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

reply to post by charles1952

Todays news at noon, it was mentioned (in reference to separation of each)...that the Government in general doesnt want to get the idea across that it "endorses religion".*(such as Bibles or Koran waving on gov property)

*The addressed topic referred to today was different, but still explains my point, that they dont wnat to endorse religion.

reply to post by mysterioustranger

Dear mysterioustranger,

Thanks for the update. I don't want the government endorsing religion either, totally agreed.

I think the reason that wasn't discussed in this case is that the government didn't do anything to endorse religion. There was nothing on or in the building, and none of it's employees did or said anything that looked like an endorsement of religion.

But again, I agree with you.

With respect,
Charles1952

He was trespassing by preaching there. He was asked to leave their property and refused to listen. The cop even told him "you have the right to preach on your own property but no on their's". He was rightfully arrested and given an explanation as to why he was arrested.

Once against it is Christians trying to force their religion on everyone while claiming to be a victim. What a pathetic form of psychology...

Another "Christian" provoking people to cause an "event". Your book mentions something about a time and place for everything. That was neither.

Further, to make this a first amendment issue, is appalling.

You'd be cool with an Imam doing the same thing? How about a Rabbi? Or a Monk? or a Scientologist?

How about a representative of every religion in the same spot doing the same thing? Imagine the cacophony of a hundred different voices all trying to yell over each other! Yet to stop them from doing this it would a "violation of their first amendment rights"?

One more hypothetical: Go to church. During your mass an Imam walks in preaching the Koran. How long would your congregation allow that to continue? Be careful...if you stop him you violate his first amendment rights and he can go to a website and complain how Christianity is oppressing his religion.

reply to post by arpgme

Dear arpgme,

You've framed the question in an interesting manner, unfortunately it is not entirely correct.

He was trespassing by preaching there. He was asked to leave their property and refused to listen. The cop even told him "you have the right to preach on your own property but no on their's". He was rightfully arrested and given an explanation as to why he was arrested.

It's interesting that the prosecutor decided not to charge either one of them with trespassing. Perhaps he knows something you don't?

"He was asked to leave their property . . ." Who, exactly do you mean by "their?" It was plain right from the start that they were on public property, and available to any member of the public at any hour of any day. There were no signs or any other restriction prohibiting members of the public from walking into the parking lot.

The cop's statement was incorrect for at least two reasons. The simplest evidence of the error is that the judge found them not guilty of any charge the prosecutor brought. Secondly, if you believe the officer was right in saying they could only speak on their own property, where may an apartment dweller speak? Inside the wall of his apartment only? If you take that position, you are standing against multiple decisions by the Supreme Court over decades and decades of cases.

Your theory allows for the arrest of everyone speaking in the streets, sidewalks, parks, any public space. I don't believe you'd relish that outcome.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Foundryman

Dear Foundryman,

I'm afraid you misunderstand the situation.

One more hypothetical: Go to church. During your mass an Imam walks in preaching the Koran. How long would your congregation allow that to continue? Be careful...if you stop him you violate his first amendment rights and he can go to a website and complain how Christianity is oppressing his religion.

Two major differences which render your hypothetical misleading. First a church is private property, unlike the DMV parking lot. Second, a religious meeting was being disrupted, which is not the case with the waiting line at the DMV. There was no business being conducted there.

Your book mentions something about a time and place for everything.

Unfortunately for your position, the Bible has not been incorporated into either the California Penal Code, or the American Constitution. These two men may be punished by God, but as the court pointed out, they can't be punished under our laws.

You'd be cool with an Imam doing the same thing? How about a Rabbi? Or a Monk? or a Scientologist?

Of course it's fine. Why I'd even let a Democrat speak to them, or a NAZI, provided no laws were broken.

How about a representative of every religion in the same spot doing the same thing? Imagine the cacophony of a hundred different voices all trying to yell over each other! Yet to stop them from doing this it would a "violation of their first amendment rights"?

Again, if they are not breaking any laws, such as noise ordinances, or they don't get into fights, or break some other law, why not? Because some one doesn't happen to like it?

Further, to make this a first amendment issue, is appalling.

Why? It was succesful in obtaining a not guilty verdict. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are both 1st Amendment issues. What would be appalling would be if the 1st Amendment was not raised.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Whoever owns that company is who I mean when I say "they". Just because anybody can enter and leave that building doesn't mean that it is "public property". It is a business. A DMV. They can do whatever they want with their business.

No, they guy is free to preach wherever he wants, but if the owners of whatever property he is on, tells him to stop, then he must do so because that is their property so you must follow "their" rules while on it.

reply to post by 2WitnessesArrived


Jesus wasn't a street preacher, and what this guy is doing Christ specifically forbid doing. When he did minister it was in synogogues, houses, out by the sea of Galilee, on mountain sides, etc. Jesus did preach to locals in open locations, and the people would gather around when they knew he was coming. If you want to walk up to a person and witness about Jesus, do it on a personal level...what this preacher is doing isn't going to save any souls.

reply to post by arpgme

Dear arpgme,

The situation varies from state to state. You're right that in some places the DMV is a private business, but that is not the case in California. There it is public land.

The only "owners" are the people of California, and "their" rules can be found in the California Constitution and Penal Code. The prosecutors could not find any charge that the judge would accept.

With respect,
Charles1952

The DMV in my town moved into a strip mall; it shares a common wall with two other businesses in fact. If the Hemet DMV is actually on private property, say, paying rent for a space. then, indeed those two men were trespassing on private property, if the owner (who would not be the govt) had denied them permission to be there. Interesting, if a govt function pays rent for private space...

At least the title of this thread got it right in re to preaching. Other titles I've seen elsewhere talk about "reading" the Bible, quite a big difference. I'm afraid that this is deliberate misrepresentation, as is this entire stunt.

A Christian has this take on it

The same people who are crying foul have set up for themselves their own News Organizations and also have embedded their own operatives within main stream and alternative media to skew the public opinion toward their own gain. This may be difficult for some of you to comprehend, that the Religious Right, “Conservative Christian/Evangelical churches” would in fact seek to gain public opinion by releasing stories that gives the appearance of them being persecuted when they are not, but in fact that is exactly what I am suggesting. Don’t mistakenly trust the term “Christian” with the stories you are typically fed via some of these organizations.

Some organizations are connected to one another in their own varying forms via shared, Board of Director$, supporter$, and contributor$. Some are front$ for political gain, while others are simply there to breed the type of imagery they desire to portray for whatever sick and demented reasons they may have. Unfortunately they can, and do, hijack an occasional true story of persecution or infringement on civil liberty but these are truly minor when considering all the other spin stories.

WallBuilders, One News Now, Canada Press, Christian News Wire, Christianity Today, World Net Daily, Glenn Beck, and many many others are on the payroll to disseminate stories like the one above. I wish they were truly seeking to defend our religious liberty here in America, but sadly there are those who are willfully deceptive and create stories for political gain.

I can’t stress to you enough that I understand this may be difficult to believe but if you check into whose money starts most of these publications and what people they share in common it will slowly begin to unravel. It’s the story no one reports on, the misuse of the Christian right, and the one that most on the ‘Right’ don’t want to know about. Always check the sources, see what is motivating them and then as always, follow the money.

source

He also doesn't have a good word for their legal reps

The[ men] appear to be Media hungry, and seeking to make a name for themselves. It’s all highly political when you consider those who work for Advocates for Faith and Freedom (also known as Tyler & Monk, LLP) and what their intentions truly are. I would not put it past these two and whomever they are taking their “legal” advice from to have staged the whole show.

There's money to be made defending people like these two men. Short of money? Ask for donations to pay the lawyers.

reply to post by 2WitnessesArrived


if you believe what your scriptures tell you, Read 1John4.

reply to post by TheBrother


Yes, I read it brother.

Ok, I think I see what this was all about. This situation was not so much over religion itself, as much as over a method delivering a religious message. It was over "street preaching", or "open air" preaching as is more commonly referred to in Europe.

This method of preaching is debatable among American Christians (who debate over even who among them should be called a Christian). The debates seem to center around effectiveness, style or content.

What these two gentlemen were attempting to do was "street preach". And the lawyers eager to come to their aide are eager to get these cases. I think sometimes people involved in cases to prove a point pick the worst persons as examples; I've seen "liberal" causes justify their good intentions but use the worst example possible, if one should look further. I think this is what happened here with this "conservative" cause.

IMO these two did have a captive audience. It's one thing to be able to get away from speech (or Girl Scout cookie sellers, which I can't resist really) I don't like by walking away/around, but it's quite another when already being forced to stand in line or in a group for a necessary service and be subjected to harangues of any persuasion, In fact, if these two had been preaching about baby seals clubbing, I probably would have felt more like clubbing them (the men, not the seals).

Here's someone writing about the street preaching he witnessed. What we can learn from hateful street-preachers

Not every street preacher has the message as the above one. Also IMO sometimes it could be literally viewed as street performance art. Or, where does one draw the line between street preaching and street church, with attendant crowds?

IMO the decades long return worldwide to religious fanatic fundamentalism as supported by the state has done more harm than good, as well as turning off people to what are the good, the positive messages of a religion. With such fanatically devoted, no dialogue is possible. But this type of unquestioning religion fits so well in with an authoritarian nature for a state, it is harder to displace once those governing (whether king or elected leader) strike a bargain with those extremists.

reply to post by desert

Dear desert,

I'm curious about the last paragraph of your post.

IMO the decades long return worldwide to religious fanatic fundamentalism as supported by the state has done more harm than good, as well as turning off people to what are the good, the positive messages of a religion. With such fanatically devoted, no dialogue is possible. But this type of unquestioning religion fits so well in with an authoritarian nature for a state, it is harder to displace once those governing (whether king or elected leader) strike a bargain with those extremists.

I'm confused by the breadth of your statement. Is there any place in North America where the government is supporting religious fanatic fundamentalism? Further, what do you mean by that term? Are we talking about tolerating goofy street preachers? If so, I don't have any trouble with it. Or, are you talking about people with bombs, rifles, and RPGs?

The only religion I know of that's doing that, is Islam. Would you kindly explain what you were referring to?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Dear Charles,

By "religious fanatic fundamentalism", I am meaning "stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles", in this case of a religious nature, and done so with "excessive zeal". As far as North America, I don't know about Canada or Mexico but can only speak from personal observation of 60 years living in the Unites States of America.

I did not read this article in Christian Century in 1981, but reading it online decades later I found Rev Bennett to write with a prophetic voice. The rise of cable and satellite television years later (something which he could not predict in 1981) amplified the concerns of the religious right that Rev Bennett was warning about. The "issues that do raise the establishment-of-religion question" (and others) became a way to establish a symbiotic relationship for those specific religious and those who wanted their vote in order to govern. Assessing the Concerns of the Religious Right

Religious fanatic fundamentalism comes out of the culture of that country. Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis Schaeffer, has already apologized publicly for helping to bring bring about this symbiotic relationship in the USA. While I do not find American zealots using RPGs, Mr. Schaeffer does write Chr istian Jihad? Why We Should Worry About Right-Wing Terror Attacks Like Norway's in the US

Fanatic religious fundamentalism, with a self righteous attitude, finds at its core of strict adherence an easy way to separate people into them and us, those saved versus those not saved. If you're not with us, you're against us, and we will fight you because our cause is right.

In America, this separation occurred internally, but it also allowed for American government to use military might in Iraq. Hardball, Fox & Friends hosted "Middle East analyst" whose chief experience is in "prophecy" Research I can remember seeing this "Middle East expert" on tv, He helped cheer lead on camera for this secular disaster and off camera encouraged the Iraq War as helping to fulfill Biblical prophecy. Support the troops because they're fulfilling Biblical Prophecy.

Jesus had to speak out against religious zealotry: "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" He knew that when people rely on the Letter of the Law and forget the Spirit behind it, the Message becomes distorted. When government promotes such zealotry, citizens become divided and lose Jesus's Message.

Respect!
desert

reply to post by desert

Dear desert,

I have to thank you sincerely for providing links to those articles. They provided examples of thinking which I don't often see.

You have provided so much informtion, on such a wide front, that I'd like to take ten seconds for just an immediate reaction to each. You may then decide which, if any, of those areas you'd like to discuss in more detail.

I've found that actual conversations with you are very rewarding, and I wish more posters would try it. I think they're missing something by just have brief, heated exchanges. (Oh, I'm an American as well, about your age, so I'll stick with the US.)

By "religious fanatic fundamentalism", I am meaning "stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles", in this case of a religious nature, and done so with "excessive zeal".

I'm sure you recognize the difficulty some will have with "excessive." Believers will think it's proper, non-believers will think it's excessive. Leaving that aside, I would expect religions to stress adherence to a set of basic principles. Every group, nation, political party, etc., does. "Strict and literal," also seems a little subjective.

The Rev. Bennett article seemed very useful, largely as an historical piece. I got the impression that he thought the Religious Right wasn't a big deal, and was largely concerned that they didn't focus on the issues which he thought were primary. I don't see that the symbiotic relationship you mention was ever actually created, and I really don't see it now. Some believe that the current administration has been hostile to both religion and the Right.

To be completely honest, I thought Mr. Schaeffer's article was a little overheated. It seemed as though he would take an example or two, then extrapolate that to show the US was on the verge of becoming a theocracy. The title of his book (or, perhaps, article), Christian Jihad? Why We Should Worry About Right-Wing Terror Attacks Like Norway's in the US illustrates the difficulty I have with him. There is no evidence of an American Christian Jihad, in the sense of an armed struggle, and Norway's mass murderer (was it Anders Brevik?) was not motivated by religion or any coherent political belief, if we can accept his diary as being a meaningful gauge to his mental state.

The Fox news program was interesting, until the article told me that the other guest was Al Sharpton. It seems to me that neither of the guests were really presented as experts, but were chosen primarily for interesting television. A little bit like putting Rosie O'Donnell together with Rick Santorum to discuss automotive safety issues. (That program was on in 2006, and I'm confident that no one in Washington paid the slightest attention to it.)

I completely agree that a self-righteous attitude is wrong, hurting its possessor and those around him. But I disagree that, in the US at least, "fighting the other side" means anything more than allowed political action.

Jesus had to speak out against religious zealotry: "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" He knew that when people rely on the Letter of the Law and forget the Spirit behind it, the Message becomes distorted.

Absolutely agree with you here. And that principle is one which I will encourage following with strict and literal adherence with all of the zeal possible. Even if that makes me a religious fanatic fundamentalist.

In summary, I am opposed to government mandating a religion, but thankfully, I don't see it happening here.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Dear charles,

Once again I appreciate one of your replies, showing your intelligence and humor. Now, you and I are in agreement re a state mandated religion. Yes, that has not occurred here (although Rev Bennett listed the two areas where the church-state lines cross). What I wrote is in re to "state supported" religion. And I contend that that has happened. Afterall, in the United States, who we choose to elect governs in our name; if those govt officials use their position and power in govt to promote religious fundamentalism and empower fanatical adherents, then govt is indeed supporting religious fundamentalism. It is that religious fundamentalism that is a detriment to a nation.


I need to limit my time online for the moment, but I want to leave some passages from articles for further reading. These are more recent in history than the Rev Bennett's 1981 prophet voice.

Always,
desert

We also need to relinquish the idea that the Christian right is just a religious movement, deserving of tolerance, and acknowledge that it is a political movement bent on rewriting American government. And when any movement’s agenda stands opposed to civil rights, women’s rights, equality, pluralism and public health, that movement deserves to be opposed. Issue by issue, whether it’s efforts to reduce women’s control over their repro­duc­tive lives, or limit the full participation of gay men and lesbians in society or use federal dollars to pay for Christian proselytizing, we need to make our voices heard. Right now, the Chris­tian right has claimed ownership over the question of moral values in this country, and the rest of us need to take that space back.

With God On Their Side

Having observed politics up close and personal for most of my adult lifetime, I have come to the conclusion that the rise of politicized religious fundamentalism may have been the key ingredient in the transformation of the Republican Party. Politicized religion provides a substrate of beliefs that rationalizes—at least in the minds of its followers—all three of the GOP’s main tenets: wealth worship, war worship, and the permanent culture war.

GOP insider: Religion destroyed my party

The Christian Right is now firmly entrenched in the GOP coalition, and we have the New Right to thank. The recent emergence of socially conservative Sarah Palin as one of the faces of the GOP suggests that the influence of the New Right constituency within the Party is only growing. Even as prospects for electoral success seem uncertain at best, the New Right’s hold on GOP politics seems secure. The danger for Republicans is that with the New Right leaders gone or marginalized, no one may be left to remind the GOP that more is needed than simply anger and issues; instead, strategy and political savvy will carry the day. Are a new generation of leaders—a “new New Right”—ready to take the lead? So far, no one has stepped forward, but only time will tell.

Remembering the New Right Political Strategy and the Building of the GOP Coalition

Part of the way to the future is doing religion better as Jim Wallis suggests. Another essential component needed for religion to be a positive and not deadly force in the future is the role of the government. The United States is the most complex and religiously diverse nation on the planet. In light of this maintaining the separation of church and state is crucial. It is also crucial that if elected officials insist on using religious language or imagery in public or official functions they recognize their moral responsibility to use this language with an awareness of that diversity and the growing number of Americans who choose not to be religious. Careless use of religious language further divides the country and fuels the fire of fundamentalist religious extremism. To quote Elaine Pagels once again, “Religious language can be unifying. It can also be enormously divisive and dangerous.”

Will Religion be the Death of Us?