Video: Cops arrest Christians for handing out gospel at Dearborn Arab festival? Update: Pushback
posted at 6:41 pm on June 23, 2010 by Allahpundit
Via Powerline, so insane is this that I’m paranoid there’s a key detail missing somewhere that might explain the whole thing. Could the Christians have been trespassing on private property, maybe? Sure doesn’t look like it, and in any case, they weren’t arrested for trespassing. They were arrested for “disorderly conduct,” which apparently now extends to the offense of offering religious literature to someone who might not want it.
If this is what it looks like, replete with cops confiscating video cameras to keep what happened off the record, it’s one of the most ridiculous First Amendment violations you’ll ever see.
The Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor-based Christian legal defense organization, has agreed to represent four evangelists who were arrested on charges of disturbing the peace Friday night at the Arab International Festival.
Dearborn police officers violated their free speech rights when their video cameras, which were used to record conversations with festival-goers, were confiscated, said lead attorney Robert Muise…
Muise faxed a letter Monday to Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad requesting the return of his clients’ cameras and tapes.
The Police Department has not responded to Muise’s request.
Here’s the Thomas More Center’s press release, which notes that there was trouble at last year’s Dearborn Arab festival too. Evidently the cops were worried that the presence of Christian lit at a mostly Muslim event might produce some “excitement,” so they solved the problem by punishing the party that tried to peacefully exercise its rights. Note to the defendants: Don’t forget to ask for damages. A lot of damages.
Update: In the interests of fairness, here’s criticism of the Christians from what I assume is a Muslim source. But it’s singularly lame: His argument consists of showing about 10 seconds of footage of someone else at the festival saying “Jesus is lord,” which is supposed to rebut the claim that the Christians were arrested for proselytizing, and repeating over and over that they were arrested for disorderly conduct, as if that somehow clarifies things. The whole question is why their conduct was supposedly “disorderly.” Were they drunk? Insulting passersby? Doing something else to breach the peace? Or just exercising their First Amendment rights? Note the narrator makes no claim that they were truly “disorderly” in their behavior, merely that that’s what the cops hauled them in for.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next »
Cities can set up buffer zones or distribution areas without violating the First Amendment. Back at you.
Jimbo3 on June 24, 2010 at 1:48 PM
There’s such a thing as separating the diamonds from the dirt. In that time, he pushed basic tenets of modern society, something I admire. As to his hellfire and brimstone, meh. Ron Paul has some great ideas on domestic policy, and some horrifyingly stupid and awful ideas on foreign policy.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 1:49 PM
So where does this say that the only legal way to distribute information was through a booth? My reading of this is that they were free to distribute material period.
Esthier on June 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM
…and the signs designating the areas as such were…where? Oh yeah, they were nonexistent. But then, I guess if police can arrest people solely based on unsubstantiated accusations and hold them without that pesky due process thing getting in the way, I guess cities can on-the-spot declare public streets no-go zones and immediately cite anyone on the properly.
Welcome to Jimboland.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Why would you say that? I haven’t seen any situation when such an act occurred. I know Dearborn is a heavily Muslim area, but so what? If you live in the US you must realize that religion may be freely expressed and if your psyche can’t take it, you had best migrate somewhere else.
And you know as an aside – if the major US Muslim groups would just actually demonstrate through their actions and statements that they disprove of jihad as it is practiced by their more fervent believers, that would take care of all of it.
I personally am getting a little tired of everyone worried about ticking off the muslim community, and giving them a pass on the common repsect for others we expect of everyone else. If you cannot be an American and a muslim at the same time, the problem is not the Christians.
Zomcon JEM on June 24, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Esthier and all, more information. Thomas More did this after being denied an injunction.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=573340
DETROIT, MI – A federal judge has denied an evangelical group’s request for permission to hand out Christian literature on sidewalks at an Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds denied Anaheim, Calif.-based Arabic Christian Perspective’s request for a temporary restraining order. The group describes itself in its court filing as “a national ministry established for the purpose of proclaiming the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ to Muslims …(that) travels around the country attending and distributing Christian literature at Muslim festivals and mosques.”
A lawyer for the group said it would seek a permanent injunction against the city of Dearborn. “It’s not over,” said Robert J. Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor-based Christian rights advocacy group.
Another lawyer on the case said the Dearborn officials action could be part of what he described as a broader Muslim legal attack on critics of Islam in our “Judeo-Christian nation.”
“Muslims are using the courts in this country to stop our free speech rights,” said William J. Becker Jr., a Los Angeles attorney who has represented a number of prominent critics of Islam.
The 14th annual Dearborn Arab International Festival is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of visitors Friday through Sunday to the city that has the Detroit area’s greatest concentration of Arab-Americans.
Festival organizer Fay Beydoun said the evangelical group was being offered a good spot in an area with a number of other religious, nonprofit and political groups. “You have to pass right in front of it to get anywhere,” said Beydoun, executive director of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce.
Southeastern Michigan has about 300,000 people with roots in the Arab world. It includes large numbers of both Muslims and Christians.
The group sued Dearborn after police told the Rev. George Saieg members would need to restrict literature distribution to a designated table-and-booth section of the festival site.
The city said safely accommodating the 150,000 daily festival-goers requires limits on where people can leaflet. It said other Christian and Muslim groups already have tables and booths for distributing material at the festival.
City officials say anyone is free to have conversations — but not leaflet — on sidewalks within the festival’s barricades.
“It appears to be a legitimate governmental interest for crowd control and safety,” Edmunds said in denying the request. “The festival area is more akin to a fair than a normal city street.”
Becker said the case is similar to one he handled in Los Angeles, in which Jews for Jesus member Cyril Gordon won about $250,000 after being arrested for trespassing in 2006 outside an Israel Independence Day event in a park. “This is a case where your right, my right and anybody’s right to walk down the street and express their views is being disrupted by a police action,” he said.
An official of the Council of American-Islamic Relations said Arabic Christian Perspective was asking for special treatment. “They should abide by the rules and purchase a booth like the other religious groups,” said Dawud Walid, executive director of the group’s Michigan chapter. “Christians can talk about Christianity and Muslims can promote Islam. This is the right we have as Americans.”
Jimbo3 on June 24, 2010 at 1:54 PM
The 6th Circuit COA is considered a joke by appellate attorneys. It has had more cases reversed by the USSC this year than the 9th Circuit.
Blake on June 24, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Actually, Jesus surprised the Jews by telling them to render onto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and to give to God what was God’s. The jews expected the Messiah to rescue them from the Romans while Christ instead preached on turning away from sin and instead putting all of their trust in him.
Importantly, he claimed he was God. The Pharisees understood this clearly.
Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.” – Matthew 26:64-66
Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” – John 10:32-33
Would you have respected Jesus the same way his follower Thomas did?
Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” – John 20:28-29
shick on June 24, 2010 at 1:58 PM
I suppose the courts will have to decide if it’s legal to force someone to pay to exercise a First Amendment right.
Though I do concede that this doesn’t help the group’s case.
Esthier on June 24, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Standing up against a government that punishes for blasphemy?
You’re asking an agnostic if they would get behind that? Heh.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 2:03 PM
–Not clear to me whether they charged non-profits for the booth or not. And it’s not an all-or-nothing matter. They could have talked all they wanted. They just were restricted to the booth if they wanted to hand out things, apparently just like anyone else.
Jimbo3 on June 24, 2010 at 2:04 PM
No, my friend. I’m asking you if you would worship Jesus as Lord and God. It was a rhetorical question since I knew you are agnostic. But I wanted you to know who Jesus himself claimed to be and think about it.
shick on June 24, 2010 at 2:08 PM
It seems clear from what you’ve quoted:
Handing out leaflets or Bibles is a part of religious expression, so I don’t see how it makes a difference that they were otherwise allowed to speak in that area (assuming they legally had a right to express their religion without having to pay to do so) or how that has anything to do with not being able to record the conversation those who were passing out pamphlets had with cops.
Esthier on June 24, 2010 at 2:09 PM
That was made rather clear during my eight years of Catholic school. No, I wouldn’t worship him as that. However, in the meantime he spent his life going around changing the world for the better. Everyone’s a little crazy. If someone wants to call themselves “God”, that’s their business. If they take that and do good with it, more power to them, and I’ll certainly admire and respect them, and possibly even follow them. Unfortunately, he died just under 2000 years ago. A little late to follow him.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 2:11 PM
–You’re right. I can’t find out how much the booths were for non-profits. But all the law requires is that there not be any discrimination for or against religion. If the commercial vendors were required to buy booths (and they also have First Amendment rights), it will be difficult for these guys to argue that they should have preferential rights.
Jimbo3 on June 24, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Well you demonstrated your lack of understanding of the ideas and beliefs. I think you’re misidentifying the tyranny that was stood up to. Certainly you don’t think it was the tyranny of Rome, do you?
blink on June 24, 2010 at 2:43 PM
What? What? What?
I thought you believed that they were arrested for jostling a festival volunteer. If so, then all this is immaterial.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 2:45 PM
Where? Oh, that was just a vague insult. Okay.
Blasphemy as a crime punishable by death is tyrannical.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 2:49 PM
No it’s not.
Lame attempt at recovery. You should have just admitted your ignorance. Nobody would have faulted you for it.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Sure as far as the festival is concerned, and I accept that. What doesn’t seem legal to me is that this public area is deemed off limits with only a paid option left for exercising a right.
But that seems to be an issue for the courts to decide.
Esthier on June 24, 2010 at 2:57 PM
How so?
This was his initial argument in support of Jesus.
Esthier on June 24, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Yes it is.
(pardon me for borrowing your debate tactic, there)
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:02 PM
When I’m ignorant of the topic, I will. You disliking me personally doesn’t make me ignorant of the topic.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:03 PM
No. It isn’t. A democracy can institute a law which punishes blasphemy with death.
Do you deny this? Or do you think a democracy can be considered a tyranny? Either would delight me.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:04 PM
Your assert was so stupid, I didn’t think an explanation was required.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:06 PM
This is really awesome conversation. I’m so glad you’re civil. This is totally worth continuing.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:08 PM
You’ve already demonstrated your ignorance of this topic to those on here that aren’t ignorant of this topic.
1. I don’t dislike you personally.
2. Even if I did dislike you personally, my dislike for you isn’t what would make you ignorant of the topic. It’s your lack of knowledge and understand that makes you ignorant of the topic.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:09 PM
You should have backed out of this conversation the first chance you had. Instead you decided to double and triple down. Big mistake.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM
Of course it can. A democracy can also decide that it’s illegal for women to drive cars or for anyone to speak negatively of the government.
A democracy is only as good as its people.
Esthier on June 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM
By (allegedly) performing miracles.
aengus on June 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM
So Roman conquest = democratic referendum? Huh.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:11 PM
Does your strategy of blithely attacking others to push them out of conversations usually work?
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:12 PM
Whether performing miracles, or exercising high intelligence and performing actions that bring about results that give people hope and inspire them to live their lives in a better way, is largely irrelevant. The aftermath is the same.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Did you actually check the definition of tyranny?
Of course democracy’s can be bad for their people – but that doesn’t make them tyrannies.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:15 PM
–Go back and read what I posted. The video shows them being detained (not arrested) for handing out Bibles outside of the booth. The arrest apparently has to do with them being accused of blocking or jostling someone. Two different incidents.
Jimbo3 on June 24, 2010 at 3:15 PM
The Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea.
You can stop with the memes now. They’re not amounting to any kind of argument. Hell, I don’t even know what your argument was to begin with, other than it started with an insult.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:17 PM
Not at all. Why do you ask?
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:17 PM
Because you seem to be conflating democracy with the government of Judea. I think it’s because you just want to argue about something, but I’m not sure. You seem to have an issue with me talking about Jesus or something.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:20 PM
I never blithely attacked you – no more than you attacked me regarding my debate tactics.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:20 PM
Baselessly proclaiming someone ignorant isn’t an attack? Huh.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:22 PM
Why do you claim that their lives were lived in a better way?
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:22 PM
This is getting really good.
Are you now claiming that North Korea is a democracy?
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:23 PM
I claimed that you were ignorant about this topic. And proclamation certainly wasn’t baseless. Don’t attempt to claim that it was.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:24 PM
Are you arguing that free people cannot give their government authority supreme rule which that government can then abuse?
Esthier on June 24, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Because they adopted more benevolent attitudes towards their neighbors and their potential.
No, North Korea is claiming that. I’m merely pointing out their name.
Are you planning, at any point, to explain what the hell point you’re trying to make in regards to anything I said before you showed up and called me ignorant?
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:26 PM
So you’re attempting to justify the police for detaining them for a short period before releasing them?
Why bother?
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:27 PM
You said I was ignorant. You provided no basis for your statement. That’s baseless.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:27 PM
I’m sure that point is that what people call a democracy isn’t always one. Rome was probably closer to an aristocracy. Not all of the Jews were even citizens, which is why it was such a big deal that Paul was one.
Esthier on June 24, 2010 at 3:28 PM
*sigh* I’m tired of blink’s little gotcha games.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:28 PM
Are you serious?
What’s your definition of supreme rule?
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:29 PM
Somehow, it’s just like the city where the horrific Henry Ford ran his main base of operations to degenerate into this kind of quagmire. They really are a bad lot there.
Avi Green on June 24, 2010 at 3:29 PM
Wartime powers should suffice.
Esthier on June 24, 2010 at 3:34 PM
Having a more benevolent attitude doesn’t mean one is living their life in a better way.
Great. So you were just providing useless information.
I was pretty much just demonstrating that you were ignorant about this topic. But I might make a point if I’m so inclined.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:35 PM
By the way, I don’t suppose there’s still time and relevance for a Buy-Danish campaign in Dearbornistan? I kid you not. Maybe even a support-Armenia campaign to boot.
Avi Green on June 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM
That’s it.
JetBoy on June 24, 2010 at 10:41 AM
You act as if the first responsibility of the police is to keep peace as directed by the city fathers. Wrong. Their first responsibility is to the Constitution. They do NOT have the right to “diffuse a potentially violent situation” before any potential for violence has made itself manifest. The peaceful, lawful practice of non-violent speech is by no definition “potentially violent.” If you take the Constitution as seriously as you insist you do, you’ll know what the term “prior restraint” means.
Tell me Jet Boy, what kind of “violent situation” might have occurred because of the group’s peaceful presence on the public sidewalk? These are not Westboro Baptist Phelps family types holding up placards declaring “God Hates __________” and trying to provoke reasons to put their law licenses to work. Are we to believe that you honestly think that a “violent situation” in Dearbornistan would have begun with these Christian folks casting the first stone? It is to laugh.
People who called themselves Christians (falsely) gave up on the anti-Christian notion of mass conversion through slaughter centuries ago. That’s still a viable model for Muslims around the world. Not ALL of them are down with this, but enough of them are in Dearborn so that the cops think one of them might cause an incident. So they are protecting a “potentially” unruly mob rather than protect free speech rights of people who have broken no law.
That’s “it,” you wrote. Methinks you left out the first two letters of that word.
L.N. Smithee on June 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM
Well that was a useless point. I never stated that a tyrant which attempts to call himself a democracy couldn’t be considered a tyrant.
Why does it matter what type of government Rome was?
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM
The only thing you’re demonstrating is a sole interest in playing gotcha games in order to score imaginary points because for some unstated reason you want me to appear wrong in some way, shape, or form. Troll someone else.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM
Yes, I did. You just don’t understand the topic enough to understand my basis.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:41 PM
This (among other statements) almost deserves a prize for twisted logic.
First, if you’re really looking for “Biblical condemnation for homosexuality” — by which you really mean New Testament rather than Biblical, since you’re excluding the Old Testament — there’s no shortage of it.
Rom 1:26-27 addresses not the Jews, but specifically the Gentiles.
It’s much stronger when read in full context. So there is no question whether the Bible, specifically the New Testament, condemns homosexuality.
But 1 Corinthians 6:9:10 addresses specifically Christians who want to cling to their sins, and homosexuality is very much in that list.
The Christians were in the past some or all of these things, but now they are to put away that sin and live as the redeemed.
Not only does the New Testament condemn homosexuality, it comes packaged in a warning to not let yourself be deceived into thinking it’s not condemned.
You do Jetboy no favors by encouraging him to believe his rationalization that Jesus didn’t condemn homosexuality, among other sins.
tom on June 24, 2010 at 3:42 PM
I’m not trying to play gotcha games. Here’s what happened.
- You made an ignorant statement.
- I called you on it.
- You tried to weasel your way out of it.
- I haven’t let you weasel out of it.
- You call me a troll.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Fixed. You’re welcome.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM
Lame.
But by all means, state that Jesus stood up to Roman tyranny.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 3:53 PM
What’s awesome is that I can hear you saying that in the Cartman voice.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 3:54 PM
LOL. Okay that’s enough.
shick on June 24, 2010 at 3:55 PM
But it doesn’t mean they aren’t either. Of course, this is why we were founded as a representative republic and not a democracy – although I realize in parlance today a representative republic would be called a democratic form of govt.
Zomcon JEM on June 24, 2010 at 4:03 PM
If this was really a situation with a potential for violence, then wouldn’t the job of the police have been to protect those in danger of the the violence?
Or did I miss the part where jihad became a feature of the Christian faith?
tom on June 24, 2010 at 4:09 PM
What is your point if we’re not talking about Rome? Why bring this up at all?
Esthier on June 24, 2010 at 4:25 PM
Well , call me an idot , but I just had to follow this interesting duel of wits back to the source. This is where, if I’m correct, this sparring started off.
So, blink, asking as one with a self-admitted lack of understanding in Biblical matters, can you, please, explain exactly how MadCon misidentified “the tyranny that was stood up to”?
Gang-of-One on June 24, 2010 at 4:31 PM
Now I don’t care who you are–that’s funny!
Gang-of-One on June 24, 2010 at 4:33 PM
You’re way late to the thread. I was arguing a specific point.
Again, way late. This isn’t new information to me or to the thread itself.
I’m not excluding the Old Testament. I’m just accepting what all Christians do, that not all of it is still considered applicable. If it were, I’d have to buy a different shirt.
How we then decide what is still applicable is another discussion, one that’s important to have unless you prefer cherry-picking from the Bible and don’t mind using that as an explanation. Because that’s how we’re seen when we quote Leviticus without explaining why it’s a legitimate source for homosexuality but not for fabrics.
I’m not at all saying Leviticus is necessarily inappropriately used here. I’m just saying you need to make your case instead of just picking one verse out to quote.
I’ve never denied that. Jet was talking about the words of Jesus. I’m not saying that makes him right about homosexuality, only that he is right in saying that Jesus didn’t condemn it.
It is the truth. Jesus didn’t. Of course there are other things Jesus didn’t condemn that are nonetheless accepted as sins, so that’s not necessarily a statement in support of homosexuality either. It’s just a fact.
But ultimately, as I’ve said time and again, Christians know full well when they have sinned. Arguing about it will not get anyone anywhere. You certainly don’t do Jet any favors by telling him something he’s heard thousands of times already. If you truly believe he’s living in sin, and you know that he’s rejected all of these arguments before, then your more effective course of action is to pray that God will speak directly to him and have faith that your prayers will be heard.
Esthier on June 24, 2010 at 4:37 PM
Thanks for getting it. Police Chief Haddad probably had no comment because he’d have to admit out loud and in public that he was protecting the Christians from harm from his fellow Muslims.
L.N. Smithee on June 24, 2010 at 4:39 PM
I think that perhaps blink meant that Jesus stood up to the tyranny of Satan and the gates of hell. Jesus did not oppose or destroy the tyranny of the Roman government on earth. He let himself be executed by it.
aengus on June 24, 2010 at 4:45 PM
Why would we be talking about Rome? Just because MC claims that Jesus stood up to Rome’s attempt to silence him?
blink on June 24, 2010 at 4:51 PM
No. What’s awesome is your attempt to claim that you’re not insulting.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 4:52 PM
So by refusing to recant his claim that he was “God”, he was not opposing the government? He was not standing up to them?
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 4:53 PM
Yes, the fact that a democracy can be bad for people doesn’t mean that they aren’t tyrannies.
The two definitions are simply exclusionary.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 4:57 PM
Yes. He misidentified it as Rome.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 4:59 PM
No. He wasn’t standing up to Rome. If anything, he was standing up to the Jewish religious hierarchy – which is why they wanted him punished.
Actually, many Jews were disappointed that he wasn’t standing up to Rome.
blink on June 24, 2010 at 5:02 PM
Thank’s. Faintly recalling my 12 years of RC education, about a million years ago, that’s what I thought he was getting at. Didn’t want to open my mouth and prove myself a fool. Trying to cut back on that habit.
Gang-of-One on June 24, 2010 at 5:05 PM
Cute, Jim, just too cute for words.
The link goes to an attack page that Firefox knows.
Somehow this does not contribute to your credibility. In fact the word mendacious comes to mind.
Caststeel on June 24, 2010 at 5:07 PM
Similar case a Preacher who hands out Bibles at a Minnesota GLBT event is being persecuted because handing out Bibles to Homosexuals may cause irreparable harm.
http://www.startribune.com/local/97087674.html?page=1&c=y
jpmn on June 24, 2010 at 5:23 PM
Holy Crap, you guys are still throwing down, with MadCon in the middle. And I also see, MadCon admits that he’s at least agnostic. Hope.
MadCon you are now and officially ensconced in my prayers for getting your spiritual ass thrown over the top.
hawkdriver on June 24, 2010 at 5:24 PM
I’ve been agnostic as long as I’ve been on this site.
Well, agnostic flirting with Jedi.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 5:28 PM
Never realized. I can’t remember a previous comment. The musing of what agnostics think is “out there” makes for interesting conversation. If I could ask one more question. Don’t answer if it’s over the top as far as what you care to have people know about you. Some agnostic consider themselves as such because they waiver on their believe that there even is some manner of divinity greater than themselves. Others consider themselves agnostics because they absolutely believe in a some manner of divinity but simply don’t accept any formal religions explanation of what that might be. (And I actually think some nicer atheists call themselves agnostic just so they don’t offend believers)
Do one or the other of these describe you?
hawkdriver on June 24, 2010 at 5:36 PM
PS Lord MadCon, Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up a thread-debate win in months.
And midi-clorians aren’t real.
hawkdriver on June 24, 2010 at 5:44 PM
I’m not an atheist, because I’ve experienced enough that science fails to adequately or convincingly explain. Whether the reason is something intelligent, some sort of universal law or justice(or lack thereof) or anything else…I’m open to the idea. I hold tightly to the distinction between those who don’t believe in any god(lack of faith/agnostic) and those who believe there is no god(faith/atheist).
So actually…I’m sort of halfway between the first two you described. I’m as willing to believe there is order to meaning as I am that we truly are a product of probability as a result of billions of years of chaos. I really hope it’s not the latter, but as you well know, being a conservative means you regularly are awed by the absolute lack of sense that existence involves.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 5:49 PM
Dude, don’t even. I have a jihad against George Lucas over that crap.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 5:50 PM
I have had my trials with my personal behavior not living up to Biblical standards. I especially wonder what God thinks about all the killing I’ve had a hand in. I’m also embarrassed to admit I have had some very disappointing moments with churches I have gone to for what their direction was and what they considered important. (Mainly seeing very stingy benevolence practices when I was a Deacon)
But I could no more believe in chance life than I could see myself voting for President Obama for a second term) I’ve had way too many things happen in my live that just defies natural science logic. And getting to fly above the world at treetop level and seeing all the life that seems to just spring out of nowhere, well, I just cannot fathom it’s all by chance.
PS, light sabers are Hollywood props. (I hope I’m not ruining you day here)
Thanks for the candid answer and you take care, Man.
hawkdriver on June 24, 2010 at 6:02 PM
The link goes to the American Family News Network.
“Whether it’s a story about prayer in public schools, workplace restrictions on Christians, or battles for biblical truth within our denominations, the American Family News Network (AFN) is here to tell you what the newsmakers are saying.
AFN is a Christian news service – with more than 1,200 broadcast, print, and online affiliates in 45 states and 11 foreign countries – that exists to present the day’s stories from a biblical perspective. We not only feature the latest breaking stories from across the United States and around the world, but also news of the challenges facing Christians in today’s society.
At OneNewsNow.com, you will get your news from reporters you can trust to give the latest news without the liberal bias that characterizes so much of the “mainstream” media.
For a refreshing and informative change in where you get your news, log on to OneNewsNow.com.”
Jimbo3 on June 24, 2010 at 6:08 PM
You have seen a great deal more of the world than I have, my friend, so I take your counsel with a good deal of consideration. However, I must protest. Lightsabers are totally real.
You take care as well, bud.
MadisonConservative on June 24, 2010 at 6:10 PM
–I saw that, too, earlier today. But the situation is a bit different. The pastor wants a booth in a public park that the GLBT group is renting. A US Supreme Court case involving a St. Patrick’s Day parade said that private groups can’t be forced to open up their events to people (in the parade case, a gay group wanted to have a float in the parade).
Jimbo3 on June 24, 2010 at 6:11 PM
You are welcome
Ordinary1 on June 24, 2010 at 6:36 PM
And now they can declare that after they arrest you? That IS convenient. Or is the claim that they set aside this area, and made that news publicly available before the arrests?
Jimbo, are you in the free speech area? If not we’re going to have to arrest you now… you don’t know where it is? We haven’t made one yet, meaning you can’t be in it, meaning you’re under arrest. See how well that works guys?
You have the right to remain silent…
gekkobear on June 24, 2010 at 6:52 PM
Mark 6:11
Dearbornistan can go pound sand.
infidel4life on June 24, 2010 at 10:09 PM
I suggest Mormons, Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, Baptists, and anyone else that wants to come go to Dearborn and pass out their respective literature in unified front to protect free speech.
Conservative Samizdat on June 24, 2010 at 11:15 PM
You never read the founding fathers on the subject of democracies.
Point I’m trying to make: I don’t care who’s pointing the gun at me–be it a government beureaucrat, a dictator, or a mob–I still have a gun pointed at me and I still have someone trying to force me to do something I don’t want to do. I still have someone trying to rob me out of house and home. I still have someone trying to take my life, or my wife, or my kids, or my family.
I don’t care who’s on the other end of that gun… or how many there are… or if they’re part of the ‘popular majority’… I’m shooting back.
That’s why we have a Republic. A rule of Law… not of men.
I don’t care how many or what percentage of people we’re dealing with… a democracy is still a form of the latter, not the former.
That’s also why we have a Constitution. A codification of those laws that everyone can live by.
Tyranny can easily be seen as a dictator or a mob. It’s all the same to this clam.
Chaz706 on June 24, 2010 at 11:42 PM
You were making an argument for a Catholic that accepts the entire New Testament as Scripture that maybe the New Testament doesn’t condemn homosexuality after all just because there is not a direct quote from Jesus himself on the subject.
Now, I could see making such an argument if you were talking to a Muslim who throws out the entire New Testament unless it’s a direct quote from Jesus (I have encountered a Muslim making that exact argument before). But Catholics don’t believe that only the words of Jesus are inspired Scripture, so it’s a pointless argument to make to a Catholic.
And yes, I read the entire thread. I get the entire context. I was a little surprised to see the thread still going, though.
Then you’re aware that the New Testament as well as the old condemns homosexuality. In which case, this must be a rhetorical question?
Not only does the New Testament condemn homosexuality, it comes packaged in a warning to not let yourself be deceived into thinking it’s not condemned.
I’ve never denied that. Jet was talking about the words of Jesus. I’m not saying that makes him right about homosexuality, only that he is right in saying that Jesus didn’t condemn it.
You do Jetboy no favors by encouraging him to believe his rationalization that Jesus didn’t condemn homosexuality, among other sins.
tom on June 24, 2010 at 3:42 PM
But that’s just the point. The lack of a direct quote from Jesus about homosexuality is irrelevant. You might argue that homosexuality as a sin was lost in the transition from the Law to Grace. (Wrong, but at least a plausible argument.) But Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 destroy that as an argument. Both come after the death and resurrection of Christ.
It’s a false argument that you accept as if true, which effectively means you’re arguing for it.
This is true enough. Unless of course you tell him in effect not to worry about it, because it’s not like Jesus actually condemned it.
This is my objection in a nutshell. The Bible says, “Be not deceived” and you … encourage the self-deception by agreeing with the rationalization.
tom on June 25, 2010 at 12:17 AM
–Go back and listen to the video. They didn’t arrest them because of the handing out of the Bibles. They took them into custody and explained the rules (including the zones) to them.
Jimbo3 on June 25, 2010 at 9:52 AM
I don’t know if you’re a lawyer or not, but you sure are a mouthpiece. No matter how you spin it, both freedom of speech and freedom of religion prohibit the police from restricting their behavior.
This particular battle over free speech has occurred multiple times already, and the answer keeps coming back the same: you can’t restrict fre speech just because someone else doesn’t like it.
tom on June 25, 2010 at 10:48 AM
The government can put reasonable restrictions around the right to free speech and right to practice religion. This was an issue about where and how the Bibles could be handed out. The City required any literature to be handed out in booths. The City did not restrict people from talking about the Bible.
And the only reason I seem like a mouthpiece is because it doesn’t look like anyone else is bothering to do much checking behind what is being reported.
Jimbo3 on June 25, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next »