Police To Stop Enforcing Laws When Catholics Are Attacked

[4588686]

Is making highly misleading thread titles considered a sin?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1298762841' post='2215895']
Obviously they are trying to make things uncomfortable for the people that attend Mass at that parish. They're not trying to change anybodies mind, they're just trying to make the Catholic Priests uncomfortable enough that they don't preach anything that is critical of them.[/quote]

So protests are only acceptable to you, and in the eyes of the State, when the intention is to change someone's mind? Who is to say they weren't trying to change other people's minds on an issue? We have to let men with clubs divine the intention of protesters? I assure you, that will not go well: an ASP baton is an ex post facto divining rod.

[quote]The sort of thing that they're doing could easily escalate into a physical fight outside of the church. They are provoking the Catholics there. What if one of the parishioners gets angry and takes a swing at one of the homosexuals? Or what if one of the homosexuals decides that he is going to escalate things and attacks one of the parishioners. I'd hope that the police would at least be standing by to bring things under control.
[/quote]

Boy, does that sound familiar.

[Caution: enraged pro-abortion person using profanity]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8_vbKOI53A&feature=related[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRptVzdTmnc&feature=related[/media]



~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298763013' post='2215896']
So even though the police admitted that they were breaking the law and harassing Christians, it is okay?
[/quote]

I didn't see any police admitting a statute was being broken. I saw yellow journalism, where the author of the article wrote about how "disrupting a religious service" is a crime, while offering no evidence that such a disruption ever took place (unless Masses are said on sidewalks, now.)

~Sternhauser

[ThePenciledOne]

[font="Verdana"]T[/font][font="Verdana"]hat article made me laugh quite a bit...

[/font] [font="Verdana"]Anyway, there is a gross exaggeration going on here, and I am really tired of the[/font][size="3"] "You wonder if they would allow protests in front of a mosque or a synagogue during their religious services." I find this a rather flimsy argument and almost whiney....

The title to this thread is grossly misleading though...sorry Brother Adam.[/size]

Edited February 27, 2011 by ThePenciledOne

[Mr.Cat]

I see no indication that these protesters doing anything that qualifies as harassing, intrusive, illegal, or violent. Thus I will give them the benefit of the doubt. However, if protesting on public property in-front of a church invokes "[i]fear of harassment[/i]" and thus is illegal, I suspect that protests in-front of abortion clinics would likewise be illegal. Though in the video was that police I saw monitoring the protesters? So the situation was appropriately handled it appears. Is this topic intended to be an anti-protest of people asking for an end to unjust discrimination?

Something the Catholic Church calls for herself?[quote][url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"][b]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/b][/url]
[url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2358.htm"][b]2358[/b][/url] The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is [u]not negligible[/u]. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, [u]constitutes for most of them a trial[/u]. [b]They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity[/b]. [b][u]Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided[/u][/b]. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.[/quote]

Edited February 27, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298772508' post='2215941']
I didn't see any police admitting a statute was being broken. I saw yellow journalism, where the author of the article wrote about how "disrupting a religious service" is a crime, while offering no evidence that such a disruption ever took place (unless Masses are said on sidewalks, now.)

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

"The city of Chicago ordered its police force not to enforce the law"

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298774545' post='2215955']
"The city of Chicago ordered its police force not to enforce the law"
[/quote]

According to the perception of the author? I'd [i]really[/i] love to see the complete story on that in its actual context, something the article seems unwilling to oblige.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Brother Adam]

Thank you for that admission.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298774759' post='2215963']
Thank you for that admission.
[/quote]

Admission? That was a reiteration of what I said in the previous post: there was no infraction of the law, so how could they have been ordered to enforce the law? It's like telling a Roman Rite priest to stop beating the wife he doesn't have. Possibly a deliberate and emotional abuse of words on the part of the author. Much like the title, which mentions Catholics being "attacked." If that's being "attacked," and police aren't enforcing the law which protects people from being "attacked," the problem lies with the people who have a [i]really [/i]twisted idea of "attacking," not the police.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298774851' post='2215964']It's like telling a Roman Rite priest to stop beating the wife he doesn't have. [/quote]Whoever gave the order to ignore this is equally as guilty as this mayor. You should see how clear and transparent this is.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1298775028' post='2215966']
Whoever gave the order to ignore this is equally as guilty as this mayor. You should see how clear and transparent this is.
[/quote]

Oh, I see right through it.

~Sternhauser

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298774851' post='2215964']
Admission? That was a reiteration of what I said in the previous post: there was no crime commited, so how could they have been ordered to enforce the law? It's like telling a Roman Rite priest to stop beating the wife he doesn't have. Possibly a deliberately sloppy and emotionally advantageous abuse of words on the part of the author. Much like the title, which mentions Catholics being "attacked." If that's being "attacked," and police aren't enforcing the law which protects people from being "attacked," the problem lies with the people with a [i]really [/i]twisted idea of "attacking," not the police.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

The connotation of the word attack does not just lie with a physical brawl, even if you disagree with the strong language. You admitted that you do not know if the law was broken. I chose to trust in the responsibility of the journalist to accurately portray what happened, but if I am wrong, and the protesters did not break any law, then I take back what I said. If they did break the law and the police were ordered not to enforce the law, then it sets a dangerous precedent and is a sign of escalation which could lead to the outright persecution of Christians.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298775342' post='2215972']
The connotation of the word attack does not just lie with a physical brawl, even if you disagree with the strong language. You admitted that you do not know if the law was broken. I chose to trust in the responsibility of the journalist to accurately portray what happened, but if I am wrong, and the protesters did not break any law, then I take back what I said. If they did break the law and the police were ordered not to enforce the law, then it sets a dangerous precedent and is a sign of escalation which could lead to the outright persecution of Christians.
[/quote]

As I've said twice before, I really saw no proof that any statute was violated, and I want to see the author offer something concrete. Otherwise it is merely sloppy reporting, which is [i]irresponsible,[/i] and something I cannot trust at all.

In their most vague, extra-statutory definitions, all sorts of "attacks" are permitted by statute. That demonstration was one of them.

Persecution of Christians? Brother Adam, no fear. Just appeal to the State to uphold justice. That's what it's there for.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298775342' post='2215972']The connotation of the word attack does not just lie with a physical brawl, even if you disagree with the strong language. You admitted that you do not know if the law was broken. I chose to trust in the responsibility of the journalist to accurately portray what happened, but if I am wrong, and the protesters did not break any law, then I take back what I said. If they did break the law and the police were ordered not to enforce the law, then it sets a dangerous precedent and is a sign of escalation which could lead to the outright persecution of Christians.[/quote]The police did seem to be monitoring the peaceful protesters on the public sidewalk. The most real accusation I can see against them is "[i]fear of harassment[/i]", which explains the police being there to monitor and oversee the situation.

If the mayor gave an order that the law be ignored or not enforced, I can understand the concern. However, it just seems unlikely or perhaps misunderstood. Why would police be dispatched to a protest that they were told NOT to enforce the law at?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1298775626' post='2215976']
If the mayor gave an order that the law be ignored or not enforced, I can understand the concern. However, it just seems unlikely or perhaps misunderstood. Why would police be dispatched to a protest that they were told NOT to enforce the law at?
[/quote]

Yes. Another important question (and left unanswered by the article), what statute was allegedly ordered not to be enforced? That wasn't clear, just as its relation to the events in front of the Cathedral was not clear.

~Sternhauser