Home Scripture study groups require permit?

[Gwen]

Telling someone "you can't do this here" is not the same as telling them they "can't do this at all, anywhere". Residential neighborhoods are just that. Saying you can't have a church in your home does not mean you can't have a church. Follow the rules and have your church. There is no infringement on religion by having zoning laws, ordinances, or requiring permits.

If you don't like the rules go through the proper channels to change them.

I would like to say for the record I don't agree with the ordinance. I think a person's home is their home. If it's a structured church and not an informal gathering it changes things but if friends get together then more power to them. They should not have to get a permit to have friends over. But rules are rules and they chose to live in an area with insane ordinances. So follow them or follow the rules to change them. Don't complain when you break the rules and then get caught and have the fines associated with breaking them.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Gwen

[Guest]

I am the youngest of 9 children. We're all married, all have at least 3 kids, and now the oldest siblings' kids are starting to get married and have their own. When we all get together, there are well over 60 of us. My parents and my oldest brother share a 4 acre piece of land that used to be way out in the country, but is starting to be surrounded by developments (probably even the new temple in Meridian, but that's another thread). In the summer, we try to meet there every Sunday to roast hot dogs, play guitars, sing around the fire, let the kids play together, etc. It never ever would have occurred to me that we might need a permit to do what other families do all the time, just because there are a lot of us. There is plenty of parking right on the lot and yes, there is traffic as we come and go, but a permit? Really?

I think this is infringing on rights. People should be able to peacefully gather and study the Bible or whatever.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I agree with MOE. In this case, I think it's about the fact they are holding REGULAR meetings. They are using their residential home as a Church building. And yes, as Moe says, this creates traffic and parking headaches in the neighborhood. Plus, the numbers are rather large. As a one time thing, I probably wouldn't worry about it, but if my neighbour was doing this all the time, my driveway blocked, my kids unable to play in the street because their balls will damange all the cars parked everywhere, it would bother me.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

I'll meet you half way. Common sense does seem to indicate that 50 people gathering weekly in a home could call for permitting. 20 people for a Bible study in an area with fairly sparse housing??? That seems excessive. And again, I'm a bit sensitive, because these are religious meetings, and gathering in homes is the common fall back for Christians in persecuted lands.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

In this instance, perhaps it's you that needs to let go of the hate. You discover that Beck also covered the issue, and so it's a non-starter for you. Frankly, this has nothing to do with right/left/middle, or even libertarian. It's the perceived anti-religious bent, as well the over-reaching control government seems to be exercising over informal house gatherings that is bothersome.

[MarginOfError]

I'll meet you half way. Common sense does seem to indicate that 50 people gathering weekly in a home could call for permitting. 20 people for a Bible study in an area with fairly sparse housing??? That seems excessive. And again, I'm a bit sensitive, because these are religious meetings, and gathering in homes is the common fall back for Christians in persecuted lands.

I think that's a fair place to meet. Especially since if they weren't doing to 50 person meeting on Sundays, the 20 person meetings might not be so irritating. As is common with people, I think the neighborhood is more aware of the 20 person meetings because they're already put off be the larger one.

I'd also be willing to mark a compromise that they could have as many meetings as they wanted if they'd sign something stating that police did not have to respond on behalf of participants of their meetings or investigate automobile theft or damages to attendees; and that the fire department need not respond to an emergency at the address. Yeah, I'm evil like that.

[NeuroTypical]

I'll meet you half way. Common sense does seem to indicate that 50 people gathering weekly in a home could call for permitting. 20 people for a Bible study in an area with fairly sparse housing???

I can work with that.

And absolutely - I'm aware also of how Christian groups are persecuted and unjust laws are leveled against them in various places around the globe. We LDS tend to work totally above-board and just work on changing attitudes in the government before we'll go into a country. I can find things to respect about groups that smuggle bibles and hold undercover church and such.

[RescueMom]

Had they followed the zoning laws set by their local government, this would be a non-issue. But they didn't. And now a neighbor is mad. See it all the time where I work....one mad neighbor can cause quite a problem. It's a matter of everyone's rights. People seem to be saying those who are having the meetings are having their rights trampled...but what about the neighbors rights? It's a double edged sword, the majority can not trample the rights of the minority and vice versa. Again all of this could be avoided if the zoning laws were followed (it's exactly what the LDS church does do, follows the local laws...i.e. see the new Temple in the Phoenix area). And if the people holding the bible study and church services did not like the zoning laws, go about changing them. It might take a while to get them changed or not, but follow the rules, do it right and make sure all the t's are crossed and i's dotted, especially if it's a Christian group. We have to set the example, do the work twice as good and be twice as up front and honest, simple as that...and be willing to be punished for it. Being a real Christian is never easy, never has been and if we think the rest of the world is going to cut a slack we are mistaken.

[prisonchaplain]

Rescue, I have a couple of difficulties. First, who'd a thunk you needed a permit to have a Bible study in your home? Again, this isn't the former Soviet Union. The idea smells of Communism. Then, to be told that the permitting process is cumbersome and expensive. In other words, "Okay, you can have your pesky little First Amendment-protected religious gathering--but...IT'LL COST YOU BIG TIME!!!

Again, the fact that it's 50 people gathering weekly tells me that, yes, they should get approved. That's a signficant size, so can hardly be justified as a few friends informally getting together occasionally.

However, this started as a 20-something gathering of friends to study the Bible. Hey, 20? That's like 4-5 families.

So, that's the point of the string...what has our country come to when you have to register and pay to have a moderate Bible study in your home? And again, I agree, that a weekly meeting of 50 would cross the threshold of informal gatherings.

Loudmouth alluded to how some Christians send workers and smuggle Bibles in places where they are not legal. LDS don't do that. We do. My understanding of the New Testament is that our founders did too.

[Gwen]

Is there any evidence this action is being taken because it's a church group? Would the response be the same were it some other group?

municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit.

According to this they would react the same way to any kind of group. I don't think this is an attack on religion. I think it's more about "how can we sap more money out of the ppl" If I want to start an epilepsy support group to meet in my home every week..... sure for a fee. Regular la leche league meetings.... sure for a fee. Bible study? sure... for a fee.

Now if an investigation is done and there is evidence they let some other group meet with no reaction but they attack this one.... then I will jump on the bandwagon of "attack on religion".

I maintain the ordinance is stupid and needs to be changed. Especially the number of more than 3 ppl. lol My family of 8 having FHE every week would be a violation of that code.

[prisonchaplain]

Gwen, I do not believe religion was intentionally targeted. Rather, a neighbor complained, which generated an investigation. What many of us believe is that the Constitution, and our country's founding values, should give religious gatherings like this a lot of leeway.

[Spartan117]

I maintain the ordinance is stupid and needs to be changed.

I still maintain this is a clear violation of the first amendment and is unconstitutional. I don't see how all of you have gotten past that, and I'm not trying to be difficult, I really mean that. States can not make laws that take away constitutional rights. What if you want to get a group of people who are all former employees of a company and you want to protest every Monday outside of that company? Can you only gather to protest X amount of times before you have to get a permit to protest? I get that the state can require a permit to operate a church in a residential neighborhood, zoning laws and such. Where exactly are the guidelines for what the state considers a church?

[Dravin]

I get that the state can require a permit to operate a church in a residential neighborhood, zoning laws and such. Where exactly are the guidelines for what the state considers a church?

What the state considers to be a church will be contained in the state code I imagine, it's available online if you want to search it: Find California Code

The thing is the people in the story were fined by the City of San Juan Capistrano so if you are curious about the legal definitions involved in this particular case you'd need to look there. The story gives the code they were fined under ( municipal code 9-3.301) but the definitions may not actually be defined in that section of the code (and may be defined in the state code). Anyway here is the municipal code for the city of San Juan Capistrano: City of San Juan Capistrano : Municipal Code

If you are going to delve into the codes I wish you good hunting.

I get that the state can require a permit to operate a church in a residential neighborhood, zoning laws and such.

Do you mean get as in understand? Or get as in accept? If the latter this disagrees with your statement that the happening is on it's face a violation of constitutional rights. What is effectively happening (to my understanding) is the study group is being held accountable to relevant zoning laws. It's the exact same concept, it's just being applied on a level you disagree with.

Personally I'm torn on the issue, while I recognize that the government has a vested interest in zoning enforcement for purposes of services and safety (I think we'd all agree if it was 2,000 people at the study that a "you can't be doing that here without complying with zoning laws" would be justified). The question (for me) is just where is the line? I mean I doubt anyone objects to Chapels having occupancy limits for the sake of safety but ultimately it is saying, "You can't assemble here if there are more than X of you under penalty of fine or worse" and that's even in a building that is in compliance with zoning laws.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

Most--not all, but most--prohibitions on Federal government activity that were enacted through the Bill of Rights have been deemed "incorporated" (i.e.--they also apply to state governments) in numerous Supreme Court holdings since the mid-nineteenth century. I think the First Amendment has been deemed incorporated to the states, but I think there's also case law out there that allows reasonable time/place/manner restrictions (which is why I can't go sacrifice a chicken in the HOV lane of I-15).

[prisonchaplain]

Are we all pretty much agreed that the states and municipalities have some jurisdiction over large gatherings in residential areas, and that weekly 50+ person religious gatherings might merit some permitting, but that demanding fees and permits for a 20-person home Bible study is seriously over the top in draconian First Amendment violation?

[MarginOfError]

Are we all pretty much agreed that the states and municipalities have some jurisdiction over large gatherings in residential areas, and that weekly 50+ person religious gatherings might merit some permitting, but that demanding fees and permits for a 20-person home Bible study is seriously over the top in draconian First Amendment violation?

I'm not sure, PC. I think this is one of those places where you let the community decide. The whole fiasco started when a neighbor filed a complaint. Perhaps the reason that we get away with our book groups and our family cookouts is because our doing so just happens to not inconvenience the neighbors--or that they are willing to tolerate our gatherings with the expectation that we will tolerate theirs.

It's hard to suss out what the intent of the complaint was. Does the neighbor object to the content they are teaching, or do the neighbor object to the inconvenience of the heightened resource utilization. For that matter, the neighbor might be looking to put his or her house on the market, and worried that the added traffic in the area will discourage someone from buying the home.

In short, I'm not convinced this is religious persecution so much as it is neighborhood drama.

And I'll remind you that I think if the gathering of 50 stopped happening, I strongly suspect the gathering of 20 wouldn't be such a big deal. It's just that hyper awareness can lead to hyper irritation.

[Traveler]

There are a few things that I disagree with:

First: Public roads are by definition public roads. Everybody has the right to use public roads and just because lots are using them does not constitute a violation - regardless of where the public roads are. Private property is very different than public property. We do have the right to say who and who cannot be on private property.

But there is one little problem everyone is overlooking. If we open our home to public meetings; religious or not, then we cannot deny who shows up for that public meeting. One thing that states and cities have done to help control business is what is called zoning.

Personally, I believe most zoning laws are counterproductive and by definition infringements on rights. One of the rights of property ownership is “quite enjoyment”. It seem to me as long as visitors park on public streets and do not block private access - and as long as they do not bring unusual noise or something else unto the property of other private owners - I do not believe that any law should be passed to prevent a person from using and enjoying their own private property.

Holding a prayer meeting appears to me to be quite enjoyment. Attempting to prevent others from having quite enjoyment is a breach of morality and law. At the same time - you open your home to public access and you forgo certain private rights. In essence your private home becomes accessible to the public and you cannot discriminate against who shows up - as long as they do not interfere with your quiet enjoyment. Bible study as a means of enjoyment does not mean that everyone in attendance must agree with your particular interpretation of scripture. In short - it could become rather difficult to ask someone that had been attending not to attend any more, or ask the group to meet somewhere else, thinking that because it was your private residence - you have that right?? Well, you may have given up that right by designating your place for that meeting of free speech.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not sure, PC. I think this is one of those places where you let the community decide. The whole fiasco started when a neighbor filed a complaint. Perhaps the reason that we get away with our book groups and our family cookouts is because our doing so just happens to not inconvenience the neighbors--or that they are willing to tolerate our gatherings with the expectation that we will tolerate theirs.

I'll not pretend to be a Constitutional lawyer. So, let me suggest that our laws should protect individuals from harrassment by over-sensitive neighbors. For example, I might tolerate a 200-person pentecostal revival in my neighbor's house, but what if I don't like the two-family gathering of LDS, because I am Anti? All I have to do is call in a complaint. I might easily get a few neighbors to fudge the truth on the noise level, all in the name of protecting our hood for the good of my perception of orthodoxy.

You may be right about what is. If so, it ought not be so. We are not a Christian republic, but our heritage is such that religious meetings ought to have a healthy perimeter of protection from local government harrassment.

[Just_A_Guy]

Quite frankly, I think it boils down to how many cars those twenty people bring.

[MarginOfError]

Quite frankly, I think it boils down to how many cars those twenty people bring.

As with typical American custom, those 20 people brought 24 cars.

[Still_Small_Voice]

I could see an ordinance limiting gatherings to around 30 people, but 3 people is ridiculous. I hope the courts rule in favor of freedom.

[Guest gopecon]

There are a lot of factors (# of people, # of cars, frequency of the get togethers, noise level, etc.) that can and should go into a decision about whether gatherings like this are okay in a residential area. It's hard to come up with one blanket rule (75 is okay one day, but 50 can't happen every week). Beyond zoning rules, there may have been neighborhood covenants that restricted how property can be used. If this is the case, then these people a agreed to the covenants prior to moving in - in which case they may be out of luck. I do agree with PC and others that there should be extra leeway given to religious gatherings, given our history as a nation and the 1st Amendment.

[Traveler]

There are a lot of factors (# of people, # of cars, frequency of the get togethers, noise level, etc.) that can and should go into a decision about whether gatherings like this are okay in a residential area. It's hard to come up with one blanket rule (75 is okay one day, but 50 can't happen every week). Beyond zoning rules, there may have been neighborhood covenants that restricted how property can be used. If this is the case, then these people a agreed to the covenants prior to moving in - in which case they may be out of luck. I do agree with PC and others that there should be extra leeway given to religious gatherings, given our history as a nation and the 1st Amendment.

I very strongly disagree - there should be no extra “leeway” nor should there be any less “leeway” because of religion. The point I have tried to make is that what a person does on private property is not our “business” unless it interferes with our quiet enjoyment of our property.

By force of law we cannot diminish the value of property because someone of a certain race lives nearby - even if the reality is that the property value is diminished. To me - it makes no difference if someone is meeting for Bible study or for satanic rituals - they have the same rights under the law.

Please understand PC and others that agree with him. That I do not necessarily direct my disapproval against you personally - but PC did bring this whole thing up. I use to live quite close to PC’s current neighborhood, back in the 80’s. And it was the local Evangelicals that took exception to a certain “non-Christian” (Moonie) family that moved in. They did not want the “influence” of such a strange religion in their neighborhood and with their little children. They felt that in their prejudice they served G-d to make life in their community difficult for the Moonie family and now you think it unjust that Christians should be treated even in lesser degree the same?

In short I would be more believing that we were serious if what was in question was a coven of pagan witches and the good Christians were fighting with the same vigor for their right to meet in a private home, next to theirs (in the same numbers) as often.

The Traveler

Edited September 23, 2011 by Traveler

[RescueMom]

Rescue, I have a couple of difficulties. First, who'd a thunk you needed a permit to have a Bible study in your home? Again, this isn't the former Soviet Union. The idea smells of Communism. Then, to be told that the permitting process is cumbersome and expensive. In other words, "Okay, you can have your pesky little First Amendment-protected religious gathering--but...IT'LL COST YOU BIG TIME!!!

Again, the fact that it's 50 people gathering weekly tells me that, yes, they should get approved. That's a signficant size, so can hardly be justified as a few friends informally getting together occasionally.

However, this started as a 20-something gathering of friends to study the Bible. Hey, 20? That's like 4-5 families.

So, that's the point of the string...what has our country come to when you have to register and pay to have a moderate Bible study in your home? And again, I agree, that a weekly meeting of 50 would cross the threshold of informal gatherings.

Loudmouth alluded to how some Christians send workers and smuggle Bibles in places where they are not legal. LDS don't do that. We do. My understanding of the New Testament is that our founders did too.

but what about the rights of the neighbor? those holding the religous meetings only have rights? As I said it's a double edged sword. We can not force our neighbors into accepting our rights, be they for religous reasons or not.

Take the bible study part out of the picture. Imagine a neighbor having 50 big bad bikers over every week to worship the flying spaghetti monster, which included loud music and lots of cars parked up and down the roads. They also have the same rights as the bible study/church group. Which takes me back to the original thought....whose rights are we willing to trample so we can have our rights. As Christians we must always be prepared for our rights to be questioned, have to work twice as hard to keep them peaceably, realize the US Constititution (all though founded in Christianity) might not always protect our rights, and last of all, we must at all times be like Christ when dealing with our neighbors, friends and even enemies. WWJD in this situation? Would he be crying that his rights had been trampled, be angry at his neighbor? I am not saying he wouldn't be fighting for the freedom of everyone, he would do it in such a way that everyone was on board. That is where we need to be, as Christians, not afraid to stand up for our rights, but to do so in such a way that we don't turn our fellow travelers from God. And in doing so we must remember we will have to do so following the laws of the land, and do it twice as good and twice as honest and twice as Christian as what others do.

Democracy and Christianity can not be brought on the tip of a sword, for both will be reviled if forced upon a person, group or nation.

[NeuroTypical]

I still want to make sure that everyone understands: People have disguised brothels as christian churches before, and they will again. Whatever fixes y'all come up with for the situation, needs to handle those as well.