PDA

View Full Version : Man arrested for praying



ducknwork
08-02-2010, 12:17 PM
How is that whole freedom of religion and freedom of speech working out for this guy?:rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/31/pub-chicago-man-charged-disorderly-conduct-praying-outside-planned-parenthood/

pastorjames50@gmail.com
08-02-2010, 12:55 PM
I do not agree with this man being arrested for praying in public, as long as he is not pushing himself onto others. The video clip does not show any interference from the man, even towards the other person holding a sign board.
We have taken things too far to accommodate those of other faiths, in particular those of Islamic and Hindu faiths.Here in Canada, and especially the medium size town I live in, we are now beginning to see persons (man or woman,who knows?)walking on the main street fully covered with only an opening for their eyes. These people are NOT afraid to show/expose their religious beliefs, but we as Christians,well....where are our guts,who are we afraid of? It is time for the Americans,Canadians and the western world to wake up, stand up and show that we are Christians. Remember...No one comes to the Father except through Me. What other religious faith has that powerful statement and has a Living God?
If there is a Christian service being held outdoors such as a wedding in a public park and people are passing by, will the whole wedding party being arrested, is that the next step?? May God bless this man for praying.

Ken Bora
08-02-2010, 01:02 PM
You know that part of the new testament, I never could remember the chapter numbers and stuff. Just the stories. Anyway, Jesus was chatting with the folk who would follow him around. And he said something about the folk who make it very very public so everyone knows how much they have given or how hard they are praying. Making sure all around can see just how devout and holy they are.
As I recall the gist of the tale, Jesus was not all that impressed with this.
Now if you actually read the story you linked you will see, according to the police officer, the feller was standing an inch away from the victim and praying loudly. Like yelling??
Give me a break, the person knew exactly what he was doing.
And from my own experiences, yelling at God does not get any results.
This was a protest not a prayer.
And if he is stating religious freedom well then he don’t have the sack to admit what he was actually doing.


.

pastorjames50@gmail.com
08-02-2010, 01:14 PM
Yes, I am aware of the scripture...Matthew 6:5-8
But if you listen to the video clip carefully, I believe you are listening to a female's voice....I could be wrong though? If he was praying out so loud as to be taken like a protest, then yes, he was not obeying the Word of God.
I respect your opinion on the matter

Ken Bora
08-02-2010, 01:41 PM
Just went to the book shelf pastorjames.
Dam
That is exactly the story I was thinking of. I tell ya, 16 years of attending Catholic Mass (then I got a drivers license) and I never was able to just “Bam” know the exact passage like that. But could still chafe the catechism teachers by being able to recite the text. Go figure?


.

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 01:54 PM
His arrest had nothing to do with whether he was praying or not. It had to do with demonstrating within eight feet of the entrance to the clinic. Such laws were passed only when anti-abortion demonstrators began demonstrating in a manner that intentionally disrupted operations by interfering with free access. I suspect that had he simply stood there quietly, without a man next to him with a sign to make it clear this was part of a protest, nothing would have happened. Instead, he clearly decided to test a law with which he disagrees. That is a form of civil disobedience which I generally support, but I also assume that those arrested expected to be arrested and even needed to be arrested to pursue their point. If his point is to challenge the law, he can now do so. If his point was to make a video, it is now made and he can pay his fine, or serve his time. No big deal.

The law reads as follows:
A person commits disorderly conduct when (s)he knowingly either:
(1) approaches another person within eight feet of such person, unless such other person consents, for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person in the public way within a radius of 50 feet from any entrance door to a hospital, medical clinic or health care facility, or

(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person entering or leaving any hospital, medical clinic or health care facility.

Each offense comes with a fine of not more than $500.
Interestingly, Chicago ordinances prohibit all protests within 150 feet of any church, resulting in complaints from a Catholic Church when a number of gay activists held a small protest on the sidewalk in front of a cathedral during a Valentines Day mass.

dnf777
08-02-2010, 03:30 PM
What kind of disrespectful God-hater prays with a cheap baseball cap on his head? It didn't look very cold outside!

I was taught to be humble before God. That means removing your cover, and bowing your head.

ducknwork
08-02-2010, 03:32 PM
His arrest had nothing to do with whether he was praying or not. It had to do with demonstrating within eight feet of the entrance to the clinic.WRONG. Reread the law. Such laws were passed only when anti-abortion demonstrators began demonstrating in a manner that intentionally disrupted operations by interfering with free access. I suspect that had he simply stood there quietly, without a man next to him with a sign to make it clear this was part of a protest, nothing would have happened. Instead, he clearly decided to test a law with which he disagrees. That is a form of civil disobedience which I generally support, but I also assume that those arrested expected to be arrested and even needed to be arrested to pursue their point. If his point is to challenge the law, he can now do so. If his point was to make a video, it is now made and he can pay his fine, or serve his time. No big deal.

The law reads as follows:
A person commits disorderly conduct when (s)he knowingly either:
(1) approaches another person within eight feet of such person, unless such other person consents, for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person in the public way within a radius of 50 feet from any entrance door to a hospital, medical clinic or health care facility, or

(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person entering or leaving any hospital, medical clinic or health care facility.

Each offense comes with a fine of not more than $500.
Interestingly, Chicago ordinances prohibit all protests within 150 feet of any church, resulting in complaints from a Catholic Church when a number of gay activists held a small protest on the sidewalk in front of a cathedral during a Valentines Day mass.



He was the one that was approached. Try again, Jeff.

road kill
08-02-2010, 05:03 PM
Chicago ordinances prohibit all protests within 150 feet of any church, resulting in complaints from a Catholic Church when a number of gay activists held a small protest on the sidewalk in front of a cathedral during a Valentines Day mass.
:confused:



Oddly, if this man had been lamenting the virtues of Islam, illegal aliens, gay rights or pro-abortion nary an independent middle of the road eyebrow would have been raised.



RK

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 05:17 PM
:confused:



Oddly, if this man had been lamenting the virtues of Islam, illegal aliens, gay rights or pro-abortion nary an independent middle of the road eyebrow would have been raised.



RK
Rather than indicting in the absence of facts, why don't you go and do any of those things at the same location to see what happens. Personally, I would be happy to see the same rules applied to both churches and clinics. I see no reason to treat them differently.

pastorjames50@gmail.com
08-02-2010, 05:28 PM
Church and State??? Don't forget the government and rules of order within the government were based on the Presbyterian Church system.
Church and State are completely separate with the Church over-ruling the government.

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 06:23 PM
Church and State??? Don't forget the government and rules of order within the government were based on the Presbyterian Church system.
Church and State are completely separate with the Church over-ruling the government.
Maybe in the eyes of an individual, but never in the eyes of the state. I'm not sure on what basis you are stating that government rules of order are based on Presbyterian rules of order. The first Presbytery was held in Philadelphia in 1706 and the first General Assembly was held in Philadelphia in 1789, two years after the Constitution was adopted. The rules of the Senate and the rules of the House were adopted by each independently of the other and without direction by the Constitution. Robert's Rules of Order, if that is what you are referencing, was not written until 1876, long after congressional rules and state rules of procedure had been put in place. Robert's Rules of Order were written by Henry Martyn Robert, an officer in the regular army, based on his experiences in the army as well as in other organizations.

Ken Bora
08-02-2010, 07:16 PM
He was the one that was approached. Try again, Jeff.
I disagree,
A building cannot walk around. He approached the building with his sign carrying buddy and his video team.
He knew exactly what he was doing. And I am not against that. I am all about the act of protest. But if your gonna do it, be proud of what your doing. Scream you chant right to the end. Make um beat you in the mouth with the billy sticks to shut you up. Don’t be denying what is obvious to all what your really doing. Don’t be lying to the world saying “I was only praying” If a big goof like me can see right through this façade I imagine God can as well.:rolleyes:

Isnt a feller protesting as such, then denying it
Just like that feller who was very close to Jesus.
But when the Romans asked him he denied it.
Nope, don’t know him. Not me I never met the Dude.
I think he denied knowing him like 3 times before the rooster crowed.



.

dnf777
08-02-2010, 07:38 PM
I disagree,
A building cannot walk around. He approached the building with his sign carrying buddy and his video team.
He knew exactly what he was doing. And I am not against that. I am all about the act of protest. But if your gonna do it, be proud of what your doing. Scream you chant right to the end. Make um beat you in the mouth with the billy sticks to shut you up. Don’t be denying what is obvious to all what your really doing. Don’t be lying to the world saying “I was only praying” If a big goof like me can see right through this façade I imagine God can as well.:rolleyes:

Isnt a feller protesting as such, then denying it
Just like that feller who was very close to Jesus.
But when the Romans asked him he denied it.
Nope, don’t know him. Not me I never met the Dude.
I think he denied knowing him like 3 times before the rooster crowed.



.


Wow. That pretty much wraps up that issue!
Well said.

pastorjames50@gmail.com
08-02-2010, 07:58 PM
Time to wrap this one up folks.
Amen

JDogger
08-02-2010, 08:10 PM
Point, Set, Match.

Clay Rogers
08-02-2010, 08:39 PM
I disagree,
A building cannot walk around. He approached the building with his sign carrying buddy and his video team.
He knew exactly what he was doing. And I am not against that. I am all about the act of protest. But if your gonna do it, be proud of what your doing. Scream you chant right to the end. Make um beat you in the mouth with the billy sticks to shut you up. Don’t be denying what is obvious to all what your really doing. Don’t be lying to the world saying “I was only praying” If a big goof like me can see right through this façade I imagine God can as well.:rolleyes:

Isnt a feller protesting as such, then denying it
Just like that feller who was very close to Jesus.
But when the Romans asked him he denied it.
Nope, don’t know him. Not me I never met the Dude.
I think he denied knowing him like 3 times before the rooster crowed.



.



That's probably the best closing argument I have ever heard, and I am a big Law and Order fan. Own it, don't cover it up, own it. Well said Ken.

ducknwork
08-02-2010, 08:57 PM
I disagree,
A building cannot walk around. He approached the building with his sign carrying buddy and his video team.
He knew exactly what he was doing. And I am not against that. I am all about the act of protest. But if your gonna do it, be proud of what your doing. Scream you chant right to the end. Make um beat you in the mouth with the billy sticks to shut you up. Don’t be denying what is obvious to all what your really doing. Don’t be lying to the world saying “I was only praying” If a big goof like me can see right through this façade I imagine God can as well.:rolleyes:

Isnt a feller protesting as such, then denying it
Just like that feller who was very close to Jesus.
But when the Romans asked him he denied it.
Nope, don’t know him. Not me I never met the Dude.
I think he denied knowing him like 3 times before the rooster crowed.



.


Guys, this doesn't wrap up jack. Ken, read the law a little better next time...He is allowed to be within 50 ft of the entrance as long as he doesn't approach another person withinn 8 ft. The only time he was within 8 ft of someone 'without consent' was when someone from the clinic approached him. Go ahead and make light of the building walking, but that just means that you and Yardley didn't get it. At least you addressed it though. Yardley just happened to miss my post that pointed him out as wrong while replying to a couple of posts directly after mine.:rolleyes: Coincidence? You decide...

ducknwork
08-02-2010, 08:59 PM
The law reads as follows:[INDENT]A person commits disorderly conduct when (s)he knowingly either:
(1) approaches another person within eight feet of such person, unless such other person consents, for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person in the public way within a radius of 50 feet from any entrance door to a hospital, medical clinic or health care facility, or



For those who missed it the first time around.

Ken Bora
08-02-2010, 09:16 PM
.....Go ahead and make light of the building walking, but that just means that you and Yardley didn't get it....

What is not to get?
The guy is against abortion.
The guy does not want to be charged with a crime.
The guy lied to authorities about what he was doing.
We all know our abc’s and 123’s and now we see our “wanna be’s”
It matters not to me if it is the abortion, or lack there of, cause.
Or the logging of trees with spotted owls cause.
Or the wearing white after labor day cause.
I simply am against people who do something and ether say they didn’t.
Or say it was something it was not.
Hypocrisy, kind of makes you want turn the tables over and toss the money changers out of the temple.
But that was another story.








.

paul young
08-02-2010, 09:53 PM
the picture shows the man within 8 feet of the doorway. how was anyone going to enter the building without a violation of that law?

this was clearly a form of protest, and i think they are getting precisely what they wanted- media coverage for their cause. in fact, i think they got MORE than their $500 dollars worth in advertising.

this is the United States of America. they are entitled to their own opinion, they are free to assemble and protest as they see fit. however when the law is broken there are consequences.-Paul

ducknwork
08-02-2010, 10:21 PM
The guy does not want to be charged with a crime.


What law did the man break?

ducknwork
08-02-2010, 10:21 PM
the picture shows the man within 8 feet of the doorway. how was anyone going to enter the building without a violation of that law?

however when the law is broken there are consequences.-Paul

1. Because he is not approaching anyone.
2. What law was broken?

Ken Bora
08-02-2010, 10:44 PM
What law did the man break?


1. Because he is not approaching anyone.
2. What law was broken?

police arrested him for violating the city's new "Bubble Zone" ordinance (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/illinois/files/Illinois/Bubble_Zone_Release.pdf).
The law, passed in October, states that a person cannot approach within 8 feet of another person without consent "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education or counseling" within 50 feet from any health care facility.
It also says a person cannot "by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction" intentionally interfere with any person entering or leaving any health care facility.

ducknwork
08-02-2010, 11:06 PM
police arrested him for violating the city's new "Bubble Zone" ordinance (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/illinois/files/Illinois/Bubble_Zone_Release.pdf).
The law, passed in October, states that a person cannot approach within 8 feet of another person without consent "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education or counseling" within 50 feet from any health care facility.
It also says a person cannot "by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction" intentionally interfere with any person entering or leaving any health care facility.

I thought that's what you might say.

In that case, the worker from the clinic should be arrested for approaching the man and orally protesting what he was doing.

Ken Bora
08-02-2010, 11:22 PM
So if the criminal did not approach the building, how did he get there?
Are you saying he was born in that spot and has never moved?
Or maybe magical wood fairies waved their wands and “POOF” there he was?
The victim, who works at the building is allowed to go in and out of the front door.
If doing this legal act brings the victim within 8 feet of the criminal, that is the criminals fault.



.

Ken Bora
08-02-2010, 11:29 PM
And duckwork,
Would you be so insisting in your argument, if for arguments sake the victim was a school girl trying to go into or out of an elementary school and the criminal was on a registered sex offender list? Where do you draw the line duckwork? In both cases the area is off limits. I cannot imagine you arguing the little girl approached him and he did nothing but stand at the door. What would the difference be?





.

dnf777
08-03-2010, 05:54 AM
Guys, this doesn't wrap up jack. .


Too late duck. Stick a fork in it! Its done!

The fat lady sang.

(or at least the burly guy in the pink hat) :D

ducknwork
08-03-2010, 06:23 AM
So if the criminal did not approach the building, how did he get there?[/FONT]



.

Why can't you understand that he is allowed to be within 50 ft of the building? And as the law is written, he did nothing wrong. You may not like what he did, but he did not break a law. Period.

As for the sex offender, I would be willing to bet that it is illegal for them to be on school property at all. Not a good analogy, but try again. What you keep ignoring about the praying man is that he is not restricted from being within any distance from that entrance as long as he doesn't approach someone else without consent.

paul young
08-03-2010, 07:09 AM
The law reads as follows:[INDENT]A person commits disorderly conduct when (s)he knowingly either:
(1) approaches another person within eight feet of such person, unless such other person consents, for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, DISPLAYING A SIGN TO, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person in the public way within a radius of 50 feet from any entrance door to a hospital, medical clinic or health care facility, or


they violated the portion i put in caps. -Paul

ducknwork
08-03-2010, 07:17 AM
The law reads as follows:[INDENT]A person commits disorderly conduct when (s)he knowingly either:
(1) approaches another person within eight feet of such person, unless such other person consents, for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, DISPLAYING A SIGN TO, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person in the public way within a radius of 50 feet from any entrance door to a hospital, medical clinic or health care facility, or


they violated the portion i put in caps. -Paul

Don't nit pick the parts that make your argument seem correct. I put the words in red that would make your all caps an offense. As the law is written, he did nothing wrong.

On a side note, a similar law was struck down in Pittsburgh as unconstitutional.

YardleyLabs
08-03-2010, 07:40 AM
Don't nit pick the parts that make your argument seem correct. I put the words in red that would make your all caps an offense. As the law is written, he did nothing wrong.

On a side note, a similar law was struck down in Pittsburgh as unconstitutional.
As is the American way, he has been arrested, he has entered a not guilty plea, and he will now have an opportunity to present his case in court. In arguing that he was approached by others and didn't approach anyone, you are making the mistake of assuming that the video shown by his supporters presents everything that happened. He did not miraculously appear in that spot, but had to approach the door at some point. Obviously, by stationing himself within eight feet of the door, he has made it impossible for anyone to enter without hearing his form of verbal protest of their actions. The law, as written, is a little sloppy. Maybe it should be replaced by the one protecting churches -- no demonstrations of any kind within 150 feet. What is good for one should be good for the other. The action involved was clearly a staged demonstration to test the law. The man involved has achieved his aim. All is good.

On a side note, the Chicago law was based on a more restrictive (100 foot bubble) law that was upheld by the Supreme Court.

ducknwork
08-03-2010, 09:34 AM
As is the American wayAnd also as is the American way, will he have any way to be 'compensated' for being wrongfully arrested? Maybe he can go have a beer with Prez O and discuss the ramifications of being punished with a baby.The law, as written, is a little sloppy. Maybe it should be replaced by the one protecting churches -- no demonstrations of any kind within 150 feet.

Yes, the law is sloppilly(;)) written. Which is exactly why he should have never been arrested in the first place.

Also, if he had approached someone and the video didn't show it, don't you think the clinic workers would be disputing that? I guess we'll see in court.

I think that would be a decent idea to use the same 150' law. While I obviously agree with one organization and not the other, I don't see where it would hurt anything. Women are going to kill babies regardless of whether the man is 2 feet or 200 ft from the entrance. Sad, very sad.

WaterDogRem
08-04-2010, 04:30 PM
Chicago dropped the charges.

ducknwork
08-05-2010, 07:14 AM
Two thumbs up.:)