Posted on 12/19/2004 6:12:34 PM PST by Pyro7480
Michael Marcavage is the leader of Repent America, a Christian group based in the Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) area. Repent America is known for its activism on the behalf of traditional morality, especially with the pro-life and pro-traditional marriage causes.
Mr. Marcavage has been in the news recently, ever since he and 10 other Christian activists were arrested on October 10, 2004, after protesting at a homosexual street fest in Philadelphia. They were charged with three (3) felonies and five (5) misdemeanors. Among the felony charges were Criminal Conspiracy, Ethnic Intimidation and Riot. 7 of the protesters had the charges against them dropped in December, but the attorney representing all of those originally charged says the charges were dropped against the remaining seven because they were not seen quoting scripture on the videotape. An emergency appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was rejected on December 13, 2004, leaving the 4 Christians who are still charged with only an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
(For those who want to read more about this case, please go to the following FR threads:
Christians Face 47 Years in Prison Because Philly Judge Calls Bible Verses
Christianity now "hate crime": the bible is "hate speech" subject to seizure
Christians Face long Jail Time In Philadelphia
Throwing Christians to the Philadelphians
Christian Protestors Face 47 Years in Jail for Encounter at 'Gay Pride' Event
‘The People vs. Michael M.’ [Christians jailed in Philadelphia])
What many who are familiar with the recent case do not know is that Mr. Marcavage has longed been involed in the fight for traditional morals, and has been in the middle of many incidents where "progressives" have been using tactics of questionable legality against those who would dare to stand against them.
The first documented incident was when Mr. Marcavage was a student at Temple University, which is also in Philadelphia. A more complete account of this incident is available in an article by Accuracy in Academia, but the key details are excerpted below.
Eighty years ago the Soviet Union developed a novel method of dealing with dissenters: it labeled them insane and committed them to mental institutions. A Temple University student contends that his school resorted to these very tactics in response to his objections to a school-sponsored performance of a play that depicts Jesus as a promiscuous homosexual.
Michael Marcavage filed suit against Temple University in December 2000 for a an incident in which he alleges that University officials censored an event he had organized, roughed him up, and involuntarily committed him to the psychiatric ward of the school's hospital. His only offense, he claims, was to organize an event to counter a play that mocks Christianity.
The civil rights suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and contends that the plaintiff's First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. The defendants in the suit are Temple University, its vice president for operations, William Bergman, and its managing director of campus safety services, Carl Bittenbender. Attorneys for the plaintiff include lawyers for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy....
During a contentious meeting on November 2, 1999-less than a week before the planned event was to take place-Temple vice president William Bergman called Marcavage into his office to inform him that the university was not permitting him to hold his program. Following a discussion, a disgusted Marcavage retreated to the restroom, threw water on his face, and asked God for direction about what to do next. God, however, had little to do with what then happened....
Marcavage's suit states that Temple Vice President "[William] Bergman pounded on the [bathroom] door and demanded that [Marcavage] come out." Marcavage then opened the door and was physically forced by Bergman to return to his office. "Once back in Bergman's office," the suit details, "Bergman, suddenly and without warning, pushed [Marcavage] down into a chair…. alarmed and afraid by Bergman's use of force, [Marcavage] told Bergman he wanted to leave. Bergman said no." Marcavage then asked to use the phone, a request that was also rebuffed. Realizing that these officials had no right to keep him against his will, Marcavage attempted to leave. The legal brief reports that the "Plaintiff then arose from the chair and was tripped to the floor by Bergman. As Plaintiff raised himself off the floor, he was forced onto a couch and held down by Bergman and Bittenbender. Plaintiff's repeated pleas to be released were refused."
Uniformed Temple Police then arrived and were ordered to handcuff Marcavage, who "was then carried out of the building and placed into a police car." The police refused to divulge to the student why he was being arrested or where he was going. "Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was taken to the Emergency Crisis Center at Temple University Hospital against his will." The Christian student was then held in the psychiatric ward for more than three hours. Doctors examining him concluded that nothing was wrong with him and finally released him at 3:15 p.m....
Though the civil suit was filed at the end of the year 2000, the case has been slowly progressing, and in May 2004 a federal judge ruled that the suit can proceed to trial.
More recently, Mr. Marcavage and another pro-lifer, who were on their way back from the Democratic National Convention, were pulled-over in Connectict on July 29, 2004, for carrying pro-life signs on the side of their truck (a federal lawsuit was filed after this incident). On August 9, 2004, Marcavage and 4 other Christian activists were ejected from the 2nd annual Philadelphia Philles' Gay Day after unfurling a banner that said "Homosexuality is a Sin, Christ Can Set You Free." Less than a month later, at the Republican National Convention, Marcavage and Steve Lefemine, director of Columbia Christians for Life, spent over 30 hours in jail after being arrested across the street from Madison Square Garden on a public sidewalk for bringing a pro-life message to the convention. The charges against the two in connection with this arrest were later dropped by a New York City Municipal Court judge.
Very succinct.
Jesus said to sow while you can because the night is coming when no man can sow. We are almost there from the looks of it.
Gondring....the street is not a church. Your comparison is more of an analogy or even a contrast. A church is a private place with the events going on inside for those who WISH to attend. When we start worshipping in the street, setting up chairs and a pulpit, you thinking would be right. IF they are thinking this is their "worship" they need to hold it inside where it is NOT forced on others. A street is not a private place and is open to ALL.
What happened to your friend is a shame. I love "street preachers"- I am a Christian, and nothing can brighten a day more for me than being approached by a fellow Christian to talk about our beliefs and share what the Lord has done for us.
Rich, I agree. I seldom attend church as "church" is a building by by man fro God, not god for man. It is where "preaching to the choir" occurs but little "going into the world to preach the gospel". I share the message with people on the street so that is why this whole thing hits so close to home.
From what I understand there was NO molestation whatsoever period, only an allegation that the man solicited sex from the boy. He was imprisoned by the testimony and word of a teenage boy, no molestation, no physical evidence, no third party witness. Yet Michael Jackson is still allowed to walk the streets? Prior to that the man had no record of being a pedophile.
* How many of us would like activists to show up at our churches with graphic photographs of homosexuals and bullhorns to shout things we find offensive?
That's not what they were doing at all.
Police arrested 11, but the district attorney's office now is charging only four of them.
Why? It seems they were not "caught" on videotape quoting Scripture. Had they been, they'd be facing the same charges the other four do.
If we followed the logic of what you are saying, then Christ died on the cross for nothing since he cast himself before we "human dogs and swine".
Paul should not have subjected himself to beatings and arrests for preaching the gospel since all he was doing was castings himself before "dogs and swine"
I don't think you understand quite what that verse was saying!
In regards your statement ...
"If Marcavage has a history of defending a molester of boys"
Can you point me to any proof that Brother Stephen was charged and found guilty of "molestation" of any boy or boys (plural) as you implied?!?
"You know, I'm going to start thanking
the woman who cleans the restroom in
the building I work in. I'm going to start
thinking of her as a human being"
L,Town,
I was only letting someone know what the definition of fighting words was and where it could be found. The bright-Line test in Brandenburg, speech must be incitement and the speaker must have knowledge that incitement would occur (to violenece)could also be used. Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) may hold sway here, regarding Jehovan Witnesses playing Anti-Catholic recordings in predominately Catholic area. or R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) where the Court found a speech restriction ordinance invalid on its face because it prohibited speech solely on the basis of its content. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion noting that the First Amendment did allow restrictions based on content in certain categories of speech like libel, obscenity, or fighting words but quoting from Chaplinsky he noted that such words were "of such a slight social value as a step to truth that any societal benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." In this present case it cannot be said that the social interest, in suppressing speech, outweighs the societal benefit.
Cantwell and Chaplinsky are excellent references, and I was'nt trying to argue with you, FRiend. Looking at the charges and that the 1969 decision is the most recent decision involving a "public safety <---> freedom of speech" case, I wanted to make sure it did'nt get overlooked.
I am glad you mentioned Cantwell in your reply to me; that may be circumstancially, the most similar legal situation we have. The felony charges levied by the Philadelphia LEO's brought to my mind Brandenburg, though.
I would still like to hear what Billybob thinks about this, though.
Sorry I didn't think that you were arguing with me I was just trying to inform you on why I went with Chaplinsky. In the second part I was only trying to hash out my legal reasoning to get insight, as you brought up Brandenburg and the bright line test. I apologize if it seemed like I was attacking.
Oh, no problem and actually good reasoning on your part to refer to those cases, IMHO. All three cases would probably be referenced by the attorneys that will argue this matter.
Let me say I'm sorry if it looked to you like I was attacking/arguing by pointing out Brandenburg. I really was'nt nor did I intend that to look as though I was. Promise.
BTW, love your tagline!
BTW, love your tagline!
It actually came about when my wife's sister became a vegetarian. She asked me when I would stop hunting deer. I told her when they decided to stop running in front of my truck to commit suicide and just went to the next logical conclusion.
I will say that I had a hard time with Brandenburg in Law School so I might have come off as defensive. I hated the bright line test.
Given the topic, and with a nod to Mapplethorpe (sp?), I think you mean bullwhips.
But there's a difference; churches have a long history of being used by worshippers, for worshippers; people have an expectation of going there to worship with like-minded folks. The streets are meant for EVERYBODY, so if one group protests, then they invite counter-protest, right?
That's a conditional. It has an "if"... and he was not convicted of molestation, but solicitation, right? Is that your point? Sorry...let me clarify.
As I recall, the accusation he was convicted on was that he tried to lure a 14-year-old boy into his van for oral sex...for $20.
In fact, it was more than just one charge, right?
Is that better?
I would rather we not turn our streets into protest/counter-protest shouting matches. If a group cannot be respectful of another's speech, then they are no more than thugs, and obviously don't have much faith that their position is going to be able to sway people more than what they shout down.
The man who would excuse himself from this battle under the belief that this is what is expected when one witnesses to the "wrong" people is a lazy and foolish patriot.
thanks and bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.