you have to go to the law. In this case, the law is clear on the matter.
Chances are, this wasn’t the first time that somebody has told them they were causing problems and, instead of fixing it by encouraging car pooling or setting up a rotating schedule of houses they could meet, they simply refused to budge.
They could have prevented this whole mess with a little consideration. Of course, like what said, they’d never admit that they simply aren’t neighborly.
“The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.
Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed “unlawful use of land” and told them to “stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit” — a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.”
Sorry, the law is the law.
Sorry, and I hate to say this again…If a group of 15 atheists got together, and was notified that they would need to apply for a “major use permit”, would there be the same response?
Yes!
One thing I think is missed in this blog is that this is a weekly affair… It’s not like they got together one time and were issued a warning to stop praying.. Lets suppose the driveway holds 4 cars, where does everyone else park? My guess is along the road.. Church is where you hold bible study, not in a residential neighborhood.. this is about liability.. The police and the town are just covering thier asses to avoid a lawsuit… Like stated above, the law is the law..
I work for a public agency upholding zoning regulations, and it is not uncommon for jurisdictions to require permits for religious assemblies. The fact is they often attract large crowds of people who park all over town. While they feel they’re quiet, their neighbors may not feel they’re so quiet when they get out at 10:00 p.m. walking in front of neighboring houses to get to their car, and chat along the way.
People doing any religion related activities often feel they deserve special privileges. I get people who are shocked to hear churches require permits, and get very offended. “WHY? It’s a CHURCH. It praises Jesus.” Or, when they apply for permits, they mention, “We’re a non-profit organization,” expecting me to wave permitting fees. More often than not, pastors and ministers I come across, or churchy people in general who are trying to open churches or hold a sale, will tell me, “I am doing god’s work!” and expect me to swoon over and give them a break. Personally, I just find them all to be very pompous people who somehow think their religion guarantees them special privileges, and anyone who doesn’t treat them special is somehow “against god” and “evil.”
“The Church is a place of God! I am trying to do his work and save people!”
Yep, apparently to them churches deserve special breaks others dont for the fact they are Religious. Some christians obviously deserve “special treatment” for being “Gods people” with the law. At least to them.