Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PRO-LIFE WOMAN FACES INDICTMENT FOR READING BIBLE [to abortionist]
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12.18.02

Posted on 12/19/2002 7:36:51 AM PST by victim soul

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-111 next last
To: Jack Black
"Bush needs to do a lot more house cleaning.

He never started so the house is still a mess...

41 posted on 12/19/2002 12:24:11 PM PST by alphadog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
Proverbs 28:1

The wicked flee when no one pursues,
But the righteous are bold as a lion.

42 posted on 12/19/2002 12:32:12 PM PST by fone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Its not all that different. You said it yourself, a threat is a threat. Location shouldn't matter, nor phrasing. If you're serious that you consider what this woman did was a legitimate threat, then everything else is window dressing.

My point is this. Unless this was a credible and specific threat made by one individual against another, my fear is that it is yet another example of the Thought Police out there running amok, and once again specifically targeting anti-abortion protestors. We've had cases were protestors were arrested for kneeling in prayer. Other cases where individuals and groups have been dragged into court on bogus RICO charges. In the end, what should be protected political dissent is quashed in the name of political correctness. We should all be concerned when someone makes a crime out of another's speech because they "feel" threatened, or "feel" offended, or "feel" uncomfortable. Because under those terms just about anything anyone says or does could be found to be a criminal act. When legal actions are taken on the basis of feelings, stretched and twisted however one wants, we're all walking liable and/or criminal cases.

43 posted on 12/19/2002 12:43:51 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: chimera
Its not all that different. You said it yourself, a threat is a threat.

I said no such thing. I said hearing the Bible in a church is nowhere close to an unsolicited sermon on the street.

If you're serious that you consider what this woman did was a legitimate threat, then everything else is window dressing.

I dont know the entire story and all of the specifics, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the woman had harassed people around the clinic for quite some time. Whether she meant it as a threat or not, I couldn't say. But intelligent people realize that when you talk about your religion's view of "death as a punishment for certain acts", you better understand that a person who does not believe in your religion may see that as a threat. Its not that different than we seeing tenants of Islam being a threat to all non-believers(not that I am claiming the Bible supports violence for non-belief, but many have used it that way over the past 2000 years).

my fear is that it is yet another example of the Thought Police out there running amok, and once again specifically targeting anti-abortion protestors.

Any continual harasser or trespasser should expect the same treatment. Didn't you see what the cops did to the enviro-whackos protesting in the streets at the WTO meetings?

We've had cases were protestors were arrested for kneeling in prayer. Other cases where individuals and groups have been dragged into court on bogus RICO charges.

I agree that RICO charges are bogus in these circumstances.

In the end, what should be protected political dissent is quashed in the name of political correctness. We should all be concerned when someone makes a crime out of another's speech because they "feel" threatened, or "feel" offended, or "feel" uncomfortable. Because under those terms just about anything anyone says or does could be found to be a criminal act. When legal actions are taken on the basis of feelings, stretched and twisted however one wants, we're all walking liable and/or criminal cases.

I can't say I disgaree, but Its not like this woman walked up to the guy one time and said, "Excuse me sir, I'd like to share something with you that I feel is very important and may help you in the long run".

By this time, everyone knows that there is a large portion of Americans out there who believe abortion is wrong based upon their religion. It does no good to sit there on sidewalks outside abortion clinics praying, yelling or harassing doctors and patients. I think these activities need to be seen as harassment. This isn't "free speech". We(the taxpayers) do not have to provide protesters a forumn.

44 posted on 12/19/2002 12:57:44 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
If I tell the paid murderer of unborn infants (whose murders are deemed "legal" by a SCOTUS which bears little or no resemblance to a court which understands much less applies the Constitution) that. unless he repents, he will go to hell, I am not threatening him. I cannot send him to hell (as opposed to sending him to heaven). He sends himself to hell. Or God sends him in recognition of his murders (legalized or otherwise) and God is beyond the jurisdiction of any earthly court.

If, as a Yankee fan (in baseball and not the War of Yankee Aggression), I shout at Red Sox fans: You will never win a World Series in your lifetime or God's lifetime, it is of course not a threat because: 1) it is a reality as an immutable result of the curse of the Bambino; and 2) I am not personally capable of making them lose since I am neither the Bambino nor am I god nor am I even Alfonso Soriano.

As witness the persecution of a woman for having the effrontery to read the actual Bible in the Godless presence of a heathen child-killer, in light of Roe vs. Wade and its, ummm, progeny, and the life work of SCOTUS since 1936, and the remarkable usurpation that occurred in Marbury vs. Madison and several historical controversies near and dear to your heart and mine, we are most certainly NOT a nation of laws.

45 posted on 12/19/2002 1:05:46 PM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
If you don't want someone to read aloud in public, you don't get to put them in prison.

You get to tell them to shut up, and then you get to walk away if they refuse.

No one here is advocating a theocracy - you're just trying to find a way to use your favorite buzzword.

Your page self-describes you as a libertarian. It's an odd kind of libertarian who believes in freedom for everyone except Christians. It's also a odd kind of libertarian who advocates taking the life of the weakest and most defenceless people.

I'm not sure who the "Nine" you serve are - but they must hate freedom.

46 posted on 12/19/2002 1:11:16 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
Oh please...she said he persists in his wickedness he will die, not that she would kill him. Good grief...get a grip.
47 posted on 12/19/2002 1:13:50 PM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
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.

Thanks, that's all about you I need to know. Obviously you are against free speech if it involves any religion.

48 posted on 12/19/2002 1:14:40 PM PST by TXBubba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I said no such thing. I said hearing the Bible in a church is nowhere close to an unsolicited sermon on the street.

I'm getting the posters in the thread mixed up.

But intelligent people realize that when you talk about your religion's view of "death as a punishment for certain acts", you better understand that a person who does not believe in your religion may see that as a threat.

This is where the argument breaks down. You're statement implies that the criminality is vested in another's interpretation of an individual's actions. The law has traditionally (although we've seen some erosion of this with the advent of "hate crimes" legislation) distinguished between thoughts and actions. My concern is that if you criminalize something based on another's interpretation or feeling about one's verbally-expressed thoughts, unless those expressions contain specific, credible threats to the other's well-being, you've opened the floodgates to all sorts of thought crimes. And not just reasonable disagreements on political or social issues, but anything.

By this time, everyone knows that there is a large portion of Americans out there who believe abortion is wrong based upon their religion. It does no good to sit there on sidewalks outside abortion clinics praying, yelling or harassing doctors and patients. I think these activities need to be seen as harassment. This isn't "free speech". We(the taxpayers) do not have to provide protesters a forumn.

You are free to disagree about tactics, but, from what was presented in the article, this woman's actions appear to be, while perhaps annoying to those who disagree with her, somewhat shaky grounds for criminal prosecution. Again, were there specific and credible threats made to the physical well-being of the offended party, threats made personally by the accused against the accuser? My sense is that this is a case that revolves around one person being offended by the 1) moral position, and 2) tactics (although non-harmful and thus not morally equivalent to the case you raised about the WTO protestors) of another. Criminalizing persons who may offend others because of their political beliefs and non-violent means of expressing them is another step down the long road to tyranny.

49 posted on 12/19/2002 1:16:21 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
What is your problem? Any threat or promise read from the Bible, is a threat or promise from God-not from his messinger, merely delivering the truth. THe messenger can be silenced, but the message is just as true and the promise will still be kept and/or punishment administered.
50 posted on 12/19/2002 1:19:45 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
If it is on a public sidewalk on publicly owned property, it is free speech. Reading the Bible in public is NOT a threat. The fact that the babykillers don't want to have their feelings hurt by the truth is absolutely irrelevant.

The First Amendment was not necessary to protect public recitations of Mary Had a Little Lamb. It was necessary to protect the right to annoy the hell out of those with whom we disagree vehemently or otherwise. The local abortion mill here has loudspeakers to annoy pro-lifers by reading specific details of alleged child molestations by priests to annoy Catholic pro-lifers and other messages for Protestant pro-lifers. The pro-lifers have to learn to live with such speech, however outrageous, and so do the babykillers. We have a right to be publicly rude. Our enemies hate to be mocked or laughed at. We call it America.

Remember the immortal words of the late Mayor Richard Daley, the Greater, who, after being verbally attacked by his foes, solemnly intoned before the TV cameras: "I have been vilified. I have been crucified. I HAVE EVEN BEEN CRITICIZED!!!!" Take that as your inspiration to speak truth to power.

51 posted on 12/19/2002 1:21:11 PM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
If it is on a public sidewalk on publicly owned property, it is free speech. Reading the Bible in public is NOT a threat. The fact that the babykillers don't want to have their feelings hurt by the truth is absolutely irrelevant.

AMEN!
52 posted on 12/19/2002 1:23:07 PM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Welcome, my lady, to yet another thread where we may join in defense of life, truth and civilization!

Beware, there are speech-stiflers about in libertarian clothing, no less, or was that libertine clothing?

53 posted on 12/19/2002 1:28:39 PM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: fone
There was a passage that someone posted on a thread awhile back that talked about how Christians should expect to be ridiculed, and to wear that as a badge of honor. I completely forgot the passage and where it was found. Do you think you could help me out?
54 posted on 12/19/2002 1:28:50 PM PST by Charlie OK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Beware, there are speech-stiflers about in libertarian clothing, no less, or was that libertine clothing?

The difference is?
55 posted on 12/19/2002 1:30:24 PM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
A clear attempt to stop the Pro-Lifers by draining their purses. But because of the Great Exchange, we will prosper all the more from their attempts.
56 posted on 12/19/2002 1:55:45 PM PST by WriteOn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Libertines lack any principles whatsoever beyond hedonism, repeating the mantra: If it feels good, do it!

Libertarians are sometimes quite principled folks who, though they may sin, at least have the decency not to reuire that you sin too. Real libertarians will also recognize the positive power of ostracism (shunning) as a substitute for busybody government. If we had a law requiring everyone to have fire insurance to pay a private fire company to put out fires, we might jail the homeowner who does not pay premiums. This is rather a drastic solution, particularly where that homeowner is ready, willing and able to pay for any services necessary to prevent his fire from burning your house. It is a lot less exp[ensive for all concerned to shun deadbeats than to jail them.

If a libertine would particpate in the discussion, he or she might ask for another joint (smokable not livable).

57 posted on 12/19/2002 1:55:51 PM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
You're quite right...re-ran the search myself on Yahoo using some of the words I may have used other than that which I recollected in my post. I tried 'geneology of Jesus' and came up with some of the sites I encountered.

But certainly I was moved to overestimate the number of negative hits...hyperbole. I stand muddied and contrite.

58 posted on 12/19/2002 1:59:25 PM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #59 Removed by Moderator

To: Charlie OK; fone
I think I found it...

Matthew 5:11-12

When you are reviled and persecuted and lied about because you are My followers--wonderful! Be happy about it! Be very glad! for a tremendous reward awaits you up in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted too.

60 posted on 12/19/2002 2:15:28 PM PST by Charlie OK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-111 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson