Lawyer of Jailed Pastor in Home Bible Study Case Speaks Out
The lawyer of Michael Salman, the Arizona pastor who is in jail after holding Bible studies at his home, appeared Wednesday on the show "FOX & Friends" to argue why his client is a victim of religious discrimination. Salman's wife Suzanne also made an appearance on the show to express her disbelief at the entire situation.
John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute, which is representing Michael Salman, told host Steve Doocy that Salman's constitutional rights are being violated.
Michael Salman, an ordained pastor of Church of God in Christ and founder of Harvest Christian Fellowship, has argued that he has the right to worship at home on his private property. However, the City of Phoenix has insisted the issue is about zoning and code violations, not religious freedom....
I read Anthony Brown's remarks. It sounds like he had hats in his heart. Let us all pray for him to receive the true and pure love of Christ for everyone no matter what. The Bible says love your neighbor. It doesn't say love him only if he believes like you. Please my brother remember life and death is in the power of the tongue. Release your hats.
Barry from KY wrote: --- I agree Mike a 2000 sq. ft. building is quite enough for 40 people to meet in. My first thoughts are that we must adhere to rules of our municipalities. We need to be lawful, unless the law violates what we believe. Regardless, I think 60 days in jail and $12000 fine is a little ridiculous, bordering on vindictive. I feel there are personal things going on here.
You're probably right about the personal things going on, Barry.
The thought that comes on "unless the law violates what we believe" is this- If the Scripture says we should not foresake the assembling of ourselves together, but the local authority says otherwise for the sake of a concocted "public safety," which should we listen to? If those folks who are designated as "public" individually volunteer to gather there, why is that concern of self appointed safety experts? Then we might ask if those gathered in the upper room of Acts were violating code by not having exit signs over the door, or exceeding weight limits for the room, and so on. When we think about it, much is being lost in the name of the abstract entity known as the "public."
Mike wrote: They met in a 2000 sq ft building, quite big enough for the 30-40 people who voluntarily enter it. Parking was on the property, not in the street.
oh okay. I was unable to find the specs for the house. You're right, that's more than enough.
Rufus wrote: True statement: "The early Christian church all met in homes. There would be no church today as we know if it weren't for the fact that they met in homes." Also true statement: "You can do all kinds of meetings on a regular basis but for some reason if they call you a church, you're illegal. And again, that's what regimes do." If this was a party of drunkards would the response have been the same?
Depends Rufus, If it was a party about sports, probably nothing.
I agree Mike a 2000 sq. ft. building is quite enough for 40 people to meet in. My first thoughts are that we must adhere to rules of our municipalities. We need to be lawful, unless the law violates what we believe.
Regardless, I think 60 days in jail and $12000 fine is a little ridiculous, bordering on vindictive. I feel there are personal things going on here.
True statement: "The early Christian church all met in homes. There would be no church today as we know if it weren't for the fact that they met in homes."
Also true statement: "You can do all kinds of meetings on a regular basis but for some reason if they call you a church, you're illegal. And again, that's what regimes do."
If this was a party of drunkards would the response have been the same?
I think Salman's in the wrong here. 30-40 people in a house just doesn't seem legal to me, and where would they park? Plus, if that fact sheet is accurate, he actually tried to claim church status in order to obtain tax exemption, and yet pleads that it isn't a church so that he isn't in the wrong. You can't have it both ways.
1
There are a total of 9 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
Silofolous, I see you already brought up some point that I did, though the fact sheet said more than 40 people attended.
