-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Michael Salman, a pastor from Phoenix, Arizona, is currently serving 60 days in prison. He was also sentenced to three years probation and was ordered to pay a $12,180 fine. Salman’s crime? hosting weekly Bible studies on his 4.6 acre property. Salman is being represented by John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, who has petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court.
Whitehead said: “That Michael Salman and his family and friends are not allowed to gather in private to study the Bible goes against every founding principle of the United States of America.” Sounds like a serious violation of the First Amendment.
The City of Phoenix doesn’t agree that this is an issue of religious freedom:
- [Salman’s] case is about the building that is used for regular assembly does not meet construction and fire code requirements for assembly
- All houses of worship in the City of Phoenix must conform to the same codes
The City of Phoenix investigated neighbors’ repeated complaints and found numerous fire safety standards violations. Salman has repeatedly ignored opportunities to comply with fire safety standards. Whitehead responded: “I don’t think God intended on us to obey unlawful ordinances. If so, He must be pleased with Hitler huh?”
Apparently those “unlawful ordinances” include taxes since Salman claimed church status for property tax exemption purposes.
Salman was found guilty of 67 Class 1 Misdemeanors, out of 96 civil code violations. Salman appealed and the Maricopa County Superior Court which upheld the convictions stating:
[T]he Defendant was engaged in public or church activities, and further that Defendant’s convictions did not violate his Constitutional right to religious freedom.
H/T: Alethian Worldview, examiner, azcentral, examiner.
id707,
“Two items for the price of one:
Blouise,
I’ll bet you that if you found enscribed tablets of solid gold that you would also say Halleluja and start a rreligion.”
Dearest id,
I just, not more than 5 minutes ago, found a bunch of inscribed gold tablets in my back yard but the angel guarding them won’t let me show them to you. However, if you send me a whole bunch of money I bet I could hire a good lawyer who would be able to wrest the tablets from the control of the angel. It’ll take a while … probably several years, especially if that angel eats a lawyer or two … but I’m sure I can count on your continued support in this worthy cause.
Humbly in the name of Self,
Blouise
p.s. … One of the inscriptions on one of the tablets says that whom-so-ever uncovers the tablets may take as many lawyerhusbands as she desires … tax-free!
Thomas Worthington
“Here in the south we still have tent revivals on private property and no one complains. You are worshiping God.”
***************************
In 1958 at the Our Lady of the Angels School in Chicago a fire broke out just before classes were to be dismissed. 92 students and 3 nuns died. The building was generally up to code by violations did exist. The Church argued they were immune from the regulations because they “were worshiping God.” That didn’t fly then and it shouldn’t fly now unless simplistic theists get their way — and more innocents needlessly die a horrible death.
Many of us in the secular community are really tired of the whine of victimhood and demand for special treatment because of religion. The one and only thing I liked about the Puritans is that when they didn’t accept the secular community’s rules, they simply left rather than boring them all with that inane proselytizing and threats of fire and brimstone. You’re free to believe anything you want; you’re not free to avoid the law of the land because of it.
By the way one of the “among others” principles you forgot to mention was separation of church and state. I’m sure it was mere oversight.
Idealist707
Thank you for the personal affront. At least you chose not to use the outdated, disproved lemming analogy! My point is quite simple, mainly that it seems any story of like content seems focused on those of us who choose to worship God as Christians. If a safety regulation is to be enforced, it must apply to ALL gatherings in a residence. I used my examples of other gatherings, not in malice, but only because they are merely other examples of gatherings. I fully respect other’s choices to live thier lives as they seem fit. Why not give Christians the same respect?
Bill W.
It seems apparent to me where the blind eye is here.
Can a blind eye see itself? Apparently not.
In regards to the vigilant law enforcers looking after safety of the worshippers in Salman’s meetings, the law must therefore apply to ANY gatherings of a group of people in a private residence. Therefore, any party assembly (i.e.: birthday parties, “holiday” parties, bar-mitzpahs, quincineras, tupperware parties, avon parties, etc.) must be considered unlawful due to safety regulations. Let’s face it, I know of very few residences which are regulation compliant for large gatherings. Ergo, the question is reopened: regulation enforcement or religious persecution? Perhaps, if it was a gathering of muslims, atheists, scientologists or any other group might have recieved a blind eye!
Protestant free enteprise versus Catholic monopoly.
Two items for the price of one:
Blouise,
I’ll bet you that if you found enscribed tablets of solid gold that you would also say Halleluja and start a rreligion.
To all,
Protestantism just shows that the forms of scams multiply on what, in essence, is a free market.
Catholic forms were strictly controlled however.
We can safely conclude that the target markets for corporations are also free ones, as far as scam developments are concerned.
The actions at issue did not involve religion — they involved construction (and lying to get the permits)
Defendant Salman has little regard for the safety of his fellow Bible studiers but a great regard for his own pocketbook. Just another scam artist cloaking himself with religion.
Reminds me of the 1800’s and Joseph Smith, the religious folk magic guy, running around with his magic stick hunting for treasure … voila, Mormonism.
Using religion as a scam is something at which Americans excel. It’s in our DNA.
The headline is misleading. He wasn’t arrested for praying, but for not complying with code and safety regulations. But then, code inspectors can be overzealous.
“Mr. Salman had regular gatherings of up to 80 people. He held services twice a week and collected a tithe at the services. The building that he held services in had a dais and chairs were aligned in a pew formation. He held himself out as a being a church through the media (Harvest Christian Church) and claimed a church status for tax exemption purposes on his property.”
Sounds like a church to me. Most churches provide housing for their pastors, either as an annex to the church proper or completely separate and both are tax exempt. Seems that tax exemption is proper.
The problem is that he got permits to build a stand-alone garage and a family room extension on his house for residential use but what he actually used these for was his church, hence the tax exemption. There are codes for private homes and a different set of codes for places of assembly. He claimed in permit applications a private home and, presumably complied with the appropriate codes. His usage, on the other hand, was as a place of assembly. Not the usage when he applied for permits and not the codes with which he complied when he built. He’s had sufficient time to comply. He refused. Further, he continued to use his unsafe church as a place of assembly. Time to pay the piper and serve his time.
@Worthington: No it wasn’t. If you want to know why this country was founded, I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence, which lays out the reasons. Freedom of Religion is not even mentioned; there was no religious oppression of the colonies, it was pretty much financial oppression and tyranny. Trade restrictions, taxes, and a refusal to recognize any sort of self-governance. But religion was not ever mentioned as a cause of separation.
A tent is a recognized temporary structure and is not generally a fire hazard; most such tents are purchased and the fabric is treated to be flame resistant at least; tents are frequently used near open flames (camp fires) and propane grills.
The majority of the IBC (International Building Code, which applies in almost every state) a copy of which is on my shelf) is devoted to fire safety, including escape routes. The escape routes from a tent are not an issue, the escape routes from a wood structure are a big issue.
Building codes are adopted for a reason, because without them people die. Worship your deity all you want, it does not give you the right to endanger the lives of others. This was not a restriction on religion, it was a restriction on endangering the lives of people.
The Constitution says (paraphrased): Congress shall make no law with respect to religion…..
Here the law (local) probably says: No structure admitting the public shall be allowed to open unless such ordinances under the building and fire codes have been followed and inspections have confirmed this conformance.
No link to religion there—–IS THERE???
If the building code violations were valid, and this fellow ignored or scorned them, then his conviction was valid.
How can he validly preach “love thy neighbor” as he endangers them?
Thomas W: What happened to “Render unto Caeser that which is Caeser’s,” for that matter. There was a clear message there to pay taxes and follow the proper dictates of civil authority.
Thomas W.
You must be aware that tent materials have to be fireproofed. And that there are inspections of the area by the fire department prior to use to insure other ordinances are followed.
In what way, do you feel that this pastor et al should be an exception?
What happened to, ” Where two or more are gathered, there I will be also.” This country was founded because of two main principles, taxation without representation and freedom of religion, among others. Have we grown that far away from our principles. Here in the south we still have tent revivals on private property and no one complains. You are worshiping God.
When, as in this case, there is an imminent risk to the public in allowing assemblies to continue under these conditions, what remdies do the laws allow in form of immediate relief?
In other words, can the “home church” be closed for asssemblies, or similare police envorceable measures?
I mean how long can a fire trap be used while appeals are being made???
Reading this, I was quite indignant on Salman’s behalf… right up until I got to the part where he had claimed tax-exempt church status.
Can’t have your cookie and the penny, too, dude.
And I love how Fox News, in the screencap, has characterized the incident as “imprisoned for preaching.”
We had to build a metal fire escape.
And we weren’t worshipping, but assembly is assembly.
If the facts fit the principles we don’t know, ie fire inspections were correct, etc.
Does he have a church? Does it meet standards.
Not relevant to our judgementperhaps, but in the subjectivd meaning it does as someone has mentioned as the two proofs taken. Objective facts and subjective judgements as to guilt.
I guess the rule to be gleaned is that you can pray with and preach to the faithful all you want, you just can’t do it in a fire trap. Seems a reasonable approach to the First Amendment to me.