Home Scripture study groups require permit?

[Traveler]

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.

Because I conduct business from my home - I know about permits. As I have stated before; I believe most zoning laws to be against the law. The reason is that we all have certain right to our property. In essence we can do what we want on private property as long as it does not violate other property owner rights.

For example - you can make all the noise you want - until it crosses your property line. If the noise does not leave your property it does not matter now much noise you make.

Public streets belong to the public and anyone can park on them and use them. If one person can do something than 10,000 can. So if the pubic decides one person can park then anyone that wants to can park. You cannot block the public from any public access near your property. You do not own the street or the parking in front of your house.

I believe your next door neighbor has a right to run a brothel (if brothels are legal). You can do something if "things" related to what they are doing spills into your property or on to public property that is not lawful or violates other's rights. Noise is a good example - if someone took a leak in your bushises - that would be another. If they were sacrificing animals and the smell bothered you - that would be another. If they were witches casting spells causing your tree to die - that would be another. A bunch of Christmas lights that lit up your property as well - would be another.

The point is - they can do on their property what stays on their property. As soon as anything they are doing crosses onto other property - then there is a violation of other's rights.

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

I believe your next door neighbor has a right to run a brothel (if brothels are legal).

Well, me too - but pretty much everywhere brothels are illegal. So, instead of trying to run a brothel, you start a church. Members pay tithes to the church. The method of worship involves a female pastor or acolyte applying consecrated (and aromatic) oils during very spiritual one-on-one sessions. Other things are rumored to be happening there, but whenever the cops or inspectors visit, that's everything they see.

Again, I'm not just makin' this stuff up. Maybe they call it a "massage parlor", maybe they call it a "physical healing center", maybe they call it a "counseling session". Maybe their story is they sell exotic oils, and offer a free application. They sell sex, but on paper, it's legit. My sister watches this stuff go by in Albuquerque all the time.

So, neighbors who can't get any relief from the laws and the cops, turn to zoning and HOA and whatnot for relief. The battle goes on.

You can do something if "things" related to what they are doing spills into your property or on to public property that is not lawful or violates other's rights. Noise is a good example

Sound waves qualify - how about light waves? In other words, if hearing or smelling stuff could violate property rights, can seeing stuff? If you and Little Johnny are out for a walk in your backyard, and you see over the fence, the usual line of seedy looking men being seductively welcomed by the scantilly-clad pastors of the church of the holy oils, does that count as having your rights violated? "Quiet enjoyment" and all that?

[Dravin]

I believe most zoning laws to be against the law.

I have noticed there is a tendency for people to declare something is unconstitutional/illegal when it is more accurate to declare they feel something should be unconstitutional/illegal. Though I think in this particular case such was the intent of your sentence Traveler even if it doesn't parse that way.

For those curious about some of the various rulings concerning zoning: Zoning in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[prisonchaplain]

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.

I quoted this from your post...which included my answer to your very question. 50 loud bikers or evangelicals or Mormons on a weekly basis is probably something that localities could demand permitting for. 20 relatively quietly gathered in a sparsely populated area--that seems draconian. Most of us get that we should try to work things out with our neighbors, and submit to authorities, and "live peaceably." And yet, there are the times when Jesus confronted authority. I'm simply arguing that at times like this, localities should err on the side of liberty, rather than control. At the same time, I have already allowed that there comes a time when my neighbor's right to reasonable quiet and uncluttered residential roads outweighs my right to assemble.

Did you believe that my "middle ground" was off-base?

[RescueMom]

No I don't believe middle groud is off base....but which side of liberty does the locatlity side on? That's my question. Due the bible group have more rights than the neighbor? As I said it's a double edged sword. The bible study group can not trample the rights of the neighbor and vice versa. Most here side on the bible study because of religious inclinations, but does that mean we trample our neighbors rights in the name of religion? Because from that point it's a slippery slope until the government gets decides which religion is going to be the one the government wants.

[prisonchaplain]

Take religion out of it. Neighbors should not be able to squelch a gathering of 20 people (again, 4-5 families, most likely). This is particularly true if it's in a more rural neighborhood, or one where houses are not densely situated. My property rights should generally outweigh my neighbors desire for monstary conditions in the hood.

With that as the principle, most here agree that the interference of the one complaining neighbor is even more offensive, in that the gathering was religious.

So...religion is not a trump card that allows us to violate legitimate concerns of neighbors. It is one mitigating element in a bigger picture.

[Traveler]

I have noticed there is a tendency for people to declare something is unconstitutional/illegal when it is more accurate to declare they feel something should be unconstitutional/illegal. Though I think in this particular case such was the intent of your sentence Traveler even if it doesn't parse that way.

For those curious about some of the various rulings concerning zoning: Zoning in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Darvin, I thought to respond because I believe the rights of property to be one of the most basic rights that free peoples have sought for and fought for - for many thousands of years. In the USA the definition of property ownership is based on what is often referred to as Old English law. This understanding of law goes back many hundreds of years in disputes of what it means to own property. I am not just talking about the constitution here but the very foundations under which the Constitution is not only defined but understood. If you like you may take this post - print it out and ask your legal advisor (attorney) about its accuracy.

With all ownership of property in the USA there is a bundle of right that are now defined and understood to be defined in property ownership. This bundle of right are considered to be the very definition of ownership and cannot be separated, altered or changed whenever property ownership is changed or passed on - in other wise if you own property - by definition of ownership you have these rights to your property.

First right: The right to Possession. This is the right to enter and occupy your property. It also includes the right to invite others to enter and occupy your property as well as exclude others from entering and occupying your property. I believe it is important to note that it would be against the very understanding of the law that defines ownership to in any way prevent you from occupying your property or inviting others of your choice to enter and occupy your property.

Second right: The right to use or Control. ( I would point out that this is where many zoning attempts violate the very structure of law defining property ownership.) This is the right to control the use of your property. It means you can live on it and use it or not use it or not live on it. It means that you can have a dog, cat, horse or chickens or not have them - it means that you choose - you designate the use of your property. We must understand here that if your use causes noise or smells (as an example) to intrude on other property that your use can be limited - it is this clause that many zoning attempts to utilize to circumvent your use - but the most important point here is that unless it can be proven that your use goes beyond your property zoning attempts are illegal.

Third right: The right to quite enjoyment. This means that you have the right to use your property as you desire - EVEN IF THE TITLE IS DEFECTIVE. Did you get that - it means you can still use your property for legal purposes even if there are zoning laws passed that create a defect on your title in an attempt to define for you how you can use your property.

Forth right: The right of disposition: This means that you can keep your property or you can sell it. It is yours to decide to keep or sell. If someone forces you to sell your property under duress you can demand it back later. It is possible that heirs to certain LDS members that owned property in Missouri could file for property that was taken from their ancestors. It means that clear title to property can change because of historical factors. But this is not what I intended to bring up at this time.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

Darvin, I thought to respond because I believe the rights of property to be one of the most basic rights that free peoples have sought for and fought for - for many thousands of years.

I have no objection to you feeling that some law should be illegal or that it should be considered unconstitutional. The thing is if it's been upheld by the US Supreme Court it is constitutional*. Likewise if a law is upheld it is legal. This cuts both ways of course, no matter how much you feel something should be legal or constitutional if it has been held by the US Supreme Court to be illegal/unconstitutional then such is not the case. The US Supreme Court establishes constitutionality, not you or I.

I am not commenting on the validity of any arguments that X or Y should or should not be constitutional, so your post is ill directed. I was commenting on the tendency to declare something is unconstitutional/constitutional based on what someone (who is not US Supreme or other relevant court) feel should be the case rather than what actually is the case. And it's not a tendency I completely avoid either.

*Obviously within the context of US Constitutionality, obviously the illegal/legal and constitutionality issues can be hashed out in lesser courts (along with the issue of which constitution, speaking of the States), but once the Supreme Court rules the only one who gets to decide otherwise is itself (of course the legislative holds the power to rewrite the constitution even if difficult to use but it's still up to the court to rule on the new language).

Edited September 27, 2011 by Dravin