Home » Courts, Religion, Spirituality » Capistrano Couple in Legal Battle for Hosting Bible Study in Home

13 Responses to Capistrano Couple in Legal Battle for Hosting Bible Study in Home

1. 1

   Eric AndersonSeptember 19, 2011 at 10:33 pm

   It seems this is a violation of a municipal code section. While it is possible someone is using the code section to unfairly single them out, it’s not clear from the article that anything nefarious is going on.
2. 2

   paragwinnSeptember 19, 2011 at 10:58 pm

   Apparently, the bible-study couple felt that ‘section 9-3.301 of the Capistrano Municipal Code, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a conditional-use permit’ [from the article], didnt pertain to them. How moral of them. And this has WHAT to do with ID? That ID is not religious nor require supernatural intervention?
3. 3

   bornagain77September 20, 2011 at 3:02 am

   paragwinn, I’ve seen the word ‘supernatural’ batted about recently in these debates, as you just used in your post, and I was just wondering, What is your ‘natural’ explanation for the transcendent (beyond space-time, matter-energy) origin of the universe?

   “Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past.”
   (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) – 1970

   “The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science.” – William Lane Craig
   http://www.reasonablefaith.org.....38;id=6115

   Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete – Borde-Guth-Vilenkin – 2003
   Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.
   http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

   “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” Alexander Vilenkin – Many Worlds In One – Pg. 176

   “The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation is impossible without a beginning.”
   Alexander Vilenkin – from pg. 35 ‘New Proofs for the Existence of God’ by Robert J. Spitzer (of note: A elegant thought experiment of a space traveler traveling to another galaxy, that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, used to illustrate the validity of the proof, is on pg. 35 of the book as well.)

   The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
   Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

   “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
   Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation
   http://www.evidenceforchristia.....38;id=3594

   “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
   George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE

   “,,,the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world,,, the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.”
   Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’

   ,,, ‘And if your curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events’
   Hugh Ross – Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video

   “The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude.”
   Prof. Henry F. Schaefer – closing statement of part 5 of preceding video

   Genesis 1:1-3
   In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

   paragwinn is there a wall in your mind that prevents you from even mentioning anything in science that can’t be talked about in purely natural (aka material) terms? ,,, Quantum mechanics must give you fits as well!! Exactly what natural (aka material) cause do you presuppose we should posit to explain finding ‘non-local’ (beyond space and time) quantum information in molecular biology?
4. 4

   JosephSeptember 20, 2011 at 7:10 am

   The Bible is a collection of books. So all this couple is hosting is a book review.
5. 5

   ScottAndrewsSeptember 20, 2011 at 8:03 am

   How does one define ‘“religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods?’

   I can imagine reasons why such an ordinance would be passed. Someone probably had something going on at a home that was a bit unreasonable or inconsiderate.

   But the ordinance as written would mean that a person couldn’t even study the Bible with his family if it was affiliated with a religious organization. I don’t see how that can stand.

   If the trouble is too many people or (apparently not in this case) too much noise or too many cars, pass an ordinance for that. That’s neutral. As-is this means that one house can have fifty people for a football game but the house next door can’t have a Bible study. That’s discriminatory and it should be overturned.
6. 6

   Upright BiPedSeptember 20, 2011 at 2:23 pm

   CBS in LA reported “Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San Juan Capistrano, were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what one city official called “a regular gathering of more than three people” that requires a conditional use permit”.

   Geeez.
7. 7

   CollinSeptember 20, 2011 at 3:27 pm

   That is ridiculous and unconstitutional. I can see the city’s point if there were hundreds of people going there everyday. But 3??? Don’t we have freedom of worship and freedom to “peaceably assemble” in this country? Pretty crazy.
8. 8

   dmullenixSeptember 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm

   “Supernatural” generally requires intelligence. Ghosts, goblins, sprites, fairies, gods, etc.
9. 9

   Eric AndersonSeptember 20, 2011 at 8:00 pm

   It wasn’t 3. 20 people every Wednesday, and up to 50 people every Sunday. The regularity is also an issue. It was not an occasional gathering.

   At some point you aren’t just expressing your religion privately, which you are entitled to do largely as you wish, you are holding an established church. Tough call? Sure. But let’s wait and see what happens.
10. 10

    BarbSeptember 20, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    This is a sad, pathetic attempt at collecting badly needed revenue for a financially bankrupt state.
11. 11

    Upright BiPedSeptember 20, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    The news stories seem to suggest that the line in that particular county is drawn at three. Flowing such an ordinance, four religious persons gathering together regularly would need to tip the state or face fines of up to $500 per violation, based apparently on a single complaint.
12. 12

    Upright BiPedSeptember 20, 2011 at 9:59 pm

    …following…
13. 13

    ScottAndrewsSeptember 20, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    It wasn’t 3. 20 people every Wednesday, and up to 50 people every Sunday. The regularity is also an issue.

    That’s exactly what they need to define, because the ordinance as written doesn’t distinguish between three and 50, or one time only versus weekly. If they can cite you for 50, they can cite you for three. That’s why I think this is less of a civil liberties issue and more about writing sloppy ordinances.