Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Maybe we are the new China | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 1 2009, 03:26 PM (309 Views) | |
| Mr Gray | Jun 2 2009, 09:10 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Coach
|
a neighbor calling someone in for having a bible study says something about the mindset of the American people and their attitude towards religion, which is why it concerns me a little bit. Zoning laws don't really concern me that much, but I would think there could be some provision for small bible studies based on the 1st amendment. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| eelbor | Jun 2 2009, 09:27 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Zen Master
|
You are assuming the neighbor was calling because someone was having a bible study. Perhaps they were just calling because there were 15 cars parked in front of their house and they could not get out of their driveway or safely navigate the street in their car (week after week after week). Just because people are gathering to worship does not stop them from disregarding the property rights of others. I did not read the article, so forgive me if I missed something. It is hard to judge the neighbor without knowing all the minutiae of the case. I do think SD made the correct call dropping this. |
![]() "Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder. | |
![]() |
|
| thePhilosopher | Jun 2 2009, 10:14 AM Post #18 |
![]()
All-Star
|
I wouldn't have dragged religion into this legal debate if it wasn't a debate about the free practice of religion. B) The First Amendment would cover the house church on two fronts. The freedom of religion, as well as the ability to peaceably assemble. Ever since Marbury v. Madison, we've had a precedent in this country that Constitutional rights DO trump laws when the laws are not constitutional. Now, I have not seen the zoning law in question, but I have to say, if it includes small Bible studies in people's private residences, then it is unconstitutional. Just because a piddly county gov't sets up laws that say this and that is illegal does NOT mean what they are doing is constitutional. I think this is the case. Furthermore, "zoning" laws sort of piss me off, since you have to have a local govt's permission to protest in almost all cases nowadays. Think the founders would have went to the British in order to get a permit to protest? :sarcasm: I think your pro bono case is an interesting one. One thing I've thought of is that the idea of practicing Christianity in the privacy of your own home. This has, historically, been the case for Christians since the founding of the religion. So, in a way, Christians are practicing their religion with these small house churches perhaps in a way that is the most authentic to their religion. Just an interesting wrinkle to me, I'm not sure how helpful it is to everyone's thinking on this issue. |
| |
![]() |
|
| BoilerUpAT | Jun 2 2009, 10:44 AM Post #19 |
![]()
The Inspector
|
Church of Fudge????????? |
|
Close by the Wabash, In famed Hoosier land, Stands old Purdue, Serene and Grand, Cherished in Memory, By all her sons and daughters true, Fair Alma Mater, All Hail Purdue | |
![]() |
|
| hoosierinhogville | Jun 2 2009, 11:05 AM Post #20 |
|
Coach
|
How do you define "free practice of religion"? To me it is a fine line. No one was saying the guy couldn't read his bible, or pray, or anything like that. They weren't even saying that he couldn't have the Bible study. So in no way does this make us like China where Christians had to meet in secret for fear of imprisonment or execution. Personally, i think if you wanted to bring the Constitution into this you would have a much better argument with your freedom to peaceably assemble angle. Also, three small notes on this subject. 1. There was a case pretty much exactly like this a few months back - don't remember where at, but it made national news. There was one significant difference though. The people were getting together for regular swinger parties not Bible study. They were ordered to stop based on similar zoning/regulatory statutes that the Bible study group was being stopped under. I don't remember anyone being up in arms about the swingers losing their right to peaceably assemble. 2. I wonder if this would have even been brought up if say these people were Muslims studying the Koran. 3. Marbury v. Madison established the concept of judicial review - well it didn't really, it just put it in writing. I am not sure that has to do with this case. Edited by hoosierinhogville, Jun 2 2009, 11:06 AM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jun 2 2009, 12:38 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Coach
|
Most certainly not. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Jun 2 2009, 12:40 PM Post #22 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
This thread could also be about The Messiah wanting to nationalize more businesses. |
| |
![]() |
|
| thePhilosopher | Jun 2 2009, 02:06 PM Post #23 |
![]()
All-Star
|
I didn't say this DID make us like China, I didn't title the thread that. I did say this is concerning, which it should be for everyone else. I did say a few things about the freedom to peaceably assemble, which I think is the ace in the hole. However, there have been concerning permit/zoning issues in cities where if you want to pick your nose with a group of people, you need a permit to do so. My point was just that, if I were the defense in this case, I'd try my best to make this a Constitutional issue. I brought up Marbury v. Madison just as the first case (if memory serves correctly) of something declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I don't think this will get that far, but there is a very lengthy and historical precedent to consider certain laws unconstitutional. I brought that up in response to yawnzzz, whose position seems to be that this action by the local gov't was the correct one based on local laws. My point is that local laws, if they are unconstitutional or prevent someone from exercising their Constitutional freedoms, are illegitimate. |
| |
![]() |
|
| yawnzzz | Jun 2 2009, 07:33 PM Post #24 |
|
Coach
|
Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) A unanimous Supreme Court upheld a local (Manchester) ordinance that required every parade or procession on a public street to obtain a license for a fee. Jehovah's Witnesses had brought the suit alleging that the city of Manchester had denied their religious freedom. The court was clear that ordinance had to be reasonable and designed for the safe and orderly use of the streets. So again, how does the 1st Amendment trump reasonable ordinances? |
![]() |
|
| thePhilosopher | Jun 2 2009, 07:54 PM Post #25 |
![]()
All-Star
|
One major point of difference: Cox v. New Hampshire seems to deal with activity in public and on a town's street. Now, I'm not crazy about permits and such for peaceable assemblies, but whatever. From the little I just read on this, I think this is a bad ruling. We don't need to get into that, necessarily. In the case in question, someone is gathering people in their own home, for no commercial purpose, in order to participate in their religion as they see fit. Your case that you bring up is practicing their religion in a public way that involves marching down the street. Worlds of difference. This is a very different sort of exercise of the First Amendment, one that takes place in the privacy of one's own home. It comes down to this: either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, or it isn't. If it isn't, we're all screwed. |
| |
![]() |
|
| yawnzzz | Jun 2 2009, 08:13 PM Post #26 |
|
Coach
|
Again, you're not looking at the real cause and involving religion where it doesn't need to be. "The court was clear that ordinance had to be reasonable and designed for the safe and orderly use of the streets." The government got involved because of complaints about cars... now where were they? On a public street. |
![]() |
|
| thePhilosopher | Jun 2 2009, 08:28 PM Post #27 |
![]()
All-Star
|
Here's an update on the situation. Even the local gov't thinks this was wrong: "A suburban California couple who has been hosting a weekly Bible study in their home has been given the green light to continue the meetings after earlier being ordered by San Diego County officials to stop the gatherings or seek a costly conditional use permit." I'm involving religion? Actually, the officer on the scene did: "Broyles said the officer asked Mary Jones several questions, including if the group prays or uses the words 'amen' and 'praise the Lord.' Jones answered yes." And an interesting point from the attorney associated with the Bible study group: “If the county was not targeting religious activity per se, it would presumably have to forbid any and all secular events where friends and neighbors are invited to a resident’s home on a regular basis, including, but not limited to in-home poker games, book club meetings, Monday night football parties, girl and boy scout meeting, Tupperware parties, Bunco nights, bridge clubs, etc,” the attorney wrote. |
| |
![]() |
|
| yawnzzz | Jun 2 2009, 09:18 PM Post #28 |
|
Coach
|
That was in my second post yesterday afternoon: "In a late-breaking development, Jones' attorney Dean Broyles said he received a call from an assistant counsel for the county, who told him the county is withdrawing its citation." I've said that I agree with their stance, and the officers should have used discretion in this case in a previous post as well. I've also explained why an officer would ask questions in regards to religion in the same capacity that they would for any other nonprofit. Now that doesn't mean the government is relenting their legal rights because their statements are clearly not doing that. They're avoiding a PR nightmare by using discretion and choosing not to pursue action. I'd love to see the attorney sue the government to see what comes of it because he's making some pretty broad statements that I think a decent defense attorney would tear to shreds. |
![]() |
|
| thePhilosopher | Jun 2 2009, 09:29 PM Post #29 |
![]()
All-Star
|
Sorry I missed that in your second post, yawnzzz. I think you've made really good points in this thread, btw. I do agree with you that the locals are dropping this to save face. I don't think they're afraid of further legal action. However, I do think an interesting First Amendment case can be made here, which I've attempted to put together, albeit probably poorly. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jun 2 2009, 09:35 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Coach
|
phil, I think your constitutional case was put together well, and would most likely hold up in court. Interestingly enough, for as much as we here people complain about things being unconstitutional, rarely does someone take it to task. In Fort Wayne, I just learned that there hasn't been a constitutional dispute since 1987, and it isn't like this is Mayberry. We are the 2nd largest city in Indiana with 225,000 people, and 300,000 in the county. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:45 PM Jul 10
|














7:45 PM Jul 10