« The Bible's Been Changed | Main | "24" - Jack Bauer Isn't a Relativist »

May 28, 2009


I saw them being interviewed on Fox News. They said that they share a meal and do some praying. Now they need a permit? I am sure glad that I don't live there.

Why is it the government's business what these people are doing? Are these people hurting anyone? Are they destroying anything? Are they affecting anyone's private property? Are they fomenting rebellion? Are they using illegal substances? If the answers to these questions are no then why is it anyone's business?

Big Brother is watching.

Are they doing the same with childrens birthday parties, Superbowl parties, or ironically, home environmentalist meetings?

Wake up America, you're country's becoming communist. If you cannot see this then you need to open up your eyes. Just look at all the headlines: government is taking control of major industries, banks,etc, Barak Obama is starting up a "Hitler Youth"-type organization for kids; American citizens fear their government more now than anytime in history. I was born in communist Poland (before it collapsed) and I can tell you that we had more rights and more freedom (except in a few areas) than Americans have even today. One major difference between people living in communist countries and American citizens is that Americans are blind to the propaganda, unlike communist citizens who understand it to be so but are forced to comply.

Good article written by someone from Russia: http://english.pravda.ru/print/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0

Sometimes it's good for us to hear an outside opinion without getting offended. Oh, and please don't get offended at what I'm saying. I'm not trying to insult anyone, just worried for you guys. I'm from Canada and we're in the same boat here as well and I can see persecution starting to come here as well. Just remember, the Church grows more and is more healthy during times of persecution than in times of peace.

I wonder if we would be required to apply for a "major use permit" to host a party or thanksgiving dinner or birthday party. I guess as long as we don't pray or say "Praise the LORD" or say "Amen" we're exempt.

I have stated before...it's going to take a mass physical presence in state capitols around the nation to put down these types of anti-Christian police-state harassments. Adam is correct in saying (too many) Americans are blind (i.e. willingly ignorant and apathetic) to the propaganda.

...Eventually, it's going to get physical, ladies and gentlemen. Passive stances will simply not suffice.

I hope I am proven wrong.

Oh by the way, when I said "Americans are blind" I didn't mean everybody, but I meant most Americans and that includes most Canadians up here as well and western Europeans. There are of course many people who are aware of where our countries are headed and who understand that just because our country is democratic doesn't automatically exempt us from being corrupted. Look, just because you have freedom to watch 200+ channels of satellite TV in the privacy of your home and surf the internet doesn't make you free. All our other freedoms that our forefathers died to attain are quickly eroding and have eroded away.

This is scary. This type of thing reminds me that I need to stand up for everyone's right to assemble regardless of whether I morally agree or not because after a while they will come for me too, like this example.


Here's a constructive (?) suggestion:

From reading the news articles, the pastor is David Jones, and he holds the Bible studies with his wife Mary in their home in Bonita, CA. The next meeting is scheduled for June 9th.

How about all the STR fans in the Bonita area attend on the 9th to show their support? If they are going to get dinged for an unruly assembly, they may as well get their money's worth.


lol@get there moneys worth

good idea, though!

Be glad you don’t live here.

San Diego County is one of the most backwards, repressive bureaucracies in the USA. County PR staffers are now tap-dancing like puppets on speed.

E-mail Supervisor Chair Greg Cox at greg.cox@sdcounty.ca.gov and tell him what a great job (not!) Code Enforcement Head Pam Elias and her staff are doing or tell her yourself at Pam.Elias@sdcounty.ca.gov

I hope this goes to court. The County is going to lose big time. Too bad the taxpayers and not the responsible bureaucrats will pay the costs and damages.

Hopefully all this negative publicity will protect other citizens from further abuse by these bureaucratic zealots.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that Pastor's story- especially the part about a San Diego County official coming to his house and saying "Do you say 'Praise the Lord' ". I have noticed that believers and non-believers have very different a concepts of honesty. Certain elements ... Read Moreof the believer community will lie if it makes a "good story" possibly because they believe they are following a "higher truth". It is possible that some bureaucrat got over zealous about some zoning laws, but I think this Pastor is lying.

I lived in SD for 7 years.
Could be true.

Technically, you can't operate a public venue of this sort in your own home.

Like I couldn't have a public social night in my home and play DVD's of Disney movies every monday and collect money for commercial purposes. Nor can i throw raves or open a bar in my home, or give seminars on how to make cheesecake. Even if its free.

In the same vein, you can't operate a church - even a small church in an area that's not zoned for it. It's up to the powers that be to determine what is a "small church operation" (that impacts parking and residential activity) vs. what is a "prayer gathering".

Theres a point where a line is crossed - but that point is pretty subjective.

sometimes the cops just get annoyed cuz neighbors call them up screaming about all the cars blocking their garage etc...

I thought we had the right to peaceful assembly? Now we have to PAY for the right to have more than 15 people come to our own home for a non-revenue-generating bible study? Would someone please show me where in the constitution it says you can only have X number of friends over at your house Y number of times per month for Z purposes? Those in power will gladly continue to take your rights away as long as you say nothing. These homeowners should get every news agency they can find to shine a bright light on this governmental power grab.

I'm certainly glad we have the ACLU to step into situations like this and defend Jones.

Oops, my bad... This isn't about defending a swinger's club or encouraging a child porn situation... The suits at the ACLU won't be interested.

Hawkins -- Actually, the ACLU is interested in all First Amendment cases. It's what they do. Have these folks contacted them? The news just came out, after all.

With all due respect, that's monumentally naive, Barrayan.

Joe Citizen is supposed to think that's what they do. But they have long since morphed into a agenda-driven, extremely far-left political machine determined to remove every last vestige of God - and indeed this nation's Christian heritage - from every aspect of American culture. (And I am pathetically understating it.)

As for the news "just coming out"...again, naive.

If this had been a case about the police asking questions and making threats to a group of people meeting for some monthly "sexual encounter group" or NAMBLA devotees comparing stealth tactics, the ACLU would be all over it in defense of the dangerously deviant.

(Remember the ACLU exec caught with child porn on his computer? They are going to protect and defend what they like.)

Like you said..."That's just what they do."

>>"Did these folks contact them?"

In the cases the ACLU chooses to support, they are extremely assertive all on their own. It is woefully dismissive to imply if the ACLU doesn't get behing these folk...it's the fault of the folks. The problem is the ACLU is highly selective in the cases they defend and promote. If it doesn't fit their political niche, they'll blow it off and pass it over.

Please weigh what they "say" they do against their actual endeavors.

I am compelled to quote O'Reilly here: "Wise up."

(There is merit in a simple disagreement, but if many more people think the ACLU is really genuinely interested in ALL first Amendment situations, and not just the ones that advance their agenda...we are in much more trouble that even I care to admit.)

I'm sorry my tone is aggressive here, Barrayaran...but please watch them more closely. I am concerned many more people are duped into thinking the ACLU is what they say they are.

If they need help there is always the Alliance Defense Fund.

IF only they were showing porn movies and engaging in wife swapping. Then they would be the cause celebre of "E" and Keith Olbermann, each complaining about narrow minded neighbors disrespecting "privacy."

ToNy said, "Technically, you can't operate a public venue of this sort in your own home."

Therein lies the problem. When district zoning regulations conflict with "the free exercise of religion" and the freedom to peaceably assemble, either the laws or more likely the enforcement of those laws violates the Constitution.

The great thing about our Constitution is that it upholds the rights of individuals. It does so in part by establishing a judiciary whose justices do not make policy from the bench, but who impartially adjudicate the law without partisan interests or bias based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status. Our Supreme Court Justices uphold a preeminent commitment to the law that is exemplary in keeping with the gravity of the cases they decide. This is the last resort for the Constitutional protection of individual rights in America.

A headline for David Hawkins.

"Religious Liberty: Falwell, ACLU fight church restrictions and win."



A blip on the screen seven years ago?

There was also a case where an ACLU rep defended a student's right to wear a Christian T-shirt to school.

That's two.

I stand by my initial posts.

A blip that means that the ACLU could well get involved in this case on the side of the pastor. But don't let the facts get in the way of your conclusion.

He he.

Hey great! You'll let us know when the ACLU is going to publicly defend Jones, eh?

You should inform the ACLJ about how fair you folks are. Maybe you all could pull your efforts. ;)

>Joe Citizen is supposed to think that's what they do. But they have long since morphed into a agenda-driven, extremely far-left political machine determined to remove every last vestige of God - and indeed this nation's Christian heritage - from every aspect of American culture. (And I am pathetically understating it.)

...And here are the facts.

ACLU of Southern California (2008) filed suit on behalf of members of a faith-based charity organization after park rangers threatened to arrest the members for serving hot meals and distributing Bibles to the homeless on Doheny State Beach. More on the case.

ACLU of Louisiana (2008) filed a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting an individual's right to quote Bible verses on public streets in Zachary, Louisiana. More on the case.

ACLU and the ACLU of Texas(2008) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Texas Supreme Court in support of mothers who had been separated from their children by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). The DFPS seized more than 450 children from their homes in Eldorado, Texas following vague allegations about child abuse by some members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While fully supporting the state's commitment to protecting children from abuse, the ACLU argued that Texas law and the U.S. Constitution required that the children be returned unless the state could provide the requisite evidence of abuse. Neither Texas law nor the U.S. Constitution allows the state to separate children and their parents based on purported cultural harm alone or on the state's disapproval of the families' religious beliefs. In May 2008, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously ruled, consistent with the ACLU position, that the state must return the children to their homes pending further investigation of allegations of abuse. More on the case here and also and here.

ACLU of Florida (2007) argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg. The City had proposed limiting opposition speech, including speech motivated by religious beliefs, to restricted "free speech zones." After receiving the ACLU's letter, the City revised its proposed ordinance. More on the case.

ACLU of Oregon (2007) defended the right of students at a private religious school not to be pressured to violate their Sabbath day by playing in a state basketball tournament. The Oregon School Activities Association scheduled state tournament games on Saturdays, the recognized Sabbath of students and faculty of the Portland Adventist Academy. The ACLU argued that the school's team, having successfully made it to the tournament, should not be required to violate their religious beliefs in order to participate. More on the case here and also and here.

[Note from moderator: We generally shorten or remove comments that were cut and pasted if they are too lengthy. This comment has been shortened, but you can view the original, full list (and more) here.]

>Hey great! You'll let us know when the ACLU is going to publicly defend Jones, eh?


ACLU says county should rescind citation

A recent Fox news story reported that a San Diego couple, David and Mary Jones, was informed by a county employee that the bible study sessions they hosted in their home violated county codes. A few days later, they were warned in wirting to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit," according to the couple's attorney.

The ACLU--which does not represent the couple--sent a letter to the Department of Planning and Land Use strongly urging the County to rescind or dismiss the citation.

The ACLU shares concerns raised by the couple's law firm, the Western Center for Law and Policy, that the citation is not justified by the zoning code. Even if there were some viable zoning concerns, the ACLU is concerned that it unlawfully infringes the Joneses’ constitutional rights.

Singling out a religious gathering in a private home for zoning enforcement on terms and conditions not applicable to a similarly situated non-religious gathering is likely unlawful.

Hey ACLU, I generally don't allow people to post long comments that were cut and pasted from somewhere else. I'm going to cut back the post a little but since I understand the length is important to the comment, I'll still provide a link to the full list, and I encourage people to take a look.

No problem, as long as the data are available. Just wanted to make it clear that we're not talking about "blips" here.


Thank you so much!

Deeply encouraged,

First Amendment: 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. *** WHERE, in that statement of our RIGHT to peaceably assemble, does it give ANY governmental agency the "right" to infringe on our rights (not only assembly, but also religion and speech) for ANY reason, other than if the assembly is not peaceable? This must be opposed in court, including financial suit (and criminal prosecution, if possible) against the officials who have violated their rights. They must be held accountable for these criminal, unconstitutional violations of our freedoms, for justice in this case, and as a lesson across our country.

Super Bowl 201X. "Holy Moses did you see that catch." "Lord help the defense." "Hallelujah, Halleluiah we've got the win."

'Here come 'da Judge, Here come 'da Judge.' (Laugh-in)

The comments to this entry are closed.