It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

City puts cost of Quran-burning security at $200,000, sends bill to church

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
How much financial responsibility do you and I and the media and the Gov and every other person or group that help to elevate this event, that discussed it on ATS, or spun it for political reasons, or made it top story, front page news for better ratings and more profit, how much should we pay? after all if we would not have used this for our own gain (whether that gain be entertainment here at ATS or media ratings) this situation would not have reached the level of national and even international attention that demands $200,000 in additional security.

If the church owes then so do we, every bit of attention given to this story helped to grow the problem.

Now you might be thinking, wait a minute, I can discuss this on ATS and I should not pay a penny, I have the right to free speech.........and that is the very same reason the church should not pay a penny.

If you were to write a post on a chat board that infuriated someone that read it to the point that they made threats against you, and you let the police know about the threats and the police decided to assign a few more officers to watch your place and at the end of the month the police sent you a bill for the cost of the extra security that they felt was needed because you exercised your right to voice your opinion and upset someone that disagrees with you, would you gladly pay or would you say "hey I have the right to free speech and to my opinions and I cannot be responsible for the actions of those that do not agree with me"?

Or perhaps we should realize that free speech sometimes costs $200,000.

On the topic of burning the Quran I think it was a bad idea but I can not punish someone for exercising free thought, free opinion and free speech............even if I do not like what is being said.




posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by deepred
 


Probably the most sense we're gonna see on here. I think the media outlets should pay as well......they inflamed the situation every chance they got......a drop in the bucket for them, ask them for the money.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by hinky
 




Provoking violence by whom? I saw no rioting in the streets of America, I saw no one killed over this in America. I saw nothing more than a citizen wishing to express his right of free speech, what exactly did you see? More importantly, where was this violence and illegal action taking place?

Based on what reasoning was the security build up required?

The thread is about that security build up, which waste $200000 of taxpayer's money, do you really think America doesn't need that money for more important stuff? Like last I heard, the food handout lines are growing bigger.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
If the church asked for the security they should have to pay if the city told them ahead of time exactly how much it would be. If not the City should pay.

And if the City took it upon themselves to police the event without being asked they are responsible for the bill.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I understand what you guys are saying, I completely 100% do.
But this will set a precedence for govt. involvement in free speech
Next thing you know legislation and a new social issues watchdog govt. department will be created

Do not stray from the path!

The economy, personal responsibility MUST be left to the people... and it's us who failed here!


Even worse, it is just a further slipping into a "pay for service" type of system for municipal services.

They make plenty of money off of tickets, which is just a legal way to victimize the poorest segment of society. Screw the city. Let them eat the cost. Just write a few more tickets or something. Its what they will do anyway. Or increase property valuations by 1/4%. There are plenty of dirty tricks that cities use to milk money from the citizens.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Appropriate? Not really.

Why bill the Church for it when this is supposed to be a nation of free speech? No precious little korans were harmed in the process of his excersising his American rights. Thats like sending the bill for police investigations into the murder of someone to the victims family.

It seems our nation's government & citizens are willing to bend over for any cry of "foul" at the drop of a hat. We have supposedely ended combat ops in the Middle East, so why all of the rhetoric of harming the troops? A play on the heart strings perhaps? Probably so. Maybe WE should nuke their asses the next time we see our flag burned and drug through the streets of some backwoods hole in the sand. Might solve some current and future problems if we did.


edit on 9/19/2010 by mikelee because: Spelling



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Make those bastards pay. They're hardly a church, they're furthest breed from god. Their attempt at a hate crime should not be covered by our tax dollars. Jesus weeps for them.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by indigo_fleshlight
Make those bastards pay. They're hardly a church, they're furthest breed from god. Their attempt at a hate crime should not be covered by our tax dollars. Jesus weeps for them.


"Vengeance is my saith the Lord"

Source: The Bible



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
The city administration is trying to send a point across, I believe, to distance itself from the actions of these few as much as humanly possible. This single act sends a strong message about the city as a whole, whether or not it is right.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What, about this case. is related to free speech?


Everything about this is about free speech


Please be more detailed. I'm really trying to understand your position on this.


We all have the right to free speech, yes. The church has the right. But no one is claiming that they don't. That's why I don't get your statement. Congress made no laws that prohibit the church's right. Saying this is is a precedent against free speech is confusing to me... How did the government make a law abridging the church's free speech?

And the church should pay for the security because they don't pay taxes, as has been noted. We all pay taxes, so when people have a shin-dig of whatever flavor, government security (cops) steps in to protect and serve, as they are supposed to do. This church doesn't pay taxes.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


What, about this case. is related to free speech?

I think the church should pay.




I disagree. The church and the media decided to make a circus of this event. As far as I can tell, no services were requested by the church.

I think the church should counter-sue and pursue the city *and the individuals* that are making these decisions for the city. Far too often, ordinary people are crushed by tyranny from local, state or federal boots. Tyranny fueled by the deep pockets of a taxing body.

It's time for some payback.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Everything!
The loophole however is a hate crime, but they weren't hating on an individual belonging to a particular race or set of beliefs, just rather a book.

Everything about this is about free speech, here it is free speech completely based on hate and ignorance.
Nonetheless........


I think it has to do more with tax exemption. Churches don't pay for the security that the police offer. Therefore, I strongly agree with sending this "church" the bill for the police security.

What better way to start getting rid of those like Wesboro than to start billing them for the need in raising security that they cause? I'm all for it.

Or the "churches" out there could start to pay some tax. Benny Hinn could start.



edit on 19-9-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join