Posted on 01/05/2005 11:31:52 AM PST by bkny23m
What we have been saying has now happened. You cannot quote what the Bible has to say about homosexuality in public or you will be charged with a "hate crime." Philadelphia is only the beginning. If we fail to take a stand here, this "crime" will soon be applied across America.
In the 27 years of this ministry, I have never witnessed a more outrageous miscarriage of justice than what is happening in Philadelphia. Four Christians are facing up to 47-years in prison and $90,000 in fines for preaching the Gospel on a public sidewalk, a right fully protected by the First Amendment.
On October 10, 2004, the four Christians were arrested in Philadelphia. They are part of Repent America. Along with founder Michael Marcavage, members of Repent America—with police approval--were preaching near Outfest, a homosexual event, handing out Gospel literature and carrying banners with Biblical messages.
When they tried to speak, they were surrounded by a group of radical homosexual activists dubbed the Pink Angels. A videotape of the incident shows the Pink Angels interfering with the Christians’ movement on the street, holding up large pink symbols of angels to cover up the Christians' messages and blowing high pitched whistles to drown out their preaching.
Rather than arrest the homosexual activists and allow the Christians to exercise their First Amendment rights, the Philadelphia police arrested and jailed the Christians!
They were charged with eight crimes, including three felonies: possession of instruments of crime (a bullhorn), ethnic intimidation (saying that homosexuality is a sin), and inciting a riot (reading from the Bible some passages relating to homosexuality) despite the fact that no riot occurred.
(Excerpt) Read more at repentamerica.com ...
I'm not at all surprised by this.
Philadelphia has the most corrupt police department in the nation.
I'll have to tell my pastor to knock it off. /sarcasm
BTTT
We're NOT dealing in what ifs that are not in the Bible when the discussion is reading from the Bible.
But if a Muslim was standing outside my church reading from his "Bible" and screaming, "Kill the infidels" he would find himself in trouble with the law or me personally.
Why is this any different?
Again you choose a hypothetical case where violence is clearly advocated, to associate the implied conotaion to the current case which does not advocate violence. Moreover you reverse the political alliances of the parties apparantly implying that the situations are similar except for the personal prejudice of those who disagree.
If you try hard enough you might get some example where its not quite clear whether violence is advocated or not. This would enable you to upgrade your associative fallacy with a more subtle slippery slope fallacy.
But it is still self evident the Evangelicals were promoting repentance rather then violence.
You don't think that screaming the Bible verse in post #5 at homosexuals is advocating violence?
One thing we have got to do is stop pretending that all viewpoints are inherently equal;they most certainly and demonstrably are NOT. Would you give equal weight to the views of an insane ,sex addicted killer as those of a gentle person known only for helping and healing others ?
Many organizations and publishers have cheapened and diluted the Holy Bible by referring to their own specialized books on radio, automobiles, gunmaking, or whatever, as the "bible" of the particular field. Words have meanings, and it seems that our ancestors of the 18th and 19th centuries understood that better than we do.
How do you do that in court?
"If your religion says you can kill homosexuals, what's wrong with mine saying we should kill the infidels?"
(I am a Christian BTW. I just don't think it is wise for people to stand on a streetcorner and hurl insults at other people to get them saved.)
Free speech. No one was yelling fire in a crowded threater, no one was spooking a line of National Guardsmen on a colege campus, no one was throwing stones at armed Israeli Police, no one was speaking out to a mob filled with racial hatred against the white honkey oppressors in front of Jewish-owned clothing store, no one was hammering defamatory and libeleous screeds on the valuable doors of cathedrals, no one was speaking emphatically in the public square against the King's policies. Less than all that. Free speech.
Screaming post #5 at a convention of homosexuals seems pretty close to your examples.
If a homosexual was screaming things like that to me and my children while we were walking into our church, I would have taken it as a threat and dealt with it personally.
Or were you hypothesizing a homosexual screaming threats to carry out his homoerotic fantasies against you or your family ,in which case he would be making threats ,and until he actually attempted to carry out those threats, your use of force is likely not legal.
If you did take it as a threat of personal harm and then responded physically -- you would be the one at fault. That's assault.
Let them scream and yell -- the veins in their throats will surely burst, or eventually they will have to go about their regular ways. Be a man.
And my examples? All held to be Free Speech!
No, it really is against the law. Historically, the ethnic group is a melding of the Turks and the Bulgars.
The mixing means they're called Turd Burglars.
Don't let `em cherrypick BUMP!
Two comments.
One, has that Old Testament punishment been historically enforced since, oh, Revolutionary War times? What precedent is there?
Two, maybe such a punishment would have been very useful during the student riots of the 60s--since the implicit question I got out of your remarks was, how often have their been "kid pride" marches demanding the right to rebel against parents? (Just kidding!)
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.