• 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

Billy the Kid said:
I'm saying the guy knew the rules and yet he chose to break them. He must have known the penalty and evidently expected to pay the penalty. IMO, he did this as a religious protest. He has the right to do so, whether you or I think it's okay or not. No I can not say with authority his parishioners knew or didn't know about the code violations, nor can you, but I would think if they were members then they probably knew the rules/conditions.
Click to expand...

A religious protest against universally applicable zoning laws and building codes?
 
Billy the Kid said:
I'm saying the guy knew the rules and yet he chose to break them. He must have known the penalty and evidently expected to pay the penalty. IMO, he did this as a religious protest. He has the right to do so, whether you or I think it's okay or not.
Click to expand...

Now you're dishonestly denying that you were only referring to the pastor and that you did not say

He made a choice and evidently so did the others. Thus they all stood up for what they believed
Click to expand...

No I can not say with authority his parishioners knew or didn't know about the code violations, nor can you, but I would think if they were members then they probably knew the rules/conditions.
Click to expand...

Your post is so dishonest that you say you "can't say with authority" and then you dishonestly claim "they probably knew" even though you have absolutely no evidence to support it
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
Patrons are not legally liable for code violations at the facilities they patronize. It is absolutely asinine to suggest otherwise or somehow try to assume consent through silence.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

Of course your answer is going to confuse some people here! Logic just ****s some people up.


Congregant: Sylvia, I just love coming to worship at Mail Order "Reverend" Mike Salam's Backyard Tabernacle, but all the Fellowship Harvest Refreshments make me pee like a racehorse, and there aren't any bathrooms in Mail Order "Reverend" Mike Salam's Backyard Tabernacle.

Sylvia: Oh, you must be new. Everyone just stands behind the refreshment table in the back and pees into 1 gallon plastic jugs.

Congregant: Whut? :shock: I thought that was lemonade.
 
Billy the Kid said:
I'm saying the guy knew the rules and yet he chose to break them. He must have known the penalty and evidently expected to pay the penalty. IMO, he did this as a religious protest. He has the right to do so, whether you or I think it's okay or not. No I can not say with authority his parishioners knew or didn't know about the code violations, nor can you, but I would think if they were members then they probably knew the rules/conditions.
Click to expand...

Ah the right to break the law. This applies to human sacrifice too?
 
tessaesque said:
A religious protest against universally applicable zoning laws and building codes?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the guy was protesting against the zoning law, yes. He wanted to hold church and was told no because of the codes and did it anyway.
 
Billy the Kid said:
I'm thinking the guy was protesting against the zoning law, yes. He wanted to hold church and was told no because of the codes and did it anyway.
Click to expand...

That's not "protest". That's just breaking the law. And he wasn't told he couldn't run a church. He was told he couldn't run a church w/o meeting code.
 
tessaesque said:
That's not "protest". That's just breaking the law. And he wasn't told he couldn't run a church. He was told he couldn't run a church w/o meeting code.
Click to expand...

Well then the law will prevail. But I just can't see the benefit of 'just breaking the law" by doing this without some reason behind it.
 
Billy the Kid said:
Well then the law will prevail. But I just can't see the benefit of 'just breaking the law" by doing this without some reason behind it.
Click to expand...
You may not be able to understand it, but for most of us, it's pretty obvious why he's breaking the law
 
Billy the Kid said:
Well then the law will prevail. But I just can't see the benefit of 'just breaking the law" by doing this without some reason behind it.
Click to expand...

The cost of bringing the building up to code, and hire licensed electricians to do the work?
 
There should not be a cost associated with expressing your rights. And such costs are no different than poll taxes.
 
Aberration said:
There should not be a cost associated with expressing your rights. And such costs are no different than poll taxes.
Click to expand...

Building illegal and unsafe buildings are not rights.
 
tessaesque said:
Building illegal and unsafe buildings are not rights.
Click to expand...


Went back to re-read the article because I thought I'd missed a building ready to collapse.

These were the violations:

The charges that sent Salman to jail were a result of that raid – ranging from not posting exit lights above their doors – to not having handicap ramps or handicap parking.


And the reason sited for the beginning of the bug tussle was:

Salman’s incarceration is the result of a long-running feud between the ordained pastor and the city of Phoenix over weekly Bible studies that Salman and his wife hosted in their home. City officials determined that the weekly gatherings constituted a church – and therefore violated a number of code regulations.

I didn't see any mention about neighbors complaining about the group meeting. So it seems to have started with the "ordained pastor" complaining to the city about the "bible study" group meeting. Turf war?
 
Billy the Kid said:
Went back to re-read the article because I thought I'd missed a building ready to collapse.

These were the violations:

The charges that sent Salman to jail were a result of that raid – ranging from not posting exit lights above their doors – to not having handicap ramps or handicap parking.


And the reason sited for the beginning of the bug tussle was:

Salman’s incarceration is the result of a long-running feud between the ordained pastor and the city of Phoenix over weekly Bible studies that Salman and his wife hosted in their home. City officials determined that the weekly gatherings constituted a church – and therefore violated a number of code regulations.

I didn't see any mention about neighbors complaining about the group meeting. So it seems to have started with the "ordained pastor" complaining to the city about the "bible study" group meeting. Turf war?
Click to expand...

You've done a poor job of reading. The "ordained pastor" didn't complain to the city. The "ordained pastor" is Salman
 
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...

Nobody is stopping him from worshipping as he sees fit, they're just requiring him to follow the existing laws. If he'd just go build his church in a properly zoned spot, complete with building permits and inspections, nobody would bother him. The fact that he's trying to do it in his backyard and get around the law is the problem.

I am so sick and tired of religious zealots trying to turn this into a religious issue when it's anything but. Faith is not a "get out of jail" free card.
 
It seems some people really really want this to be about religion when it clearly isn`t. It is about a guy refusing to follow city codes.
 
tessaesque said:
That's not "protest". That's just breaking the law. And he wasn't told he couldn't run a church. He was told he couldn't run a church w/o meeting code.
Click to expand...

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.
 
American said:
Let me ask you, what's you general opinion of the founders?
Click to expand...

Some of them were fine men. Others were flawed individuals who embraced slavery with open arms. And that has precisely what to do with what?
 
Quag said:
It seems some people really really want this to be about religion when it clearly isn`t. It is about a guy refusing to follow city codes.
Click to expand...

Some people want this to be about codes, when it clearly isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom