Replies

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your reasoning then must also apply to the anti-smoking zealots, anti-war protesters, etc. etc. etc.