-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.
BettyKath,
That’s the girl who earned over the cap on SS some years ago. Great answer.
Still got your own mind. Had no doubt of thAT actually, but pressures to conform can force tributes where needed.
I don’t hold grudges, but suspicions. And that includes even myself.
I agree with all you say. Only that when Matt is in good form I will let him amaze me for a while.
To each his own. Otherwise I say to him: “sober up and come back later”. And he does both.
I am a real newbie. Was on the internet before the web to fetch a few text files. But gave up when the number of sites to visit became quickly astronomical, ca 1986.
“C’mon Matt, That’s uncalled for. Thinking it is one thing, you certainly have that right, but posting it is unnecessary. Whether you think Bill’s apologies are sincere or not (I assume you think they are not, otherwise, why the snark?), they are beautifully written. You might want to study them. And then consider your own comments up thread that were the most insulting on this thread (Matt Johnson 1, July 21, 2012 at 2:41 pm).”
===============================
Bill can stick it. If you think he’s sincere, maybe you should ask him to go for coffee.
Make sure you’re wearing the right shoes.
bettykath 1, July 22, 2012 at 7:02 pm
707, message rec’d. One of us will no longer be recognized by me.
====================================================
Which one?
707 (hope that nickname is ok)
re: Bill’s apologies “That is their whole purpose: to allay fears, pitch to folk’s susceptibility to peaceful preachings, and hide one’s previous mistake in showing the gall which actually motivates Bill. Bill is a extremely skillful pathogen (sic). And some in the gang saw it and became scared, lay themselves on their backs with stomach exposed like a dog does, and whine a few words of praise, hoping for future mercy from one who they saw fated to be a BIG dog here. Amazing to watch. Hope my ideas have gone from without raising any reflexive defense barriers.”
———————
Whether Bill is sincere or not is his business. He threw dirt, he cleaned it up. His sincerity, or lack of it, will become apparent soon enough.
==================
“As for use of abusive language, there has been used aplenty of that, even or maybe especially by some GBs:
MikeS, GeneH, Messpo, even Rafflaw on occasion.”
——————
There is usually an extended back and forth and I move on. Double standard? maybe. They usually are calling someone out but they end up joining in.
==================
“So perhaps Mike’s occasional outbursts would at least bear comparison with the GB standard before condemnation.
Matt’s useage is more or less in form of a tic, not a constant frame of address, apparent if you follow him.”
———————
So you read Matt, I will pass. Well, I tried but then he put forth another uncalled-for, totally insensitive snark. I can’t miss all of his posts.
=============
“They injure your sensibilities or whatever you call it, and your right of asking for change is not being attacked by me. On the contrary. I seek only to help inoculate you from the effects. Some of us do scare easily, like I do, and greater civility would be desireable.”
——————–
I’m not sure why I need inoculation. Inoculations tend to compromise the immune system. Thanks anyway. In the good ole days when such conversations were only by email, I found the delete button a great comfort. Such trash went, well, in the trash, and without response. I’ll have to strengthen that approach.
LAB,
” And, this guy forgot the part about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”
——–
True enough. He needed to get the correct permits and build according to the appropriate building codes. Otherwise, he needs to stop holding services and pay taxes.
==============
“He’s not a church as defined by law, even though where two or more are gathered in the lord’s name, there stands his church. Whose church you ask? The law says it’s not the one operated by Michael Salman”
——————
He wasn’t cited for operating a church. He was cited for holding regular assemblies in a building that was not built according to the right building codes. What law defines a church and how is his church not in compliance?
Mespo727272, the reason you cannot worship in a fire trap of a building is that the flames of hell are reserved for other than church worship. And, this guy forgot the part about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. He’s not a church as defined by law, even though where two or more are gathered in the lord’s name, there stands his church. Whose church you ask? The law says it’s not the one operated by Michael Salman.
You obviously did not read my correction. (MikeS vs Matt)
And besides the list of abuse users is so long that all were not included here.
And the caller (me) always is included on any list he creates. Call someone a pot, then you are a kettle.
And you should know that MikeS.
I did not call for remedy. I did not abuse those who do so. Only wished to call attention to them as setters of abuse standards here.
Now that should you be able to understand MikeS.
But now I have expressed it. Hope it helps.
Or DO you think yourselves demigods, worthy of only receiving praise. In my case it was an observation without valuation. Again too subtle for you? Hope not.
I take you GBs as normative here. And use you as such.
Praise or disagree as I feels deserving. Would that more dared. But fear of gods is of long standing.
Simple sentiences.
“So perhaps Mike’s occasional outburst……”
That should read Matt’s, etc…….
Mercy me, so many M’s here. My oh my, it’s murmuring and murdering. Lalapedy?
BettyKath,
Are you searching to be taken up in the “gang of ??? group”?
Your liberal delivery of kudos to principal and currently present members could be interpreted as such.
A shame for such a bright mind in which case. Fini on that. A naive question from a socially naive person.
Let me cite your comment with other intent: Correcting Matts behavior here.
“C’mon Matt, That’s uncalled for. Thinking it is one thing, you certainly have that right, but posting it is unnecessary. Whether you think Bill’s apologies are sincere or not (I assume you think they are not, otherwise, why the snark?), they are beautifully written. You might want to study them. And then consider your own comments up thread that were the most insulting on this thread (Matt Johnson 1, July 21, 2012 at 2:41 pm).”
I do agree as Rafflaw and other do, that Bill’s comments are beautifully written.
That is their whole purpose: to allay fears, pitch to folk’s susceptibility to peaceful preachings, and hide one’s previous mistake in showing the gall which actually motivates Bill. Bill is a extremely skillful pathogen (sic). And some in the gang saw it and became scared, lay themselves on their backs with stomach exposed like a dog does, and whine a few words of praise, hoping for future mercy from one who they saw fated to be a BIG dog here. Amazing to watch. Hope my ideas have gone from without raising any reflexive defense barriers.
As for use of abusive language, there has been used aplenty of that, even or maybe especially by some GBs:
MikeS, GeneH, Messpo, even Rafflaw on occasion.
So perhaps Mike’s occasional outbursts would at least bear comparison with the GB standard before condemnation.
Matt’s useage is more or less in form of a tic, not a constant frame of address, apparent if you follow him.
And lastly this is a free forum, not a joint session of Congress to hear the SOU. So cries of “You lie!” may be more acceptable hear.
They injure your sensibilities or whatever you call it, and your right of asking for change is not being attacked by me. On the contrary. I seek only to help inoculate you from the effects. Some of us do scare easily, like I do, and greater civility would be desireable.
Speaking of civility: a thread on the lack thereof from other non-JT blogs vv JT himself etc. degraded rapidly into the most uncivil discussion, on own civility here, we have perhaps had. It required “shape-up” comments from JT himself. A restart anew of the civility discussion showed again that many felt abused for just such misdeeds. The debate caught new uncivil tone and words. The results were not of consensus nor rapprochement or forgiveness or apology.
A touchy subject, it would seem
Just so you know.
Just expressing my views.
A reply, hopefully you read this the day after your comment immediately above, is hoped for. Mainly as a clarification of that comment.
“there has been used aplenty of that, even or maybe especially by some GBs: MikeS, GeneH, Messpo, even Rafflaw on occasion. So perhaps Mike’s occasional outbursts would at least bear comparison with the GB standard before condemnation.”
ID707,
Passive-aggressive “physician” heal thyself.
707, message rec’d. One of us will no longer be recognized by me.
Night all, beddy bye here. 12AM.
Silence. Get the message?
Pretenders on the high road above the cowards who fear them are difficult to attack. Rest easy on your honor, it is recognized.
Bill W. 1, July 22, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Matt Johnson
I don’t expect an apology from you, nor am I here to question your views. I respect the fact that you are entitled to your opinions and I take no offense. This simply means that I can only hope to sway your opinion through my contributions and I believe that, given time and an open mind, your opinion will change.
My apology still stands, accepted or not. I’m here to learn and, hopefully, give back, that’s all. My civility to you will remain the same as that which I give to all the other readers of this blog.
===============================
You should take offense because it’s my intent to offend you.
I don’t give a ra** A** about your apology. I still think you”re a sociopath.
Lewis, “I think we can toss the many comments I have read saying ‘A church isn’t a building, it’s people’, etc.”
True enough. Those who make that insistence are ignoring the fact that there are two meanings for church: 1 the building used by the congregation and 2 the congregation itself and its beliefs.
We need to be clear that in the subject case, the “church” being discussed is the building as in meaning 1. The “church”, meaning 2, needs to help the pastor bring his buildings up to code or find another “church” (meaning 1) for their bible study and worship. The city is not objecting to the congregational church, it is objecting to the lack of code compliance in the physical structure.
Matt Johnson
I don’t expect an apology from you, nor am I here to question your views. I respect the fact that you are entitled to your opinions and I take no offense. This simply means that I can only hope to sway your opinion through my contributions and I believe that, given time and an open mind, your opinion will change.
My apology still stands, accepted or not. I’m here to learn and, hopefully, give back, that’s all. My civility to you will remain the same as that which I give to all the other readers of this blog.
brttykath,
I can recognize a sociopath when I see one. Conning, but not intelligent (cunning). No apology. I’m not intelligent enough to apologize.
Bettykath,
Thanks for the reply. In determining whether the building is being used for a church or not, I think we can toss the many comments I have read saying ‘A church isn’t a building, it’s people’, etc. When Mr. Salman was granted his tax exempt status, the inspector who approved it said that because of the pewlike chair arrangement, the altar, and pulpit, it was a legitimate church. It doesn’t seem to be much of stretch to say that he had created a church. I’ve probably read 50 or more articles about this, and the comments that seem to be the most clued in to the story beyond the headlines are the Christian sites. They also are the most polite. I received a reply from a lady who had been indignant about the trampling of the Constitution, but had dug deeper because of what I wrote, and let me know that she had been wrong.
C’mon Matt, That’s uncalled for. Thinking it is one thing, you certainly have that right, but posting it is unnecessary. Whether you think Bill’s apologies are sincere or not (I assume you think they are not, otherwise, why the snark?), they are beautifully written. You might want to study them. And then consider your own comments up thread that were the most insulting on this thread (Matt Johnson 1, July 21, 2012 at 2:41 pm).
Malisha 1, July 22, 2012 at 12:18 am
Where is the Hebrew writing? I couldn’t find it.
============
http://www.dictionary.co.il/
Matt Johnson
I would be remiss indeed to not extend my deepest apologies to you as well. I’ve seen that you are also well respected on this blog and my affronts to you were indeed uncalled for. While I can’t remove the damage done, I will dutifully strive to extend to you the same respect and consideration worthy of everyone here.
====================
Bill W. I still think you’re a fraud.