What do you think about this article?

[B. W.]

christian fined sentenced to 60 days in jail over AZ home bible studies...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/christi ... e-studies/

[Ivellious]

From what I gathered most of the "violations" stem from the fact that his study groups were getting large enough to be classified as a church but he wasn't following the city's requirements for what a church has to have to be legal. It also seems like he was warned about it before this and eventually the city got fed up with him. I can see where he feels violated, but I don't go so far as to say the city is violating his right to practice his religion. Arizona has laws about places of worship involving large groups of people needing permits and proper building conditions, which the courts say he did not have.

[B. W.]

From what I gathered most of the "violations" stem from the fact that his study groups were getting large enough to be classified as a church but he wasn't following the city's requirements for what a church has to have to be legal. It also seems like he was warned about it before this and eventually the city got fed up with him. I can see where he feels violated, but I don't go so far as to say the city is violating his right to practice his religion. Arizona has laws about places of worship involving large groups of people needing permits and proper building conditions, which the courts say he did not have.

What about high school graduation parties and family reunions? Are they included to be outlawed on the ground more than 20 people show up? Laws cut both ways…
-
-
-

[Ivellious]

I can see what you are saying, but again, I'd warn against being so quick to pull out the "anti-Christian bias" card like some people in the article have. Some brief research found that a Jewish home-worship group in Phoenix was cited under the same law a few years ago (though that host complied with the laws after being warned). And the article seems a little misleading when it says that they were cited for only having regular meetings of people...Actually the problem is that the laws in that jurisdiction specifically require places of religious worship (among other types of buildings) to follow fire code ordinances and handicap-accessibility ordinances and the like. It would seem that because legally his home is not fit to house 20 or more people on a regular basis, he is being cited. I'm presuming he also lacks the permit required to hold such services and his home lacks the facilities that a church must have in Phoenix.

If the laws weren't so specific, I can see where the gray area might come in about parties or Monday Night Football or whatever.

For the record, I don't necessarily agree with the laws that require such things, and I certainly don't believe that one should be disallowed from holding religious services on their property. But if the laws are there, and everyone is held to those standards, then I can't really feel too badly for them, and I don't think it's right to throw out the "violating my freedoms" card.

[Zionist]

i personally think it's pretty ridiculous and a violation on our constitutional rights. if that's the case then they need to cite everyone in the U.S. cuz i'm sure at some point or another everyone has broken one the many ludicrous laws that our government imposes on us.

[Ivellious]

It sounds like you have more issues with the government than the case in question, Zionist...

[Zionist]

and it sounds like you would be okay just to accept any law the government throws in your face because government knows best right? every little law they pass year in and year out is beneficial and helps us to live more comfortable lives right? i mean you're right i see nothing wrong with people being told they can't hold bible studies which violates 1st amendment rights but hey who cares right. better yet the patriot act was such a necessity to protect us right i mean how could I have been so foolish.....my issue is when the government has clearly been putting the economy in the toilet basically robbing the american people yet when convenient for them they want to impose ridiculous laws on us that they themselves do not follow. sorry if it seems im attacking you but i just can't stand seeing honest people doing nothing wrong get treated like criminals. they need to take that time and energy and focus it on real criminals which i hope you agree with.

[Ivellious]

Dude, calm down. I don't always agree with the government. On lots of occasions, I don't. I just think that in this case, the situation is being blown out of proportion. There is no violation of the first amendment, as far as I can tell...Again, certain types of regular gatherings of people require permits and need specific facilities to be legal in Phoenix, and in most other cities, too. The city felt like his bible studies were essentially church gatherings in terms of size and frequency of meeting. He didn't get a permit to hold those meetings and his home did not safety/fire code guidelines for groups of 20 or more people. Apparently he refused to get in line with these ordinances (which all the other churches/places of worship follow) and so he got in trouble. The punishment might seem a little much for my tastes, but it's not like the city was saying he couldn't worship freely. He just wasn't following building ordinances.

[Icthus]

I'm with Ivellious on this one. It doesn't seem like the government is persecuting them for their faith or telling them they can't worship. They're just making them follow the law, which, in this case, makes a lot of sense. If these people are going to meet for religious purposes, that's fine, but they should obey ordinances put in place for their own safety. If their going to meet regularly in rather large numbers, they should do so somewhere that fulfills fire-safety regulations, like an actual church building or any other place willing to host them. The meetings aren't like graduation parties or something similar because you don't have graduation parties semi-regularly. Suppose there was a fire and, owing to the size of the crowd present, some were unable to escape alive or without injury. Aside from being a tragedy, it wouldn't reflect well on either those in charge of the meetings or on the authorities who are supposed to be enforcing safety regulations. As Ivellious said, the punishment may be rather harsh, but it isn't persecution, and he had been warned before but didn't take responsibility.

Seriously, religious persecution in Arizona? I'd understand the anger if this story came from the heart of liberal America, but Arizona? I'm pretty sure Christianity has enough presence there to fend off persecution. It's a pretty conservative place, though that doesn't guarantee Christianity, and hasn't gone for a democratic President since 1996, which was the first time since before Ike in 1952 (with the Republican Party being pretty big with conservative religious people during that span, though it certainly doesn't have a monopoly on Christian spirit). It's just not the type of state to fight against religion.

[Zionist]

so if there is a gathering for a graduation party or party/gathering and there's a fire it wouldn't violate the same saftey codes/regulations but a bibe study would? let me get this straight and please correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure there would be a higher chance of a fire at a party than a bible study and not only that but there would be more people at a party than a bible study so i don't see a justifiable reason to defend what is going on to a guy holding bible study. just seems ridiculous to me really it does. i cant believe you guys seriously!

[Beanybag]

so if there is a gathering for a graduation party or party/gathering and there's a fire it wouldn't violate the same saftey codes/regulations but a bibe study would? let me get this straight and please correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure there would be a higher chance of a fire at a party than a bible study and not only that but there would be more people at a party than a bible study so i don't see a justifiable reason to defend what is going on to a guy holding bible study. just seems ridiculous to me really it does. i cant believe you guys seriously!

No, I think they mean a graduation party is a one-time thing so it isn't likely to be acted on. It's just as much a violation. Notice that they gave prior warning? What is prior warning to a one-time event? It's nothing and not worth doing. Sometimes a land-lord will come heckle you if you're breaking fire code though.

[B. W.]

It is the Moral Equivalency argument at stake here. If a bible study is singled out, what about a family reunion and backyard BBQ with 20 or more people, or a party where the real danger of a fire or self harm are increased in greater odds?

If this Bible Study is outlawed then all social functions on privet property that have more than 20 people must also be outlawed. There are no exceptions…

If the intent of the ordinance is geared only toward Bible Studies and no one else, that is real discrimination at work hiding behind the Law. I am old enough, have lived in the South, in Virginia, during the 1960’s and 1970’s. I know how the laws existed then discriminated. Such as the Jim Crow Laws, local ordinances that prevented Black Americans from swimming in the same pool, or enter the same building were used to justify stifling ones Constitutional Rights.

The same principle is at work here – either the Law is for all and if not, it is used to discriminate – no and ifs or buts about it – Moral Equivalency cuts both ways…
-
-
-

[Icthus]

It is the Moral Equivalency argument at stake here. If a bible study is singled out, what about a family reunion and backyard BBQ with 20 or more people, or a party where the real danger of a fire or self harm are increased in greater odds?

If this Bible Study is outlawed then all social functions on privet property that have more than 20 people must also be outlawed. There are no exceptions…

If the intent of the ordinance is geared only toward Bible Studies and no one else, that is real discrimination at work hiding behind the Law. I am old enough, have lived in the South, in Virginia, during the 1960’s and 1970’s. I know how the laws existed then discriminated. Such as the Jim Crow Laws, local ordinances that prevented Black Americans from swimming in the same pool, or enter the same building were used to justify stifling ones Constitutional Rights.

The same principle is at work here – either the Law is for all and if not, it is used to discriminate – no and ifs or buts about it – Moral Equivalency cuts both ways…
-
-
-

Yes, but one of the points made is that the guy leading the Bible study had been warned previously. As Beany pointed out, in the case of a one time thing like a party, equal treatment would dictate that they get off with a warning of some sort before further action is taken. The guy got in trouble because, apparently, he ignored the authorities suggestions that he do things by the book. Now, if somebody continually had crowded parties at their house, that might necessitate something more severe.

Lets not forget though, that these Bible meetings were large enough and frequent enough to qualify as a Church according to local ordinances. Other Church's operate by the rules, providing, at their own expense, a safe place to worship that meets safety codes, and if they fail to meet the standards set not just for religious buildings but for any meeting place, it would be wrong for the authorities to allow them to meet in potentially dangerous conditions. I live in a small town in which there aren't a lot of buildings designed for holding meetings, but if a group, religious or otherwise, desires to gather together, it is rarely difficult to find a place. This guy could have arranged to have meetings out of doors in a public park or on private property suited for a crowd. He could have found a Church willing to let them use their building on occasion. He could have investigated the specifics of the ordinance and tried to find a member of the group with a building that fit them. Really, he likely had a lot of options that would allow him to continue the meetings and obey the law, but he seems to have chosen not to bother and continued instead to hold them as he always had without respect for the law or for safety of those at the meetings. This is not a case of religious persecution. This is the case of a guy who didn't do what he was supposed to, was warned, didn't listen, and was punished for it. If this had been a meeting of the American Atheists (lol at the idea of them getting twenty people for a home meeting) I think this board would likely acknowledge it as a simple ordinance violation case. I just graduated from one of the most liberal universities in the U.S. so I know what it feels like to be a Christian somewhere where they simply aren't wanted, and this just isn't it.

[RickD]

I don't know this man, or this case, but, If this recent article is true, the man got what was coming to him:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 77943.html

If you're going to make your property a church(as it seems he did in 2008), then to get the tax benefits, you need to abide by the laws, as well. Seems like he wanted the tax benefit, that comes with the rest of the laws, without abiding by the rest of the laws.

It seems, on one hand, he claimed his property is a church(presumably so he wouldn't have to pay property taxes), and on the other hand, he says it's not a church, so he wont have to abide by the building codes of a church. Sounds like he wants to have his cake, and eat it too.

This article, from a link in the above article, paints a different picture, than the persecuted martyr:http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-01- ... buying-it/

[Ivellious]

The more I hear about this, it's basically him starting an uproar by saying he was arrested for worship, and literally everyone else around him who says he got in trouble for everything except worshiping. If his side of the story were true, then yeah, I'd be upset at the city arresting him for it. But now that we can see the stuff about everything that led up to this, it seems pretty clear that he's pulled out the "persecution card" in order to distract everyone from the fact that he violated the law and is paying (minimally) for it.

Also I agree with the earlier comment about the location of this case. If this were upstate Maine or something, I'd look at it more closely, but this is a heavily Christian area, so religious persecution seems a little out there.