Skip to comments.PRO-LIFE WOMAN FACES INDICTMENT FOR READING BIBLE [to abortionist]
Posted on 12/19/2002 7:36:51 AM PST by victim soul
click here to read article
Why is the FBI even involved?
Here again I would guess that clinton is responsible. He tasked Reno and Freeh with the job of proving that pro-lifers were dangerous murderers involved in a terrorist conspiracy, so the RICO laws could be used against them more effectively. Under these directives the FBI set a number of cases in motion, and regretably Ashcroft has proved unwilling to call off the hounds, once they are on the trail. He seems to be terrified that the media will accuse him of being a pro-lifer.
Each time, there has been such an outpouring of remarkable events ("miracles", spiritual gifts) that a whole new lease on life for the religion of Jesus Christ has resulted.
The death of this religion has been predicted many times, but it is the names of those doing the predicting that have been forgotten, while the name of Jesus still means something.
No, it is not, because bank robbery is against the law. As long as abortion is not against the law, threats are a crime.
This is a nation of laws, not necessarily morality.
As pro-life as I am, I always take this stand as well. I think overall, abortion clinics have been very tolerant of protests. Yeh, we hear all sorts of "horror stories" like the suposed one posted, but as always, both sideas are not presented.
There was another article posted within the last month or so about a man who actually recovered "damages" because he claimed he was assaulted while passing out pamphlets inside the lobby of a clinic. Sure, the case is a clear tresspass, but that didn't mean anything to those who championed it as a "victory for our side". I asked the person who posted the story to link me to additional information that detailed what the injuries were, but no information was provided. The man wouldn't lave when asked and was tackled by some employees. No injuries other than a bump or a bruise was reported in the story.
only 2 choices, huh? both negative.....a slip is showin', that's fo' sho'
Even lowlife gangbangers understand that "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". Are pro-lifers too dense to get it, or do they just self rightiously think they deserve to be treated better than any one else?
So if a preacher used these passages to expound upon the theme of "the wages of sin is death" in his Sunday morning sermon, should the government send in its goons and haul him away in shackles? I'm trying to see where and upon what basis we draw the line, here. Chances are, anyone could find anything said anywhere anytime as threatening, if they look hard and stretch and twist meanings and intentions enough.
Anymore I am inclined to let them have their death-wish for eternal damnation.
Because they hated Him first, and the student isn't above the teacher.
Appealing to location? That's weak. S of 9 said a threat is a threat no matter how you phrased it. A similar argument could be made as to physical location. Just as an example, if someone says "I'm going to kill you" spoken to you either on your property or in a public place, how is the meaning different?
The difference is major. People attend a church voluntarily, and for the purpose to hear what the pastor or priest has to say. If a person does not like the message, they can choose another church, denomination or religion. When you go to a Christian church, one would expect to have the Bible read to them.
Contrast that with an uninvited "sermon" from somebody on the street, or trespassing on your private property. While walking down the street, or to my legal business, I would not expect to have someone walk up and tell me "I am going to die for what I am doing" or whatnot.
In the context of a church, one would expect, and has given an open invitation, to hear the Bible. The same can not be said for any other situation. Thus, I think its reasonable that an uninvited sermon could be deemed a threat depending on the way it is presented. And given that these "sidewalk evangelists protester" types generally harass more than they infrom or enlighten, I think these types of actions can be correctly deemed a threat.
Personally, I think the restraining order should have been allowed and only if it was violated would I then lean toward pressing charges for intimidation or a threat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.