Skip to comments.Meeting disruption case goes to trial (or, Bible as Hate Speech)
Posted on 10/01/2004 5:18:48 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
An evangelical preacher whose reading of a Bible passage at the July 21 Lansdowne Borough Council meeting was termed "hate speech" by the council president will stand trial in Media for disrupting a public meeting and a related charge. ... "Council perceived what he was reading as hate speech. It would be homophobic today. They couldn't let him go on. You can't go up to the podium and start reading from the Bible," Assistant District Attorney Alyssa Kusturiss countered.
Truth sounds like hate speach if you're an unrepentant sinner.
I for one am glad to see this going to trial. We need to hash this out. This BS PC crap is being enforced by petty tyrants all over the country. Lets have it out in court and either put the leftists busybodies in their place, or start taking a second civil war seriously.
Just wait until they say the First and Second Amendments are hate speech.
"start taking a second civil war seriously."
I hate to agree, but the other side is almost begging for a bloodletting.
This is what has happened in Europe. But I thought we still had freedom of speech in the United States. But that is just for the left-wing fascist Nazi demcorats.
There really going to hate the "every knee bowing and every tongue confessing" part of the REAL trial.
You can't go up to the podium and start reading from the Bible," Assistant District Attorney Alyssa Kusturiss countered.
Now reading from Mein Kampf would probably be permissible.
So all you folks would say it was OK for some Moslem to show up at a meeting and denounce the clothes woman public school teachers wore, reading aloud from the Koran to justify his position?
It would be ok with me, but the speaker who did this would probably be met with booing from the audience, and he would probably be called some nasty names and he would end up having to leave the meeting after being totally humiliated. But the speaker shouldn't be arrested or have to face a "hate crime" charge.
Someone ping me when its time to get the pitchforks and torches out. I mean exactly how far does this go before decent God fearin Americans say ENOUGH .....
INTREP - secularization
Hey, we've already got Muslim call to prayer five times a day over loudspeakers in Hammtrack (sp?), Michigan.
A good reply, but I suspect most of the posters on this thread would be unhappy if someone professing a Biblical view were treated as you suggest the hypothetical Moslem be. They want compliance, not just a forum.
"Just wait until they say the First and Second Amendments are hate speech. "
They already have, Peter; already have.
Before a tyrant can exterminate any particular group he dislikes for whatever reason, he first has to marginalize, then, criminalize, then dehumanize them in the minds of the masses.
Then the tracks to the gas chambers and crematoriums will be clear.
So now in many realms they have criminalized the posession of any means to resist, and followed that with the criminalization of speaking Biblical Truth as "hate speech".
Before long the very posession of a Bible will be Verbotten as much as private ownership of firearms.
I join many here who are beginning to wonder if our only options as some point in the not too distant future will be a damned bloody Civil War II or chains which we will be unable to resist or escape from, once we capitulate to those who would be Masters over us.
There are some parts of History that should NEVER have to be repeated - and the American Civil War, IMHO, is definately one of them.
May God provide another option - before it is too late!
"There are some parts of History that should NEVER have to be repeated - and the American Civil War, IMHO, is definately one of them."
I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately, conservatives tend to be the only people to know their history. The liberals are in a rush to repeat it.
A few truths I hold to be self-evident that I fear will come into conflict with the libs:
1) No matter what laws they want to pass, I reserve my right to keep and bear arms in a civilized manner. They infringe on my rights at their peril.
2) My right to speak freely about subjects that are 'taboo' is also something they infringe at their peril.
3) I will take every possible legal recourse to assert my rights but, failing that, I will still not surrender these rights and liberals infringe upon them at their peril.
If more people said what I just said publicly we wouldn't have this problem.