free speech? not for Christians

[LDB]

Why are some groups given favored status over others?

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1083036

 

[chefdennis]

Leo you have it wrong...these Christians ATTACKED the city of Dearborn....

Mayor: Arrested Christians 'attacked' Michigan city

Authorities blast missionaries hauled off to jail for 'disturbing peace'

Posted: July 12, 2010
10:33 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Mayor: Arrested Christians 'attacked' Michigan city

The case of four Christians arrested at a recent Arab festival in Dearborn, Mich., is heating up with the mayor publicly blasting the group in a letter, claiming the city "has been under attack for several years" by the missionaries.

The Christians were arraigned today on misdemeanor charges of disturbing the peace. All four pleaded not guilty.

As WND reported, Michigan state Rep. Tom McMillin called on the state attorney general to investigate the arrests, saying the Christians were just "engaging festivalgoers in conversation about religion on public property."

Be a champion for the absolute truth of Scripture, and learn your spectacular destiny direct from your Bible that's hardly ever mentioned in church: Get "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told" -- autographed!

Arrested on June 18 on charges of breach of the peace were Negeen Mayel, Dr. Nabeel Qureshi, Paul Rezkalla and David Wood. All the Christian missionaries are from a Christian group called Acts 17 Apologetics. Mayel, an 18-year-old woman whose parents emigrated from Afghanistan and a recent convert from Islam to Christianity, also was charged with failure to obey a police officer's orders for refusing to turn over her video camera.

Officers arrested the Christian missionaries and illegally confiscated their video cameras, which were being used to record the events, according to the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., which is representing the defendants. The Dearborn city attorney said the confiscated videos and cameras will be returned this week.

In a video posted after the arrest, Qureshi said his group took "extra precautions" to prevent disruptions by not handing out pamphlets and to speak only to people "who first approached us."

"This was to limit accusations of instigation and disruption," he explained. "We knew people have a tendency to accuse us of being disruptive, of inciting and instigating. So we wanted to make sure we did absolutely nothing of the sort."

Qureshi said people at the festival recognized his group from its visit in 2009. Last year, the Acts 17 Apologetics team was escorted from the grounds while being allegedly assaulted by security personnel and several attendees. The following is the group's footage of the 2009 incident:

go to the link above to view the videos within this article

This year, Qureshi said his group was able to engage in civil conversations with many people who initiated discussion during the multi-day event. But the group was arrested by local police.

One witness named Steven Atkins, a resident of Toronto, Canada, said, "I never thought I would see this in America."

"When Dr. Qureshi was arrested I heard people clapping and applauding, and some said 'Allahu akbar,'" he said. "It was an intense discussion, but it was not unruly. ... There was no threat of violence."

Atkins added, "It's becoming more restrictive here than in Canada."

Meanwhile, Dearborn Mayor Jack O'Reilly has released a five-page letter defending the police department's arrest.

"The City of Dearborn has been under attack for several years by a group identifying themselves as Acts 17 Apologetics," he wrote. "They arrive in Dearborn with the intent to disrupt a local cultural festival and misrepresent facts in order to further their mission of raising funds through emotional response."

O'Reilly said the festival is "not about the Muslim faith or its believers" and that five Christian groups and two Muslim organizations lawfully reached out to attendees at the event this year. He said groups are given opportunities to purchase spots at booths or preach in "free-speech zones at the festival."

He said the festival site is designated a "special event site" and is not considered open to the public.

In the following video, the Christian missionaries reported police told them they would have to be five blocks away from the festival to give away copies of the Gospel of John:

"Despite knowing this, Acts 17 Apologetics led the viewers of the distorted video to believe they are on public sidewalks," O'Reilly contends. "For the duration of the three-day event, the public sidewalks in front of the stores and businesses in the event district are no longer 'public' in terms of the application of the First Amendment."

He said at one point Wood gathered a crowd around him at the festival, blocking a key access point and impeding crowds.

"Those who created this public danger did so with the knowledge that they were violating the laws because they wanted to be arrested while their cohorts were actively recording the event for posting on the web," he wrote. "… The real violation of First Amendment rights occurs with Acts 17 Apologetics trying to imply they were the victim when the real violation is their attack on the City of Dearborn for having tolerance for all religions including believers in the Quran."

According to a statement posted on the city website, "The City of Dearborn believes the 2009 Acts 17 Apologetics videos are a distortion of the group's experience and a misrepresentation of the Dearborn Arab International Festival."

The Christians' attorneys have indicated they may sue the city in federal court, but the mayor claims the city will fight the lawsuit with the missionaries' own videos.

The four will appear in court on Aug. 3 for a motion hearing, and the trial is set to begin Sept. 20.

Robert Muise, senior trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, told Detroit's WDIV-TV 4, "If people are offended by the fact that they were preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Muslims and trying to convert Muslims, well, guess what: We have a First Amendment."

A reporter asked Mayel, the female defendant, is she is concerned about going to trial.

"No," she responded, "because God is with me."

 

[Turtle]

This proves that religious conviction holds no bounds on the stupid and foolish. You show up at an Arab festival and start proselytizing Christianity, you're asking for trouble. It's rude, annoying and stupid, and you should be arrested for it. If nothing else, handing out leaflets at such a place should get you charged with conspiracy to incite littering.

 

[layoutshooter]

People protest other people all the time in this country, should it ALWAYS be illegal?

 

[jimby82]

This proves that religious conviction holds no bounds on the stupid and foolish. You show up at an Arab festival and start proselytizing Christianity, you're asking for trouble. It's rude, annoying and stupid, and you should be arrested for it. If nothing else, handing out leaflets at such a place should get you charged with conspiracy to incite littering.

I did not realize being rude, annoying and stupid were crimes. God help us all then. So freedom of religion only applies when it is convenient or polite or does not offend? That's not really freedom, now is it? Preventing someone from practicing their particular form of religion, not matter how annoying, rude or stupid, is a violation of one of our most cherished rights. This includes proselytizing to non-believers.

 

[Turtle]

Protesters? Now you want to talk about protesters? Okie.
No, people protesting others should not ALWAYS be illegal.

 

[Turtle]

I did not realize being rude, annoying and stupid were crimes. God help us all then. So freedom of religion only applies when it is convenient or polite or does not offend? That's not really freedom, now is it?

My statement above is about 99% sarcastic and is not meant to be taken seriously. Of course, many Christians will do just that.

Preventing someone from practicing their particular form of religion, not matter how annoying, rude or stupid, is a violation of one of our most cherished rights. This includes proselytizing to non-believers.

That's the argument of a Christian, who wants to retain the right to be annoying and rude. It actually doesn't include proselytizing to non-believers if the non-believers have asked the proselytizers to stop, because in failing to stop, they are infringing on the rights of others. The Golden Rule need not apply to Christians.

 

[jimby82]

My statement above is about 99% sarcastic and is not meant to be taken seriously. Of course, many Christians will do just that.

Sorry, missed that.

That's the argument of a Christian, who wants to retain the right to be annoying and rude. It actually doesn't include proselytizing to non-believers if the non-believers have asked the proselytizers to stop, because in failing to stop, they are infringing on the rights of others. The Golden Rule need not apply to Christians.

Proselytizing is not necessarily a practice unique to Christianity. I would hope that in America, the same protections would apply to members of all faiths.

I am not sure of which rights you refer to. I am not aware of any constitutionally guaranteed right to not be annoyed. Now if the threat or acts of physical violence or intimidation were involved, that would be a different story.

 

[greg334]

I can understand the BS spin put on this by fear baiting religious fanatics. Living in the area and seeing things first hand, it is more of a "my religion is better than your" bunch of crap going on behind the scenes. This is like the little fights going on here in Detroit between the Muslims, Christians and Baptists - all a joke because God has yet announced what is the right religion. Until then no one has the right religion and each person has the right not to be told which one is right.

Sorry if this offends any of you but this group choose to single out a relegion, they didn't go to the North East Conference of Practicing Buddhist Monks to try to convert them or picket the Kingdom Halls of the Jehovah Witnesses but picked a festival in a predominate Muslim area to insult and incite more hatred.

Why focus on Muslims?

Why not Baha'i Faith followers?

Or how about those Hindus?

What is it with Christians that make them fear Muslims and try to convert them?

I have yet been ask to become a Muslim, even after years of dealing with them, having them in my home and so on but I lost count on how many times I have been told I have to accept Jesus or else I will go to hell.

 

[jimby82]

What is it with Christians that make them fear Muslims and try to convert them?

Mark 16:15

 

[jimby82]

gimme a break..like I carry a bible around...gee whiz

And he (Jesus) said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

 

[Turtle]

Sorry, missed that.

No problem. I had hoped the "conspiracy to incite littering" would have been the clue.

Proselytizing is not necessarily a practice unique to Christianity. I would hope that in America, the same protections would apply to members of all faiths.

Proselytizing occurs in many ways about many things, and almost all of them are annoying when put into practice. The Kosher Tax crowd, the folks who believe Bush stole the election in Florida, the Birthers, the Texas Anti-Sprinter Association, lots of 'em.

I am not sure of which rights you refer to. I am not aware of any constitutionally guaranteed right to not be annoyed. Now if the threat or acts of physical violence or intimidation were involved, that would be a different story.

People have the fundamental right to just be left alone, even in a public place, and to have that right be respected when asked to do so.

I'm sitting on a park bench minding my own business when someone comes and sits down next to me and starts telling me all about Jesus. I ask them to please be quiet because I don't want to hear about it or be engaged in conversation. They refuse and continue talking. Sure, I can get up and walk away, but I was there first, they invaded my quiet and my personal space. And after asking (or telling or even demanding) that they shut up and they don't, they are at that point knowingly and willingly being rude and inconsiderate, which unfortunately has become quite the hallmark of too many Christians. If I finally get up and walk away, and they follow, then it's harassment, plain and simple, and possibly stalking because I have to wonder about the mental stability of such a person, so now I fear for my life. And all of this could have been avoided if they'd just shut up and leave me alone when I asked them to.

BTW, I've read Mark 16:15, frontwards and backwards, and nowhere does it say that Christians are to fear Muslims and try to convert them. Nor does it say that you have the right to be rude and annoying while out there in all the world and preaching the good news to all creation.

What is does say, however, is for those Eleven apostles whom Jesus was talking to be the ones to go out into all the world and do the preaching.

 

[chefdennis]

sure he was talking to the disciples / apostles....even in Matthew 28:19...

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

so all christians are disciple....

 

[jimby82]

BTW, I've read Mark 16:15, frontwards and backwards, and nowhere does it say that Christians are to fear Muslims and try to convert them. Nor does it say that you have the right to be rude and annoying while out there in all the world and preaching the good news to all creation.

And I would tend to agree with you. In response to Greg's rhetorical (I think ) question, I was pointing out the verse commonly given as justification for those who feel compelled to share their beliefs in a "vigorous" manner.

I am a Christian (ELCA Lutheran to be exact), but prefer to try to spread the word through my actions rather than words. My own personal feeling is that far too many forget the do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-them-do-unto-you-golden-rule-thingy sections of the Bible. I really would not like having someone annoy me with their beliefs, so I try not to annoy others with mine. I will share my beliefs if asked and may even go so far to reference God or Jesus in everyday conversations, but I hope this really does not annoy others.

On the other hand, I also respect those who truly feel they must preach the Gospel (or whatever flavor of religion they favor) to everyone they encounter. It is their right to practice their beliefs however they like. It is also my right to simply ignore them or even engage them in debate. I may even tell them to stop, but I am not absolutely certain I have the "right" to prevent them form continuing, should they so choose. Any line as to what I would consider permissible behavior would be purely arbitrary on my part.

Any attempt to weight the rights of one individual against those of another usually leads results in diminished "rights" for one and sometimes both parties.

 

[Turtle]

I agree, well put Jim. I'm a Golden Rule kinda guy. And as such, when I ask someone to stop annoying me about this or that subject, regardless of the subject, I expect them to respect my wishes. If someone wants to proselytize, that's fine, right up until the point where it's no longer welcome, whether they are proselytizing about Christianity or HO model railroading or why you shouldn't buy and consume Pringles.