• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Homeowner Jailed for Hosting Bible Study

This guy/priest was hold Bible study. He fought back because he wanted to continue to hold Bible study in his home/church. Now what would you call it. A cooking class?


He has the right to hold a bible study he does not have the right to break the law. Why would you think holding a "bible study" makes breakign the law acceptable?
 
Maybe OWS just needs to call their rallies "Bible Study." Then it would be the evil government stopping their religious freedom.
 
He has the right to hold a bible study he does not have the right to break the law. Why would you think holding a "bible study" makes breakign the law acceptable?

I've repeated the "broke the law pay the price" over and over. He should be prosecuted for breaking the law. IMO, he was protesting on the Freedom of Religion count. You don't then you and I will have to just disagree.


But those "occupiers" that caused the damage in the same city to the tune of $200K should have been prosecuted too. BUT . . . . they were "let off" because the SAME prosecutor called the "PATRIOTS".

Political BIAS . . . . . YES.
 
This guy/priest was hold Bible study. He fought back because he wanted to continue to hold Bible study in his home/church. Now what would you call it. A cooking class?

No. I'd call it a zoning violation, as did the judge. Owning a residential property allows ONLY its residential use.
 
No. I'd call it a zoning violation, as did the judge. Owning a residential property allows ONLY its residential use.

I've said over and over and over. The guy broke the law. He should be prosecuted.

But, IMO, he did it for religious reasons.
 
Political BIAS . . . . . YES.

It never ceases to amaze me how the right has an endless capacity to see bias against them. Hollywood, the media, Obama, the UN...all out to get them. Yet according to at least one person on their side, Liberals are unskilled and unable to get a job. Amazing for people that apparently rule the whole world.
 
Last edited:
It never ceases to amaze me how the right has an endless capacity to see bias against them, while bias in their favor is invisible.

Where, IYO, is the bias for this guy/priest/whatever?
 
The fact that Fox News saw this as important.

I guess you watch Fox News, yes? Lots of folks do and IMO Fox is no different that the other bias news media stations.
 
He has the right to hold a bible study he does not have the right to break the law. Why would you think holding a "bible study" makes breakign the law acceptable?

Because the 'law' is infringing upon his right to hold that Bible study.
 
Because the 'law' is infringing upon his right to hold that Bible study.

How about Salman infringing upon the property rights of the neighbours? Don't you see a bit of conflict with your philosophy about property rights and religious rights?





Oh yeah, your fallaciously attributed quote may be from Thomas Mother F'in Jefferson but it sure ain't from Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President, no matter how much you wish it were.
 
Last edited:
Nope. Read that part. Posted on that part. Break the law and you pay the price.

Did you hear that the county prosecutor, that sent this guy/priest to jail for 60 days, probation for 3 years and a $12K+ in fines, allowed Occupiers, who caused $200K in damages in the county, and were arrested for felonies go? He claimed they were "patriots".

This sure smacks of political bias and anti-religion to me. Matter of fact it stinks of bias and using the law for political reasons.

Every case is different as is each defendant. You probably didn't know that, Billy. You are comparing apples to aardvarks. If you can't see that it is because you don't want to.

Salam is a convicted felon. Salam has been involved in a number of court cases. Salam has a history of being unlawful. Salam is clearly attempting to shuck and jive city and county government and anyone who is just too freaking stupid to believe otherwise.
 
How about Salman infringing upon the property rights of the neighbours? Don't you see a bit of conflict with your philosophy about property rights and religious rights?

What rights was he infringing upon?

Oh yeah, your fallaciously attributed quote may be from Thomas Mother F'in Jefferson but it sure ain't from Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President, no matter how much you wish it were.

You can't prove that. Just as you couldn't before. No matter how much you wish you could.
 
I've said over and over and over. The guy broke the law. He should be prosecuted.

But, IMO, he did it for religious reasons.

Breaking the law and breaking the law for religious reasons are different how?
 
Because the 'law' is infringing upon his right to hold that Bible study.

What the hell does that mean? Are you saying that anything anyone wants to do in the name of religion should be legal?
 
I've repeated the "broke the law pay the price" over and over. He should be prosecuted for breaking the law. IMO, he was protesting on the Freedom of Religion count. You don't then you and I will have to just disagree.


But those "occupiers" that caused the damage in the same city to the tune of $200K should have been prosecuted too. BUT . . . . they were "let off" because the SAME prosecutor called the "PATRIOTS".

Political BIAS . . . . . YES.

Where do you get the idea he was protesting on the freedom of religion count? How is it possible to claim freedom of religion based on what this guy did? He refused to comply with the codes, he was given ample opportunity to comply and thus become legal and still have his "bible study groups"
 
Every case is different as is each defendant. You probably didn't know that, Billy. You are comparing apples to aardvarks. If you can't see that it is because you don't want to.

Salam is a convicted felon. Salam has been involved in a number of court cases. Salam has a history of being unlawful. Salam is clearly attempting to shuck and jive city and county government and anyone who is just too freaking stupid to believe otherwise.



IYO, my comparisons are not to your liking. The priest/guy made his decision to not put up Exit signs and not make his house/garage/building Handicapped Accessable and was arrested. He evidently weighed his right to his religious beliefs against going to jail for what he believed and chose to break the law and go to jail. He has brass, IMO.

So, IYO, what should have the same prosecutor have done to the occupiers that cost the city $200K? Should he have called the patriots and let them go?
 
IYO, my comparisons are not to your liking. The priest/guy made his decision to not put up Exit signs and not make his house/garage/building Handicapped Accessable and was arrested. He evidently weighed his right to his religious beliefs against going to jail for what he believed and chose to break the law and go to jail. He has brass, IMO.

So, IYO, what should have the same prosecutor have done to the occupiers that cost the city $200K? Should he have called the patriots and let them go?

So it was against his relgion to put up exit signs and have handicap accesability?
 
So it was against his relgion to put up exit signs and have handicap accesability?


Now doesn't the sound silly, to even to you? Where in the world did you go to pick that out of thin air?

The guy/priest, IMO, did this to protest his religious freedom rights. If you don't agree, then so be it. We see this situation differently.

What gets me is I'm wouldn't even attend this guys group meetings/sermons/whatever, but after beating this 'horse' for days on this thread, I am really starting to see his point.
 
IYO, my comparisons are not to your liking.

Not to my liking? Where's the logic in it? What were the violations that Salam and the Occupy people had in common? List them for me please, no one else here has listed and compared the violations, no media source has listed and compared the violations. You certainly have access to information I don't have. The violations Salam committed and for which Occupy committed must be strikingly similar, but I can't find that. In fact, there is nothing to compare, from my perspective. Clue me up.

The priest/guy

Preist he ain't. He has never referred to himself as a priest in anything I've read. He did do an online certification class to become a "pastor" of some sort and is now affiliated with the Church of God in Christ, Pentecostal. Salman has claimed there is only God's law. Sounds like the Taliban to me. Nonetheless, he is apparently legally a sky pilot of some sort.

made his decision to not put up Exit signs and not make his house/garage/building Handicapped Accessable and was arrested.

Don't look now, but your willful ignorance is showing. If you are going to argue a position it would be helpful to you if you would acknowledge the known facts. It is clear you haven't read them and don't intend to.

To begin with, he made an application to build a recreation room NOT a church. Later he registered his church at his home address. His 2,000 sq. ft. "recreation room" is used for religious services and he has been avoiding paying taxes as a church, which he said it wasn't, then said it is, but told the city it wasn't, but told the Arizona Corporation Commission it is. There is online documentation of all this and it's already been made available on this thread. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change the fact that it does. Refusing to read it makes one willfully ignorant.

Handicapped accessibility comes under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Now, I don't care what Fox News tells you (and it's obvious that is where you are getting your "facts") churches are exempt from the ADA. Of course you know all that, right?

He evidently weighed his right to his religious beliefs against going to jail for what he believed and chose to break the law and go to jail. He has brass, IMO.

What did he believe? He believed that he was building a rec room or a church? He has stated legally that he is one or the other. He applied to the city to build a rec room, but he ****ing lied. Now he says he build a church, which he never had permission to build. He receives tax exemption from the State because he used his home address as his church, which he told the city was a recreation room. What religious beliefs is he going to jail for? He has been deceitful and has a history of it as determined by law in previous cases, one involving another church. You know that, right?

He doesn't have brass. He's dumber than a bag of hammers. You have bravery and idiocy confused.

So, IYO, what should have the same prosecutor have done to the occupiers that cost the city $200K? Should he have called the patriots and let them go?

No one is talking about the Occupiers, stop attempting to divert the argument.
 
Last edited:
Now doesn't the sound silly, to even to you? Where in the world did you go to pick that out of thin air?

The guy/priest, IMO, did this to protest his religious freedom rights. If you don't agree, then so be it. We see this situation differently.

What gets me is I'm wouldn't even attend this guys group meetings/sermons/whatever, but after beating this 'horse' for days on this thread, I am really starting to see his point.

What gets me is that somehow you think this is a religious protest when clearly it is not. Freedom of religion has nothing nada rien zilch to do with this. Explain to me how it does? I keep trying to understand your point of view but all i get is he mentioned the words "bible study" and was arrested so it has to be about religion.
This is about a moron who refused to follow the law. The fact he was having "bible studies" instead of puppet shows is 100% irrelevant.
 
Not to my liking? Where's the logic in it? What were the violations that Salam and the Occupy people had in common? List them for me please, no one else here has listed and compared the violations, no media source has listed and compared the violations. You certainly have access to information I don't have. The violations Salam committed and for which Occupy committed must be strikingly similar, but I can't find that. In fact, there is nothing to compare, from my perspective. Clue me up.



Preist he ain't. He has never referred to himself as a priest in anything I've read. He did do an online certification class to become a "pastor" of some sort and is now affiliated with the Church of God in Christ, Pentecostal. Salman has claimed there is only God's law. Sounds like the Taliban to me. Nonetheless, he is apparently legally a sky pilot of some sort.



Don't look now, but your willful ignorance is showing. If you are going to argue a position it would be helpful to you if you would acknowledge the known facts. It is clear you haven't read them and don't intend to.

To begin with, he made an application to build a recreation room NOT a church. Later he registered his church at his home address. His 2,000 sq. ft. "recreation room" is used for religious services and he has been avoiding paying taxes as a church, which he said it wasn't, then said it is, but told the city it wasn't, but told the Arizona Corporation Commission it is. There is online documentation of all this and it's already been made available on this thread. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change the fact that it does. Refusing to read it makes one willfully ignorant.

Handicapped accessibility comes under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Now, I don't care what Fox News tells you (and it's obvious that is where you are getting your "facts") churches are exempt from the ADA. Of course you know all that, right?



What did he believe? He believed that he was building a rec room or a church? He has stated legally that he is one or the other. He applied to the city to build a rec room, but he ****ing lied. Now he says he build a church, which he never had permission to build. He receives tax exemption from the State because he used his home address as his church, which he told the city was a recreation room. What religious beliefs is he going to jail for? He has been deceitful and has a history of it as determined by law in previous cases, one involving another church. You know that, right?

He doesn't have brass. He's dumber than a bag of hammers. You have bravery and idiocy confused.



No one is talking about the Occupiers, stop attempting to divert the argument.


You have your opinion and I have mine on this issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom