Anti-Christian Bigotry supported by the PA Gov.

[ironmonk]

As with all liberals - freedom of speech until you disagree with them.




[b]'Philly 4' Case Hits Prime Time with O'Reilly[/b]
Attorney for Christians Calls Incident Clear Case of 'Anti-Christian Bigotry'
By Ed Thomas and Jody Brown
January 4, 2005

(AgapePress) - The right of Christians to assemble and preach the gospel in public is under examination in Philadelphia. Four of the eleven Christians who preached at the "gay pride" event "Outfest" in early October -- all of whom were arrested -- are now facing prison time of up to 47 years.

The "Philadelphia Four", as they have come to known, are facing felony charges -- and are accused of using "fighting words" -- for preaching against homosexuality. Video footage of the group's appearance at the pro-homosexual event shows Christian activist Michael Marcavage, founder of the Philly-based group Repent America, with a bullhorn attempting to sing and speak the gospel. He is accompanied by several other Christians.

The video also shows the "Pink Angels," a group of homosexual activists, using 10-foot tall Styrofoam boards, surrounding the Christians as they blocked the group's signs, impeded their movement, and prevented people from seeing them. None of the homosexual activists was arrested, cited, or warned for their actions.

Speaking on the Fox New program O'Reilly Factor on Monday night (January 3), an attorney for the four Christian activists said one of the issues in the case is an abuse of power by authorities in the City of Brotherly Love.


"Now, when you speak in the public square -- at least in Philadelphia -- you will be sent to prison, if they have anything to say about it," said Brian Fahling, an attorney with the American Family Association's Center for Law & Policy. "That's frightening, that's chilling -- and every American ought to be astonished, stunned, and outraged that this is happening in Philadelphia."

Fahling said all his clients were doing was "peacefully evangelizing" -- and that they were doing "what every evangelist does -- and that's bring the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who don't know Christ. There's no crime in that." His group calls the incident "the clearest example of anti-Christian bigotry by city officials in the last century."

Also appearing on the Fox News segment was Outfest legal advisor Charles Volz. The felony charges of criminal conspiracy, ethnic intimidation, and inciting a riot seemed to be echoed in his accusations of the 11 Christian activists who were originally arrested.

"I think we've got to draw a line between where is freedom of speech and where is it 'fighting words,'" Volz said.

The AFA attorney implied much is at stake in the case. "Forty-seven years in prison for preaching the gospel?" he asked. "This is a historic case. This is the natural evolution of the systematic removal of the symbols of Christianity from the public square."

According to Volz, the eleven Christians were arrested in October not for preaching the gospel, but for refusing to abide by the rules established by local law enforcement authorities. He stated he did not expect the maximum sentence to be handed down. "They might get six to twelve months probation," he said. "Nobody's going to jail for 47 years."

Fahling says his group is planning to ask for an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into the case.

[cathqat]

While I do not believe that these Christians deserve being arrested and the possibility of 47 years in prison, I would like to see more details of the case. Why?

Because most large, outdoor events require a permit, and the permit holder is allowed to have "trespassers" (i.e. people they don't want there) arrested. So I wonder if this was city-initiated or initiated by permit holders. The latter happens frequently at the March for Life, for example.

There is a pro-life group called the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL) whom the March for Life permit holders have consistently banned from the March. PLAGAL is a pro-life group. PLAGAL is not a disruptive group, nor a group that protests against the March. Like other pro-life groups, PLAGAL seeks only to march with their banner and occasionally hand out pamphlets explaining their own reasons for opposing abortion. (The "lavender" pamphlet, interestingly enough, refers to G.K. Chesterton.)

Every year, March for Life threatens to have PLAGAL arrested if they come to the March. March for Life has occasionally followed through on the threat (the president & vice president were arrested in 2002, for example). On other occasions, PLAGAL has had their banner taken by park police and/or submitted to censorship of their banner.

So what's my point? It does not surprise me that this Christian group could be arrested at "Outfest." Someone holds a permit for Outfest, and I bet the permit holder did not want that Christian group there. And, unlike PLAGAL at the March for Life, the Christians were protesting Outfest rather than trying to participate.

I freely grant that no one has ever threatened PLAGAL with 47 years' prison time. But they have been arrested. And I wonder if these attorneys and other supporters would say the same for PLAGAL? Should PLAGAL have a right to march for life, or should March for Life have the right to arrest them for participating?

That's an interesting question.

[Good Friday]

Ironmonk, I'd like to know what exactly these folks were saying, doing, what signs they were holding, what gestures they were making, etc. I note that your source for this is AgapePress -- Protestant. I note that these people are, very likely, Protestant. Therefore, their version of "preaching the gospel" could be very different from our own, and could include the notion that "God hates . . ." well, you know. In which case I think they should, in fact, go to prison. Not to mention that if they did say that God hates anyone, and if they die without repenting, they will go to hell, which should be a much more serious concern for any Catholic than their temporal punishment.

Is there a particular reason that you wait until either Hyper, or I, or both of us return to post stuff that is potentially inflammatory to homosexuals, by the way? I'm just curious.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 5 2005, 10:04 PM'] their version of "preaching the gospel" could be very different from our own, and could include the notion that "God hates . . ." well, you know. [/quote]
True, I hadn't thought of that possibility. There are some wacko "Christian" groups that do that. If they were doing that, I agree that they [i]should[/i] be removed from the event.

[karin]

we were just talking about this in ccd this evening ooo it makes me so outraged

[Paladin D]

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=26925"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=26925[/url]

Not to mention their tourism department is aiming towards the homosexual community [url="http://www.gophila.com/gay/index.htm"]"Make your morning straight and your night life gay"[/url].

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 6 2005, 12:04 AM'] Ironmonk, I'd like to know what exactly these folks were saying, doing, what signs they were holding, what gestures they were making, etc.  I note that your source for this is AgapePress -- Protestant.  I note that these people are, very likely, Protestant.  Therefore, their version of "preaching the gospel" could be very different from our own, and could include the notion that "God hates . . ." well, you know.  In which case I think they should, in fact, go to prison.  Not to mention that if they did say that God hates anyone, and if they die without repenting, they will go to hell, which should be a much more serious concern for any Catholic than their temporal punishment.

Is there a particular reason that you wait until either Hyper, or I, or both of us return to post stuff that is potentially inflammatory to homosexuals, by the way?  I'm just curious. [/quote]
Really, neither one of you are on my frontal lobe like that... maybe you should stop thinking that everything is about you and I'm trying to single you out. You notice this stuff and ignore so many other topics I bring up.

You have a problem. If you don't like what I post, then don't read my posts. Get over yourself.

I'm so sick and tired of you whining everytime a topic I post gives you a weggie... Again... believe it or not, you are NOT the focus of my posts. You have a knack for taking anything and everything I say out of context. I'm scared that if I ever wrote I love kids - you'd accuse me of being a pedophile. Take the chip off your shoulder and mature a little.

I posted this because I got an email from the AFA about it and it pisses me off. If it had to do with abortionists, I would have posted it also. It's a topic all over the news. Take the chip off your shoulder and get over yourself.... And this goes for anyone who has issues thinking I'm 'singling' out anyone when I post a topic.

[url="http://www.afa.net/"]http://www.afa.net/[/url]


God Bless.

Edited January 6, 2005 by ironmonk

[hyperdulia again]

*hugs Nathan*

*kisses Monk on his cheek*

*wonders why on earth the pro-life movement feels secure enough to tell people they can't be anti-abortion*

[crusader1234]

Wonders what in the who now?

[hyperdulia again]

read cathqat's post.

[spathariossa]

Ummm. This is slightly mistaken. I watched that Factor episode. The 47 years is a total for ALL the men, not a sentence for each of them. If all of them got the maximum sentence it would add up to 47 amongst them all. I think the article skewed that somewhat. But otherwise I agree that they shouldn't have been arrested. I'll watch the video before I comment on whether I like their evangelizing methods or not, but they shouldn't have been arrested.

[Apotheoun]

No group organized around a personal identification that is based upon a disordered inclination should be allowed to participate in the March for Life, but certainly they should be allowed to participate as individuals.

[Phatmasser777]

Going on the O'Reilly wasnt a bright idea, especially with that idiot.

Gays are sueing like crazy here, 3 Radio Personalities have been sued and found to be 'discriminating' the gays.

[hyperdulia again]

if they were then that's good.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' date='Jan 6 2005, 03:17 AM'] if they were then that's good. [/quote]
It depends...

If someone that has ssa, is the in your face type, then I'm all for not giving them a job.

If someone that has ssa and is not the in your face type, then I think it would be good to give them a job.

Quite a few people with ssa that I know have major personality flaws and I don't think that them not getting a job would have to do with them haveing same sex attraction - yet they would be quick to claim that. They can't see the fact that most people just do not like their personality - if they were straight and acted the way they did they still would not have gotten the job.

This is going to be blown out of proportion just like some people call companies racist because they didn't get the job when they're not white, when the company is clearly not racist.

I believe it all depends on the situation.


God Bless,
ironmonk