UPDATE: Early this afternoon (Tuesday, August 7), I received a comment from Nisha Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute. She took exception to my analysis of her client’s case as set forth in the OP below. Ms. Whitehead provided a link to The Rutherford Institutue’s own Fact Sheet, “Fact Sheet Regarding the Michael Salman Case “(Last Updated: July 17, 2012). You can click on that link to take you to The Rutherford Institute’s Fact Sheet. I would encourage my readers to take a few moments to read this Fact Sheet. I leave it to my From Law to Grace readers to make up their own minds based on what we know at this point. Of course, there are always at least two sides to every story and we may never be able to ascertain exactly where the truth lies in this particular case. I do appreciate Ms. Whitehead taking the time to comment and to share the link.
After Christians came out in droves to eat some good fried chicken at Chick-fil-A this past week, a Phoenix pastor and his lawyers apparently thought that Christians would also rise up (i.e., donate money) to defend the rights of all Americans to have a Bible study anytime and anywhere — existing zoning, building, fire, and safety codes be d***ed. Both the pastor, Michael Salman and his lawyer, John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, are sadly mistaken. And, from all appearances, it seems they want Evangelical Christians of all shapes and sizes to buy into that same mistake, all under the guise of “freedom of religion.”
As my good blogging friend, William Thornton over at SBC Plodder warned when this story first broke last month, don’t get suckered into taking what you hear about this Phoenix pastor at face value. Of course, if you don’t know the facts of the case, but merely rely upon the pastor and his lawyer — through the media — to spoon-feed you their version of the facts, then you will become one of those folks that P.T. Barnum talked about. And, you wouldn’t want that, now would you?
Given what I have read about the pastor, I am not at all surprised by his “arguments” regarding freedom of religion. Knowing what I know about Mr. Whitehead and the Rutherford Institute, I should say I am surprised that he would take up such a case in which the facts — as opposed to the raw emotion — make his client look very unsympathetic. And, for Mr. Whitehead to try to argue that “the same zoning laws used in Arizona to imprison Michael Salman for holding Bible studies will probably be passed across the United States” is so disingenuous as to border on the absurd.
This case — as much as Pastor Salman and his defenders and lawyers would have you believe — has absolutely nothing to do with holding “Bible studies” in a private residence. This case has everything to do with the integrity of a pastor who has appeared to go out of his way to flout the law for his own personal purposes. Who knew that the Rutherford Institute was in such desperate need of clients?
Contrary to Mr. Whitehead’s hyperbolic assertions, we do not have a case where city officials are trying to change the law to keep out churches or to shut down existing churches. Could that happen? Yes, but this is not that case. On the contrary, the laws regulating zoning, building, fire and safety in Phoenix are neither new nor are they some prohibited ex post facto laws which were hastily enacted to harass an innocent pastor just trying to practice his religion freely. These laws are not, as far as I can tell, being applied in some kind of capricious and inconsistent manner.
While I have had my fair share of disagreements with building and zoning officers when I practiced law, I cannot say that what Phoenix has done is an unconstitutional abridgment of Pastor Salman’s free exercise rights. If that were the case, I would be one of the first to be all over it.
No, what we have here is not anti-Christian bigotry masquerading as nefarious zoning regulations. Instead, we have a supposedly Christian pastor who has failed to uphold the overarching qualifications for the pastoral office — having character that is “above reproach.” I’m sorry, but given the facts of this case, there appears to be a severe lack of integrity on the part of this pastor. Waving the Bible and claiming a violation of your First Amendment Right to “freedom of religion” simply will not be a strong defense in this case.
Unfortunately, many Christians will read the headlines such as appeared on Fox News, “Arizona man sent to jail for holding Bible studies in his home,” (here) and will become immediately outraged over what they believe is yet another anti-Christian abuse of government power. However, when you review the facts of this case — which date back to 2006 — you begin to realize that Pastor Salman may not be like the truly innocent pastors who have been thrown in jail in such places as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other repressive countries. Not even close.
Why? Because the facts seem to indicate a man who has not only failed to comply with the laws that he was aware of, but who actually took affirmative steps to break such laws. Not starting in July 2012, but in 2006. According to a Fact Sheet released by the City of Phoenix, here are just a few underlying facts which may help explain why Pastor Salman is sitting in jail:
- During 2007, Mr. Salman had interaction with the City regarding his attempts to build on his property. The issue revolves around Mr. Salman’s assertion that he is building a detached garage, when the building is actually to function as a church. Mr. Salman builds, despite not having a proper permit. On May 1, 2007, he is cited for, and eventually pleads responsible to building without the required permit. (Pleads responsible 7/18/2007)
- In the Fall of 2007, Mr. Salman is notified several times by the City that he needs to obtain the proper permits and approvals before holding church services on his property.
- In 2008, Mr. Salman’s church, Harvest Christian Fellowship Community Church, is issued a Building Permit to construct a 2,000 square foot private game room accessory to an existing single family residence. Β The permit states, “Any other occupancy or use (business, commercial, assembly, church, etc.) is expressly prohibited pursuant to the City of Phoenix Building Code and Zoning Ordinances.”
- On January 4, 2010, Harvest Christian Fellowship Community Church is found responsible for 96 civil code violations. The Court notes, “[T]he State is not saying the Salmans can’t run a church or have worship services at the location, but the State is saying that if they do so, they must do it properly and in accord with the building, fire, and zoning codes.”
- On August 30, 2010, Mr. Salman was found guilty of 67 Class 1 Misdemeanors. The Court stated, “Everyone is entitled under the United States Constitution to worship as they please. But there is a reason for these codes and that is for public safety. And that, I believe, is all that the State is asking is that the Code violations be rectified.”
Counselor:
I’m glad to see another attorney plainly stating the reality of this situation. You’ll probably catch some flack for this post, but I’m glad you put it out there. When we as Christians are too quick to falsely cry “discrimination!” we diminish our ability to defend ourselves when true discrimination comes.
Zack,
Thanks for that. I think that you make an excellent point about “crying wolf” when it comes to religious discrimination. I am not surprised at what this pastor has done and claimed. Just because a person has “pastor” in front of their name does not mean that they have pure motives. What struck me about that is this pastor wanting to claim his whole property as tax exempt. I’ve got a 400 sq. ft. building in my back yard. Maybe I can put some chairs in there, have a church service once or twice a week and then claim that I am exempt from all taxes. Would be nice, but it doesn’t work that way π
I am somewhat surprised,however, at The Rutherford Institute and them taking on this case. Perhaps there is much more than meets the eye, but this whole case does not pass my smell test. Christians and churches should be treated equally and without discrimination. We should not expect that Christians and churches can just ignore reasonable laws that they disagree with. Thanks again for the comment this morning. God bless,
Howell
Excellent analysis sir. When I first saw this story a few weeks back, I figured it was another example of government overreach and persecution as I have seen more and more frequently in the news. When I started reading the articles, I came to the same conclusion. This is a guy who has been deliberately breaking the law and pretending that it shouldn’t apply to him. Thanks for writing this succinct summation of the issue. π
Jeff,
You are welcome, sir. I also appreciate you thinking that my post was succinct. Lawyer/Pastor is generallly a letahl combination for being less than succinct π Thanks and have a great day,
Howell
As Justice Scalia said during the Bryan A. Garner interviews, the number one problem attorneys face in writing is prolixity.
Prolixity? Had to google that one. Probably describes a lot of my posts.
I had to Google that one, too. I like it — the word, not the prolixity π
I had to look it up to when I read the original interview. The truth of it stuck with me, though, even a year after reading it.
Zack,
Leave it to Justice Scalia to teach us all new words π Of course, as you may have noticed, your first comment this morning was prophetic. Not too long ago, I got a comment from Nisha Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute taking exception to what I have written. You never know who is going to be reading your blog. Thanks again and God bless,
Howell
Instead of relying on the city’s fact sheet, perhaps people should read The Rutherford Institute’s fact sheet on the case and make up their own minds: https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/07-17-2012_Salman_Fact_Sheet.pdf
This has nothing to do with someone flouting the law. Rather, it’s about laws that make no sense and are misapplied. It’s called overcriminalization, something that IS taking place across the country.
Nisha,
Thanks for taking the time to read and to comment. I appreciate you providing the link. I will update the main OP so that The Rutherford Institute’s fact sheet is more easily accessible. Of course, I am more than happy to have folks make up their own minds about a particular issue. It may be that some minds are changed by The Rutherford Institute’s Fact Sheet. Then again, it might not change anyone’s mind. I do not disagree with you that laws are sometimes nonsensical and/or misapplied. However, there are times when Christians — even pastors — appear to believe that otherwise reasonable laws are not applicable to them because of their own misinterpretation of the First Amendment. Perhaps Pastor Salman is completely in the right and his rights have been trampled on by the city of Phoenix. Then again, he may have simply “flouted” the law which he did not think should apply to him and to a church that he built in his back yard. I suppose time will tell. As an aside, let me say that I usually support The Rutherford Institute and the cases that it champions and do appreciate your willingness to stand up for freedom of religion. However, as I learned in law school many years ago, there is usually at least one exception to every rule π Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I read the alternative fact sheet and think I will stick with my original opinion on this.