-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,
I used to tell the Brits that they don’t know how to speak English. I used to edit their documents and tell them the spell check program on their computer was obviously defective. F’ing Yank.
Matt Johnson,
You know I love you, and you amaze me. and bore me, and surprise me. Who taught you to write Hebreaic?
As for drunk, no, you may be intoxicated by yourself and maybe incoherent at times too. But hell, only I am perfect. I said that.
BettyKath,
It was he who remarked on MY intelligence. I disclaimed having any and said an open mind was better for me. I did not remark on their intelligence by calling them idiots. Idiot was, when I learned english, a term used for those with weird perceptions or clueless or presumptious.
So again, I don’t think either of them are burdened by lack of IQ, as such.
Re clueless, my friend said tonight that keeping up with the younger generation is increasingly difficult.
He is still working, as I am not.
I said in response that “we can’t use the code words they use”. It is even so now when I write here. My use of idiot is not your use of the same word.
He summarized saying “communication is our biggest problem”. “Yes and challenge and enjoyment”, said I.
Namasti, whatever that is. It sounds nice anyway.
And a kiss on your heiny Bull. In the spirit of BettyKath.
ID707,
I’m still not drunk. Might happen later. I think I’ll just pass out.
BettyKath,
Let me honestly help you up on the saintly pedestal.
I will gladly sit at your feet and listen.
It is very difficult for me to listen to an idiot who presumes not only to tell ME, but who does it to this illustrious gang.
And my feet are very tender. 75 years of being tramped on without steel-toed shoes makes them hyperreactive. Unfortunately the wrong reaction occurs at the knee, it makes a kick instead of a withdrawal.
But, life is simpler and calmer with your attitude.
And one can, rarely, learn from idiot. The apparently retarded can surprise you.
The presumptious however? Hasn’t occured as yet to me.
Women have more patience than men. Of course, it is a genetic trait. Survival in men’s nearness requires it.
Malisha,
Your word tribute is good. I only post what is already printed.
http://www.first-names-meanings.com/names/name-YEDIDAH.html
Don’t take this for something it doesn’t mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prophecy
Goodness.
Bill W:
No offense taken at all. I didn’t want you to think I made some backhanded remark about you. Typed words are not very good at facial expression. ;D
Matt Johnson, no, I meant “tribute,” not “decimation.”
We pay tax; defeated peoples pay “Tribute.” Or defeating armies take “booty.” Or something.
Those subtle apologetics of warfare and so forth — I keep forgetting them.
I meant taxes are taxes, whether they’re being collected for a government or a victorious army. In this case, the tax is levied on ALL CHURCHES or ALL BUILDINGS USED FOR CHURCH WORK, and therefore, the fees are not discriminatory and jailing the guy for refusing to come up to code is not a violation of his religious rights.
SO MUCH TO EXPLAIN that I am bound to get some of it mixed up.
Jim and Bill are not lacking in intelligence imo. One or both may be a troll. One or both may be ignorant (not the same as lacking intelligence – we are all ignorant of some things). Others are dealing with them as trolls, I’m assuming a bit of ignorance or misunderstanding.
Snarking can send away some folks who may offer insightful comments on another topic (to help alleviate my ignorance on that topic) or it can send away some who would learn something from the topic under discussion. I remember how grateful I was when someone first made a positive comment about something I posted. It made me feel welcome. Even criticism or disagreement is ok if rendered respectfully.
I’d rather be a peacemaker than a bouncer.
idealist707 1, July 21, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Matt J is sober again. Then he is brilliant.
==========
Who says I’m sober. You’re speculating.
Jim 1, July 21, 2012 at 6:06 pm
The 1st amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the FREE exercise of religion,
Imposing a tax on a church is illegal. If he in fact has church at his home then it should be stated how many times so that he can pay taxes for the amount of time it is residential.
=========================
They need to make sure they take proper measurements so the square footage is correct. Also, the utility bills.
Matt J is sober again. Then he is brilliant.
BettyKath,
Why do you feed idiots like Jim and Bill W.?
Your answer is that otherwise idealist707 will starve.
Bill W.
People who claim they have intelligence usually have none. I just came home from a walk with a friend, and we parted with the conclusion that “we” just don’t know. You are one of those who thinks they do know.
You are not even good for a laugh.
I am usually polite, except previously when my distaste showed through my cover. But in your case, I am glad to make an exception. But do continue, as yet we have the privilege to do so here.
My intelligence?, I have none. I have an open mind instead.
Malisha,
Your stream runs clear. Don’t pollute it with concessions.
The 1st amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the FREE exercise of religion,
Imposing a tax on a church is illegal. If he in fact has church at his home then it should be stated how many times so that he can pay taxes for the amount of time it is residential.
mespo727272
I stand humbly corrected in my misinterpretation of your statement and your point is well accepted. I apologize for my wrongful villiafication of you. I trust there remains no ill will?
Malisha,
Everybody has to pay their taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_%28Roman_army%29
I would have stabbed the zero. I was Navy enlisted.
Matt Johnson, I’m not that much a student of the Bible so I did not know the whole story. Impressive! I did not mean to make any comparison between the government insisting upon code compliance and an occupying army from Rome demanding “tax” or [that tax paid by defeated places to the victors, I have forgotten the word]. I just meant that whoever the authority is, that authority is in charge of collecting the fees for whatever the regulation is, and that it is not a restriction on one’s right to speak or worship UNLESS the fee required is ONLY LEVIED against the worshippers of a certain religion. So if the guy had been jailed because there was a special code and a special fee he had to pay to worship a Christian God, then, OK, that’s discrimination against his religion. But if it’s a code for all churches and he has one of them, he’s not being victimized; he’s being cited for violation of a perfectly legal code.
And he should “render unto Caesar,” and I should study up my Bible a bit.
The synoptic gospels state that hostile questioners tried to trap Jesus into taking an explicit and dangerous stand on whether Jews should or should not pay taxes to the Roman authorities. The accounts in Matthew and Mark say that the questioners were Pharisees and Herodians, while Luke says only that they were “spies” sent by “teachers of the law and the chief priests”.
They anticipated that Jesus would oppose the tax, as their purpose was “to hand him over to the power and authority of the governor” (Luke 20:20). The governor was Pilate, and he was the man responsible for the collecting of taxes in Roman Judea. At first the questioners flattered Jesus by praising his integrity, impartiality, and devotion to truth. Then they asked him whether or not it is right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. In the Gospel of Mark (12:15) the additional, provocative question is asked, “Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” Jesus first called them hypocrites, and then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying Caesar’s tax. One of them showed him a Roman coin, and he asked them whose name and inscription were on it. They answered, “Caesar’s,” and he responded
“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”
The questioners were impressed (Matthew 22:22 states that they “marvelled”, ἐθαύμασαν) and satisfied with the answer, they went away.
=================
Oh, my.
JIm,
They didn’t just show up one day and say “naughty boy, off to jail”,
There had been many attempts to get him to clean up his act. He had choices: modify his buildings so they complied with the right codes or stop using it for services. He did not modify his buildings nor did he stop using them for services. How many citations should he get before they’re allowed to up the ante to get his attention?
In some ways he’s lucky. There was a (rich) guy in NYS who built a big expensive house without permits. He thumbed his nose at the local authorities. They pushed back. Lots of back and forth. In the end, the building was demolished (by court order) over his objections. Not a lot of public support for arrogant rich guys who think they can get away with whatever.
BIll W:
“Your response was clear, factual and respectful, unlike Id707 and mespo727272 who just can’t resist adding a personal dig in their rebuttals.”
*****************************
There was no personal dig nor any pointed remark about your intellect. I simply pointed out that your error was the result of your mindset. As I mentioned to another commentor who also took an unwarranted liberty with the law, victimhood doesn’t become anyone who doesn’t genuinely deserve it and making foolish equivalencies doesn’t advance your argument.