Pocket Full of Mumbles

What's done is done, and this puppy's done. Visit me over at Pearls & Lodestones

Saturday, July 07, 2007

Now praying gets 7 Christians arrested

Holding Bibles while lying prostrate = 'Disturbing Peace'

33 Comments:

Anonymous said...: Ooo- WorldNet Daily. Such a reputable source. I'm sure they're giving us the whole, unbiased story, but... what does the National Enquirer have to say about all this?; July 08, 2007 12:24 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm with Solomon in questioning your source. BUT, if it were correct, I'd join with you 100% in opposing such a violation of our constituion.

Do you have any valid source?; July 08, 2007 12:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Here's the local coverage. I'm not sure the arrests were really a violation. I'm not anything close to an expert on law. It was a party, and the protesters weren't peacefully demonstrating outside, they were coming in and disrupting it.

If it was a wedding, could you just walk in like that?

As I said, I'm not sure where I'd fall on this one, as I wasn't there. But I'm fine as long as the same standards are applied to a gay party as to a Democratic fundraiser, a Republican fundraiser, a church dance, a gun show, or a KKK gathering.

Agreed?; July 08, 2007 12:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Here in Louisville, a war protestor was recently arrested and roughed up (this is a woman, 60 years old, with arthritis, who is a military veteran!). She attended a public concert put on by the city (I believe) and had a sign protesting the war.

No talking, no chanting, no disrupting.

THAT seems to me to cross a line (if those are the facts - there is some dispute). IF, on the other hand, she were at this city sponsored concert and she was chanting, praying, whatever up by the stage, that seems to me to be arrest (or at least removal-) worthy.

That sounds closer to what is described in this gay pride story.

If the city is putting on an event and people are disrupting the event, I'd suggest they could expect to be removed and the city would probably be well within their rights to do so.

But I'm no lawyer.; July 08, 2007 12:27 AM
Anonymous said...: I'd disagree with Dan on just one point. It's fine with me if she prays, and I doubt there's any legal issue with that (I sure hope there isn't, even tho I don't go for that kind of thing myself). It's whether she's trying to disrupt the event that's important.; July 08, 2007 12:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Well, you're certainly right that she can pray. But there's praying and then there's praying, if you know what I mean.

I would tend to agree, it's probably the disruption that get one ejected.; July 08, 2007 12:28 AM
Mark said...: I am in agreement with Sol and Dan about the biased reporting by WND. I personally will not use them as a reputable source, but since the article referred to Wichita, Kansas, which is my hometown, I decided to do some research on that particular part of the story.

WND doesn't differentiate between the three seperate stories of harrassment. They have entertwined all three so that it appears all three incidences are connected. They are not.

In the case of the Pastor being arrested at a gay pride rally in Wichita, The Wichita Eagle reports were apparently inaccurate and biased in favor of the gay rights advocates. The following is Pastor Holick's personal account of the incident in Wichita:

1. The Eagle reported that Sgt. Stull said I was arrested for "refusing to leave the festival." I did not attend the "festival." In order to attend one had to purchase a $5.00 button which I did not do. I was arrested while standing on the public sidewalk only 4-5 feet from the public street.
2. Channel 3 falsely reported that they had "witnesses" who said that I was blocking people. I did not block or hinder anyone from entering or leaving at any time. In fact, I was arrested very shortly (maybe 4 minutes after arriving).
3. We were not "protesting." We were there to witness of the truth of the Lord Jesus and to show love to our homosexual and lesbian neighbors. Anyone who truly loves someone that is involved in a self destructive behavior will confront them in love so that they may choose life instead of death.

A FEW FACTS:
78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20). Rueda, E. "The Homosexual Network." Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 53.
The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8). Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
Homosexual and lesbians make up 1-3% of the population and account for 43% of all AIDS cases.

Pastor Mark E. Holick
Spirit One Christian Center,
Wichita, Kansas; July 08, 2007 12:49 AM
Mark said...: I read Sol's link to the local coverage of the event. In my humble opinion, the protestors didn't disrupt the event by merely lying face down in the midst of the gay rights advocates. They made no noise. The gays could have simply ignored them and continued with their little rally. I don't see anywhere in that article where the protestors were given any warning. It appears that the police immeditely startd arresting them without any prior warning at all.

And, it did take place in a public park. Since when is it illegal to inhabit a public park while a rally you are not part of is taking place?

Weddings are private affairs. This was a public demonstration. Big difference. But, even if it were as private as a wedding ceremony, wouldn't the disrupters be politely asked to leave and have to refuse before being handcuffed and hauled off to jail? I don't see where that protocol was followed.; July 08, 2007 1:00 AM
Anonymous said...: It was the issue of likely to cause disturbance. Did the Christians think they were peacefully going to law on the ground all day praying? Without causing a commotion? Without disturbing the event? If a gay man in a rainbow thong walked up and down the sidewalk outside of a Southern Baptist Convention meeting it would be the same likeliness to cause a disturbance. These Christians wanted to make as big a spectacle as possible. Why did they have to lie down face-down on the ground? The Christians in that town could have had an anti-gay rally the next day in the same place, but that wasn't enough confrontation for these "Christians". The police did what was their job. Their job is not to mediate disputes or decide who is right or wrong. Their job is like a bouncer to stop/avoid the disturbance as soon as possible.; July 08, 2007 4:04 AM
Anonymous said...: The odds are more than likely that the arresting policemen were also christian. So I really think these seven people were arrested not because they were praying, but because there was likely to be a confrontation.; July 08, 2007 4:40 AM
Dan Trabue said...: "And, it did take place in a public park. Since when is it illegal to inhabit a public park while a rally you are not part of is taking place?"

I'm still unsure of the details in this, but according to what you say here, Mark, they entered an event for which you had to buy a ticket and that in itself would be enough to be ejected.

Our city (and others) have ticketed events all the time in public parks, I'm pretty sure it's legal.

By the way, Mark, thanks for not giving any credibility to WND. I don't care that they're biased. I've just encountered too many stories there where they have deliberately misreported basic facts in order to support their "truth."; July 08, 2007 7:01 AM
Erudite Redneck said...: I'd call these "victories." They went looking to get attention, and they got it. There's merit in that. But to complain about getting it afterwards is a little much. As for the "pro-homosexual" stance of the Wichita paper. Ha. Somebody get me the "pro-homosexual editor," please.

Re, "We were not 'protesting.' We were there to witness of the truth of the Lord Jesus and to show love to our homosexual and lesbian neighbors." That's churchspeak. They were protesting.; July 08, 2007 9:24 AM
Anonymous said...: OK. EVERYONE.

All I care about is that the same standards are applied in deciding whether to arrest without regard to whether this is a gay rally or a gun rights rally.

All I care about is that the same standards are applied without regard to whether the protesters are Christian or Buddhist or atheist.

It's not up to the government to impose judgment on someone's cause (within reason yada yada) or religion.

AGREED? Dan? El? Marshall? Ben? ER? Ms. G?; July 08, 2007 11:06 AM
Mark said...: Dan, the pastor in Wichita was the one who said he didn't buy an admission button. Nothing was reported about whether the 7 arrested in Elmyra had to buy tickets. But that's the kind of confusion that happens when a "News" organization links seperate incidents together into one to make them look more outrageous than they are.

ER, if you disagree with the pastor in Wichita about his motives, take it up with him. I only copied and pasted what HE said.

I said the paper was biased, and from the apparent inaccuracies in their reporting, it certainly appears that way. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Or, look at it this way. If the reporter were pro-protestor, wouldn't he/she have slanted his report in their favor instead of the other way around? Wouldn't he/she have inaccurately reported the story in favor of the protestors?

If he/she was unbiased and simply reporting the facts, why is it inaccurate? Come on, ER, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see bias in news reports.; July 08, 2007 12:11 PM
Mark said...: Wait. ER? If a news organization slants it's news in favor of those who you personally disagree with, it's biased reporting, but as long as they agree with you, they are just reporting facts?

Sheeesh! You aren't biased yourself, are you?; July 08, 2007 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Mark, I don't trust those stats. If the life expectancy of homosexuals was 42, that would be huge news. I know many homosexuals, and they're not dropping like flies.

Also, even if 78% have STD's, that hardly differs from heterosexuals- the HPV virus alone is carried by 75% of sexually active adults at some point in their lives.

Also-
wouldn't the disrupters be politely asked to leave and have to refuse before being handcuffed and hauled off to jail?

I'd sure hope so. And I'd wager they were, but we don't know that at this point. Wait for the trial testimony if you want to follow it.; July 08, 2007 3:20 PM
Erudite Redneck said...: I deny that most reporters let their personal biases cause them to report stories in ways that support their biases. Most reporters go so far out of their way to NOT be biased in favor of their own views that their reporting actually comes across as harmful to their own view.

I'm talking about reporters at everyday newspapers. I'm not talking about TV or cable. And I'm not talking about WaPo or NYT or LA Times -- although I believe their reporting is sound.

What gets me is when people like Mark, or the pastor, jump ugly on a paper like the Wichita Eagle for reporting what the cop said. If the cop was wrong, then the protestors need to take it up with him. But if the paper accurately reported what the cops said, what's the beef with the paper? And where is the "bias"? Unless you mean most papers' bias toward accepting what those in authority tell them, which is its own problem.

Whatever. If a gay rally is going on, and people show up and start lying facedown in the midst of it, and praying, and so on, they're doing it to get attention, and they shouldn't bitch when they get it. Same would go if it was a revival meeting and a bunch of anti-fundy protestors showed up.

One point: Usually when an organization stages a rally or other type event in a public park or space, they obtain a permit to do so, and with the permit comes varying levels of expectation, sometimes spelled out, that the event will not be disturbed by outsiders, or infiltrated. That's probably why the one(s) arrested were arrested. Doesn't matter that the guy didn't buy a ticket and so claims he was not "attending" the rally. If he was present, he was attending. And if the gay folks had a permit, they had a legit expectation that they would not be disturbed.; July 08, 2007 3:56 PM
Erudite Redneck said...: Mark, would you tell me just where in the hell you got this from what I wrote?

"ER? If a news organization slants it's news in favor of those who you personally disagree with, it's biased reporting, but as long as they agree with you, they are just reporting facts?"; July 08, 2007 4:00 PM
Marshal Art said...: I'm just going on record here saying that yes, I expect the same protocols and policies in place no matter what group is being dealt with.

As to the seven, I don't believe "intent" is something a cop is supposed to think he has the ability to psychically discern. If the seven expressed such an intention, fine. If not, he's making a judgement call and as explained by the seven, he jumped the gun. As reported, there didn't seem to be a cover charge for the rally held in this public place, so the seven have the right to be there. Their actions, though somewhat disconcerting for the sinners in attendance, had at that point not manifested any overtly disruptive intentions. With the cops on hand, they could have waited a bit more. Personally, though I admire their boldness, I prefer the plan of the pastor from the other story, as he did his stuff outside the event and wasn't intending to interfere with anyone.

The fact is, in these cases, as well as in abortion protests, the cops, whether Christian or not (irrelevant for a good cop doing his job as trained), often defer to the wishes of the bad guys, that is gays and abortionists. That's their call, but they need to be a little better at making those calls. They can't be inhibiting the rights of protestors just because they "think" there might be trouble.

I've read a story about a couple of guys, one a former homo and the other, just another Christian hoping to save souls, who met at a gay parade. They joined together to present their message of Christ's saving Grace and eventually, the homo supporters began to rough them up. In this case, the cops made them split. Obviously, they should have been cuffin a few of the gays for assault and battery, even after shooing away the "protesters" for their own good. What's worse, as is common in homo parades, there was again blatant and public demonstrations of indecency and debauchery. In the interest of equal application of the law, those parade participants exposing themselves and engaging in mock sexual activities should be arrested, as I know they are in violation of city codes.

Finally, this story, and others like it, are examples of what I mentioned in the previous post about losing rights due to the policies and attitudes of the "progressives".; July 08, 2007 11:23 PM
Dan Trabue said...: "Finally, this story, and others like it, are examples of what I mentioned in the previous post about losing rights due to the policies and attitudes of the "progressives"."

Only if it is a reality-based story - something that seems unclear at this point.

And if it is based in reality, then yes, a bad call was made. The difference is that if the police arrested people for quietly praying and not for disruption - they were wrong legally. They would be on the wrong side of the Constitution if that were true (whether it was peacefully praying Peace Protesters or peacefully praying gay protesters) and real progressives would stand against any such actions.

On the other hand, the Jim Crow, slavery, no voting offenses of the past were within the bounds of the law as it existed at the time.

Again, Marshall, you have very little grounds for making any claims against progressives.; July 09, 2007 7:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Marshall, kudos for acknowledging that the same protocols should be followed regardless of the group.

As for your statement that "the cops, whether Christian or not (irrelevant for a good cop doing his job as trained), often defer to the wishes of the bad guys, that is gays and abortionists," I agree on the irrelevant part, but disagree on the rest.

Number one, gays are not "bad guys." I have MANY friends who are gay, many who are in loving, committed relationships. They have been my neighbors, my coworkers, and my housemates. They are good, honest people.

Number two, I suggest that your charge that these two groups are deferred to more than others is what you perceive based on your particular point of view, and is not objectively true.

In a country as large as ours there is a steady stream of cherry-picked examples ready to support any point of view on who is getting better treatment.

In the balance, the police are probably just enforcing the law, and I am thankful for their professionalism.; July 09, 2007 9:38 AM
Marshal Art said...: I think in many cases, including the one to which I referred involving the former gay guy, the cops will take the route that results in the least harm or damage. I don't disagree with that as they have a duty to prevent people from getting hurt if possible. However, I don't recall any reports of them ever arresting the homos who are exposing themselves and pretending to have sex in public and doing so where there are many children around to see it. It doesn't happen as far as I know. Why is that so? I doubt I could simply drop my pants during a parade and not get arrested. These people are displaying themselves in the exact same way and with greater abandon. It happens every year at every parade.

The problems faced by those who attend with the intention of preaching God's Word to any of these sinners who are in doubt about their lifestyle choices, these are real also. And it happens every year at almost any parade or public function (like outdoor stuff at parks). As I said, they not always choose the best manner in which to protest, but most of them are not there to cause fights. They are treated rudely by the so-called tolerant people.

And I must say that I no longer wish to back off from the position that gays are "the bad guys". The term is loosely used, but it is based on the fact that their behavior is morally bad. You are free to disagree of course. I choose not to support any bad behavior if I can help it, and I will continue to stand for what I believe is the truth.; July 10, 2007 1:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Marshall how would you have a parade to celebrate your heterosexuality? Is your heterosexuality a choice? If a gay orgiastic cult decided to pray outside a country music festival who would be arrested?

The fact is that more christians seek out gay events than gays seek out straight events. It is your clan that is the most combative. Gay men and women make up about 3% of the population. That scares your religion to death for some reason. I have no idea why but christianity to me as an unbeliever is fear-centered.

You fear hell. You fear God. You fear gays. You fear women. May you one day find peace happiness and realization.; July 10, 2007 6:06 AM
Dan Trabue said...: "I have no idea why but christianity to me as an unbeliever is fear-centered."

Um, make that "fundamentalism" or "religiousism," to be a bit more fair, Ben...; July 10, 2007 6:42 AM
Erudite Redneck said...: Right. I'll bet, though, that in the RW, the only Christians Ben knows are just that: scared witless, pretending to be OK 'cause they've prayed "The Sinner's Prayer." Bah. Ben, before you throw the Baby Jesus out with the bathwater of yer upbringing, I encourage you to look outside yer own personal experience. Not all Christians are fearmongers.; July 10, 2007 10:10 AM
Marshal Art said...: Few are. That's just something projected upon them by those who worship their own desires over all else. I've never met any of these so-called "fear-mongers" except for those who follow AlGore and other Democratic chuckleheads.

"Marshall how would you have a parade to celebrate your heterosexuality?" I wouldn't. It's stupid trying to elevate one's station by how one pleasures one's self. I don't see that the state has an interest in enabling such people.

"Is your heterosexuality a choice?" My heterosexuality is normal.

"If a gay orgiastic cult decided to pray outside a country music festival who would be arrested?" Tough call in today's social climate. I wouldn't be surprised if any who tried to shoo them away wouldn't be accused of harrassment, intolerance, gay-bashing or any other goofy and invented evils.; July 10, 2007 6:53 PM
Marshal Art said...: "You fear hell. You fear God. You fear gays. You fear women."

Don't want to go to hell. Who would? I fear the Lord. All should (but not in the manner you imply). I pity gays. I love women. Now you know.

"May you one day find peace happiness and realization." Thanks. Pretty much there now. Not so sure about you, though. Good luck.; July 10, 2007 6:56 PM
Erudite Redneck said...: Re, "Not so sure about you, though."

Jerk. That fcomes from you bein' a Yankee, I reckon. I try to get used to it, but dang.; July 10, 2007 9:14 PM
Marshal Art said...: Just what's so dang jerk-like about my comment, ER? BenT doesn't exactly come off like he's won the freakin' lotto or something. If anyone asked me to list the posters who are chipper, I don't think I could put his name down, that's all. Bite it off, dude.; July 10, 2007 9:47 PM
Dan Trabue said...: "My heterosexuality is normal."

Normal is over-rated...; July 10, 2007 9:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Marshall, you don't know me in reality. I come here specifically to sting EL with my points. He and I before he got this blog would have furious verbal debates on all sorts of subjects at work. It became such an issue that people began to bring us subjects to get our opinion. They tried to stir up such matches. Oh it was great free theatre. But we have moved those discussions to here now.

In the waking world, I try to smile to everyone I meet. I try to be kind and considerate. EL and I are almost completely separate persons at work. But when EL enters he is not gregarious, he is not smiling. He doesn't seem to get the same joy out of life that he did before he became so involved with his religion.; July 10, 2007 10:31 PM
Erudite Redneck said...: Maybe it's because he thinks The End is Near.; July 11, 2007 3:09 AM
Marshal Art said...: Ben,

I can only go by what is written here. Your admission of attempting to "sting" our host justifies my previous impression. So you're a happy guy in the real world? Good for you. It's nice to hear. But if you think Eric is not, perhaps you need to approach him and discuss it with him privately. Your impressions might be misplaced. There is much I no longer find joyful about that which is of the world. Yet, I'm quite happy in general. Talk to him. If you really had (or have) a relationship with him, it seems appropriate to do so.; July 11, 2007 10:29 AM