Sixty Days of Jail Time for Backyard Bible Study on the Peoria.com Forums

In 2008, neighbors complained that Michael Salman was hosting bible studies in his backyard. He was cited by the city of Phoenix.

They say it was a "violation of Phoenix’s zoning, building, fire and safety code". The authorities said that he was considered a "church" if he had more than 12 people together for the bible study. As a church, he lacked the appropriate licensing and zoning requirements and was therefore guilty.

The court ordered:

sixty days of jail time
3 years of probation
$12,000 fine
and he's unable to host more than 12 people in his home.
Salmans' bible study was private (not open to the public) and didn't take donations like a church would.

From GodFatherPolitics.com:

Salman’s situation is another example of how society is becoming less and less tolerant of Christians who practice their faith.

The Salman's put together a 16 minute video regarding his situation. It is lengthy but he pretty much sums up his situation in the first couple of minutes.

Stupid. I hope they win their court cases against Phoenix.

You can't call it a church, but then say it isn't a church.

I think its easy to judge when you hear one side of the story.

How many people was it, and how often? Was parking a continued problem? Was noise the problem? Why did the neighbors complain? I'd like to hear more of the story...

We certainly have rights to private gatherings on private property, but we also have a responsibility to be respectful of our neighbors. I'd be curious to find out what caused the neighbors to complain.

I figured I could find a link to the whole story with a minor bit of googling.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-01-17/news/micha

If you read the article to which Tape linked, it says 50 people (but that doesn't actually mean 50 cars) weekly and they still supposedly still park on these people's 3.5 acres. The guy says he isn't claiming church tax exempt status nor receives an income from this. If this is all true, I don't understand why he is being picked on unless the 50 people are getting loud. Having 50 people over to your house once a week is a little over the top, but if there isn't a law against having a private gathering of people of 50 people once a week, I don't get it.

Their mistake in my opinion was decorating their new 2000 square foot recreation building with religious materials thus making it APPEAR as a church.

Sounds to me like he's just trying to avoid paying taxes or adhering to zoning regulations.

He says it's not a church, but they include the word "church" in their group name and decorate it like one. They say it's only "friends and family", but any congregation could argue the same as technically nobody is a stranger in the eyes of God. He says he doesn't accept a salary, that doesn't necessarily mean they don't accept donations or contributions.

is there a law regarding how you decorate your house?

in the video he says 10-15 cars, so 50 may happen on occasion, but it's made to seem like a dozen or so is the norm

he isn't going to jail over his house decorations. the guy is running a church and claiming he's not. churches have to abide by laws just like everyone else. if it's not a church, then don't call it a church, and get rid of the pulpit and weekly worship meetings.

considering this has been going on since 2008, i'd say the guy has been given plenty of leniency and he is totally sugar-coating the facts in that video.

If a "penalty" can be both a "penalty" and a "tax" at the same time in the health care law, I see no reason that a "church" can't be both a "church" and not a "church" at the same time. Why can't it be a "church" for the purposes of helping prisoners, but a "bible study" for the purposes of zoning? Same reasoning as the Supreme Court.

@joepyeweed:

What? I'm under no obligation to respect anyone. Respect isn't something that is giving out merely due to one's proximity to another.

i thought whether it was a penalty or a tax was still up for debate. who said it was both at the same time?

When I was single, I called my old Apartment Hip's Lounge. Does that mean I should have had to abide by the rules concerning drinking establishments everytime I had people over?

if you called your old apartment Hip's Lounge, decorated it like a lounge, and operated it like a lounge, the ONLY DIFFERENCE being that you claim it is not open to the public but only to friends and friends of friends, all the while your neighbors and their children have to put up with the noise and drunks on a regular basis, then i think you'd find yourself in the same situation.

this guy is CLEARLY trying to manipulate the system so he doesn't have to adhere to municipal zoning regulations. he is putting peoples lives at unnecessary risk by gathering them in a building that isn't up to code, and he is causing a disturbance.

This guys problem isn't the law (its actually on his side when it comes to building the church and having religious gatherings)... his problem is that he has pissed off his neighbors and so now they are going to file a complaint every chance they get.

I think if Hip's Lounge had pissed off the neighbors, it would face the exact same problem that this guy is having.

I eradicated that problem; the neighbors were invited