57 comments

1. Or…save money on the litigious option and start investing in some catacombs. I realize that may not be the most attractive option to American piety, but isn’t that the sort of resistence-response persecution (if that’s what it is) demands?

2. Zrim,

   Investing in catacombs may have been proper for those living in the Roman Empire, but this is America, where freedom of religion is a constitutional guarantee. The proper response is to remind the government (through use of the courts if necessary) that this is what is given us in the constitution. You can go hide in your catacomb if you want to, but I’d rather use the means that have been granted to me in the constitution.

3. Something smells fishy about this story.

   • I wonder about this true, but I take it that the legal group representing this fellow wouldn’t have become involved if they didn’t find some merit. Would they risk their credibility by pushing a bogus story?

4. Steven,

   It is an interesting posture we seem to have. But I thought the appropriate response to persecution was obedience to God, not litigation against Caesar. And, while I really like my religious liberties, I fail to see why the rules against worldly warfare have changed since Peter’s rebuke. Does the Constitution really trump the Bible? Could it be possible that the civil polity of those living in the Roman Empire was more conducive to piety, while American polity actually nurtures impiety?

5. I’m wondering if there’s more to the story that we’re not being told.

   Zrim, surely as a two-kingdoms guy you recognize that that the good and the bad come together in the fallen earthly package. While American freedom and self-righteousness has its detrimental effects on piety, Christians under the Roman empire had their idols too. I don’t see a problem with invoking the first amendment whilst we may. After all, even Paul appealed to Caesar.

   • Darren,

     Yes, the good and bad come together.

     The details of the case are less interesting to me than some principles that seem involved. And, yes, the early believers had their idols, too. But I don’t see how that might excuse our idolatry (if it is). And I understand the complications of being an American-Christian. I see how easy it is to reach for Paul’s appeal to Roman citizenship. But I don’t think that appeal answers everything. It sure seems like the bulk of the biblical data might render Paul’s appeal as a bit extraordinary and not really something to characterize our ordinary dealings with Caesar. In other words, I’m not ruling out such appeals, but wondering if we could be giving give more careful attention to what it means to employ worldly weaponry. I think this is pretty hard for American Christians, nurtured on liberty and rights, to think through. How else to explain fewer catacombs than retained lawyers?

     • We’re agreed then that appeal to the 1st amendment is a wisdom issue, possibly, but not necessarily idolatrous in the way it’s done. That’s all I was trying to say.

       • Darren,

         Agreed, yes, I think so. But I was just pointing out how curious it is to me that the usual first response to persecution (real or perceived) is “fight Caesar” instead of “obey God.” That’s all I was trying to say.

         • Zrim,

           We are the heirs of a strong resistance theory. The same Calvin who gave us a distinct doctrine of two kingdoms also gave us the doctrine of lesser magistrates. If it comes to a choice between “obey God” and “resist” we must obey God and suffer but if there’s no necessary tension between the two why make one where it ain’t?

         • RSC,

           It seems to me that generally inherent in a two kingdoms theology is the assumption that working to resolve tension is more problematic than beneficial. And, for better or worse, I suppose my curiosity is in how our civil polity is one that really seems to work to reduce the tension between the kingdoms instead of maintain it. If it’s dubious to reduce tension in other ways, why is it less so when it concerns the political arrangements of citizenship? Is there anything odd about employing a lawyer to convince Caesar that we aren’t a threat but peaceable? Is there a spiritual pay off to civil comfort and ease?

           In other words, I’m not looking to create a tension where there isn’t one, but wonder why we should think that the devices in our civil polity which seek to reduce the tension are good for our spiritual piety. I understand that sometimes it’s just about two entities trying to resolve temporal differences; and I understand that the lines between temporal and ultimate vying aren’t always clear; and I like our religious liberties as much as the next guy; but I do sometimes wonder if we could more carefully consider when something turns more ultimate than penultimate and what the right posture should be.

6. Something is not right about the story. I think we are not told the whole story. yes, there is the representation by a legal group, but that does not mean we are told the story accurately. In every lawsuit there is a looser who thought himself to be in the right. It is the questions that are interesting. It sounds like neighbors complaining of weekly, noise problems, where the neighbors hear loudly pronounced “amen” and “Praise the Lord” thus the county person is asking “Are you saying these things?” ok – its just a thought…

   Churches do need use permits, even if they meet only on Sundays. Check your local town and see if your town requires it. When I inquired about our town’s permit reasoning in light of the first amendment, I was told “It is the town not the Congress who made the permit requirement.”

   • Hi Vaclav,

     I appreciate this. I thought about this too. If a group is being obnoxiously noisy, a community has a right to ask them to settle down. As a presbyterian I understand “decently and in order”! but if I want to have people into my home for a quiet study then I can’t see the problem. People visit my neighbor’s house to go swimming and the parking gets a little crowded on the street but as long as they’re not parking in my yard or drive, I don’t mind.

     There may be more to come out on this story but it bears watching.

   • Hi Vaclav,

     I appreciate this. I thought about this too. If a group is being obnoxiously noisy, a community has a right to ask them to settle down. As a presbyterian I understand “decently and in order”! but if I want to have people into my home for a quiet study then I can’t see the problem. People visit my neighbor’s house to go swimming and the parking gets a little crowded on the street but as long as they’re not parking in my yard or drive, I don’t mind.

     I worry about the use of zoning ordinances to push churches/ congregations to the side. There is tremendous pressure on cities to generate revenue and non-profits don’t do that well. Thus they want to turn non-revenue producing property into revenue producing property.

     This is a different matter, however. There may be more to come out on this story and it bears watching.

7. Zrim,

   So why did Paul appeal his legal rights?

   All,

   This is no joke. You can listen to an update here:

   http://www.760kfmb.com/Global/category.asp?C=157359

   • Rev.,

     Like I said above, I’m not suggesting that there is never any room for such appeals. But Paul’s appeal seems to be a rather extraordinary instance. I’m not clear on how an extraordinary instance should inform our ordinary experience. And what do those who don’t have such legal rights do, fight to get such legal rights or obey God (i.e. continue to witness to the gospel)?

     My question is this: if Caesar says you can’t meet, not because you’re being disorderly (civil matter), but because you’re saying Jesus is Lord (spiritual matter), should the resistence-response be to get a lawyer or keep meeting at your peril? While I appreciate the tensions involved for American-Christians (since I am one), I’m thinking the latter.

8. Our own Belgic Confession says, in part, “Their [civil magistrate] office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also to protect the sacred ministry, that the kingdom of Christ may thus be promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, as He commands in His Word (art. 36).”

   The civil magistrate is ordained by God, but its authority is not therefore absolute. The magistrate may not persecute the church. To do so is to disobey the God who ordained it. As citizens of two kingdoms simultaneously, this current example means that Christians must pray as heavenly citizens for their magistrates to promote and not persecute the church. As well, as citizens of this particular earthly kingdom, it is the duty of Christians to remind their local magistrate of its proper authority and function. While some may advocate a certain pacifism by erecting a wall between the kingdoms so high that there is no relevance for the heavenly citizen to interact in the kingdom of this world, we are reminded of the apostle Paul himself, who appealed to his rights as a Roman citizen, saying, “I appeal to Caesar.” Christians must respectfully remind their magistrates of their constitutional limits as well as their limits according to the Word of God.

   • Rev.,

     I don’t disagree with you. Yes, “The civil magistrate is ordained by God and the magistrate may not persecute the church. To do so is to disobey the God who ordained it.” But what I am asking is, What happens when what should happen doesn’t? The highest crime in humanity’s history (the crucifixion) shouldn’t have happened, but was met with a confession and then silence. I realize Paul appealed to Caesar, but Jesus also rebuked Peter. I’m not saying Paul’s appeal has no bearing here, I am asking what role the Peter’s rebuke (and Jesus’ confession and silence) plays in all of this.

     And instead of “erecting a wall between the kingdoms so high that there is no relevance for the heavenly citizen to interact in the kingdom of this world,” I am wondering if there are different kinds of interaction for different situations. Is Belgic 36 telling us to get a lawyer when Caesar tells us that we are forbidden to say “Jesus is Lord,” or to continue to confess it, remind Caesar non-litigiously of his obligation not to persecute us, be silent and press forward hoping for his backing down but prepared for his persecution?

9. Zrim,

   I agree that we ought to seek to reduce, rather than enflame, tensions. The local coverage of this story has revealed that this is about a neighbor who complained. The neighbor is using the county as a lever. Why did the county take up this cause? Why didn’t the county tell the neighbor that “you don’t have a case”? This is especially odd at a time when the state is 15bn dollars in debt? That’s crazy! Christians are certainly within their rights to ask for equal protection under the law. This line of argumentation goes back to the early church. This was a consistent argument by those suffering persecution in the first three centuries of the post-apostolic church.

   • Complaining neighbors sure know how to take the fun out of lots of things, no less certain lines of questioning. But something tells me most times in America that’s what is usually going on (everyone go home, there’s nothing to see here, just some crank wasting tax-payer money).

     But I still think it’s an interesting set of topics to consider. I have no problem with asking for equal protection under the law. I just want to know what we do when we don’t get it. And for the record, I’m not suggesting “pacifism.” Violence, war and death are necessary traits of this age, unthwarted in the here and now by redemption. I still want justice for my creational enemies. It’s my redemptive ones I have a hard time fighting.

     • Zrim,

       What do we do if we don’t get it? Well, that’s the $64,000 question! As long as we have lesser magistrates (whom we elect and whom our elected representatives appoint) to whom we can appeal, we should. When that is exhausted, well, then, I favor the catacombs over clubs. I think we agree that we’re not there yet.

       • RSC,

         Yes, I agree that we’re not there yet. My hesitation is with those who seem to favor pre-emptive clubs over catacombs. The undertone is less more combative than peaceable to me. But maybe I just want to win $64–greed was high in the midwest map after all.

         • Er, I mean, “The undertone is more combative than peaceable to me.”

     • I find it hypocritical that the government again and again refuse to curtail parties and noise levels from those parties, but the government has no problem threatening pastors and Bible studies.

       I bet if that neighborhood has a house that parties once a week, with tens of invitees, even if all the neighbors complaint the government won’t do a thing about it, definitely no threats of “zoning law” and “things will get ugly” if you don’t shut down.

     • I’d add two things as a constitutional lawyer. First, the attempted application of the ordinance to a home Bible study would almost certainly be found by a federal judge to abridge the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause and the federal statute known as RLUIPA. Both the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act prohibits localities from adopting zoning that “imposes a substantial burden” on people’s ability to practice the free exercise of their religion (including home Bible studies) unless there is a compelling governmental reason that cannot be accomplished in a less intrusive or burdening fashion. The law also requires that religious and non religious institutions be treated the same. Since the County permits Tupperware parties and dozens of other home gatherings without onerous permit requirements, it could not impose onerous permit requirements on home Bible studies; and certainly there are less intrusive means to achieving the goal of orderly parking than to require home Bible studies to obtain a Major Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit.

       Second, from a two kingdoms standpoint, I see no biblical or theological rationale for denying to Christians in their individual capacity the right, as citizens of a free republic, to avail themselves of their Constitutional rights. It seems odd to me that Christian citizens of the city of man should, alone among all other citizens of the city of man, be required to endure the denial of their constitutional rights. Indeed, to impose on Christian citizens a gag order or other disabling restriction against protecting their liberties is to impose a one-kingdom theology rather than a two-kingdom theology. We are citizens of both kingdoms. But if we are indeed citizens of the city of man, then as citizens of that city we as good citizens want to hold the magistrate accountable to the Constitution so he does not overstep — for the good not only of Christians, but for all citizens. I’d suggest that the use of “worldly weapons” like hiring a lawyer or resort to the courts, when no more peacable strategy will succeed (as it did in the case of the San Diego pastor — but sometimes the threat of litigation is what delivers the peacable settlement), is entirely appropriate because we’re not using such worldly weapons to achieve redemptive ends (we’re not suing to force a conversion) but to acheive justice in the city of man and thereby preserving the rule of law. That those efforts incidentally prevent the unlawful suppresion of Bible studies does not convert a city-of-man action into a city-of-God action.

       • Hi CVD. What was that about paths crossing again?

         I don’t necessarily want to resurrect old sparing. But, regarding your second point, I still wonder what any of that means for those believers who don’t have things called “the Constitution” or “The Bill of Rights.” What do not-American believers, who only have the Bible and leaders who dismiss their devotions as “the opiate of the masses,” do?

         I would hazard that your points really only resonate with those of us who know what it’s like to have the First Amendment. But given that most believers across time and place don’t have these things I fail to see what appreciable relevance any of it has for those whose supreme priority is (or at least should be) their heavenly citizenship.

         • Mr. Zrim, Good to hear from you. I’m not sure what point you’re making. My second point was of course in the context of Christian Americans and only has relevance to citizens of this nation or of nations governed by the rule of law. Where true persecution exists at the hands of tyrannical regimes that do not respect liberty or the rule of law, clearly Christians cannot invoke the rule of law. Having no rights to invoke, they dodge persecution where they can do so consistent with their duty to proclaim Christ and suffer persecution where they cannot. Where, however, Christians have constitutional or other legal rights which can protect them from governmental abuse (whether from outright persecution or just improvident actions by bureaucrats) it would be foolish to decline those rights and prefer unnecessary abuse.

       • CVD,

         My second point was of course in the context of Christian Americans and only has relevance to citizens of this nation or of nations governed by the rule of law.

         So then would it be reasonable to say that your second point, to the extent that most Christians across time and place aren’t ruled like Americans, is irrelevant?

         Also,

         Indeed, to impose on Christian citizens a gag order or other disabling restriction against protecting their liberties is to impose a one-kingdom theology rather than a two-kingdom theology. We are citizens of both kingdoms.

         Insofar as 1K is the world’s system, isn’t “imposing” precisely what any variety of 1K is all about, whereas 2K, insofar as it’s the church’s system, is of an entirely different order? Are we to expect Caesar to abide by a 2K system when all he finally really knows is 1K?

         • Mr. Zrim, I’m afraid I cannot understand your questions. Obviously the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies only to the U.S. But you know that. So don’t underestand the question.

   • Dr. Clark:
     The San Diego pastor case has been resolved in that the County rescinded after media attention and the pastor’s hiring of an attorney. The County acknowledged that the low-level official blundered in applying the vague zoning ordinances in a manner never intended — to apply to a home Bible study.

10. There is more to this story than meets the eye:

    Pastor David Jones has been hosting weekly Bible studies at his Bonita home during the past five years. About 15 people attend the meetings, he told 10News.

    Jones said a visitor to a neighbor’s house called the County after a Bible study member hit the visitor’s car while leaving. Shortly after, a county code enforcement officer gave him a citation that said he needed a permit to host the weekly Bible study meetings, he said. (10news.com)

    This Bible study had been an ongoing zoning violation with no complaints until a member of the Bible study demonstrated one of the reasons we have zoning laws. Look at the picture on the link. It’s obvious that the home has a one-car driveway and the street entrance to the home is extremely narrow, which suggests that parking had always been tight in their neck of the woods and it was probably just a matter of time before something like this happened.

    Therefore, I believe the pastor should apologize to his neighbors and submit to the zoning code of his county. It’s not a persecution thing; it’s an “obey man by obeying God” thing.

    • Sorry Chunck, it’s not an obeying man thing, it’s about obeying the Constitution. You know that supreme law for the land of good ol’ USA? It’s about government can’t interfere to peaceful religious assemblies in the privacy of people’s homes. It’s no different than a neighbor inviting all of their family over for a family gathering, have a nice meal, and share ol’ stories about their past. Bible study is the same, brothers and sisters gather, shared a nice meal (if any) and share that grand ol’ story about Christ and its implications.

      If the neighbors complaint about parking and traffic, I’m sure the pastor can work out a peaceful resolution. Having the attendees park further and walk to his house, car-pool, etc. But sending government officials with the threat of “zoning laws” (which doesn’t apply to private gatherings), fines, and “things will get ugly” a balant threat of personal harm is simply not-acceptable nor legal and definitely not Constitutional.

      • Reformed Sinner,

        It’s no different than a neighbor inviting all of their family over for a family gathering, have a nice meal, and share ol’ stories about their past. Bible study is the same, brothers and sisters gather, shared a nice meal (if any) and share that grand ol’ story about Christ and its implications.

        “No different,” really? You make it sound like worshipping the one true God is a polite, even civil, project. This is part of what I think ails. It’s true that we are to live at peace with our neighbors, but it is also true that our confession is to be at war with them.

        See, part of my point, despite the suggestions that mine is a “pacifist” view, is that there is indeed a time for war. The “grand ol’ story” is to decalre war on the world, the flesh and ther devil. Same for the “nice meal” we share. It seems to me that, ironically, those who clamor for their constitutional rights finally depend on diluting spiritual warfare.

11. Great. So, it appears to be another one of those “stories” which has swamped the Christian world and incited outrage in some Christian circles which appears to be a lot less outrageous after the second glance. Zrim is right–Christians need to learn to suck some things up; for one thing, it is a better witness to neighbors.

    • Richard,

      I’m not sure at all that’s what the evidence says. It appears to me that than officious county bureaucrat attempted to levy fines against a bible study on behalf of an aggrieved neighbor and was prevented from doing so by media and public pressure. The spark was a small thing but shutting down bible studies or private associations is not a small thing is it?

      • Dr. Clark, you are right–it is not a small thing. And, having read the letter by the law firm representing the pastor, I believe they are on solid ground to have the citation withdrawn, although I would have to defer to an attorney licensed in California. Having said that, as an attorney myself, it annoys me exceedingly when I see Christians run off to members of my profession whenever their “rights” are violated instead of suffering wrongs; in this case, I wonder whether the pastor in any way attempted to resolve his issues with his neighbors first before running off to his lawyer. Having said that, Dr. Clark, you are welcome to conduct a Bible study in my home any time; ther is always room in Arizona for one more Californian tired ot the nanny state of Ahnold.

        • Hi Richard,

          Yes, we agree that there should be private resolution before public redress. I understand that the pastor paid for the damage to the car that was done (about $200). That seems like restitution.

12. Reformed Sinner,

    First, the Holy Bible is the only controlling authority for Christians, not the US Constitution, and when the two authorities conflict with each other, the Christian should appeal to the Scriptures first. For example, the US Constitution grants women the right to abort their children; however, Scripture is very clear on this matter because abortion violates the Sixth Commandment. But if we apply your rule, the Bible doesn’t really matter. In fact, we could quote you, stating, “You know that supreme law for the land of good ol’ USA? It’s about government can’t interfere . . . . privacy of [women’s bodies].” This might sound well and fine to you, but I can’t play along.

    Second, zoning laws absolutely apply to private gatherings when the “private” gatherings affect the general public, as in this case. Moreover, the establishment clause is not a blank check, as you appear to believe. Your right to exercise your free speech and to practice your religion ends at the point where it encroaches on my private property or when it leaves a footprint that impacts my private property, which are a couple of reasons that zoning codes exist.

    Third, if the neighbors complain about parking, traffic, and noise, then they have a legitimate complaint and I can’t blame them if they appeal to the civil magistrate for a lawful remedy, because, as I said, your right to practice your religion ends where it encroaches on my private property.

    • “First, the Holy Bible is the only controlling authority for Christians, not the US Constitution, and when the two authorities conflict with each other, the Christian should appeal to the Scriptures first”

      This is a bit extreme. “Bible is the only controlling authority?” Supreme yes, but we are also under the Constitution as American Citizens, and it’s not there under advisement but has actual legal implications. Now, of course Christians live off Scripture first, but it’s not as simple as you outlined. For example: it can be argued that public schools are unbiblical, are you going to tell all of your church members that going to public school is defering to Satan?

      “For example, the US Constitution grants women the right to abort their children”

      Wow, which edition are you reading? The Liberal Left? The Constitution grants no such rights. In fact, the Constitution grants all humans to have inalienable rights. I would argue it’s AGAINST the Constitution to have abortion and abortion is unconstitutional.

      Oh, thanks for totally twisting my words to fit your agenda. I believe it’s call the “straw man” argument. Very nicely done.

      “Your right to exercise your free speech and to practice your religion ends at the point where it encroaches on my private property or when it leaves a footprint that impacts my private property, which are a couple of reasons that zoning codes exist.”

      Yes, your freedom ends where my nose begin, I study my share of Law courses thank you. Do you even look at the facts of the case? What private property has the pastor and his flock encroached? Did they park on the neighbor’s yard? Did they sing hymns in the middle of the street? Did they sit around the sidewalk studying the Bible? The Government has zero rights to control what people do inside their home. At least that’s the founding principle of USA, but of course USA is changing and many liberal politicians think they have a god-given right to regulate people’s behaviors.

      “Third, if the neighbors complain about parking, traffic, and noise, then they have a legitimate complaint and I can’t blame them if they appeal to the civil magistrate for a lawful remedy, because, as I said, your right to practice your religion ends where it encroaches on my private property.”

      This is the lamest excuses ever. Public streets and sidewalk parking are free for ALL to park. I can’t stand it when house owners think they “own” the sidewalk parking space outside their homes. They don’t. As for traffic: whatever. As for noise, right… like I said if there’s a home with college kids throwing parties once a week there would be no news, certainly no threats by zoning board about “things getting ugly”, and the police at best will tell them to tune it down. But somehow when it involves a Church and the Bible we need to be overly critical of our fellow brethens. i don’t get this

13. I think we all agree that Christians do well by being good neighbors. And perhaps too many are quick to get up in arms about “our rights” rather than exhibit biblical long-suffering.

    However, perhaps we reformed types are a bit too willing to believe the worst concerning our evangelical brethren? Maybe we should be a bit slower to jump to conclusions and give them more benefit of the doubt. We don’t know everything about the situation, but the fact that (a) the pastor paid for the damage, and (b) it wasn’t even a neighbor who made the complaint but a non-resident visitor (who allegedly exaggerated the congestion issue) … shouldn’t we be a bit slower to assume that these Christians brought the trouble on themselves? I’m not saying they didn’t (and was a bit miffed to see the pastor talking about constitutional rights in their Sunday service), but from the pictures, it’s not obvious to me that their Bible study created a worse congestion scene than the place I lived during seminary by simple virtue of having so many tenants with cars.

    • There are bigger issues involve. The rule of Law that we have in this country relies heavily on “precedents”, if this case becomes a precedent then thousands of Bible Study conducted at private homes are in danger of being banned. A simple complain by any person about any private Bible Study anywhere and it can be shut down because this case (assuming it is lost) serves as a precedent.

      As for “combating spirit” vs. “long-suffering”, I am probably the last person in the world that wants to fight anybody on anything. However, there’s a difference between being a combative jerk and a person that simply stands up for their rights. I don’t know why some of you are so offended when the pastor bought in the “Constitution” issue, it is a Constitution issue – already the USA society give up too many power to the government to regulate people’s private lives. I saw it on “Real life Police stories” episode once that the police was sent to a home because the neighbor reports that someone’s home is “too dirty” and they think it “endangers the children living there”, and upon entrance, to me at least, there are dirty dishes and messy rooms but way better than many third-world nations I’ve been to, but the police calls in child-service and they took their children away, and the police told the family outright if the house is not clean ever they can kiss their children goodbye. This is the USA we are living in today, when the government can have any and all excuses to meddle with your private affairs.

      • Um, RefSin
        if you noticed, I wasn’t trying to make any point concerning constitutional stuff (and if you noticed my earlier comments, you’ll see that I was not at all offended about the pastor invoking the 1st amendment, and even offered a Biblical precedent of why we should do things like that).

        My substantive point was about how we’re so eager to fault brethren (especially those evangelicals we perceive to make the whole lot of us look dumb), that we’re quick to pull the trigger and we so often fail to extend the patience and Christian charity that we wish they’d show to us.

    • Darren,

      If I follow you, I don’t think this has as much to do with “Reformed” and “evangelicals.” My point about the clamor for rights applies to both, whether he’s “Reformed” or not (indeed, perhaps more so if he’s Reformed).

      I don’t have anything against rights, I just don’t see why the Bible is the ground instead of a tradition of men (i.e. the Constitution or Bill of Rights). I mean, if Jesus tells us that even our own lives must be laid down in order to follow him, I don’t see much place for rights. It’s similar to how family values rhetoric doesn’t stand very well against the fact that our marriages will be dissolved in the new age, or that we must hate our family members if they stand between us and Jesus. Yes, we are told to honor and love our parents, but we are also told to forsake them if they forsake Jesus.

      Rights, like spouses and families and life, are very good things. But I can’t help but sense the same sort of idolatry subsuming the clamor for rights as I do for families, indeed, as I do for life itself. Yes, that was a shot across the cultural rightist bow.

      • Hey Zrim, I didn’t have your points in mind. I actually agree with you (I think) for the most part, at least in principle. Maybe I was voicing something of a mea culpa as I myself was suspicious of some kind of wacky right-wing evangelical wrongdoing, but felt a bit rebuked as later reports seemed to dispel most of those suspicions.

14. Reformed Sinner:

    Your public school analogy is a false analogy, unless you can show me a Constitutional amendment that affirms your position. However, my abortion analogy stands because it is the law of the land, whether you and I disagree with it (I disagree with R v. Wade, but my opinion, unlike yours, is not binding).

    To your argument: Yes, public streets are public property, and churches, by definition, are public gatherings, or assemblies. However, homes are private property. Therefore, when someone complained to the county, the zoning administrator investigated the complaint to determine if this Bible study was a public or private gathering, because most residential districts prohibit public assemblies, ostensibly to protect residential privacy from large public footprints, such as traffic, congested parking, etc. (to which you said, “whatever”). The pastor answered the questions and the ZA determined that this Bible study qualified as a “religious assembly” and instructed the pastor to apply for a permit (I seriously doubt the veracity of the major use permit element to this story — at most they would need a conditional use permit), because the point of the code was to prevent the general public from using public parking to attend a public assembly in a private residential neighborhood. And it’s at this point that your wild-teenage-party analogy falls. While the party may appear to be a public assembly, they are generally private affairs (which is why we have noise and nuisance codes), contra the Bible study. The point of the zoning code, however, was to protect the general public’s welfare, which is the duty of the civil magistrate.

    This explains why we never see large churches meeting in residential neighborhoods on Sunday mornings — zoning codes prohibit public assemblies in private districts. It also explains why we generally see large churches located in districts that accommodate concentrated automotive and pedestrian traffic. Again, your right to free speech ends where it encroaches on my private property.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to work. I’m a concert promoter and I’m trying to organize a Van Halen reunion concert, to be held in my half-acre backyard, which is in the middle of a high-end R-1 residential district. I don’t expect any trouble from the county, however, because the First Amendment guarantees me the right to public assembly.

    • Good luck, I’m not here to argue with you or put yo down, but simply pointing out you’re views are flawed and dangerous in the long run, but you have your opinions.

      Good luck at work.

15. Chunck, you made an unfortunate typo in you last “public” assembly, but it happens to the best of us. I’m envious–a Van Halen reunion concert!

16. Thanks, Richard.

    Scott, can you please correct my typo?

    • done.

17. By the way, I’m not a concert promoter; I only used that to make a point.

18. Civic ordinances applied to church bells are not new, but the media attention is new. Churches have long struggled with complying with city zoning ordinances, parking ordinances, nuisance laws, and noise ordinances. Churches throughout the nation have for many decades worked cooperatively with municipal authorities to smoothly resolve these issues, and worked with neighbors to be good neighbors. Churches, like all individual and corporate citizesn, must comply with neutral laws of general application. As a constitutional lawyer I’ve represented dozens of churches in these affairs.

    What is new is that it is harder to work out amicable settlements with neighbors and municipal officials. In many places there is less willingness to tolerate churches and all that goes with church — including traffic, parking problems, noise, congestion — and the reason is not hard to find. There are fewer Christians and fewer people who see in churhes something to be valued. Votes on city councils always broke along lines of believer-unbeliever. Now there are fewer votes for the church.

    Churches will have to be good citizens and good neighbors to avoid intolerance. And they may from time to time need to invoike RLUIPA and the Free Exercise Clause. Federal law forbids discrimination in land use regulation on the basis of religion and forbids the application of even laws of general application to religious land uses in a way that substantially burdens the exercise of protected religious liberties without a showing of a compelling governmental interest that cannot be served by a less burdensome alternative. The law needs to be made more generally applicable and invoked as a last resort when the magistrate oversteps.

19. OK–now the church bell thing IS outrageous. I lived in Germany for a number of years; our local churches tolled their bells hourly throughout the day and night. The Germans, however, did NOT tolerate drivers with ten car speakers blasting rap music thoughout their towns. Here in good old U.S.A. we tolerate and prohibit the opposite. Jeepers. Makes me homesick for Deutschland.

20. Would you all (Richard, Scott…) be totally OK with an amplified Islamic call to prayer five times per day in your neighborhood? Perhaps from the mosque a few doors down you?

    • That’s a fair question.

      Culturally, theologically no – but partly because I could not help but feel threatened by such a thing. Islam means “submission.” The call from the muezzein carries with it an implied threat. It’s the difference between an announcement (“Christ is risen”) and an imprecation (“submit or we’ll kill you”). I realize that the church has a checkered past but Christendom is not inherent to Christianity but militarism is inherent to Islam.

      From a civil pov, however, I suppose it would come down to decibels. Personally I would be in favor of more quiet. If the mosque has to live with the same restrictions as the church and the ice cream man, I guess that would be equitable.

21. Silence the Harley??!! That’s not noise…that’s music! Unless he’s playing his music during quiet hours, then that’s rude.

    • It’s not music when I’m trying to sleep!

22. I’m all for tolerance, but I refuse to tolerate anyone who wants to kill me and my loved ones simply because I don’t worship Allah. Congress would be completely justified if they wrote a law that bans Islam from American soil because Islam, when taken to its logical conclusion, requires its adherents to overthrow the US government in the name of Allah. Stamp out the religion — stamp out the terrorists.

    But don’t tread on me.

Comments are closed.