It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Your book mentions something about a time and place for everything.
Of course it's fine. Why I'd even let a Democrat speak to them, or a NAZI, provided no laws were broken.
You'd be cool with an Imam doing the same thing? How about a Rabbi? Or a Monk? or a Scientologist?
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?
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"?
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.
Further, to make this a first amendment issue, is appalling.
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.
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.
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 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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”