Police To Stop Enforcing Laws When Catholics Are Attacked

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298775557' post='2215975']
As I've said twice before, I really have no proof that any statute was violated, and I want to see the author offer something concrete. Otherwise it is merely sloppy reporting, and I cannot trust that 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
[/quote]

Then we have made good progress from "no statues were violated" to "it is possible" a statute was violated as reported.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298775935' post='2215981']
Then we have made good progress from "no statues were violated" to "it is possible" a statute was violated as reported.
[/quote]

According to that article, it is "possible" that a child was sacrificed to Moloch on the front of the steps, and police were told to stand down. I'm calling emotionally-charged tripe until I see some proof, instead of watery, vague half-accusations. Nothing I saw on the video was a crime. Nothing depicted in the article was a crime. Where's the crime? "Say, did you hear, the police were told not to intervene when the Pastor doesn't 'attack' his non-existent wife?" That's what the article was.

"[b]While it was illegal for the protesters to disrupt a religious service, the Chicago City Council announced that police would not enforce the law in this instance[/b]." [url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/02/creepy-homosexual-demonstration-at-chicagos-holy-name-cathedral/"]http://wdtprs.com/bl...name- cathedral/[/url] A butchery of sound journalism. The author might as well have written, "While it was illegal for the protesters to behead a goat in front of the Church, [which they may or may not have done, we'll leave that to your prodded, imagination] the Chicago City Council announced that police would not enforce the law in this instance." If no goat was beheaded, it certainly is hard to enforce a law against beheading goats, isn't it?

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Brother Adam]

That is your perogative.

Since the Chicago Tribune, National Organization for Marriage, Catholic League, Life Site News, and City of Chicago are all reporting the same thing I am choosing to accept the premise - that the law was broken and that the police were told not to do anything about it, even if we do not yet have all the facts (which seems to be common of all news).

[Brother Adam]

Also, I agree with Cardinal George:

“No matter the issue, Catholics should be able to worship in peace, without fear of harassment,” he continued. “An open display of prejudice against the Catholic Church because of resentment of Church teachings prejudices civil discourse in our society.”

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298776477' post='2215987']
That is your perogative.

Since the Chicago Tribune, National Organization for Marriage, Catholic League, Life Site News, and City of Chicago are all reporting the same thing I am choosing to accept the premise - that the law was broken and that the police were told not to do anything about it, even if we do not yet have all the facts (which seems to be common of all news).
[/quote]

My prerogative is to not jump to conclusions about who did what and start talking about how the poor Catholics are getting hosed. I'm giving the Mayor, the Statepolice, and the deviants the benefit of the doubt. That's how poorly-written that article was. Do you know how frustrating it is to have to do[i] that[/i] in order to remain intellectually honest?

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

What law or ordinance was broken? Did someone spit on the ground?

Police brutality should of ensued.

[CatholicCid]

Apparently, there's an ordinance in Chicago that "bans protests within 150 feet and 30 minutes of a religious service in a place of worship, with an exception for labor protests."

The actual code, Chicago Municipal Code 8-4-010(j), states:
[quote]A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(j) Pickets or demonstrates on a public way within 150 feet of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship while services are being conducted and one-half hour before services are to be conducted and one-half hour after services have been concluded, provided that this subsection does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship involved in a labor dispute.[/quote]

This protest was not a labor dispute, was within 150 feet of the Church, and was within 30 minutes of the religious service. The protestors clearly violated all aspects of this ordinance, but, as stated, the city of Chicago decided not to enforce it at this time.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1298776863' post='2215991']
What law or ordinance was broken? Did someone spit on the ground?

Police brutality should of ensued.
[/quote]

Yes. Where's the blood? It just doesn't add up.

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298777025' post='2215993']
"it was illegal for the protesters to disrupt a religious service, the Chicago City Council announced that police would not enforce the law"
[/quote]

No, you're missing a key word: "while." "While it was illegal . . ." It's a weasel word, which implies [i]that[/i] they [i]did [/i]disrupt a religious service. Where is the evidence that they did disrupt a religious service? There was [i]none [/i]offered by the article, unless, as I said before, Masses are said on the sidewalk now. And what was the precise statement of the Chicago City Council? Without their exact words, such a statement is [i]useless. [/i]It's like having a ruler with no gradations on it: you can only whack someone with it.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='CatholicCid' timestamp='1298776962' post='2215992']Apparently, there's an ordinance in Chicago that "bans protests within 150 feet and 30 minutes of a religious service in a place of worship, with an exception for labor protests."

The actual code, Chicago Municipal Code 8-4-010(j), states:


This protest was not a labor dispute, was within 150 feet of the Church, and was within 30 minutes of the religious service. The protestors clearly violated all aspects of this ordinance, but, as stated, the city of Chicago decided not to enforce it at this time.[/quote]I am no constitutional or civil rights lawyer, but I suspect this is unconstitutional or a violation of human rights.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Brother Adam]

I think it is reasonable based on the video that the picketers were within 150 feet of the Church and within 1/2 hour of the start of Mass. If then the police (who are in obvious attendance) were told not to enforce the law, the truthfulness of the article stands, and it sets the precedence and the state is being prejudice against Christians. Which verifies my original concern - it is a dangerous precedence to set. Freedom is not lost in one day, but slowly over time.

[4588686]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298778009' post='2215999']
I think it is reasonable based on the video that the picketers were within 150 feet of the Church and within 1/2 hour of the start of Mass.[/quote]


Gays were within 150 ft of a Church a half hour before Mass started???

[size="7"][b]
HOW LONG, OH LORD, MUST YOUR PEOPLE SUFFER!!! HOW LONG, OH LORD, WILL YOU LEAVE THEM TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES IN THIS VALLEY OF TEARS!!!![/b][/size]
[quote]If then the police (who are in obvious attendance) were told not to enforce the law[/quote]

Were they? You have provided no evidence that they were. Even if they were the constitutionality of such a law would be in doubt. Had the activists gone INSIDE the Church and harassed Catholics, that would be a wholly different matter. Making it illegal to protest outside a Church is a highly different matter. You don't have a right to barge into an abortion clinic and scream BABY KILLER!!!! at an abortion doctor while he provides an abortion. Peacefully protesting outside of an abortion clinic is a different matter.

[QUOTE]the truthfulness of the article stands, and it sets the precedence and the state is being prejudice against Christians. Which verifies my original concern - it is a dangerous precedence to set. Freedom is not lost in one day, but slowly over time.
[/quote]


Freedom to not have to walk by some gays holding signs or the freedom to peaceful assembly?
[size="7"][b]


[/b][/size]

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1298777805' post='2215997']
I am no constitutional or civil rights lawyer, but I suspect this is unconstitutional or a violation of human rights.
[/quote]

I'm assuming you are referring to the ordinance. The ACLU, on behalf of the GLN protesting, contacted the Chicago Police Department concerning this. While the ACLU believe this ordinance violates the 1st Amendment, it is currently a valid ordinance.

Here is a more of the backstory from the ACLU: http://www.aclu-il.org/standing-up-for-the-first-amendment-in-chicago/

It contain's the city's response to the ACLU challenge of the ordinance: http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Letter-from-Georges-1-26-11.pdf
The city did, as the letter shows, chose to not enforce this specific ordinance for this specific protest.

Edited February 27, 2011 by CatholicCid

[Sternhauser]

"Labor issue." Hm. Depends. Does the Catholic Church allow openly deviant priests to work for it? Does that concern the protesters? Of course, when you have Supreme Court blackrobes irrationally arguing for "reasonable restrictions on rights," which assumes that rights can conflict with rights, who cares what they think?

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1298778402' post='2216003']
Freedom to not have to walk by some gays holding signs or the freedom to peaceful assembly?
[/quote]

Whichever. But, technically speaking, freedom is the ability to do what one ought. Not that I'd be in favor of anyone using force against anyone screeching in front of a Church, as long as they didn't trespass on the property. Because even if someone doesn't have the freedom to do something, it does not follow that you necessarily have a right to use force to stop him from doing it.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser