Posted on 01/05/2005 7:12:17 AM PST by dead
Charges were dropped against the remaining seven apparently because they were not seen quoting scripture on the videotape.
Philadelphia city prosecutor in the case, Charles Ehrlich, attacked the Christians as “hateful” and referred to preaching the Bible as “fighting words,” the judge agreed.
Tupelo, MS - After a federal appeals court denied an emergency appeal to stop prosecution of 11 Christians on Tuesday, Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge William Austin Meehan ordered four of the Christians to stand trial on three felony (criminal conspiracy, ethnic intimidation, and riot) and five misdemeanor charges. If convicted, they could face up to 47 years in prison.
He was Convicted of solicitation based on the testimony of the boy.(the boy claimed that White offered him $20.00 for sex) There were no other witnesses, He had no prior record of any sex crimes.
I'm not disputing that the guy's an idiot, but the article says "...besides 'tits and ass', a prominent gay solo number."
That may be “apparent” to someone’s agenda, but I doubt the judge or even the DA would agree it was apparent to theirs. A prosecutor might use the word “hateful” to promote his case, and a judge might not object when that prosecutor characterized something they said as “fighting words” in the middle of a presumably permitted opposition protest just as “Bush stole the election” would be fighting words in the middle of the protest I referred to.
The girl that I spoke of who crashed the Republican recount protest was about 5’, young, harmless and as cute as can be. She was also black. But she was one of those people who are gifted with the ability to roll propaganda off her tong like a Pravda news wire and she just wouldn’t shut up. I’m sure if she were arrested there’d be activists claiming that it was “apparent” that she was arrested because she was black or female or for quoting Democrats. And I think that it would have backfired on them just as these absurd claims of “scripture prosecution” will backfire on the AFA evangelists that get sucked into it.
I stand corrected.
White was convicted of soliciting sex with a boy, despite Marcavage's attempt to subvert the judicial process:
Michael Marcavage, a character witness at White's trial, had been ejected earlier after Callahan expressed concern about an Internet site that offered a $5,000 reward for information on both the victim and prosecutors that might help free White.Not only Marcavage cannot respect authority inside a court of law, he also disobeys the police officers who are trying to keep the peace. His claim to religious persecution is dubious.Marcavage, 24, of Lansdowne, became agitated, stood up, and accused Callahan of lying. He also admitted setting up the Web site before being escorted from the courthouse.
I really can't respect anything from a culture that cant even learn to brush their freaking teeth.
The "instrument of crime" referred to in this case is a Bible.
From what I understand the prosecutor in the case is part of the same leftist Gestapo that slammed the FReepers Don and Terri Adams with trumped up charges at the 2000 DNC in Philly.
For me, though, this thread is about media bias and the absolute insanity of the Guardian
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.
“You must be oblivious to the fact” that you listed 3 charges, and only one “apparently” is hate crime based. Nevertheless, you haven’t addressed the “fact” that they needed to be arrested just like that girl in our recount demonstration would have if she refused to return to her side of the street.
This is NOT a case of people being persecuted for “quoting scripture publicly” as you said. No more than screaming fire in a crowded theater is a crime against the 1st amendment. Maybe the DA bungled the prosecution a little by including the ethnic charge and let some zealots get a toe hold in with claims of religious persecution, but no one but predisposed kooks bantering about Nazi and Gestapo references are going to buy it.
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.Obviously, all the cops of the world are in a conspiracy agaist Marcavage, even cops protecting thousands of pro-lifers attenting the Republican convention.
I have protested many times, from abortion clinics to the Elian affair to the 2000 election. I have never even considered disobeying a police officer trying to maintain the peace. As a matter of fact, behaving like a Christian is part of my testimony to cops.
You forgot to add the part where the bogus charges were later dropped.
The man is challenging the authorities that would violate his Constitutional rights, yet you continue to pass judgment and dismiss him as a belligerent nut-case.
You said it.
You remind me of the liberal apologists for the criminal disruptors during the Miami meeting of the Western Hemisphere heads of states.
Just because the charges were dropped does not mean they charges were bogus. The state attorney tried to be generous with the demonstrators and stingy with the tax payers money used to prosecute cases. Therefore, most demonstrators got away scot-free after breaking the law and disobeying police orders.
I still don't want to hitch my wagon to scofflaws.
You're right about your recollection:
Gay book ban goal of (Alabama) state lawmakerNevertheless, my cursory reading of Allen's bill does not lead me to believe that removing books will be required:Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.
"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.
HB 30It seems that Allen's current bill only removes future books. Perhaps giving information about current books will also be illegal per Part (b).(a) No public funds or public facilities shall be used by any state agency, public school, public library, or public college or university for the purchase, production, or promotion of printed or electronic materials or activities that, directly or indirectly, sanction, recognize, foster, or promote a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of the state of Alabama. No public funds shall be used for the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle or encourages or proposes to public school children that they have a legitimate right to decide or choose illegal conduct.
(b) No state agency, public school, public library, or public college or university, directly or indirectly, shall require or encourage the entity’s members or employees to provide information or materials or engage in any activities that, directly or indirectly, sanction, recognize, foster, or promote a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of the state of Alabama.
Yes, Like a civil lawsuit $$$$$$ filed against them they knew they could not defend.
Say what you will, but the outcome of this case has the potential to effect the Constitutional rights of all citizens.
But when it comes our right to not have to kowtow to the homosexual lobby and not to be arrested and charged with "hate crimes" for protesting open perversion in the public square, Churches, Schools, Youth groups, etc. That would be just fine with you wouldn't it?
Like the Republican convention in New York?
Look, if you want to defend a scofflaw, go right ahead.
Many of us who have been involved in Republican and conservative causes are able to protest within the law. For instance, FreeRepublic has secured two permits to demonstrate during the inauguration. Conservatives are law-abiding citizens, not troublemakers.
Obviously, we have to agree to disagree on this character. Perhaps we can dialogue about other issues on other threads.
I think the ACLU recognizes a secular value to religious literature. In the Bible, you'll find history, moral lessons, etc., not just strange-named deities barking nonsensical aphorisms. Even if the ACLU thinks the history recounted in the Bible is inaccurate or the moral messages are wrong, it's still speech that should be protected.
You can read a Bible without believing it to be true; just having it on the shelf is not an endorsement of it because the library carries works contrary to the Bible (if a public library refused to carry anti-Christian books, it would be endorsing Christianity, which would be wrong). On the other hand, if you're a kid and your teacher tells you it's prayer time, the implication is that prayer is real and important--and that's an implication the government should avoid. That's why there should be Bibles in public libraries (all kinds of Bibles, not just KJV), but there should not be prayer in public schools. I think the free speech position on this is pretty consistent.
There is a difference between looking through a large number of works to pull out a quality selection of diverse material and preventing librarians from stocking any work, no matter how good, that advocates for something contraband.
It is not up to the taxpayers to decide what libraries should do, it's up to voters and limited by the Constitution. If the voters try to do something unconstitutional, they should be thwarted.
Unless just stocking the books on library shelves qualifies as "promotion:"
No public funds or public facilities shall be used by any... public library... for the... promotion of printed... materials... that, directly or indirectly, sanction, recognize, foster, or promote a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of the state of Alabama(I used a lot of ellipsis to cut out that which is not directly relevant to the libraries' stocking of books on their shelves, but you can see in the original that I haven't perverted its meaning)
(see posts 25 and 54 for context)
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.