Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

"Although a church, its integrated auxillaries, or a convention or association of churches is not required to file Form 1023 to be exempt from Federal Income tax or to receive tax-deductible contributions, such an organization may find it advantageous to obtain recognition of exemption" -IRS Form 1023 (Rev. 9-98) Instructions, Schedule A, Churches, Instructions, Page 13.

DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTIONS

And unless your a completely blind, it says NOTHING about state taxation, and most churches DO pay federal, unless they are of certian Domoninations....*sigh* wheither they are ALLOWED to be Except from it or not, many still CHOOSE to pay, specially when a rectory is NOT connected to a church, because then it's not directly considered church property.

and what does that to do with the fact that there is still NO direct Seperation of Church and State in the bill?

[Scary Guy]

and what does that to do with the fact that there is still NO direct Seperation of Church and State in the bill?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m2UslLmAiI Yet another good video on that issue.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Nice try at a deflection. We were not talking about their ability to receive tax-deductible contributions. Tax-deductible contributions didn't even come up. We were talking about them being Tax exempt. Which is what you claimed they were not. I proved that they were.

We were also not talking about State Taxes. Not sure why you brought that up.

Since when did a Rectory not Church property? Even the wiki page on it says they are usually owned by the Church.

We brought this topic up because you posted a long rant of misinformation and I felt the need to correct it before someone made the mistake of believing you.

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

Nice try at a deflection. We were not talking about their ability to receive tax-deductible contributions. Tax-deductible contributions didn't even come up. We were talking about them being Tax exempt. Which is what you claimed they were not. I proved that they were.

We were also not talking about State Taxes. Not sure why you brought that up.

Since when did a Rectory not Church property? Even the wiki page on it says they are usually owned by the Church.

We brought this topic up because you posted a long rant of misinformation and I felt the need to correct it before someone made the mistake of believing you.

really?...what part of the Amendment did I give that was false? Everything there is based on DIRECT quotes from the Amendment itself, and a Former Supreme Court Justice. There is no ACTUAL seperation of Church and State. That only shows up in a letter from Thomas Jefferson, and therefore is not a legal document of this country.

please...tell me I am wrong on that...because the AMENDMENT itself states otherwise and follows along with what I have said

your the only one giving mis-information.

[torn asunder]

*insert pre-emptive "play nice" platitude here*

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

*insert pre-emptive "play nice" platitude here*

I want to knwo what mis-information about the Amendment I am giving out? it NEVER states Seperation of Church and State...it only states that the State has no right to intervene, discriminate, or set up a govermental religion.

so I want to knew where this mis-information on the Amendment, that I am appearantly giving out liek candy, is?

thats what I asked.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

The mis-information you gave out was that Church's were not Tax exempt. You were wrong. I thought that when I said "We were talking about them being Tax exempt. Which is what you claimed they were not. I proved that they were." that it was pretty clear that I was talking about Church's being Tax exempt.

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

The mis-information you gave out was that Church's were not Tax exempt. You were wrong. I thought that when I said "We were talking about them being Tax exempt. Which is what you claimed they were not. I proved that they were." that it was pretty clear that I was talking about Church's being Tax exempt.

and like I siad...their NOT ...because being tax exempt means ALL taxes....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

and like I siad...their NOT ...because being tax exempt means ALL taxes....

Thats not what you said though.

Also, you should look it up. Churches are exempt from State Income Tax and Sales Tax. I know this because I managed a retail store for years and had to take copies of their exemption papers and had to set them up in my POS to not charge them tax. I also had to report to the State how much of my income was to Tax exempt Churches.

From the Michigan Department of Treasury:

Churches - Sales to organized churches or houses of religious worship are exempt from sales tax. These exempt sales must not involve property used in commercial enterprises. Vans or buses may be purchased exempt if the manufacturer's rated seating capacity is 10 or more and it is used primarily for transportation of persons for religious purposes. Churches may not purchase any other type of vehicle exempt. Anyone who is directly engaged in the business of constructing, altering, repairing, or improving real estate for a church or a house of religious worship is liable for the sales tax on the inventory value of the materials affixed to the property, even if the church purchases the materials. Revenue Administrative Bulletin 1995-3 and 2002-15 has more information on this topic.

More to the point... Stop spreading your misinformation.

[TitsMcGee]

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

OK, on topic...

County won't force permit on Bible study leaders

Sweeping issues of religious freedom and governmental regulation are swirling around Pastor David Jones' house in rural Bonita, attracting attention from as far away as China and New Zealand.

He says it all started with $220 in car damage.

Jones and his wife, Mary, hold a weekly Bible study at their home that sometimes attracts more than 20 people, with occasional parking issues. Once, a car belonging to a neighbor's visitor got dinged.

David Jones paid for the damage, but he thinks the incident spurred a complaint to the county.

A code enforcement officer warned the couple in April for holding a “religious assembly” without a permit. The action became an international incident when it was reported last week on the Web site worldnetdaily.com.

The Joneses assert that the county's action violates their rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion. Their story was picked up by conservative Web sites for days, then made it to CNN yesterday.

Barraged by hundreds of complaints, San Diego County officials backed down yesterday from their enforcement.

“No one respects the right to free religious expression more than I do, and no one would find the infringement of such rights more abhorrent,” county Chief Administrative Officer Walt Ekard said in a statement.

Chandra Wallar, the county's general manager of land use and environment, said the county has re-examined the situation and decided that the Joneses don't need a permit after all.

Religious assembly, under the county land-use code, is defined as “religious services involving public assembly such as customarily occurs in synagogues, temples, and churches.”

Wallar said that definition, which doesn't spell out specific thresholds on when a religious gathering becomes a religious assembly, probably needs to be clarified and that more training may be warranted for code enforcement officers. She said the county was not targeting the Joneses because they were exercising their religion, but rather it was trying to address parking and traffic issues.

“We've advised the pastor he has the authority to continue to hold his meetings just as he's held them,” Wallar said. “My hope is we will be able to resolve the traffic concerns.”

Wallar said the person who filed the complaint alleged that Bible study was drawing 30 to 40 cars.

In an interview yesterday, the pastor said at most, there are six additional cars on Bible study day. Jones, pastor of South Bay Community Church in National City, said he has visitors park in a lot that he owns beside his house.

“We're in trouble if they are going to go with a parking issue, because that means that thousands of people in Bible study groups could be cited for a parking violation,” Jones said. “What about people who gather to play Texas Hold 'Em, Mommy and Me, 'Monday Night Football,' Boy Scouts, Alcoholics Anonymous? Everyone has a right as a homeowner to the quiet enjoyment of their property. They're trying to take that away. We're not going to let it go.”

Constitutional law scholars say that the county can impose land-use restrictions on religious gatherings, as long as they are not unreasonable or discriminatory.

“If people can get together weekly to read books or discuss books or play bridge, if those are OK, there would be a constitutional issue involved in singling out, among other things, religion as a forbidden thing,” said Larry Alexander, constitutional law professor at the University of San Diego.

Dean Broyles, president of the Western Center for Law & Policy, a nonprofit organization in Escondido that supports religious liberty, is representing the Joneses. He said traffic issues were not raised when the code enforcement officer first visited the Joneses in response to the complaint. The warning itself does not mention traffic or parking problems.

“Even though the county is saying it's about traffic and parking, it's a fake issue. It's a fabricated issue,” Broyles said.

According to Broyles, the code enforcement officer asked a series of pointed questions during her visit with the Joneses – questions such as, “Do you sing?” “Do you say 'amen?' ” “Do you say 'praise the Lord?' ”

Wallar said the county is investigating what questions were asked and in what context. She said a code enforcement officer does have to ask questions about how a place is being used to determine what land-use codes are applicable.

“Our county simply does not tolerate our employee straying outside what the appropriate questions are,” Wallar said.

Ekard, the top county executive, emphasized in his statement that he would get to the bottom of the matter.

“Should I find that county staff at any level acted in a heavy-handed way; did anything inappropriate under the circumstances; or that a change or revision to our processes and procedures is warranted, I will take appropriate action immediately,” he said.

As of late yesterday, county Supervisor Greg Cox's office – which represents the area – reported having received 400 e-mail messages about the Joneses'situation. Wallar said her department has received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls as well.

Broyles said he's been fielding media calls nonstop.

“It's been hard to do anything else but to handle the phone calls and media interviews,” he said. “It's been crazy, back to back to back to back.”

[TitsMcGee]

I'm glad the county backed down on this. I also think that the person from the county who came to the house needs to be retrained.