WE’VE MOVED

THIS BLOG HAS MOVED!
PLEASE GO TO WWW.OUTPOST54.COM
THANK YOU!

Another Town Banns Home Bible Studies

Gilbert, AZ became next in what seems to be a series of small to large towns testing the ban on home Bible studies through the use of zoning restrictions.  However, more attentive news followers may remember that San Diego recently withdrew a similar complaint last year against a Pastor who was holding home Bible studies. We will see how this situation pans out. Here are the details.

In November of 2009 Pastor Joe Sutherland of Oasis church was submitted a written cease and desist letter from the zoning and codes office of Gilbert, AZ, after a group of seven adults were meeting in his home.  The order came not as a result of any complaints, but as a result of the zoning officer noticing signs announcing the Sutherland’s home Bible studies.  According to the zoning ordinance, no groups of more than two people may gather in a home for religious purposes, including three church members to discuss anything church or religious related, and yes, this includes studying the Bible.

As hard a time as I have wrapping my brain around this reality, imagine yourself as a World War II veteran reading this in the local paper.  Indeed it is hard to believe that in the United States there are communities that are coming to  agreement to ban people from meeting in homes privately for religious assembly.

Attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund are currently challenging this case, which is what has brought it into the public spotlight recently.

“Christian church groups shouldn’t be singled out for discrimination and banned from meeting in their own homes,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Daniel Blomberg. “The interpretation and enforcement of the town’s code is clearly unconstitutional. It bans 200,000 Gilbert residents from meeting in their private homes for organized religious purposes—an activity encouraged in the Bible, practiced for thousands of years, and protected by the First Amendment.”

What Americans should be noting is that the ACLU is not defending the rights of Americans in this case.  Certainly if there was an ordinance banning three or more transgenders from meeting in their homes and discussing their passion for cross-dressing, then the ACLU would be making this a national case. Why does the ACLU consistently refuse to defend the rights of Americans, unless those Americans are extreme left wing progressives?  I think the answer goes without saying.

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys said that Gilbert authorities interpreted the zoning law to state that even three people groups from any religious organization could not meet in someones house for fellowship.  No word yet on whether or not this rules out one couple from church having another couple over for dinner.  I guess praying before the meal would definitely be ruled out?

Gibert City Planner Mike Milillo was quoted as saying, “The assembly activities associated with the church, including Bible studies, church leadership meetings and church fellowship activities are not permitted,”

“This ban is defended based upon traffic, parking, and building safety concerns. However, nothing in its zoning code prevents weekly Cub Scouts meetings, Monday Night Football parties with numerous attendees or large business parties from being held on a regular basis in private homes,” the Alliance Defence Fund said.

Essentially, the city NOW claims that it regrets the code, and the Mayors office issued a statement that it would like to see the code changed.  Those watching this case should ask themselves two questions, why would a zoning ordinance like this be permitted, and why would the national media, and groups like the ACLU be so willing to ignore this type of case?

In a world where KFC’s are producing Muslim Halal chain restaurants, certainly these types of ordinances are to be considered by ALL to be rediculous.

Meanwhile, Pastor Sutherland and his group are being forced to pay the city to rent the elementary school for their meeting space.

Adam Gadahn: American Terrorist Headlines Compared

Comparison Pictures of Adam Gadahn and Suspect

Media bias is evident in almost every story from every outlet from the smallest blog to the largest network.  Making one’s mind open to it, in order to see through it to the truth of the story, is a learned skill.  The suspected Adam Gadahn capture is no exception.

As this story unfolds I think one of the most striking and unspoken elements is the way various “news” outlets present Adam Gadahn, and his capture, in their headlines. ABC, CBS, and Breitbart put it quite simply with a similar: Officers: Pakistan detains American-born al-Qaida, while MSNBC, CNN and the Huffington Post painted a much more benign picture of Gadahn with the almost identical headline Al Qaeda’s American Spokesman Arrested In Pakistan. (Fox News had no mention of the story at time of this writing. It is important to note also that the identity of the captured suspect has not been confirmed by U.S. authorities at the time of this writing as well.)

It is interesting that the liberal outlets would consider an American who joins a known terrorist network simply a “spokesperson”. By now, mainstream America, conservative or liberal, considers this type of individual a traitor and a terrorist.

Let this be a small reminder that the source of our information has usually been unable to resist the urge of personal bias and prejudice in the presentation of the story.  With this in mind, it almost always pays to compare several sources, in order to prevent yourself from becoming a mindless drone of a particular media outlet.