• 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

Cephus said:
He wasn't told he couldn't run a church, he was told he couldn't run a church in that location and under those conditions. Instead of complying with the law and moving his church elsewhere, he chose to ignore the law and is now playing the religion card because the law finally came in and shut him down.

What a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

"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."

The codes clearly prohibit him from freely exercising his religion. They abridge his freedom of speech. They abridge his right to peaceably assemble.
 
Billy the Kid said:
And worshiping as you see fit isn't a civil right? IMO it is and I don't care if you want to worship bull poop, it's your right.
Click to expand...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. Every right is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. You can't, for example hold a church service in the middle of Interstate 5, regardless of what the Constitution says.
 
Aberration said:
"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."

The codes clearly prohibit him from freely exercising his religion. They abridge his freedom of speech. They abridge his right to peaceably assemble.
Click to expand...

I'd recommend a good class on constitutional law.
 
Wiggen said:
Which has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. Every right is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. You can't, for example hold a church service in the middle of Interstate 5, regardless of what the Constitution says.
Click to expand...

Interstate 5 is not privately owned property. His own damn ranch is. The only reason the codes violations were investigate was to intentionally shut down his peaceable assembly for the purpose of practicing religion.
 
Wiggen said:
Which has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. Every right is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. You can't, for example hold a church service in the middle of Interstate 5, regardless of what the Constitution says.
Click to expand...

Damn pinko fascist commy bastards!
 
Billy the Kid said:
I don't care who/what/how you worship, it's your worship. As I said before, the cops don't arrest you, you don't scare the horses in the street and I don't have to participate, then go for it. I'm not afraid of religion, we have laws, I'm afraid of individuals who want it "their way".

So, you think that restrictions should be put on who/what/how people should worship?
Click to expand...

No, but they sure as hell can be put on where people worship.
 
Wiggen said:
I'd recommend a good class on constitutional law.
Click to expand...

You mean a class on how SCOTUS has over the years ignored the Constitution?

I am not sure what makes you think I would care.
 
Aberration said:
"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."

The codes clearly prohibit him from freely exercising his religion. They abridge his freedom of speech. They abridge his right to peaceably assemble.
Click to expand...

Because the First Commandment says "Thou shalt not worship in houses supported by beams. Only by faith shalt thy houses of worship stand"
 
Aberration said:
Interstate 5 is not privately owned property. His own damn ranch is. The only reason the codes violations were investigate was to intentionally shut down his peaceable assembly for the purpose of practicing religion.
Click to expand...

Privately owned property used for public purposes (such as for a place of worship) must conform to code
 
Aberration said:
You mean a class on how SCOTUS has over the years ignored the Constitution?

I am not sure what makes you think I would care.
Click to expand...


Yeah it is kinda obvious that you don't care about reality, as you continue to deny the actual situation in the case of this nutjob preacher
 
Aberration said:
Some people want this to be about codes, when it clearly isn't.
Click to expand...

It is clearly about someone who reefuses to comply with local codes plain and simple.
 
Aberration said:
Some people want this to be about codes, when it clearly isn't.
Click to expand...

Some people want this to be about religion, when it clearly isn't.
 
Aberration said:
"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."

The codes clearly prohibit him from freely exercising his religion. They abridge his freedom of speech. They abridge his right to peaceably assemble.
Click to expand...

No it doesnt freedom of religion does not allow you to do anything you want Is human sacrifice allowed under freedom of religion NO! Neither is disregarding municipal codes. He could have complied and been allowed to continue he refused to.
This is not about religion you are just trying to pretend that it is
 
Aberration said:
"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."

The codes clearly prohibit him from freely exercising his religion. They abridge his freedom of speech. They abridge his right to peaceably assemble.
Click to expand...

He can't break into my house and hold a church service in my living room. He can't shut down traffic and hold a church service in a major intersection. He can't perform human sacrifice. So much for free exercise. :roll:
 
Cephus said:
He can't break into my house and hold a church service in my living room. He can't shut down traffic and hold a church service in a major intersection. He can't perform human sacrifice. So much for free exercise. :roll:
Click to expand...

I guess I'll have to cancel my annual "Baptize a Baby On The BBQ" event this year
 
Any one around here a virgin. I have a religious ritual I need one for. Just PM me if you are, females only. :devil:
 
Thanxs foe the PM tess. Will be intouch :mrgreen:
 
Somerville said:
Yeah it is kinda obvious that you don't care about reality, as you continue to deny the actual situation in the case of this nutjob preacher
Click to expand...

You mean the actual situation of him peaceably assembling on his own private property to speak on his religion? That reality? No, I fully recognize that. I also recognize that you consider him a nutjob preacher, and that you would go to any length to make sure he could not exercise his rights. Yet you want to call me the bigot.
 
Cephus said:
He can't break into my house and hold a church service in my living room. He can't shut down traffic and hold a church service in a major intersection. He can't perform human sacrifice. So much for free exercise. :roll:
Click to expand...

None if which he was trying to do.
 
Quag said:
It is clearly about someone who reefuses to comply with local codes plain and simple.
Click to expand...

The codes violate the Constitution. Everyone should refuse to comply with codes that violate the Constitution. I support any and all such refusals to comply.
 
Aberration said:
The codes violate the Constitution. Everyone should refuse to comply with codes that violate the Constitution. I support any and all such refusals to comply.
Click to expand...


Building codes violate the Constitution? How so?
 
tessaesque said:
You like babies? We've got babies on spikes! Tastes of chicken.
Click to expand...

Spikes are heretical support for the weight of babies

Our babies levitate above the coals at a height that gaurantees their juiciness.

(PS - While heretical, I did "like" your post, but only because I have respect for the religious beliefs of others)
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
Spikes are heretical support for the weight of babies

Our babies levitate above the coals at a height that gaurantees their juiciness.
Click to expand...

Roast suckling baby?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom