lifeandliberty Posted November 15, 2004 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 68 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/16/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 15, 2004 PRELIMINARY HEARING SET FOR CHRISTIANS CHARGED WITH "HATE CRIMES" PHILADELPHIA - A preliminary hearing has been set for December 14 in Philadelphia City Court to determine probable cause for charges against eleven Christians arrested for alleged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted November 16, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 16, 2004 I have sat back and watched several threads in the past year on the sugbject of speaking out for "causes". What I am asking right now is. If all these fringe groups like, gay rights, abortion supporters step on MY beliefs why is it considered wrong if I share my views with them? After all they protest using signs and sometimes violence but if I were to respond I, a Christian woman would be in the wrong if I use the same tactics to get my point across. We have a constitutional right to oppose such actions through protest as long as we alert the authorities and get permission to march or protest in a certain area. This is done so that you don't get a 1,000 different views converging together on a city street...this would obviously cause mayhem and violence. The reason these "christians" were arrested is that they showed up to a closed event with no permit to attend or without giving foreknowledge to the police that they would be there. The more important question is, "Is it your right as a Christian to protest in such a manner?" No one is asking that you accept the homosexual life style as valid or as not a sin. This would go against the bible. However as Christians we are called to be the light and salt of the world. Light is not blinding, we do not shine into the eyes of the those trapped by the darkness; we shine into the darkness that holds them captive. Thus holding signs and simply preaching at people comes down to the question of if it is truly Christ-like or not. The obvious answer is that it doesn't resemble Christ in anyway. All it shows is a bunch of offshoot Puritans attempting to protect their "way of life." The best way and only way to truly reach out to homosexuals is to befriend them and show them the wrongness in their lifestyle through loving them. They are without true love because they are without Christ. Thus when faced with a Christian who is so loving that this Christian will befriend them and help them, they will see and feel burdened for what they are lacking. However, shoving a sign in their face and saying "I love you" are two contradictory actions and will not get us anywhere. You would be a stupid racist that has no concept of what the Bible teaches. But you would be constitutionally protected. No, I wouldn't be Constitutionally protected. The Constitution states; Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The right to free speech is not absolute. The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that the government can limit where this speech is done, what time it is done, and the manner in which it is done. Thus if a group shows up to a protest rally that has a permit to protest there yet another group shows up that doesn't have a permit, the group that doesn't have the permit Constitutionally is allowed to be escorted out of the area. The police have a duty to protect the protesters constitutional right, if arrests need to be made, they should be made against those that are causing violence, not those peacefully standing on public property. You really should know that, studying to be a lawyer and all. First, you are asserting that because the police were not following your flawed interpretation of the law they are somehow going against the Constitution. Secondly, your analysis that officers can disobey their superiors in order to support the consititution is majorly against the law. For one, this would provide officers to do what they wish as long as they could justify it by the Constitution. If they wanted to search a house but could not obtain a warrant, they could justify they had the right to search the house under their interpretation of the Constitution. Likewise your belief in this fallacy could end up turning on Christians in that officers could beat up and kill Christians and argue that the government is merely not suppose to make laws against or for Christians and that physical persecution isn't prohibited. Thus police officers have a legal responcibility to listen to their authorities. Now if they question their authority or believe that their authority is not going along with the Constitution, then they should report it to someone in a higher position. Still, to assert that they should take matters into their own hands is illogical and illegal. Oh, and don't try and insult me, it won't get you anywhere. We're talking about the interpretation of the Constitution here, not the Bible. The police are bound to obey the Constitution, they swore an oath to do so. The Constitution is chains on the government not the people. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (besides the Bible of course). My apologies on the miswording. However, my point still stands on the interpretation of the law. I implore you to find a Supreme Court ruling or any court ruling that contradicts what I have stated. I can save you the time right now (because you won't find it) and tell you that there isn't one court case (that I know of) that teaches against what I'm saying. The police did not tell the crowd to leave that's the whole point. How were they charged with "failure to disperse" when they were not told to disperse? It's not the job of the preacher to give the group a disperse warning, it's the job of the police. You are absolutely wrong on this. If the police officers told the preacher (who, again, I am assuming is the organizer of this event) that they had to leave, it is then left up to the preacher to disperse his people and get them out of there. While it would be wise for the police to tell all of the unlawful protestors that they had to leave, legally they don't have to (unless Philidelphia has a law that states that they do). Either way, in the end, they were being courteious allowing the precher to tell his people to leave. Due to the fact that the protestors were illegeally there they were allowed to arrest them on the spot. Were you one of these homos at the pride event? Were you one of these constitution smearing cops? Were you there??? First, WHEN the judge rules against the protestors, is that part of the defense you'll use? That's a terrible defense. I read the article (from your own bias) and came to this conclusion. On top of that, your statement proves your bias and lack of love. You attempted to claim earlier that you "loved" these people, yet you call them "homos". That's the equivalent to saying, "I love black people...you're not a n****r, are you?". On top of that, calling them "constiution smearing cops?" Yet you claim to love? Like I said, your actions at the protest and your actions on this baord seem to indicate otherwise. Public property, was NOT asked to leave, and was arrested. They violated NO LAW. They honored the Bible and the Constitution, glory to God. Really man you are getting your self in deep here with your lies. You better start retracting some of these statements or you will gain a bad reputation on this board. As I stated before, if my accusations and analysis are so slanderous to be labled as "lies", then by all means contact me via PM so you can get my information so you can sue me for liable and slander. Otherwise I can expect you to drop that arguement that I'm "lying". As for public property, as covered earlier in this post, the government is allowed to regulate but must give a valid reason. If I remember reading correctly, they said "to keep the peace". That is a very valid reason. Just because the property is public doesn't mean we're allowed to say what we want when we want on it. You have not proven anything, stop fooling yourself. The "protesters" used the same tactics as the Apostles did, they preached the word of God. The signs they were carrying had Scripture verses on them, you know the Bible, the Word of God? This violates Scripture in what way? And in what way did they break the law? I've proven conclusively in this post how they broke the law. Likewise I have proven how they violated the Bible by not showing love. I used links from your own site to prove this. If you want to advocate that what you were doing was scriptural, then please, by all means, provide a scripture that showed Jesus in a protest or calling someone a "homo". This protest lacked grace and the love of Christ. I've proven this already yet you have done nill to refute it. Thus if you want to say, "No, you're wrong" at least make a feeble attempt to support this claim rather than letting it go all together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabowd Posted November 16, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 112 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,489 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 16, 2004 I've been reading some troubling things about the Repent America organization. I've sent them an email and am awaiting a reply because I strongly disagree with their "tactics" that they call evangelism. News Article 1 In the article above, Mr. Marcavage (founder of Repent America) was quoted as saying this: "I don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheepish Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Super Jew wrote, The reason these "christians" were arrested is that they showed up to a closed event with no permit to attend or without giving foreknowledge to the police that they would be there. No sir, that is not even one of the 8 "reasons" we were given, actually. There is no charge regarding a permit or lack of it. The police told us at the beginning of the event that we could go anywhere that we wanted. If you want to deny that, argue with the video. And I don't understand your putting the word "Christians" in quotes. You doubt our Christianity based on what? Your posts grieve me. No, the pictures you posted were not of the event, and besides that, nobody shoved a sign in anybody's face, and besides that, you do not know what the preacher was saying, and besides that, we were not told why we were arrested when we were being arrested, and neither did they, so to say that we were "clearly illegal" is also untrue. I will not call you a liar, perhaps you are misinformed, but you do truly not know what you are talking about, and I think that perhaps you should before you start questiong the Christianity of your brothers and sisters in the Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheepish Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 (edited) Tess wrote, While I agree that we must go where "sinners" are, the problem is "ministries" such as REPENT AMERICA bring a message of condemnation and judgment to these "sinners", rather than a message of hope and love. Is there judgment for those who live apart from God? Absolutely. But we don't draw them to the truth by condemning them or their behavior. "Rather than" is not right. Both are preached. Do you think that the person needs to only here that God loves them just the way they are, so they will see no need to repent? Do you not believe that without faith they are condemned? Well, they are. The gospel is preached, His love is preached, His grace is preached . . . right along with the message that they need a Saviour. You think that there is something wrong with that? Edited November 16, 2004 by sheepish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabowd Posted November 16, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 112 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,489 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 16, 2004 "Rather than" is not right. Both are preached. Do you think that the person needs to only here that God loves them just the way they are, so they will see no need to repent? Do you not believe that without faith they are condemned? Well, they are. The gospel is preached, His love is preached, His grace is preached . . . right along with the message that they need a Saviour. You think that there is something wrong with that? How can you call it a message of love when your group is wearing signs that say "homo" with a line across it and holding signs which say "God-haters", etc? How many ppl on average does your "ministry" see come to repentance at these events? What percentage are getting saved? Do you collect personal information from them so that they can be discipled? You have a gross misunderstanding of the gospel if this is how you believe Christ minstered to people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheepish Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Tess wrote, How can you call it a message of love when your group is wearing signs that say "homo" with a line across it and holding signs which say "God-haters", etc? I don't hold signs like that, but as for the term "homo", I am not sure why it is deemed as "offensive". I personally do not use it, but if they are "homosexuals" what is wrong with shortening it, what is the sin in that? I think somebody did hold one of the "Judgment" signs, the one that says, "Warning: fornicator, God haters etc., . . . Judgment" (I'm not even sure that that is all it says, so I am taking your word for it; I am not familiar with the sign) at the event I attended where we were arrested. What is wrong with the word, "Warning"? Or "Judgment"? I told you, the message that was preached was about Christ's sacrifice and love, but it was also about the need for Christ's sacrifice and love because that we all are guilty of breaking God's law and are in need of a Saviour. As for conversions, sowing the seed is our job, bringing forth the increase is God's. I do not know how many have turned in repentance to the love of Christ, I only know that having a message of only love without any warning, so that they do not see their error to turn from it, isn't really all that "loving". We're not promised tomorrow, and neither are they. Sometimes we only have the moment. If you knew somebody was going to die that night, that you had only one chance to evangelize, would you spend that few minutes telling the person how wonderful they are seen in God's eyes, how loved, while scratching those itchy ears; or do you let the person know they are in desperate need of a Saviour for that their sins are punishable by hell-fire, and then tell them of the love of God displayed in Jesus Christ, to forgive their sins if they turn from them in faith in Jesus? I contend the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted November 16, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 16, 2004 YOu do it your way, I'll do it mine. I can promise you though, God will bless my way (the biblical way) and curse yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 16, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 86 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 624 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 16, 2004 No, I wouldn't be Constitutionally protected. The Constitution states; Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The right to free speech is not absolute. Actually SJ you are wrong, the right to free speech is absolute provided it does not infringe on the rights of others. Calling them homosexuals and sinners does not infringe on their rights. I agree it's a poor way to witness but it's not illegal. The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that the government can limit where this speech is done, what time it is done, and the manner in which it is done. Thus if a group shows up to a protest rally that has a permit to protest there yet another group shows up that doesn't have a permit, the group that doesn't have the permit Constitutionally is allowed to be escorted out of the area. Actually this is false. The government cannot limit speech unless it is infringing on the rights of others. It also cannot limit by any means for people to peaceably assemble, and that includes permits. First, you are asserting that because the police were not following your flawed interpretation of the law they are somehow going against the Constitution. Secondly, your analysis that officers can disobey their superiors in order to support the consititution is majorly against the law. For one, this would provide officers to do what they wish as long as they could justify it by the Constitution. If they wanted to search a house but could not obtain a warrant, they could justify they had the right to search the house under their interpretation of the Constitution. And the search would be illegal and in violation of the person's rights. All proceeds from the search would be inadmissible as evidence in court. Any law that violates the constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights is invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted November 16, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 16, 2004 Actually SJ you are wrong, the right to free speech is absolute provided it does not infringe on the rights of others. Calling them homosexuals and sinners does not infringe on their rights. I agree it's a poor way to witness but it's not illegal. No I'm not. The government has a right to request a person obtain a permit before protesting on public property. The government has inherently prohibited free speech because it's not an absolute right. Look at Roth v United States (1957). Likewise, if these protestors were on the court steps or within the zone declared within the protest permit, they were in the wrong. Actually this is false. The government cannot limit speech unless it is infringing on the rights of others. It also cannot limit by any means for people to peaceably assemble, and that includes permits. It can limit it. I cannot walk into the White House and have a sit in. However, I can say what I want and do what I want (so long as it's peaceful) on a sidewalk...but once I step onto government or public property, I need a permit. And the search would be illegal and in violation of the person's rights. All proceeds from the search would be inadmissible as evidence in court. Oh I agree with you. I was stating that under this peron's defintion of the police going against an order of a superior based on the police officer's interpretation of the Constitution could lead to vast police corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts