CHRISTIAN arrested for preaching bible at court house? What ever happened to freedom of speech?

reply to post by mark1167

You make my case perfectly. You have obviously chosen your side.Your hatred towards Christianity is quite evident.

Indeed, but I don't hate christians so no harm done, just like your god doesn't hate the homosexual but homosexuality quid pro quo.

What happened to you to in your past that has created so much vile?

I was never indoctrinated with the christian delusion, typical how the relgious would see truth as vile.

You don't want Christians around your children but your ok with the militant homosexual agenda being taught in your children's schools?

I'd don't mind xtians around my children as a matter of fact some of my friends are christians, however I do insist they keep their beliefs to themselves, especially the true christians.

No idea what a militant homosexual is matey boy is that like a militant christian ? Homosexuality is not taught in schools around here dude, It would appear that one doesn't need to be taught how to become a homosexual because one is born that way, suppose your god is to blame for that one mate, shouldn't have created homosexuality to begin with and then turn around like a dick and hate what he created, fortunately for us all he happens to be imaginary so no harm done

Drag queens and openly gay sexual acts parading down your street and preaching gay rights is ok with you, but a preacher also exercising his right to free speech is not?

Anyone performing a sexual act in the street homosexual or hetrosexula is liable to be arrested, don't you just love the equality ?
You seem to be an ever so confused chappy, let me educate you a little my friend. A drag queen is a man that dresses like a woman as an act/ performance and is not nessacarily a homosexual. I've never personally seen a drag queen let alone in my street allthough I did once work with a transvestite but he wasn't gay and his wife was quite happy with him cross dressing.

People (gay nor straight) don't preach gay rights they mearly ask for the same rights as you or I never once have I come across gray preachers reading from a gay bible trying to encourage hetrosexuals to become gay.

Like I said its trendy to hate Christians,and you want to keep up with the Jones judging by your rants.

Like I impied earlier, I don't hate xtians but I pretty much do hate most religions equally I don't need to keep up with anyone as I was born an atheist so have a lifetimes worth of my own no belief.

You just come across as an angry bitter sheep jumping onto whatever trendy bandwagon drives by you

.

Sorry my friend you are once again incorrect, I have my own mind, however by contrast we cannot say that about a christian because a christian is instructed to become a sheep by the bible godman, to accept blindly on faith is demonstrably herd mentality.

reply to post by ItmustbeTrue


Reminds me of this.

Dear World,
Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.
Sincerely, tired of hearing your religious guff

THEY'VE ALL BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY!

I thought I'd just throw that in there.

I'm sorry I was away so long, I missed some interesting posts. I also missed where the thread took a turn towards criticizing Christians, their methods, etc, when I though this was going to be more of a legal analysis thread.

Much seems to be made of the "Captive Audience Doctrine" I emphasize "Doctrine" to point out that no one ever has, or ever will, be convicted of violating a doctrine. You can only be charged with violating a law. Doctrines are useful to help legislatures and courts draft and interpret laws, but that's about it.

A link was made to a legal encyclopedia discussion on the subject with a reference to the Sabelko case. In the article and case, the only examples are private homes, medical facilities, and some labor situations. Not only does "captive audience" not apply here, the State forgot all about it when it came to trial. the charges were trespassing, and holding a demonstration on government property with out a permit. If the State gave up on charges referring to "captive audience," perhaps we should, too.

A question was asked about intimidation, and how we could know what was in the minds of the people standing in line. The law doesn't require that we know. We can judge whether their feeling was reasonable.

(b)"Interfere with" means to restrict a person's freedom of movement.

(c)"Intimidate" means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to herself or himself or to another.

California Penal Code Section 423.1

No one was interfered with or intimidated.

Disturbing the peace was also suggested. I hope that you're not suggesting that that be vigorously enforced. Here's what it means in California:

407. Whenever two or more persons assemble together to do an unlawful act, or do a lawful act in a violent, boisterous, or tumultuous manner, such assembly is an unlawful assembly.

408. Every person who participates in any rout or unlawful assembly
is guilty of a misdemeanor.

So, if you do a perfectly legal act in a "boisterous" manner, you're guilty of a misdemeanor? Bars? Sporting events? State fair rides? Parades? Outdoor birthday parties? Occupy Oakland? Where do you want that to stop?

A good discussion of the verdict may be found here:
murrieta.patch.com...
The article notes that those arrested are filing a law suit over their arrests. Their attorney claims:

"Defendant, the CHP and the DMV all have engaged in the selective enforcement of a vague, overbroad and discretionary process of determining what expression will be allowed, and their enforcement has been inconsistent and viewpoint discriminatory," according to the suit, which is being handled on behalf of the plaintiffs by Murrieta-based Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a nonprofit law firm that handles religious liberty cases.

Unles the State successfully claims that they can't be sued, they'll probably lose.

Leaving the legal analysis for a moment, I thought ATSers were all for things like the Occupy movement. Certainly the shops next to the encampment were a captive audience, and their businesses were being impeded. I thought protests and public statements were applauded here.

Besides, it's meaningful to note how many posters are specifically saying religious speech should be limited. Sorry, that's not how it works. If you're willing to limit religious speech, you should be prepared to accept the same limits on Atheist speech, political speech, non-GMO speech, anything.

Oh, and the idea that freedom of speech (1st Amendment) is trumped by the idea of freedom to be left alone (not in the constitution) is a strange one indeed.

Are the legal questions resolved?

reply to post by charles1952


Arguing the legality would be hypocritical of everyone That was never the issue (at least for me). The issue is that this is a "my religion is better than yours" post masquerading as a free speech post. Unfortunately, a lot of christians use this same tactic.

reply to post by ItmustbeTrue

Dear ItmustbeTrue,

Arguing the legality would be hypocritical of everyone That was never the issue (at least for me). The issue is that this is a "my religion is better than yours" post masquerading as a free speech post. Unfortunately, a lot of christians use this same tactic.

I didn't think I was being hypocritical. Help me out with how you see that.

The headline asked "Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech," which seemed to me a legal question. The OP didn't include a reference to any other religion, so I find it hard to believe he was really saying "my religion is better than yours."

It seemed to me like a real cry against the restriction placed on Christian speakers, violating their Constitutional rights.

I saw it as a legal question and treated it as such. Why accuse me of hypocrisy?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Hi Charles,

The "verdict", seems to me, to be the outcome of some pretty clever legalese. I don't know what these men were originally charged with, but someone came up with the defense that they were, in fact, demonstrating, and not preaching and disturbing the peace, which is what they clearly were doing.

Brett Anthony Coronado, 44, and Mark Allen Mackey, 60, were both found not guilty of one misdemeanor count of conducting a demonstration on state grounds without a permit.

What were they demonstrating against? And what form of public demonstration involves reading from the Bible to a group of innocent uninvolved people standing in line waiting for the DMV to open?



The "preacher" in question starts by saying, "Good morning you all, I'm going to start by reading from the word of God this morning while we're waiting for the courthouse, [sic] (DMV) to open, Romans, chapter 1, verse 18

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness"

So what were they demonstrating against again?

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

You're quite right that clever legal tricks can result in unjust outcomes, but I'm not sure that's what happened here.

The State decides what to charge the people with. The officer arrested them for impeding a business, and "bothering" (or, whatever) a captive audience.

After the arrest, the State decided not to charge them with that, but to charge them with trespassing, and conducting a demonstration on public grounds without a permit. Those were the charges the preachers had to defend against.

It turns out that judge decided the State hadn't proved it's case, and let the preachers go. It wasn't the defense that started talking about demonstrations, it was the prosecution. Hope that helps.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Charles,
It was not my intention to call you a hypocrite, and I apologize for it coming off like that. I was trying to say it would be hypocritical of everyone participating in this discussion to say that what the man was doing was illegal. We all have our opinions and are free to share them.

As for your other point, in an earlier post of mine I had said that by making the title begin with an all caps CHRISTIAN, the poster was implying that it was ridiculous that a christain could be wrongly persecuted for exercising his first ammendment rights. Every day people of other faiths put up with much worse.

So I have no problem with the mans beliefs, I dont agree with them, but hey, we will know for sure who is right one day. I just disagree with the way the poster went about presenting this as a free speech issue when he clearly wasnt concerned with the 1st ammendment, but with furthering his religious agenda.

reply to post by ItmustbeTrue

Dear ItmustbeTrue,

Certainly, there was no offense taken. I applaud you for sticking around long enough, and making the effort, to straighten me out, much appreciated. I understand more clearly now, and have no objections.

I don't think that the preacher's approach was likely to be successful, and it's not what I would have done, but we'll never know that for sure, either.

I just disagree with the way the poster went about presenting this as a free speech issue when he clearly wasnt concerned with the 1st ammendment, but with furthering his religious agenda.

And you're quite possibly right here as well. I find that I misunderstand people so often (as I've demonstrated to you) that I tend not to put too much weight behind individual words. We all screw up, the OP may have, or it may have been part of a plan to push a religion.

I cut him slack, partially because of the reason above, and partially because I was looking forward to exploring the legal issue, and was less interested in the religious one.

With respect,
Charles1952

I love ATS. People would be up in arms if these were gun rights activists, political activists, race rights activists, or just about any other group under the sun. But since they're Christians, their arrest was justified

Not on governmnet property. Otherwise, you could have a Moslem with the Koran, a Christian with a Bible, a Hindu, a Mormon, Jehovah Witness and every other religion...standing on the same steps trying to shout down the other.

Same reason prayer mostly has disappeared from school and the Pledge of Alligance..."...under GOD...." Which God?

Not everyone has the same God whether it be Shiva, Jesus-Son of God-God, Mohammed, Yaweh, Allah....and they too have a "freedom of speech" right to say and preach that you are wrong about yours.

Just not on government property (Separation of Church and State) that belongs to ALL AMerican, nationalities, religions and beliefs systems. Atheists too.

Even another evangelical pastor had tried to stop them! (italics mine)

CHP Officer Darren Meyer, who made the arrest, said the group was warned repeatedly that they needed a permit leading up to the day they were arrested without warning.

Coronado and Mackey are no longer part of Calvary Chapel Church in Hemet. They have formed their own church, Reconciled Fellowship, said Calvary Chapel Pastor Gary Johnston.

Johnston said in an email that the men had almost been arrested several times prior to the incident and knew they needed a permit prior to going to the DMV.

“I had been attempting to temper their style of evangelism,” Johnston said. “They revolted at the idea that they were wrong and eventually left the church …”

local source

And this has been another example of why, with apologies to Capra, "Every time a person preaches like this an angel takes off his wings."

Again, I remember as a child in the 1950-60s, we would step around the nuts and kooks who stood on street corners ranting to passersby that they must repent and be saved either because the end was near or you would go to Hell. After 1980, a certain style of Christianity took hold in the U.S., and feeling increasing earthly power on their backs, adherents of this style of preaching became emboldened to publicly reach out even more, to the point where the nuts and kooks left the sidewalk corners and set about to establish their own churches. (Low power radio stations was another favorite way to preach, but one had the option of turning the dial past them.)

This regional style of preaching came from the South. Growing up in the suburbs of Los Angeles, I remember seeing the tents set up on empty lots or church parking lots, so roving preachers could come into town to "preach the gospel" to either their church followers or if non-denominational then to whoever came to the tent revival. We had a lot of Southern transplants back then.

Look, after watching my inlaws, I personally have found refreshing the Southern way of a more personal "God". Northern churches seemed to have had "God" "out there". However, this nutty, kooky element has not served religion well. If anything, it's probably created more atheists, turned people off to religion in general, and produced enough future generations so that trying to tamp down this element has proved unsuccessful.

OTOH maybe I'm wrong about the effects being all negative. Maybe more people are desiring a quieter, mystical (Spiritual?) connection with the Divine as a result of listening to all this Hellfire and Brimstone. In that case, there will always be these Great Mysteries.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
I love ATS. People would be up in arms if these were gun rights activists, political activists, race rights activists, or just about any other group under the sun. But since they're Christians, their arrest was justified

C'mon dude activists protest, the xtians were proselytizing this is apples and oranges,
However if the poor deluded dudes now choose to protest their arrest I would defend their right to do so.

reply to post by mysterioustranger

I must be misunderstanding you.

Not everyone has the same God whether it be Shiva, Jesus-Son of God-God, Mohammed, Yaweh, Allah....and they too have a "freedom of speech" right to say and preach that you are wrong about yours.

Just not on government property (Separation of Church and State) that belongs to ALL AMerican, nationalities, religions and beliefs systems. Atheists too.

I do wonder where you get that impression, if, indeed, you are trying to say that Freedom of Speech is not allowed on government property.

How would you deal with a person walking up and down a sidewalk, making any kind of speech? The sidewalks are government property. So are the streets, the parks and lakes, the White House grounds, etc. There is no Freedom of Speech at any of those places? That seems extreme to me, especially since the Supreme Court said that Freedom of Speech does apply in areas considered the "Public square." Public squares are almost by definition owned by the government. Are you saying the Supreme Court is wrong?

And the example of schools is not terribly relevant. There you have a government employee, inside a government building, talking to people who are required to be there at that place and time by the government. None of that applies here.

Otherwise, you could have a Moslem with the Koran, a Christian with a Bible, a Hindu, a Mormon, Jehovah Witness and every other religion...standing on the same steps trying to shout down the other.

Yep, same as occurs at political rallies, abortion demonstrations, etc. There's almost always a counter-demonstration. Would you ban those? Or is freedom of speech limited to the first group that arrives?

But, as I say, I must have misunderstood you. Would you explain your position again?

reply to post by charles1952

Dont ask me for clarification: I did my best. You are interpreting separation of church and state( government grounds and properties) and whats allowed on it.

You need to read up on the subject itself, and not take my interpretation of it. I just cited some examples.

I had a friend at City Hall that was just disciplined for putting JESUS LOVE YOU! on a bulletin board. Because there are Muslims, Buddists, Jehovahs, Jews, etc that work there too...and you cant do that out of respect to those who dont beleive in JESUS...and separation of church and state.

Reading up on it should explain things. Im no authority....

reply to post by mysterioustranger

Dear mysteriousstranger,

The "Separation of Church and State" you're talking about provides two interesting avenues for discussion.

One, it originally, and currently, means that the government can not interfere with religion except in narrow, unusual situations. Those don't apply here.

Two, it means that the government can not be seen to endorse or promulgate a religion. A reasonable person would not conclude that the government was endorsing a religion under these circumstances.

In order to deprive someone of their freedom of speech, there has to be an equally powerful right protected by that deprivation. It hasn't been shown here.

Finally, remember the case has been resolved. They were found not guilty.

With respect,
Charles1952

If this was a bunch of union thugs pickiting and screaming at people in line would they be arrested too? I doubt it.

reply to post by ChristianJihad

C'mon dude activists protest, the xtians were proselytizing this is apples and oranges,

I fail to see a significant distinction. If an activist shouts, "Give up the Capitalist system. Learn to live a sustainable life." and the Christian shouts "Give up the sinful world system. Learn to live a Holy, Christian life." You'll condemn one and not the other?

Freedom of Speech in America doesn't allow you to say "yes" to one and "no" to the other.

reply to post by mysterioustranger

Dear mysteriousstranger,

All right, fine. You don't have to clarify. Would you take a shot at answering my questions? After all, that was by far the major portion of my post.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by mysterioustranger

 

Dear mysteriousstranger,

The "Separation of Church and State" you're talking about provides two interesting avenues for discussion.

One, it originally, and currently, means that the government can not interfere with religion except in narrow, unusual situations. Those don't apply here.

Two, it means that the government can not be seen to endorse or promulgate a religion. A reasonable person would not conclude that the government was endorsing a religion under these circumstances.

In order to deprive someone of their freedom of speech, there has to be an equally powerful right protected by that deprivation. It hasn't been shown here.

Finally, remember the case has been resolved. They were found not guilty.

With respect,
Charles1952

I see no questions here to address.