5 or more gathered together must obtain permit NC

You know the best way to change a law like this is to start misusing it.
If I lived there the first time I saw five police officers at the scene of a pulled over car, I’d be reporting it into the police department demanding to see their permit to gather.

Edit to add:
I just though it would point at that this is another case of an independent Baptist church making other Christian churches look bad. The Baptist church really needs parent organization to start policing its own churches.

[edit on 9/6/2007 by defcon5]

What right of ours will they they take away next....

i could be wrong but doesn't the constitution guaranttee right of assemby
i live in nc and these council people are idiots.

i could be wrong but doesn't the constitution guaranttee right of assemby
i live in nc and these council people are idiots.

reply to post by proteus33


As I understand it, the constitution guarantees this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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."

I have heard that the Baptist Church coming into Walnut Cove is not from Walnut Cove. Why they chose this particular area and what they hope to achieve, besides the obvious, I do not know. Gonna be looking into it a little further.

The annoyance posed by street preachers doesn't override their freedom of religion. If it was dangerous, that's one thing, but this is just fear on the part of a bunch of hypocrites who will never stop trying to bypass the spirit of this country if by doing so they can make themselves more comfortable in any way.

The people who are against this sort of expression are so often the very same people who claim to be too open-minded for religion. How's that for irony?

If the preachers really believe it's their religious duty to sway passers-by, or if they're using some passage in particular as a license to preach in public, let them have it. Be annoyed, but be grateful, because their freedom is evidence you still have yours, should you require it.

I don't like preachers much, and I definitely don't agree with the mentality of your average street preacher, but I sometimes give them a chance to 'wow' me. What does it hurt?

Why is anyone afraid of these people anyway? They're no more likely to hurt you than the check-out girl at the supermarket or the guy who delivers your heating fuel.

I don't see why we should shuffle them off, like we do with the bums, and the musicians, and the salesmen of knock-off sunglasses and wristwatches. I liked being in the hustle and bustle a lot more when the streets teemed with just those sorts of people. Take away the NOI preachers from Times Square, along with the hookers and the pimps and the dealers and the thieves/sellers of stolen goods, what have you got left?

Are they so much of a nuisance that people are willing to give up another millimeter of freedom, another chip off the rock of idealism upon which this country was founded? Don't get me wrong, we haven't gotten it right yet, but the basic foundation is there, the ideas are there. We just have to walk the walk.

And speaking of Jesus...

Why would anyone think he would support this nonsense? He dined with whores and bums and all the sorts of people we're pushing off the streets to make way for more expedient consumption.

Can people not reach the McDonalds quick enough? Are they prevented from spending more money they don't have on junk they don't need? What is the major inconvenience here, that makes a violation of the preachers' rights so easy for most to swallow?

I can understand what it is about the homeless - it's the fear and the smell and the fear of the smell.



But what's scary about a bunch of hellfire preachers? They've always struck me as comical, not terrifying. They scream and dance and make like clowns, and you don't even have to pay them money. It's a free circus people. Just move on or watch, as your preference may be.

They have to have the right to do what they're doing, IMO, and I have to retain the right to laugh in their faces for trying to trade me their superstition for my logic (it's like middle school all over again - no, I'll keep my chicken sandwich and my apple, and you keep your nasty ham spread, deal?).

reply to post by WyrdeOne

Ah...

Freedom of Relighion must have limits. Otherwise, everyone who works on Sunday could be stoned to death under the protection of freedom of religion. No, I'm not kidding. It actually says in the Bible that he who breaks the 4th Commandment (Thou shalt keep the Sabbath wholly and Do no work) should be stoned to death.

Yes, that's an extreme example, but the Bible is full of that sort of thing.
Check it out: Video

The reason that Christians can't run around murdering people with big rocks it that freedom of religion does not supersede the rights of the individual. You have a right not to be harassed. Spiritually or otherwise.

If these folks were polite and reserved about things, there wouldn't be an issue. It's the fact that they'll get right in your face, impede your path, and shout at you from blocks away. They do NOT have a right to harass.

San Francisco and LA also have ordinances like this one. They are used as tools to fight a legal battle against gangs.

reply to post by BitRaiser


Yeah, I realize that if freedom of religion for one group becomes a danger to another group, there's a problem. I made mention of that in the last post.

I don't think freedom of religion is absolute, but it is important, and just because it's a nuisance doesn't make it harassment. I can see harassment charges against the anti-abortion crowd in some instances, because they do tread the line and try to make people afraid of retaliation. Their track-record certainly contains more incidents of violence...

I would love to visit this town and preach the benefit of the great spaghetti monster, or the warmth of Hell and basking in the radiance that is Satan, or some other foolishness, because I have a feeling the "baptist's" would get just a bit more then upset at this, I'm fairly certain they would get physical about it debating me, ( I'm quite an S.O.B. when I am playing "devils advocate" [pun intended]) I'm certain they would despise my rhetoric and try and stop me somehow. I think this would be the best course of action, Give them a taste of there own medicine, if I had the time and money I would love to give it a go, and think of the cash you'd get after they broke your nose. show up at their houses and stand in the street preaching satanism, call them out to come Join you in it.

as far as the law they passed, yes the State, County and City CAN write laws that supersede federal law, but you forfeit any federal Monies, and may have to pay back those from the past you have received which is why it is not or rarely done ( I recall a sheriff in Montana that threw the F.B.I. out of his county, not to mention the change of the speed limit from 55 to 70 in that same state BEFORE it was changed federally). Constitutional law and federal law are NOT the same thing, Free speech does NOT permit one to scream "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire is present

seems a few people there need to heed the book the profess to love and "allegedly" follow

"take the beam from thine eye, before thou worries about the splinter in mine"

"render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God that which is God's" ( to me this sounds a lot like the separation of church and state, IMO)


[edit on 8-9-2007 by thedigirati]

Originally posted by apc
Looks like this is another case of forced legislation directly in response to a religious group creating a "problem".

From a few clicks in, 25 August,

Since April, members of the Walnut Cove Baux Mountain Baptist Church have prayed and preached on the town streets each Saturday. But a proposed town ordinance would require them to obtain permits to do that, which many say is just unconstitutional.

Another report, the plot thickens,

www.cbn.com
They say there have been five salvations so far, but a new ordinance may keep them from gathering, unless they have a permit.

So they are actively converting people as well.

Sounds like they've been disturbing the peace and are a nuisance.

However, people have the right to be annoyed and should just have to deal with it.

Looks like this town didn't want to.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by apc]

Apparently you have no idea about the freedoms provided for US citizens in the bill of rights. Moreover your anti-christian bigotry is so great that you would be willing to surrender your freedoms just to stop those pesky christians from preaching the gospel. Those amendments protect us from mob rule and allow speech, however unpopular to be heard. Moreover, no ordinance from the hellions in the city council will stop the gospel until all who are going to be saved will be saved. The rest of you, I'm afraid will face the fires of hell.


Just what part of this amendment do you fail to understand,

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

I keep seeing this posted:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

Has anyone who posts this actually read it?
For Pete's sake, Congress didn't make the new ordinance, the City did.

I could break it down further.
The City Council didn't make a law about the establishment of a religion.

Neither did they prohibit the free exersize of it. (The permit is free.)

Neither did they abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble. (I linked the definition of abridge, since some people don't understand what it means.)

Jeez, you'de think the City asked for a $ million for the permit the way some people carry on. These people only have to fill out a form and they get a free permit. Done deal.

Nothing to do with Congress passing a law. Nothing abridged, no curtailing of redress, etc.




[edit on 9/8/07 by makeitso]

Looks like the US is becoming more and more like the Singaporean Police State.

Link

Police Permit
1 Under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Assemblies and Procession) Rules 1989 (website address at statutes.agc.gov.sg...), a permit is required for any assembly or procession of 5 or more persons in any public road, public place or place of public resort intended:

(a) to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person;
(b) to publicise a cause or campaign; or
(c) to mark or commemorate any event.
2 The following is a list of commonly held activities that require a permit:

(a) religious assembly;
(b) festival procession (e.g., lantern festival foot procession);
(c) religious procession (e.g., chariot procession, foot procession, foot and vehicular procession or vehicular procession);
(d) sports-related procession (e.g., walkathon, walk-a-jog, family run, jogathon or road run);
(e) vehicular rally;
(f) treasure hunt; and
(g) Malay wedding procession.

That, combined with the Internal Security Act (something like your Patriot Act)

reply to post by makeitso


Forcing speakers to seek permits doesn't abridge free speech? I beg to differ. Just because the permit is free doesn't mean it's going to be granted every time, and even if it is granted every time, the preachers may be cordoned off to prevent a traffic snarl.

And no, Congress has made no law here, but municipalities have to abide by the laws of the land. You can't outlaw gays or blacks or protestants, nor can you pass ordinances that violate civil rights.

reply to post by WyrdeOne


I guess you didn't read the definition of abridge. They didn't cut anything short for goodness sake. Neither did they reduce it in scope, nor diminish or curtail anything.

Definitions of abridge:

reduce in scope while retaining essential elements; "The manuscript must be shortened"
lessen, diminish, or curtail; "the new law might abridge our freedom of expression"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

To reduce the scope; to shorten by means of the omission or words without sacrificing their meaning
library.thinkquest.org/23846/library/terms/

Your absolutely right about following the law of the land. In this land there are a few different authorities with the ability to create and define it.

Federal and State powers differ, as has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread. In this case, the City has jurisdiction of the ordinance. The City made no ordinance that violates a civil right.

Sorry.

Originally posted by makeitso
I keep seeing this posted:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

Has anyone who posts this actually read it?

For Pete's sake, Congress didn't make the new ordinance, the City did.

I could break it down further.
The City Council didn't make a law about the establishment of a religion.

Neither did they prohibit the free exersize of it. (The permit is free.)

Neither did they abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble. (I linked the definition of abridge, since some people don't understand what it means.)

Jeez, you'de think the City asked for a $ million for the permit the way some people carry on. These people only have to fill out a form and they get a free permit. Done deal.

Nothing to do with Congress passing a law. Nothing abridged, no curtailing of redress, etc.




[edit on 9/8/07 by makeitso]

In fact the permits required for unpopular public speech (ie gospel preaching) are about $500 in the embarcadero center in San Francisco CA. (I speak from personal experience here.) So there is a precedent for using permits to deny free speech. In fact in many municipalities they routinely deny permits to street preachers in violation of at least the spirit of the first amendment.

Moreover most states include a version of the Bill of Rights in their constitutions. I do not know what the details are for North Carolina

In fact the permits required for unpopular public speech (ie gospel preaching) are about $500 in the embarcadero center in San Francisco CA.

Yup, its similar in my neck of the woods. Heck, I have to pay for a permit to have a yard-sale in my own yard. I've already stipulated that I'm not in love with it either.

But this didn't happen in this case. Its a free permit in this instance.

And yes, the Bill Of Rights Amendment 1 says: Congress shall make no law....

Again, Congress didn't, the City made the Ordinance.



[edit on 9/9/07 by makeitso]

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Vikturtle
apc I agree these folks are probably creating a nuisance and I recognize that folks don't want to hear praying or be approached from strange religious zealot, but this bespeaks of some very scary policies being put into place.

Really, it's something they felt forced into to address a problem of complaints about street preaching teams.

I'm from Georgia and next week my mom's having surgery. I am sure at some point there will be a dozen or so of us outside praying when she is taken under the knife, will that soon be illegal? What about if we're just walking down the street, a family of six or more, will we soon have to get a permit?

No. You're not leading a parade; there's nothing organized about it, you're not hogging a corner or section of a street for hours. We have some of those preachers on campus and they'll stand beside a section of sidewalk and harrangue passers by for FOUR HOURS! For a week or more (until their permit runs out.

This is the kind of problem they're trying to get rid of. Under the Constitution, it's legal for someone to stand around and preach whatever religious sect they like to the masses for however long they like. But these "outdoor preachers" are a nuiscance to shopowners (although a crowd may gather, nobody will shop. Many folks avoid people standing around on the street shouting out inspirational things about a deity (since some of these have mental health problems.)

I'm sure it's a "we can't think of anything esle that's legal" action by the city. Like i said, I've seen them on campus standing on the lawn and shouting out sermons and I know they get complaints. But the bunch at our university are savvy enough to get permits and stand in the free speech area, and restricting them would restrict other activities that we want (sorority rushes and so forth.)

Really? These people were arrested for praying in public. I'm afraid the attack against christianity will not be deterred by mere nuisances such as the constitution.
www.worldnetdaily.com...


[edit on 9-9-2007 by SevenThunders]

reply to post by makeitso

They didn't cut anything short for goodness sake. Neither did they reduce it in scope, nor diminish or curtail anything.

That's a matter of opinion, I think, and on that we differ. I think the trend towards governance by proxy (by permit) isn't much different in practice than employing shackles or fire-hoses, apart from being more humane.

As for Congress making no law - as I've said, it's not an issue of Congress making the law, it's an issue of the basic, guaranteed rights of (most) American citizens. County/State law has a lot of responsibility, but they sure as Hell don't have jurisdiction over civil rights issues - sorry. If that were the case, whole swaths of the country would still be segregated along lines of race and religion.

The permit route is an end-run, a not-so-sneaky way to abridge the rights of religious groups to practice. Please, let's not play games about who knows the meaning of what word - the definition you yourself provided speaks to the word's usage in this context. The city is saying - "you can practice your religion, but you have to get our permission first." What do you call that, if not abridge?

Anyway, the language in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution have less to do with the issue at hand than the courts' interpretation of the language. It's shameful to say, but I have to admit a ton of precedent has been set that would support this ordinance. The city can probably get away with this, as many others have, but in my opinion we've picked the wrong path. Every time we indulge our comfort ahead of our ideals, we slide a little farther down the slippery slope.

Again, it's just my opinion. Plenty of others in positions of power disagree with me, so I think your interpretation is safe for now.