Man arrested for reading the Holy Bible in public

page: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
fail to see the problem here.

He was asked to leave because he was making unwanted noise, im pretty sure the bible side of it has nothing to do with it.

I bet if he was reading a Italian restaurant menu out loud and was asked to move, and didnt he would be arrested all the same.

silly thread really.




posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArrowsNV
You really live up to your screen name.

I don't see why people like you just don't seem to understand that the evolution and religion can peacefully coexist.


Because I don't choose to believe fairy tales with absolutely no scientific backing.



Wheras Religion/Philosophy is the search for WHY we are here and if there is life after we pass from this plane of existence. In actuality it may be a bit more complicated than that, but for the most part that is what it boils down to.


False, religion tells you matter of factly why we are here. There is no search, and religious people think they have all the answers.



Plus, do you have concrete evidence to back up your theory? No. So don't talk like you're right and everyone else is wrong, especially on this topic.


Um yes, it's called paleontology, biogeography, genetics, morphology, and developmental biology. Please try doing some research, because I can tell you have done 0. Hypocrite!



Darwin himself wasn't even an atheist like most atheists claim, he believed in a higher power. Did he go to church? Maybe not after writing "On the Origin of Species" but in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God." He claimed himself to be agnostic.

1. ag·nos·tic noun ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-

Definition of AGNOSTIC

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god


Even Darwin admitted the possibility of there being a higher power.

He didn't go around claiming what he had observed was FACT. It is called the THEORY of Evolution for a reason.
And he also didn't go around belittling those who choose to see solace in organized religion.


This is all extremely irrelevant and only serves the purpose to rant your frustrations. This is the wrong forum for that. Please create a new topic and post it in the rant forum. No where did I mention the religious beliefs of Darwin. His beliefs regarding religion are not my own.

Gravity is a theory too, by the way. Is that fake, given all the evidence supporting otherwise?
lolol


Unless you're your some sort of freak who has a 500mil+ year lifespan then don't go around being a dick and saying everyone else is wrong, because you really don't know for sure.


I think there's a rule on ATS about name calling.
You may want to grow up and watch yourself.

What I DO know FOR SURE, is there is absolutely no evidence WHATSOEVER to back up the existence of a God(s) of any religion, ever.
edit on 4-6-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000


Right, so they have to pay to go to a private school, to keep from having their rights violated. Hm...kinda reminds me of Nazi Germany. The picture you're painting of yourself is that you're all for totalitarianism.


It's called separation of church and state.

Churches and private schools can preach religion. That's what they are for. That disease is not needed in our state owned public school system.
edit on 4-6-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I could spend the next 30 minutes writing counter points to all the ones in your other post but it's not really worth my effort.

Your self-righteous, incessant, belief that you seem to know everything about everything (well at least science, nature, religion, and law) is, so I'll cover that instead.




I think there's a rule on ATS about name calling.

You may want to grow up and watch yourself. What I DO know FOR SURE, is there is absolutely no evidence WHATSOEVER to back up the existence of a God(s) of any religion, ever.

No there isn't. There is a rule against "forum posts, private messages, PODcasts, blog entries, videos, images, and other supported content, links to images or use avatars and/or signatures that are unlawful, harassing, libelous, privacy invading, abusive, threatening, harmful, hateful, vulgar, obscene, and/or disruptive."

But no rule against name calling. At least not specifically.

And I could also argue that you going around claiming to KNOW that other people's beliefs are "fairy tales" and completely untrue, when that is what the other party want's to believe (fully within their rights) is abuse and harassment against those who choose to embrace organized religion. As well as hateful towards organized religion as a whole.

As for my side of the "name calling" I was simply stating unless you are some sort of freak with a crazy lifespan of millions of years, there is no way you can know with 100% certainty that religion is false as you have not witnessed the progression of this evolution (which I never said was false to begin with) and that you should not be a dick about it. I've also seen plenty of people call other users on the forums a lot worse (and not in the hypothetical tone that I was using) than "freak" and "dick" without getting in trouble for anything.



Also, before you go quoting the rules (ATS & US law) and science. Make sure you know what you're talking about first.


Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000


Right, so they have to pay to go to a private school, to keep from having their rights violated. Hm...kinda reminds me of Nazi Germany. The picture you're painting of yourself is that you're all for totalitarianism.


It's called separation of church and state.

Churches and private schools can preach religion. That's what they are for. We do not want that disease in our state owned public school system.


If you are so sure of yourself as you seem to be, I would like you to quote where in the United States Laws and/or Constitution it says anything about a "separation of church and state" because I've never seen it, nor has anyone else for that matter.

It has been mentioned in the Supreme Court as a 'good idea' but it is not codified into the USC nor is an amendment to the Constitution.

edit on 4/6/2012 by ArrowsNV because: formatting



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ArrowsNV
 



Minor point: The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

You are correct that the term 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution, however, this text above would say the same thing. If the congress cannot make a low for, or against a religion, I would say this is equal to a wall between the church and the State. My 2 cents anyway.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Oh, and to get back to the topic at hand.

Most parking lots are considered public space (unless fenced off or surrounded with 'No Trespassing' signs), and he was not interfering with their day to day business. He may of annoyed a few people, but there is no law on the books against annoying others by standing and reading a book in a public space. Therefore he had no legal obligation to leave.

Undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome right to freedom of expression. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. 89 S. Ct. 733, 393/ U.S. 5()3/21 L. Eid. 2d. 731).

Ooh, don't forget this gem:

Federal District Court, Tennessee, 1978: The fact that persons might express their religious views at some place other than the public streets, sidewalks, and other areas of the city does not have any consequence in determining the validity of permit requirements with respect to the use of such public areas. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I (Smith v. City of Manchester, 460 F. Supp. 30).



Originally posted by Daemonicon
reply to post by ArrowsNV
 



Minor point: The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

You are correct that the term 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution, however, this text above would say the same thing. If the congress cannot make a low for, or against a religion, I would say this is equal to a wall between the church and the State. My 2 cents anyway.

I agree, I was not arguing for joining the two in any way. I was simply stating that the other poster brought up "Separation of church and state" as if it were some sort of law. Which it is not.

And when people speak of it in such a manner, then others who are less versed in the USC and Constitution (and who don't care to read either for themselves) tend to pick up the assumption that "Separation of church and state" is some sort of law.



edit on 4/6/2012 by ArrowsNV because: added refrence
edit on 4/6/2012 by ArrowsNV because: more reference
edit on 4/6/2012 by ArrowsNV because: formatting
edit on 4/6/2012 by ArrowsNV because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by wildtimes
 





Freedom of religion means ALL religions: Wiccan, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, WBC, whatever. Having it rammed down your throat is not "freedom of choice."


Um, yes you do have the freedom of choice. You have the freedom to walk away as fast as your legs can carry you, or the right to stick your fingers in your ears, or the right to just tune him out.

Ramming it down your throat is what the Jesuits did in the Spanish Inquisition, quite literally. This guy isn't ramming it down your throat, thats you being melodramatic.


Well... The people were at the DMV, probably had another long day of waiting to renew their licenses, so, it is a captive audience. Yes, they could have left, but if they did leave, their position on line would've been taken. The sole purpose they were even at the DMV was to use the DMV's services.

2nd point: the man was asked nicely to leave/stop; he blatantly ignored the security guard and continued.

3rd point: the police officer did read the preacher his Miranda Right's, maybe not as soon as he handcuffed him, but as the preacher was getting into the back of car.

4th point: what good would the preacher have done to those listening if he read the bible from which the audience does not know indepth? How does the preacher's 5 minutes of action help lead others to God? Did the preacher lead others to a personal relationship with God through Christ? No, he was laughed at by the bystanders.

5th point: the officer TELLS the man, you can go to a street corner, but not at that location.

6th point: i personally believe the arrest was way too quick. I think the police officer should have explained the law clearer, I know that's a lot to ask for from the people that enforce it.

7th point: Romans 13:1-7.

Im pro-christianity but this was just an embarrassment. i think this is just going to stir up the imminent anti-religion/christianity persecution.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



There is no "Freedom FROM religion" clause in the first amendment.

What?!!
Seriously???

It is directly stated as a choice that people have a right to make: to practice whatever "religion" they want to, OR NONE AT ALL.

Freedom of religion means ALL religions: Wiccan, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, WBC, whatever. Having it rammed down your throat is not "freedom of choice."

sigh. NuT....really??


That's not the way things work here. Yes any and all religions are welcome here. But where one person's rights and god end another persons rights and God begin. We have religious liberty here and the free exercise thereof, that's open to all people and all faiths.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DelayedChristmas
 


You simply don't get it. If a person is free to leave of their own volition and choice its not in any way shape or form a "captive" audience. Losing a place in line is a matter of convenience. No one was forcing the people to stay in line by coercion or force.

They all were free to leave anytime they chose to do so.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 





I believe I heard the cop say that they were not allowed to preach there because it was a "captive audience." That I can understand. Now if they had tazed him or assaulted him, that would be a different thing.


Captive? I saw no chains nor ropes or anything of the sort preventing them from exiting the premises. In my agnostic days if it were me and i didn't want to hear it, i would have just left without a care in the world as simple as you please.


Where else are they going to do thier business they where there to conduct business -- you are suggesting that they could have moved to the front of any random store and conducted the same business.

This was set up by an attn whore so that people could faux concern troll. -- you know that's right. Truly I don't want to have to listen to the bible the tora the koran or grimes fairy tails. What if someone came stood at the door and read letters to Penthouse. Same thing.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 



Perhaps children who are christian or jew don't want to have evolution "rammed" down their throats in public schools, yet they are forced to sit there and hear it anyway which is a violation of not just their rights but their parents rights, they too are also a captive audience because the federal government requires them to attend school so in effect the government is forcing them to listen to a teacher preach them evolution even if it against their religious beliefs. Can you say violation of rights?

Can you say "home-schooling" or "Catholic school"? The fed gov requires them to be 'educated', not to "attend public school" , which is secular....

There is no law that says you have to enroll your kids in public school.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DelayedChristmas
 


You simply don't get it. If a person is free to leave of their own volition and choice its not in any way shape or form a "captive" audience. Losing a place in line is a matter of convenience. No one was forcing the people to stay in line by coercion or force.

They all were free to leave anytime they chose to do so.


How are they free to leave?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 



If the man was yammering on about scooby-doo

I'd have called the police for him being a public nuisance and disturbing the peace .



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by wildtimes
 





Freedom of religion means ALL religions: Wiccan, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, WBC, whatever. Having it rammed down your throat is not "freedom of choice."


Um, yes you do have the freedom of choice. You have the freedom to walk away as fast as your legs can carry you, or the right to stick your fingers in your ears, or the right to just tune him out.

Ramming it down your throat is what the Jesuits did in the Spanish Inquisition, quite literally. This guy isn't ramming it down your throat, thats you being melodramatic.


Well... The people were at the DMV, probably had another long day of waiting to renew their licenses, so, it is a captive audience. Yes, they could have left, but if they did leave, their position on line would've been taken. The sole purpose they were even at the DMV was to use the DMV's services.

2nd point: the man was asked nicely to leave/stop; he blatantly ignored the security guard and continued.

3rd point: the police officer did read the preacher his Miranda Right's, maybe not as soon as he handcuffed him, but as the preacher was getting into the back of car.

4th point: what good would the preacher have done to those listening if he read the bible from which the audience does not know indepth? How does the preacher's 5 minutes of action help lead others to God? Did the preacher lead others to a personal relationship with God through Christ? No, he was laughed at by the bystanders.

5th point: the officer TELLS the man, you can go to a street corner, but not at that location.

6th point: i personally believe the arrest was way too quick. I think the police officer should have explained the law clearer, I know that's a lot to ask for from the people that enforce it.

7th point: Romans 13:1-7.

Not trying to strike you down, but the cop in this case was not in the legal right to tell him where he can and cannot preach (see my last post for the legal precedent). Just because he's a police officer doesn't mean he's right.

Also, like I said in my last post. He may have been in the DMV parking lot (on the sidewalk of the parking lot) but he wasn't inside the DMV and was not hindering anyone's day to day business. The security guard probably did not understand that unless this guy was inside the DMV's office or on the steps leading to the door preaching, he could not be removed legally; and even then it would still be in a legal grey zone as the DMV technically is public property and I did not see any 'No Trespassing' signs or a fence around the parking lot, hence it is defined as 'public space'.


Also...

Im pro-christianity but this was just an embarrassment. i think this is just going to stir up the imminent anti-religion/christianity persecution.


Let it stir up the persecution.

“You’re blessed when your commitment to God provokes persecution. The persecution drives you even deeper into God’s kingdom.” Matthew 5:10



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tracehd1
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 



This isn't about religion but the freedom of speech!



It has nothing to do with Christianity. It has nothing to do with God. But It does have to do with religious liberty afforded to us all under the first amendment, specifically the exercise clause.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550
What if someone came stood at the door and read letters to Penthouse. Same thing.

No not the same thing.

"obscenity is an exception to the constitutional rights under the First Amendment, and is usually limited to content that directly refers to explicit sexual acts that are publicly accessible"



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DelayedChristmas
 


You simply don't get it. If a person is free to leave of their own volition and choice its not in any way shape or form a "captive" audience. Losing a place in line is a matter of convenience. No one was forcing the people to stay in line by coercion or force.

They all were free to leave anytime they chose to do so.


How are they free to leave?


If they drove get in their car and drive away. If they rode a bike get on that bike and drive away. If they walked, walk away.

Simple as that.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550
Where else are they going to do thier business they where there to conduct business -- you are suggesting that they could have moved to the front of any random store and conducted the same business.
So those people were conducting their business with the DMV in the DMV's parking lot?

No they were going inside the DMV to conduct business, which is separated from the parking lot by what is called a wall; a solid object that blocks most sound, like the sound of people preaching. Therefore there was no way that this preacher was keeping them from performing their business with the DMV.

And if it annoyed them, well I guess that sucks for them because annoying someone is not illegal (yet).



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daemonicon
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Why can we not get past this 'missing link' and 'it's only a theory' bull?

Here are your 'missing links' for humans. Notice a nice, gradual evolution? Here are many examples, I am sure, you will ignore.

Denisova hominin
H. antecessor
H. cepranensis
H. erectus
H. ergaster
H. floresiensis
H. gautengensis
H. georgicus
H. habilis
H. heidelbergensis
H. neanderthalensis
H. rhodesiensis
H. rudolfensis
H. sapiens idaltu
H. sapiens sapiens (modern humans)

As for 'it's only a theory', from dictionary.com:

the·o·ry
   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.


Any more low hanging fruit you would like to discuss?
edit on 6-4-2012 by Daemonicon because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-4-2012 by Daemonicon because: EDIT for spelling


How the hell did this get about Creationism VS Evolution VS Intelligent Design?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



You simply don't get it. If a person is free to leave of their own volition and choice its not in any way shape or form a "captive" audience. Losing a place in line is a matter of convenience. No one was forcing the people to stay in line by coercion or force.

They all were free to leave anytime they chose to do so.

Dude!!!

They were standing in a long line to take care of government-mandated business!! If I'd been camped out there since overnight, or 7 am, or my lunch hour.....to take care of that business....and someone comes along and starts ramming their beliefs down my throat....
I'm just going to say "screw this" and give up my place in line? (Which line was probably those doing the 'last day' before their registration expired)....
c'mon, NuT, you can appreciate that.

If you were standing in the line and some guy came preaching Satanism, or Wiccan, or Catholic, or Buddhism...or the Hari Krishna's showed up and started shouting at you....
you would not stay in line?
You would not want them to shut up??

They would be 'offending your religious sensibilities'......
and in effect "forcing" you to either 'hear' their preaching, or try some other day (with a fine/penalty) when they weren't there.
C'MON NOW.....
no. It's not okay. It's not okay to take advantage of people doing their civic duty and waiting in line to do so....for spewing doctrine. That's NOT why they were there.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join