Home Scripture study groups require permit?

[prisonchaplain]

Apparently so, in California. I grew up hearing stories of Chinese and Russian Christians holding secret meetings in homes, because the church was persecuted. Apparently, we're beginning to see the reverse here...

California couple fined $300 for holding home Bible study - Beliefnet News

[Jennarator]

We didn't really "study" the BoM, but I used to go to a group of friends that used to read the BoM every Sunday, in San Diego. I wonder if we should have been fined?

[pam]

I can kind of understand the Sunday meetings, but to have a few friends over just to discuss the Bible? That seems a bit over the top to me.

[NeuroTypical]

City officials in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. say Chuck and Stephanie Fromm are in violation of municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit. Stephanie hosts a Wednesday Bible study that draws about 20 attendees, and Chuck holds a Sunday service that gets about 50.

I'm thinking this isn't about religion or Christianity or faith. It's about having 50 people over at your house on a weekly basis.

I mean, I'm hardly the world's biggest supporter of zoning laws or HOA policies or what have you. But I'd have a big issue if my neighbor had 50 people over once a week, regardless of the reason. Poker game, gardening club, astronomy night, etc - I'd have a problem with that.

[Traveler]

The city of San Juan Capistrano may be in big trouble. It is my understanding that freedom of assembly is part of our guaranteed rights:

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 Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I'm thinking this isn't about religion or Christianity or faith. It's about having 50 people over at your house on a weekly basis.

I mean, I'm hardly the world's biggest supporter of zoning laws or HOA policies or what have you. But I'd have a big issue if my neighbor had 50 people over once a week, regardless of the reason. Poker game, gardening club, astronomy night, etc - I'd have a problem with that.

Except that the location is spread out, with barns, and big homes that are not near each other. The article specifically said that this was not about noise or parking, but about one disgruntled neighbor. We only get one side in the article, but like Traveler, I think we're either missing a big piece of this puzzle or the city has overstepped its bounds in a constitutionally significant way.

[prisonchaplain]

I was hoping this article was a resolution to the issue: CA County Apologizes for Citing Home Bible Study

But alas, it's date June 2009. Seems the Peoples Republic of California marches ever further towards secularism...

[Just_A_Guy]

Madeya look.

[NeuroTypical]

Except that the location is spread out, with barns, and big homes that are not near each other. The article specifically said that this was not about noise or parking, but about one disgruntled neighbor.

All my neighbors and I have at least 5 acres. 50 per week is too much. It's a neighborhood. If there's a permit process, then follow the permit process. If the zoning/hoa/whatever says not in that neighborhood, then change the zoning/hoa/whatever.

I felt the same way when an LDS couple moved to a new area, got involved in the (non-lds and very faith-baseed) scouting program, became part of the leadership, and then told everyone they were LDS. Then they got all mad when they got kicked out. A simple trip to the church website indicated it was a train wreck waiting to happen, but the LDS couple either didn't bother to learn, or figured the rules didn't apply to them.

Again - chess club, wine tasters, little-old-lady coffee klatch, local chapter of the "cute cartoon puppy drawers of America" - one disgruntled neighbor = 50 in a residential neighborhood is too much.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm sure glad that this kind of mentality did not reign when I was conducting Bible studies out of my apartment in South Korea. Hmmm...maybe Asians are more tolerant of religious meetings than we are...goodness, I had 40 college kids in a 3-bedroom apartment, and nevery a single complaint.

Ah well...this is America...land of the free.

[beefche]

All my neighbors and I have at least 5 acres. 50 per week is too much. It's a neighborhood. If there's a permit process, then follow the permit process. If the zoning/hoa/whatever says not in that neighborhood, then change the zoning/hoa/whatever.

I felt the same way when an LDS couple moved to a new area, got involved in the (non-lds and very faith-baseed) scouting program, became part of the leadership, and then told everyone they were LDS. Then they got all mad when they got kicked out. A simple trip to the church website indicated it was a train wreck waiting to happen, but the LDS couple either didn't bother to learn, or figured the rules didn't apply to them.

Again - chess club, wine tasters, little-old-lady coffee klatch, local chapter of the "cute cartoon puppy drawers of America" - one disgruntled neighbor = 50 in a residential neighborhood is too much.

First, why is 50 too much if one has a large house in the middle of 5 acres? How is that disturbing to the neighbor? Loud music? Understandable. Shooting off fireworks? Understandable. Reading/discussing a book? Not understandable.

Second, about your example of the LDS people in scouting--why was telling the others in the scouting program they were LDS bad? Did they try to change the program? Were they actively and rudely trying to convert people? Or was it part of a conversation that hey, we're Mormons? If the latter, why was that wrong?

[HoosierGuy]

The link has a brief story and a link to more of the story that takes you to Glenn Becks site. I punched the story in Google and nearly all the first page results were from right wing sites. I'm thinking this is just another small non-story that conservatives use to get people hateful and angry.

[prisonchaplain]

The link has a brief story and a link to more of the story that takes you to Glenn Becks site. I punched the story in Google and nearly all the first page results were from right wing sites. I'm thinking this is just another small non-story that conservatives use to get people hateful and angry.

Who are we hating?

I'm angry that local government is so hostile towards a clearly non-disruptive religious gathering.

By the way, is this really just a conservative issue? I would think progressive, free-thinkers would be troubled by governments interfering with small group meetings.

[FunkyTown]

The link has a brief story and a link to more of the story that takes you to Glenn Becks site. I punched the story in Google and nearly all the first page results were from right wing sites. I'm thinking this is just another small non-story that conservatives use to get people hateful and angry.

What do you classify as 'Right wing'? I punched this in, went to 'News' and saw Beliefnet was the number one hit on this.

I'm more than willing to listen to you, Hoosier. Can you prove that this event didn't happen, or that it didn't happen in the way that these sites are saying?

[MarginOfError]

I'm actually with the city on this one. Permits exist for a reason, and it seems to be well established that the government can place certain requirements on freedom of assembly. For instance, they can designate where a group may assemble. As an example, when a Democratic Convention comes to town at venue A, the city will permit a pro-life group to have a protest at venue B. They won't let venue A and venue B be too close to lower the probability of violence erupting.

There are also fire codes to consider. A residence doesn't have sufficient exits or fire code standards for 50 people. If a fire were to occur, more people would be hurt, and more firefighters would have to risk their own lives to rescue people caught inside.

You also have to consider parking, being fair to the neighbors, etc.

As a whole, I think governments and neighbors tend to be pretty tolerant of such activity. Christmas parties might often have 30 or 40 people, which is well above fire code standards, but the government doesn't step in because it's such an infrequent occurrence. We have photography groups, book clubs, etc in my ward, and the neighbors don't complain because a) it's once a month, and b) we rotate houses. (they also tend to range from 6 - 12 people, but that still takes a significant chunk of curbside parking).

The problem I see is that twice a week, these people were sucking up a lot of community resources and expecting the fire department to come bail them out if something were to happen. If they want access to such resources, I think it's fair of the city to require a permit of them and to obey local zoning laws.

[MarginOfError]

Second, about your example of the LDS people in scouting--why was telling the others in the scouting program they were LDS bad? Did they try to change the program? Were they actively and rudely trying to convert people? Or was it part of a conversation that hey, we're Mormons? If the latter, why was that wrong?

I remember the story, although am not taking the time to look up references. What happened was the family joined up with a [i believe] Methodist sponsored troop (it might have been a Cub pack). The church happened to be quite evangelical and had written into their by laws that only people who fit their religious standard could be leaders in the unit (don't complain, the LDS Church has a similar stipulation).

The LDS family in question wasn't trying to be sneaky. They just didn't consider their religion as an issue and started attending. Several months later, their choice of religion came up in conversation and the congregation decided that they didn't want mormons in leadership in the troop. I think Loudmouth is just trying to say that they can't really complain too much for not asking about leadership requirements nor to the culture of the congregation before joining.

I'm in a situation where something similar could happen, actually. While most of the families belonging to the troop know that I'm LDS, we downplay my religion toward the congregation a little bit. We suspect it wouldn't be an issue at all, but we don't want to take the chance of being mistaken.

And for the record, if my sponsoring unit were to ask me to discontinue my participation on the basis of my religion, I would be hurt, but I would immediately respect their wishes without complaint.

[NeuroTypical]

First, why is 50 too much if one has a large house in the middle of 5 acres? How is that disturbing to the neighbor?

My biggest concern would be traffic - those 50 have to get there and leave there somehow. We can let our kids have the run of the neighborhood and play in the street when 2 cars go by in an hour - not when 20 go by. It wrecks a big reason we moved there on a weekly basis.

Noise and lights would also be concerns - yes, even on 5 acre lots. It's not the "quiet seclusion of country living" we purchased - it's "quiet seclusion of country living except for Wednesday and Saturday evenings when there's something big happening at the neighbor's".

Again (for the third time) - there is a permit process. Go get the dang permit - that will shut up the neighbor, or at least take away their grounds for complaining.

Second, about your example of the LDS people in scouting--why was telling the others in the scouting program they were LDS bad?

The scouting program was more than just run through a religious organization. It was the evangelical outreach portion of that church for boys. I've lost the story and links, but the basic intent was along the lines of "have your boys join our troop, and we'll train them up correctly in the [Nazarite/Baptist/Lutheran/I forget] tradition."

Did they try to change the program?

Yes - they were Mormons in leadership positions. The program promised leaders with a very particular religous faith doing constant youth outreach. It was not like an LDS boy scout troop - it was more like an LDS Priest's quorum that wore uniforms and did service. It would be like a new familly moving in, the dad becomes Priest quorum advisor, and then says "oh, by the way, we're Baptists - that's not a problem is it?"

Basically, the bible study story infringes on people's property rights, and my 2nd example was an issue with people's rights to assemble and associate with whom they please.

[Gwen]

It's a fine line. Though I don't think anyone should care if they are not creating undue noise or parking problems, and it's an informal group. here you can have homes that have that many over every week for football games - noise and parking issues. I think you should be able to have who ever you want at your house.

At the same time there are zoning laws and permit laws for a reason and the rules are the rules.

Now if this couple is claiming to be a church (rather than an informal group) and that is the location of their church "building" that's another story. If they went as far as to try and deduct their home on taxes as their church location I would be upset about that also. If you are a church and have 50+ followers rent a building, get your permits, and hold your meetings.

[Blackmarch]

Apparently so, in California. I grew up hearing stories of Chinese and Russian Christians holding secret meetings in homes, because the church was persecuted. Apparently, we're beginning to see the reverse here...

California couple fined $300 for holding home Bible study - Beliefnet News

sounds like some atomic wedgies need to be broken out.

[HoosierGuy]

What do you classify as 'Right wing'? I punched this in, went to 'News' and saw Beliefnet was the number one hit on this.

I'm more than willing to listen to you, Hoosier. Can you prove that this event didn't happen, or that it didn't happen in the way that these sites are saying?

Oh, It might have happened. I'm not saying it didn't. But it's a typical "blow up" story that the right wing uses to try to get their people angry and go against the liberals/progressives.

They can't cry much anyway - they are living in one of those communities that has those draconian laws, all to keep their home prices high.

[Spartan117]

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Not that it matters, but this is mentioned first, before the freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. That fine is wholly unconstitutional and personally offensive.

[NeuroTypical]

The constitution binds the federal government only. Congress didn't make any law here. States, counties, parrishes, cities, towns, municipalities - all of them get to decide how they run their areas.

Not only do they get to - they have a duty to. So the next time someone tries to start the "church of applying massage oil to naked businessman" in your neighborhood, the local cops come and arrest everyone.

[Yes, things like this happen. No, I don't have a link - just news from my relative in Albuquerque.]

[Spartan117]

The constitution binds the federal government only. Congress didn't make any law here. States, counties, parrishes, cities, towns, municipalities - all of them get to decide how they run their areas.

They sure do, and if any of those state laws take away constitutional rights then those state laws are as valid as monopoly money.

Not only do they get to - they have a duty to

.

That is entirely incorrect. No state can pass a law that infringes upon constitutional rights. Under the doctrine of Incorporation, the first amendment has been made applicable to the states. States can govern themselves, but they couldn't reinstate slavery right? The same reason they can't is the same reason why they can't make laws that infringe upon the first amendment. California needs a reality check.

[bytor2112]

Oh, It might have happened. I'm not saying it didn't. But it's a typical "blow up" story that the right wing uses to try to get their people angry and go against the liberals/progressives.

They can't cry much anyway - they are living in one of those communities that has those draconian laws, all to keep their home prices high.

Yeah...you tell em....course the left NEVER does that:rolleyes: You whine so much and see everything as so unfair. Stiffen up man and go out and take advantage of the Land of opportunity. Quit being envious and jealous and go out and prove YOUR worth and make your mark in the world, instead of whining about others that have succeeded because they have exercised a bit of sweat equity.

[Dravin]

The constitution binds the federal government only.

Not quite:

Article 1

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

AMENDMENT XV

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XIX

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXIV

Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXVI

Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

That's just a quick search, I'm sure there are other places where the US Constitution binds the States though, as noted in the 10th Amendment, the States have broader powers but that isn't the same as the US Constitution not being binding on the States.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Dravin