Men Arrested For Carrying Crosses at Gay Day Event

The Center for Reclaiming America ^ | Thursday May 13, 2004 | Sam Kastensmidt

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

On May 8, at the county's "Gay Day" event in Dayton, Tennessee, police arrested two christians as they were fastening the beams of one of their ten-ffot crosses, which they often use in parades arond the nation in order to draw people to Christ. Without incident, they were arrested and charged with "disorderly conduct" and "interfering with a special event." They were both freed after posting the required $500 bond. Dayton police chief Kenneth Walker admitted to reporters "They wanted to go down to protest and we told them they couldn't" "they were arrested;that's it."

[conservonator]

I see you couldn't address my point or answer the question posed, but would resort to ad-hominim. Predictible.

We're you reading your own posts?

In protecting the president, it has historically proven counterproductive with tragic results. But don't let the facts bother you.

Really!! You have incontrovertible evidence that the presidents life is in greater danger when profiling is used to weed out potential assassins? I'd be interested in seeing that study. LOL

Look Freeeee, no matter how you couch it, I will never buy the proposition that the first amendment gives anyone the right to put the president in a position of physical danger. Your conspiracy theories and personal views of thePresident notwithstanding.

[inflation]

You know, at some point in the future, our side will no longer be in power and they will call us liars (I am not saying the otherside is telling the truth, THEY ARE LYING about what they say about or President). Should they have the power to stop us that you wish us to have to stop them?

[ThomasMore]

Frankly, I believe that homosexuals are the angriest, most embittered group of malcontents on earth.

I agree. They have a Gender Identity Disorder...and where there is one disorder, there is probably others.

[freeeee]

no matter how you couch it, I will never buy the proposition that the first amendment gives anyone the right to put the president in a position of physical danger

Exactly what threat does a protester pose that a supporter does not? That is the crux of the issue, and please be specific.

[Elsie]

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of  to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

[freeeee]

There's a difference between a protester and a bomb throwing shrieking goon.

Those protesters removed from the roadside by the presidential motorcade were not throwing bombs. In fact, none of them showed any sign of violence or being armed whatsoever.

The only characteristic that got them removed was their dissent. Exactly what safety or security threat does dissent pose? Please be specific.

[expatguy]

You better watch your backside

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Why didn't you copy and paste this article instead of typing it yourself? It's full of spelling and grammatical errors.

[freeeee]

Motive?

Motive to physically harm the pres cannot be established, not in the least bit, by the express of dissent while in his presence.

And how do we know this? Easy. Any attacker with sufficient IQ to actually pose a serious threat is going to know that posing as a supporter will get him proximity. History has time and again (John Hinckley) proved this.

[inflation]

Since the topic of this thread was people being arrested for carrying crosses I was a safe assumption that we where talking about nonviolent protest.

[conservonator]

Exactly what threat does a protester pose that a supporter does not? That is the crux of the issue, and please be specific.

Hostility. And that may boil over to action. I realize that this is highly unlikely in 99.99999% of the cases but again, if my job is to protect the president, I remove the obvious targets and watch all others very closely.

This applies to any president, not just the one's I like. The office and what it represents it the issue, not so much the office holder, although he/she deserves a fair shot at making it home at night.

[AmishDude]

Groups of supporters may hide a potential assassin, but they won't turn into an angry mob. Antis will.

[freeeee]

Hostility

Supporters could turn hostile. In fact, someone very hostile with a premeditated plan would likely purposely pose as a supporter as they have in the past. Got anything else?

Is it really that hard to imagine that protesters are being removed for the same reason they've been removed in most of the world for most of history - because the powerful consider themsleves immune from dissent when they venture into public?

Add to this the clear conflict of interest when one is campaigning and desires a clean photo-op, and it couldn't be more obvious.

[freeeee]

Groups of supporters may hide a potential assassin, but they won't turn into an angry mob. Antis will.

Excellent! At long last someone has a solid reason.

I can recall one time when a president making a public appearance was placed in potential danger by an angry mob. The president was Bush I and it occured in a foreign country, and he was not harmed.

Do you have any examples of the same happening in the US? Please feel free to go all the way back to Gearge Washington if necessary.

[MindFire]

There is a group that defends religious rights (as opposed to the aclu, whose goal it is to abolish them). They are a great group; Alliance Defense Fund http://www.alliancedefensefund.org

They've had much influence and many victories in the area of religious freedom in schools, workplaces, in public, etc.

I once had a web-hosting company shut down my website and erase all content of 5 years, simply because a liberal didn't like an essay I wrote about the homosexual agenda. The liberal had filed a 'complaint' for 'abuse'; and "poof' my entire website was gone without any warning. Well, the truth is i didnt break a single 'terms of service' agreement, nor did I 'abuse' anyone. I was just posting my political and religious beliefs. I sent my web-host an e-mail stating my case; CC'd it to alliance defense fund, and told my host that I expect my entire site to be re-instated immediately and also that I wanted an explanation for the illegal removal of my religious content. "wah-lah!' Guess what? my entire site was resotred by the next morning, with an apology. I don't think that would have happened without the influence of ADF. They ROCK! :-D Seriously.. they do uphold Constitutional & Christian principles; we don't have to be 'meek and timid' and back down to evil. We are called to be the salt and the light.

[AmishDude]

Do you have any examples of the same happening in the US?

They keep dissenters away from presidents, remember?

Oh, and I thought this was about the gay event, not the president.