Posted on 12/19/2004 6:12:34 PM PST by Pyro7480
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.