• 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

joko104 said:
Middle class urban and suburban white people tend to the most control freak, whiny and petty people.

To them the number #1 (non-existent) human right is "property values" and they can go ape s...t crazy if someone parks in front of their house without their permission, they don't like how a neighbor's yard looks or kid acts, or OMG a neighbor's leave blows into their yard.

Jailing that person for 6 months is so obscene and of such totalitarian control government it shows the American revolution for personal freedom is long since dead. Sadly, because people are so intensely hatedul of anyone different from them this is what people want. When you don't have a life, live your life hating and whining about out people.

But you are correct, if he held Muslim servives the media would be raging that the Phoenix city government is a bunch of right wing religious bigots. Being Christian is the being the modern n....ger to many people and we all know that N...gers have no rights and must be restrained and controlled, and certainly not allowed to congregate. Certainly no one wants a bunch of n...gers parked in front of THEIR house.
Click to expand...

Joko, you are soooooo off base on this one you are making a fool out of yourself. The thread has a great deal of information and links to information about Salman that you clearly are not aware of. One link is for a 7 or 8 page article that does a pretty good job in outlining the facts - which you don't have - starting with the fact that Salam and most, if not all, of his "congregants" are not black! Imagine that.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Your link explains why the government despises him. He politically involves.

You will not find the right to no one parking in front of your house in the Bill of Rights, but there are neighborhood control freak hotheads who go berserk if anyone does claiming they also own the street. Petty little people looking for something to rage about.
Click to expand...

Politically involves? He was in Washington DC and had his picture taken. There was no political involvement referred to in his bio. I would be upset as well if there were throngs of people parked on the street I live on. Tends to muck up the egress and flow of traffic.

This "preacher" should have obtained the proper permits no more, no less.
 
RDS said:
So does the zoning laws override the constitution, for example freedom of religion?
Click to expand...

No constitutional freedoms appear to have been overridden here.

Freedom of religion is not freedom to do whatever you want and to hell with everybody else. people seem to be confused on what freedom is. You have the freedom to do what you want as long as you are NOT infringing on others. This guy was clearly infringing on his neighbors and he appears to have been doing so with malicious intent. The city obviously tried to get him to stop 67 violations anyone. he obviously ignored them. it is not a case of some hapless guy who is a victim of the system it is a caase of a guy abusing the system to the detriment of others. They tried to get him to stop, he refused. What would you have them do add another 67 infrigemts? then another 67 at what point do you admit this guy is a complete retrobate who will never obey the law unless forced to? Was jail the best solution? I'm not sure but the more I read on this guy the more it seems like it was probably the only option other than repossesing his home to get him out of there.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, I will respond to your apples to moonrocks comparison post. It was not building code violations, or religion, it was zoning law infractions that landed the "home owner" in jail.
Click to expand...
Sixty-seven zoning violations? That is unlikely. One of the articles I read said he did not have the right signs up, the exit doors were not big enough and he had insufficient fire suppression (sprinkler heads).
I do not believe city governments should ever be able to put someone in jail for building code violations.

Residential means just that, a place to live, and yes, occasional social gatherings are OK. The regular mass meetings (for ANY reason stated in the law), blocking the street and denying the neighbors use of parking, was violating the zoning laws on a regular basis. Pretending that this was NOT a violation of the law, based on "home use rights" or "religious freedom" did not work, and should not work, just as your right to swing your arm freely ends where my nose begins.
Click to expand...
I am sympathetic to the complaint that he was a nuisance. I am not sympathetic to a city jailing him for being a nuisance.

He was charged with a local law violation, tried in court, found guilty and sentenced to jail.
Click to expand...
I don't believe anyone said he wasn't.

The Obama immigration law issue is frustrating, as deciding to ignore federal law enforcement is not a presidential power yet, short of impeachemnt, there is nothing that can be done about it. It violates no local ordinance so DC police can not jail him.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, which is more damaging?
 
Quag said:
It's not a question of more damaging, You don't like Obama I get it. The dems said same stuff about Bush, before that republicans said it about Clinton, etc... Obama has done some stuff that I disagree with, the system isn't perfect but you are going off topic.
Do you seriously think this guy should just continue to flout the law because Obama does?
Click to expand...
It is a question of which is more damaging. Will this guy's building code violations and that he is a big nuisance ever impact your life?
What about the one term Marxist's ignoring the courts and failure to enforce the laws?
 
Misterveritis said:
It is a question of which is more damaging. Will this guy's building code violations and that he is a big nuisance ever impact your life?
What about the one term Marxist's ignoring the courts and failure to enforce the laws?
Click to expand...

No this thread is about this guy not Obama you are trying to hijack the thread. Don't forget that millions of Americans do not think Obama has doen anythign ilelgal but that Bush shoudl be behind bars along with Cheney. In other words you are trying to bring national politics into a municipal dispute.
 
Quag said:
No constitutional freedoms appear to have been overridden here.
. . .The city obviously tried to get him to stop 67 violations anyone. he obviously ignored them. it is not a case of some hapless guy who is a victim of the system it is a caase of a guy abusing the system to the detriment of others. They tried to get him to stop, he refused. What would you have them do add another 67 infrigemts? then another 67 at what point do you admit this guy is a complete retrobate who will never obey the law unless forced to? Was jail the best solution? I'm not sure but the more I read on this guy the more it seems like it was probably the only option other than repossesing his home to get him out of there.
Click to expand...
Fines should have been sufficient. If safety was a factor did they shut down his right to hold meetings until he proved he complied?

I had the county come out to inspect my house. They would not let me move in until I put up railings. I spent more than a thousand dollars to comply so I could move in. The inspector did not care that in the next week we were going to have large bushes put in. We tore everything out and put in the bushes as planned after we received approval to move in.

The inspector said babies could fall off the ledge and die. I was 55 at the time. The house is more than 200 feet off the street. There were not only no babies there were no young children. But a bureaucrat is, first and foremost, a bureaucrat.
 
Quag said:
No this thread is about this guy not Obama you are trying to hijack the thread. Don't forget that millions of Americans do not think Obama has doen anythign ilelgal but that Bush shoudl be behind bars along with Cheney. In other words you are trying to bring national politics into a municipal dispute.
Click to expand...
If it is reasonable to put a man in jail for two months for building code violations why not, at a minimum, toss out the president for ignoring the courts and for not enforcing the nation's laws?
 
I think we need a new "rule" for when threads go full on anti-Obama.

Like using Hitler "Godwin's" a thread...
 
Misterveritis said:
Fines should have been sufficient. If safety was a factor did they shut down his right to hold meetings until he proved he complied?

I had the county come out to inspect my house. They would not let me move in until I put up railings. I spent more than a thousand dollars to comply so I could move in. The inspector did not care that in the next week we were going to have large bushes put in. We tore everything out and put in the bushes as planned after we received approval to move in.

The inspector said babies could fall off the ledge and die. I was 55 at the time. The house is more than 200 feet off the street. There were not only no babies there were no young children. But a bureaucrat is, first and foremost, a bureaucrat.
Click to expand...

I agree fines should have been enough, Only this guy ignored the fines and refused to comply. When dealing with reasonable people reasonable methods usually work. This guy was not trying to be reasonable. How many times do they fine someone who refuses to pay or change his ways before you take it to another level? What would that level be?
 
Misterveritis said:
If jail time is good ffor this private citizen because he "ignored" the law then why not for the chief law enforcement officer? Just tell me that.
Click to expand...


Like anyone believes you'd be as lenient in opinion if he were arrested after a public morning Muslim call to prayer.
 
Well to me - the fact that the guy, which his bible group members called "Pastor" was being "dishonest" about what was going on. He was operating a church. Soooo, the religious guy, who is called "pastor" apparently hasn't been doing sermons on "lying".
 
The government has already given Salman every break and his arrest and criminal record via police and courts proves he actions were illegal and repetitious.

"Rev" Michael Salman doesn't even have a degree from any major seminary. He has been arrested and found guilty of numerous offenses including hindering traffic, criminal conspiracy, and numerous other criminal charges, plus investigated repeatedly for his personal affiliations with organizations considered terrorist and anarchical organizations. That he protests government as shown on his website isn't any defense and rather just confirms he is an unstable radical nutcase.

Obviously Rev. Salman is a fraud, a deliberate trouble-maker, refuses to comply with law, causes many problems for other people and he refuses to learn.

So it is entirely appropriate to:
1.) impose fines so great that he loses his house where he organizes his activities.
2.) Certainly jailing him for 6 months is appropriate and
3.) then putting him on years of probation allows the government to control and monitor all his movements and activities.

He was given every opportunity to change, be social and get along with people plus follow the rules. Since lesser arrests and punishments failed, such strict punitive and control measures are appropriate and he has no basis to complain. He is clearly a dangerous malcontent, refuses to comply with law and should live with the same rules everyone else does. Since he absolutely won't, the harsh economic, imprisonment and government control and monitoring of him actions against him are reasonable and necessary.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
The government has already given Salman every break and his arrest and criminal record via police and courts proves he actions were illegal and repetitious.

"Rev" Michael Salman doesn't even have a degree from any major seminary. He has been arrested and found guilty of numerous offenses including hindering traffic, criminal conspiracy, and numerous other criminal charges, plus investigated repeatedly for his personal affiliations with organizations considered terrorist and anarchical organizations. That he protests government as shown on his website isn't any defense and rather just confirms he is an unstable radical nutcase.

Obviously Rev. Salman is a fraud, a deliberate trouble-maker, refuses to comply with law, causes many problems for other people and he refuses to learn.

So it is entirely appropriate to:
1.) impose fines so great that he loses his house where he organizes his activities.
2.) Certainly jailing him for 6 months is appropriate and
3.) then putting him on years of probation allows the government to control and monitor all his movements and activities.

He was given every opportunity to change, be social and get along with people plus follow the rules. Since lesser arrests and punishments failed, such strict punitive and control measures are appropriate and he has no basis to complain. He is clearly a dangerous malcontent, refuses to comply with law and should live with the same rules everyone else does. Since he absolutely won't, the actions against him are reasonable and necessary.
Click to expand...


^ Sorry, sorry, MY BAD!
I got that completely wrong and mixed up. Wrong fake minister criminal troublemaker. That’s not Michael Salman's criminal arrest record, it’s the record of that fake minister, radical criminal and dangerous social malcontent Martin Luther King Jr that the same-mentality middle class white people so hated and hated his gatherings. Obviously he should - and was - arrested for hindering people and traffic, plus all his other criminal activities. Unfortunately, the government was too weak back then to actually take total control and monitoring of his life nor lengthy imprisonments and controlling probation for years to completely get a controlling lease on MLK Jr.

The government, local or federal, stomping down MLK Jr and throwing away the key would be no problem today and most folks of this forum would jump and cheer for joy over it. Afterall, he was a proven criminal. Worse, the marches and rallies slowed down traffic. INTOLERABLE!

The government’s tactic now is to TRASH a person’s reputation to justify any thuggery and raw power the government then wishes to dump on someone they want to get. Unfortunately, most people have a vigilante’ personality and cheer right along with the trashing. And with this the government now does anything it wants to anyone that anyone in government doesn't like or agree with. Controlling behavior and thought is what government now exists for, that and perpetual increases in power against people.

This all is one of the uncountable examples of how so many urban and suburbanite white middle class people - whether they call themselves Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal or progressive - are petty, need-to-get-a-life little assholes that probably would benefit from getting slugged in the mouth to give them a grasp of reality and perspective - and so they actually have something to bitch and whine about.

Cheering fining someone thousands and thousands of dollars, dozens of criminal charges, jail and probation for years, because people coming to his house park in front of your house a couple hours a couple days a week and his door is too narrow? "You people" are really sick.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
^ Sorry, sorry, MY BAD!
I got that completely wrong and mixed up. Wrong fake minister criminal troublemaker. That’s not Michael Salman's criminal arrest record, it’s the record of that fake minister, radical criminal and dangerous social malcontent Martin Luther King Jr that the same-mentality middle class white people so hated and hated his gatherings. Obviously he should - and was - arrested for hindering people and traffic, plus all his other criminal activities. Unfortunately, the government was too weak back then to actually take total control and monitoring of his life nor lengthy imprisonments and controlling probation for years to completely get a controlling lease on MLK Jr.

The government, local or federal, stomping down MLK Jr and throwing away the key would be no problem today and most folks of this forum would jump and cheer for joy over it. Afterall, he was a proven criminal. Worse, the marches and rallies slowed down traffic. INTOLERABLE!

The government’s tactic now is to TRASH a person’s reputation to justify any thuggery and raw power the government then wishes to dump on someone they want to get. Unfortunately, most people have a vigilante’ personality and cheer right along with the trashing. And with this the government now does anything it wants to anyone that anyone in government doesn't like or agree with. Controlling behavior and thought is what government now exists for, that and perpetual increases in power against people.

This all is one of the uncountable examples of how so many urban and suburbanite white middle class people - whether they call themselves Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal or progressive - are petty, need-to-get-a-life little assholes that probably would benefit from getting slugged in the mouth to give them a grasp of reality and perspective - and so they actually have something to bitch and whine about.

Cheering fining someone thousands and thousands of dollars, dozens of criminal charges, jail and probation for years, because people coming to his house park in front of your house a couple hours a couple days a week and his door is too narrow? "You people" are really sick.
Click to expand...

It was very dishonest of you to claim that your description fits MLK, but I guess that dishonesty is what people with no argument have to resort to when the facts don't support their position
 
sangha said:
It was very dishonest of you to claim that your description fits MLK, but I guess that dishonesty is what people with no argument have to resort to when the facts don't support their position
Click to expand...

That was local government's description of him.
 
Aberration said:
Everyone should ignore retarded codes that violate our rights.
Click to expand...
If you're suggesting "civil disobedience", I would agree that that is a legitimate form of protest... but only if you are also willing to pay the price for protesting. Being a martyr, so to speak.


joko104 said:
Your link explains why the government despises him. He politically involves.

You will not find the right to no one parking in front of your house in the Bill of Rights, but there are neighborhood control freak hotheads who go berserk if anyone does claiming they also own the street. Petty little people looking for something to rage about.
Click to expand...
OT, but I once parked on a street while visiting a friend, a couple doors down from said friend. A person came out of the house I was parking in front of. The exchange went something like this...

Them: "You can't park there."
Me: "What?"
Them: "You can't park there!" (voice slightly raised)
Me: "Why not?"
Them: "Because you're in front of my house and that's my spot."
Me: I looked at them, looked at my car, looked at them, looked at my car, turned back to them and said, "It's a public street.", and walked away.

They didn't say anything else and just glared at me. I was concerned that they may be some whack job and do something to my car, but they didn't.


tessaesque said:
If the zoning law says "You can't practice religion in any manner within your home or a residential area" that's a violation.

If the zoning law says, "You can't run a church out of a residence" that isn't a violation.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Good way to phrase it.


Somerville said:
Salman did try to run for a city council seat in the middle of all his fights with Phoenix - not successful
Click to expand...
How many votes did he get? 50? :lamo


Misterveritis said:
Sixty-seven zoning violations? That is unlikely. One of the articles I read said he did not have the right signs up, the exit doors were not big enough and he had insufficient fire suppression (sprinkler heads).
I do not believe city governments should ever be able to put someone in jail for building code violations.
Click to expand...
I agree, in principle, but this sounds like the guy pushed them to an extreme solution. What are they supposed to do in an extreme situation like this? Was the city supposed to be like a wimpy ineffective parent and say "Don't do that.", ad nauseum?

Now that I have learned more about the details than the original article said, I have come to the conclusion that... at least in this case... the city was more patient and lenient than they needed to be.
 
How many sprinkler heads and handcap parking signs and stalls do you have at your house?

Or where Obama went to House political parties when he campaigned?

Everyone without sprinkler head fire suppression systems and handicap parking places and signs may never have people over to their house, and if they do they MUST be arrested for endangering guests and violating the the rights of the handicapped.

Do YOU have the necessary size power-out exit signs at your house or apartment? If not, when do you plan to correct this criminal neglect and activity? Or are you committed to gross criminal conduct?

Sent to jail for not having sprinkler heads in his house for Bible studies. Sicko middle class white people hate-others immorality and government oppression.

I don't really think that is what the American Revolution was about....

"King George, for refusing to create and enforce residential anti-fire safety standards and necessary prison space for violators and other inaction of a weak King, we hereby declare our independence so we may self impose 1,000,000,000 pages of behavior regulations by 1,000,000 goverment officials including in the privacy of people's homes for the common good."

Yes, that's what it was about.
 
radcen said:
If you're suggesting "civil disobedience", I would agree that that is a legitimate form of protest... but only if you are also willing to pay the price for protesting. Being a martyr, so to speak.



OT, but I once parked on a street while visiting a friend, a couple doors down from said friend. A person came out of the house I was parking in front of. The exchange went something like this...

Them: "You can't park there."
Me: "What?"
Them: "You can't park there!" (voice slightly raised)
Me: "Why not?"
Them: "Because you're in front of my house and that's my spot."
Me: I looked at them, looked at my car, looked at them, looked at my car, turned back to them and said, "It's a public street.", and walked away.

They didn't say anything else and just glared at me. I was concerned that they may be some whack job and do something to my car, but they didn't.



Bingo. Good way to phrase it.



How many votes did he get? 50? :lamo



I agree, in principle, but this sounds like the guy pushed them to an extreme solution. What are they supposed to do in an extreme situation like this? Was the city supposed to be like a wimpy ineffective parent and say "Don't do that.", ad nauseum?

Now that I have learned more about the details than the original article said, I have come to the conclusion that... at least in this case... the city was more patient and lenient than they needed to be.
Click to expand...


You were lucky you weren't arrested for parking in front of his house. You must have a really weak and incompetent city government or police to let you get away with such outrageously intolerable and anti-social behavior.
 
joko104 said:
How many sprinkler heads and handcap parking signs and stalls do you have at your house?

Or where Obama went to House political parties when he campaigned?

Everyone without sprinkler head fire suppression systems and handicap parking places and signs may never have people over to their house, and if they do they MUST be arrested for endangering guests and violating the the rights of the handicapped.

Do YOU have the necessary size power-out exit signs at your house or apartment? If not, when do you plan to correct this criminal neglect and activity? Or are you committed to gross criminal conduct?

Sent to jail for not having sprinkler heads in his house for Bible studies. Sicko middle class white people hate-others immorality and government oppression.

I don't really think that is what the American Revolution was about....

"King George, for refusing to create and enforce residential anti-fire safety standards and necessary prison space for violators and other inaction of a weak King, we hereby declare our independence so we may self impose 1,000,000,000 pages of behavior regulations by 1,000,000 goverment officials including in the privacy of people's homes for the common good."

Yes, that's what it was about.
Click to expand...

This guys house is titled to his church. The meetings in question were taking place 1-3 times a week with 40-70 people in attendance. They were being held in a building that was permitted for a garage without electrical, or plumbing. The proper building codes were not followed for a church. ALL churches have to follow building code, and zoning requirements.
 
joko104 said:
How many sprinkler heads and handcap parking signs and stalls do you have at your house?

Or where Obama went to House political parties when he campaigned?

Everyone without sprinkler head fire suppression systems and handicap parking places and signs may never have people over to their house, and if they do they MUST be arrested for endangering guests and violating the the rights of the handicapped.

Do YOU have the necessary size power-out exit signs at your house or apartment? If not, when do you plan to correct this criminal neglect and activity? Or are you committed to gross criminal conduct?

Sent to jail for not having sprinkler heads in his house for Bible studies. Sicko middle class white people hate-others immorality and government oppression.

I don't really think that is what the American Revolution was about....

"King George, for refusing to create and enforce residential anti-fire safety standards and necessary prison space for violators and other inaction of a weak King, we hereby declare our independence so we may self impose 1,000,000,000 pages of behavior regulations by 1,000,000 goverment officials including in the privacy of people's homes for the common good."

Yes, that's what it was about.
Click to expand...

I was on the fence at first but this guy clearly is trying to be a jerk and disobeying/disrespecing every rule and everyone
I don't think your sprinkler analogy holds.
Here is a better example:
Guy opens a daycare in his home, without proper permits/zoning. Refuses to build a fence around home to keep kids in, refuses to have guardrail on balcony to keep kids from fallign/getting injured. Refuses to add a 2nd entrance to said daycare to avoid problems from fire etc. I could go on. Town cites him repeatedly, fines him, brings him to court. He refuses to follow the law or pay fines. What should the town do? Again not sure if jail was best option but I can't think of anything else other than repossesing his house that would have any effect on him.
 
radcen said:
OT, but I once parked on a street while visiting a friend, a couple doors down from said friend. A person came out of the house I was parking in front of. The exchange went something like this...

Them: "You can't park there."
Me: "What?"
Them: "You can't park there!" (voice slightly raised)
Me: "Why not?"
Them: "Because you're in front of my house and that's my spot."
Me: I looked at them, looked at my car, looked at them, looked at my car, turned back to them and said, "It's a public street.", and walked away.

They didn't say anything else and just glared at me. I was concerned that they may be some whack job and do something to my car, but they didn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the street isn't owned by any individual, it's owned by the local government and they set the rules for it. One car, it's not a problem and there is likely nothing the government would do. If you have maybe 50 cars instead once a week every week clogging the street; then the government may have something to say about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom