Man Faces 60 Days Behind Bars for Hosting "Bible Study" on His Property (money, support)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, you can't say anything. They were running a church out of their home, not allowed. Christians aren't exempt from the law regardless of their delusions of being children of the big man. The big man doesn't work for California.
"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." Calif. City Fines Couple for Holding Bible Study in Their Home | TheBlaze.com
My neighbors tried to have weekly "garage sales" which were really a home thrift store. It didn't take long for them to get shut down, maybe 2 months. It happens, even to babies of God.
Freedom of religion means the freedom from being treated differently than anyone else in this country despite your religion or lack of it. This includes Christians.
He wasn't running a church - it was a Bible study - and incidentaly - churches were allowed in the Phoenix neighborhood(he couldn't comply with a permit - so he scaled his plans back). Citing the SJC municipal code is really odd - since not only is that city several hundred miles away and in another state - its city codes have nothing to do with those in Phoenix, AZ.
. . . they didn't like what a man was doing in his own home and became busybodies.
The day that our activities in our own homes have to pass muster by our neighbors when they aren't being harmed can't be described anyway else but as bad.
You've got to be joking! Do you remember your argument concerning the situation where someone bought a house, the neighbors went next door armed, and ended up holding the new owner's parents at gun point? You said that this situation was the fault of the owner's parents, the Kalonjils, because they didn't go and introduce themselves to their new neighbors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
I have a problem with Canoles because I don't feel there was any need to involve the Newton County Sherrif's department. He should have gone over there armed - but carrying conclealed as Toyman suggested. Once he chose to point the weapon at the Kalonjli's - he had left no choice - what else would you do that for except to prevent them from running away. He could have verified the story right there - without the need to see the closing papers - by calling Bruno. His mistake was to involve the cops - and then they dropped the ball by arresting Jean-Joseph and Angelica. This should never have gone as far as it did: there was no burglary, and I don't believe any crime was committed by either party. As I have said earlier - Jean-Joseph and Angelica could have neutralized a charged atmosphere by introducing themselves - and to all you who say that this is ridiculous - I have to imagine you have never been to a rural neighborhood; it isn't hard to let the one or two people who can see you know who you are and what your business is - and yes - if they had done that and I was Canoles - I would have invited them in for a beer - I also would have handled the situation better then the Canoles' did(no holding people at gunpoint).
This is all a case of making a big anthill over nothing. It started with Mr. Canoles actions, escalated with the police mishandling the situation, and has snowballed with everyone trying to make this a racial issue.
You've got to be joking! Do you remember your argument concerning the situation where someone bought a house, the neighbors went next door armed, and ended up holding the new owner's parents at gun point? You said that this situation was the fault of the owner's parents, the Kalonjils, because they didn't go and introduce themselves to their new neighbors.
Two entirely different situations - you have no point.
But I am glad that my posts were read and remembered by you - at least I didn't entirely waste my time writing them.
Salmans's home is not a church - a church has building codes that it needs to abide by because it is used for a specific purpose - this man was holding Bible studies in his home - and was targeted because someone didn't like that.
No, he's holding bible studies in his "garage," which is a totally separate building from his home.
He built a church on his property - something he said he was going to do from the minute he moved in. He did so in an illegal manner, lying to the city the whole time while filing a permit for an unplumbed, unelectrified shed in order to (unlawfully) get around zoning requirements, safety codes, and the objections of his neighbors. Take a min to read the article from 2008 I linked in a previous post:
Salman, they found out, had a prison record: He was an ex-gang member who'd done time for a drive-by shooting.
They learned, too, that even after getting out of prison and becoming a pastor, he'd been booked on a misdemeanor for impersonating a police officer. According to court records, a girl from Salman's fledgling congregation was fooling around with an older boy; at the parents' request, Salmon went over to the boy's house and pretended to be a cop to scare him.
Two entirely different situations - you have no point.
Different situations where the principle for both situations is the same. You are arguing that this man is free to do whatever he wants on HIS property. According to your previous posts, regarding the Kalonjils, those people weren't even allowed to be on THEIR property without introducing themselves to the neighbors, consequently the Kalonjils were essentially at fault for being held at gunpoint.
The difference between the situations is only a matter of degree and not kind; hence, why your hypocrisy is so clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
But I am glad that my posts were read and remembered by you - at least I didn't entirely waste my time writing them.
Different situations where the principle for both situations is the same. You are arguing that this man is free to do whatever he wants on HIS property. According to your previous posts, regarding the Kalonjils, those people weren't even allowed to be on THEIR property without introducing themselves to the neighbors, consequently the Kalonjils were essentially at fault for being held at gunpoint.
Sigh....
The Kalonji's were unknown to Robert Canoles - the property had been vacant - they did not know what the people were doing - and it was understandable for them to investigate a possible crime in the neighborhood.
People living in their homes where they are established as belonging - free from the permission of their neighbors to act according to their will - is a much different scenario.
Now - if you want to talk about the Kalonji-Canoles issue - please go post in that thread.
In here we are discussing a man in Phoenix who is being jailed for holding a bible study on his property.
Well, because it takes money out of your pocket by decreasing the value of your house (people looking to buy homes in quite residential neighborhoods don't want that anywhere near them). Also, in this case, his home-based church is increasing traffic right in front of a popular neighborhood park, putting kids at greater risk. He's creating a noise nuisance -- cars aren't quiet and neither are 70 people meeting in a non-sound insulated building feet way from neighboring homes (especially if he's running that day care center he intended to). And yeah right they're not using street parking.
Maybe these things don't bother you, but they bother 99% of people. They certainly bother his neighbors, and they bother most everybody so much that every municipality in the US has written laws to protect people from actions like his.
Quote:
Besides - this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand - you harp on what Salman's original intentions were - conveniently ignoring that he scaled back his plans - and was only holding a bible study on the property. His originals intentions to build a church have nothing to do with the reality of the meeting when he was charged with a crime. The attack on his private property rights, freedom of assembly, and freedom of worship that are illustrated by this case seem to go right over your head.
This issue is about liberty - not hypothetical mosques.
For the love of God, please back off of your "he's simply holding bible study in his home" nonsense. If he's not running a Church out of this house, then why is the owner of the house registered as the "Harvest Christian Fellowship Community Church"? Do you really see building a structure outfitted with pews, a pulpit and a massive cross out front, calling it the Harvest Christian Fellowship Community Church, and using it for weekday bible study and on the weekends for clergy led worship as simply "holding bible study in his home", or is that in fact the description of a functioning Church?
Nobody would have a problem if he were simply having a dozen of his friends over to study the bible a time or two a week. I mean, when he first moved in he was running a small church gathering in his living room and nobody cared. It's when he ratcheted it up to full-blown busy church, complete with it's own building, that people took issue.
To reiterate, he was running a Church out of his old home. He moved to this property for the explicit purpose of running a bigger church out of it (despite the ordinances preventing that). When he realized he couldn't do what he wanted, he committed a fraud - to the harm and detriment of his neighbors - and then did it anyway. Why are you defending a cheating, fraudulent, liar? That doesn't seem Christlike to me at all. Are his frauds and trickeries Christlike? Is his putting so many people in an unsafe building multiple times a week Christlike? Are the harms he inflicts on his neighbors (and they certainly feel harmed) Christlike?
Nothing's going above my head here. You're simply condoning and excusing this man's deceit, trickery, fraudulent criminality, and mistreatment of his neighbors.
The Kalonji's were unknown to Robert Canoles - the property had been vacant - they did not know what the people were doing - and it was understandable for them to investigate a possible crime in the neighborhood.
People living in their homes where they are established as belonging - free from the permission of their neighbors to act according to their will - is a much different scenario.
Now - if you want to talk about the Kalonji-Canoles issue - please go post in that thread.
In here we are discussing a man in Phoenix who is being jailed for holding a bible study on his property.
Run along now.
Really? The principle of private property doesn't kick in until after one has established one's self in the neighborhood. One is not able to treat her property as her own, even in the most fundamental way of changing the locks on one's property, until meeting the neighbors? Can you provide a link supporting this interpretation of private property by any chance?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
