Sorry lets bump it

free speach is one thing.
to disrupt a service in a rude and uncivil manner is another.
to vandalize property is yet a third.
And yes, going by what was said, vandalism did occur, even if not ont he levels of extremity that society is used to now.


The fredom of speech act grants the right to what you want as long as it does not bring harm to another person. The right for citizens to assemble, grants a person the right to protest, assemble, picket etc., PEACEFULLY. You can not disrupt another service or program without being unpeaceful and rude.

If they had simlpy chose to picket outside (without screaming, throwing things, blocking access etc,) then they would have been within every right of freedom of speech and freedom to assemble. But when they entered the church, disrupted the service, tore down a banner, and basically prevented the people from worshipiing their belief, they not only did not follow their freedom of speech and assembly rights, they took away the rights of the parishioners to practice their religion without persecution.

forgive my lynn, I am nto trying to cause trouble, hell yes I am lol, but not spitefully ...
You say do not impose religious standards on others. I happen to agree with you on that statement more than most people would believe. The questionI have though is what is yuuor belief about wether or not President Elect Obamma should have to put his hand on a bible and swear his alegiance to god (christianity)? Or that he should not be eligible for the presidency if he is a Muslim?

I know I am going to generate a lot of hateful responses here and I apologize, but if we are to not impose religious standars on anyone else, then we can not stand there and state that Mr. Obama should not be able to be president cause he is a muslim.

How do you think on this matter?

I agree they were wong and rude. I with you there. Do you want to limit the people to where and why to why they protest. You can tell me a church has the right to push its agenda in the people but its not all right the people to do it to the church.You can do that!!! Laws or interpution of them. I still have a right to say what I want about them. Maybe if people understood those laws better they might want to change them!!

I am pretty entertained by religious right types who want to impose their ideals on the rest of us in area's like abortion and marriage but who are suddenly surprised and shocked when people get fed up and come to the doors of their church and call them out.

One more instance of double standards and hypocrisy.


Double standards. I am glad this was mentioned as I have tried and tried to get an answer but the abortionists refuse.

Simple question.

Why is it a drunk driver is charged with either manslaughter or anymore 2nd degree murder if he hits a car an causes the death of an unborn child no matter what stage it is in?

Yet this same mother can abort the same child and it is protected that it is her right.


Seems double standard in a big way. Isn't taking a life the same no matter who does it?

Please give me a reasonable answer for these laws?

Can I get in on this. We as a nation have freedom of religon. As long as he has met the requirments by law I can not question his faith. Freedom of religion is for everybody. If it is ,why do I care, or even have the right to ask what faith he is?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycjxASJff1k&feature=related

That all there is to say



ANY TYPE OF REPPRESSION BREEDS RETALIATION!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_Vll-t0H6A

Not in the United States, it isn't. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

limit to where and why they protest? hell no. limit what actions they can take while protesting? hell yes. Protest with words, without hurting physically, or emotionally, another person. Do not destroy someone elses property. Do not prevent someone else from doing what they have the right to do.

As I sad, they had the right to stand outside the church, pass out flyers to those who willingly took them and speak calmly and reaonably about their issues. They did NOT have the right to disrupt the service, and vandalize the church.

And to ansower soemthing I have been seeing on the sides, no I do not believe churches should be able to force you to listne to them either. Nor do I agree that anything to do with law or government should have anything to do with church, no matter what the religion. I sure as hell do not wanna go back to the days of old when the church ruled the country.

Not since 2003 when individual state laws were declared un-Constitutional. It is 100% legal everywhere in this country.

That is true.

One problem we have though is the Media's involment on what gets the public outraged.


I will give you but one small example.

The girl who went missing in Aruba and the media focused on she must of been at least raped. Went on for months they talked about this.

Now how many of you right now remember this and even remember the girls name?


Ok now a terrible event that was a surety.

The 2 little girls who were shot execution style in Oklahoma.

How long did the media focus on this the national media I am talking about. How long?


And do you have any idea at all what these 2 little girls names were?


Think about it. You might see that you are influenced greatly.

May be you need to understand that law better. Researh it and debate. Church can and does support political agendas openly. I disagree with that!!! People have proved me wrong under the law....Time to stand back and look at those laws.....

And of cource these other groups do not have a political agenda.

Niether do they assembly and have outreach programs to influence thier members how to vote.

They must be the most honorable people on the Planet.

Wouldn't you agree?

I never said the church doesnt dot his. I said I do nto agree withthe church being able to. By written law it isnt supposed to be able to, but you know how lawyers can grease their way into anything with enough money...

Theres only 1 thing and 1 thing only that outrages me, and thats someone who feels that it is there duty to force there own opinion/belief system on others. This world is big enough for all different views and we NEED TO RESPECT THAT PERIOD!

daniel48706!!!! How many do not know what the laws mean. I could put that question out there and Ill bet more people would agree the church shouldnt be able to support policy. Well people they do and can!!!

uhh, I suiggest friend that yu dont suggest I dont know the law. No, I do not know all law, but before I satet soemthing I make sure I am relatively informed and knowledgeable about it.

Int his case, yes it is very much against the law, for churches to support policy, in so far as them having a say in the policy. That is what the seperation of church and state is about my friend. The mian problem with this is that the poeple in office want all the money the church is sending to them, so they look the other way as far as legalities are concerned. Then the ones who are not involved and could start something, receive a donation from the church as well, and thus keep their mouths shut.
Tehre was a big scandal during the election process either this time or the past election where one of the candidates was receiving illegal donations and was required to turn them back over.

So yes, it IS against the law for the church to be involved with the politics. BUT, like jaywalking, it is not enforced.

You do not see any bias that tells you something many times that you start to believe it not evening knowing why you started believing it but now you are sure it is the right thing.

Wording in a court room one lawyer says it means this. The other says it means that. but alot of evidence for a trial goes through the judge to determine which lawyer makes the most sence.
Thus very likely determining what the 12 jurors who do not know about this evidnce that may have been thrown out was.

Thus the one incontrol is the one who determines what we hear and can judge by.

Now who could that be?

Woa friend I think we agree. It comes down to interpretation of what a man said over two hundred years ago. What Im saying is if you ask 100 people, the majority by far say its is already against the law for church to participate in politics. Ive debated that and it really comes down to Interpretation of said laws. That majority of people think its already against or is aganist church donating to political parties but fail to see that it can...

I am a gay man and I am irritated at the way the gay people handled that protest. They should not have disrupted services in a church nor should have they start shouting that Jesus was a homosexual. They were completely rude and mean towards others. That will not help in the movement to get equal rights for gay people.

While I am not religious, I do feel that people should be able to worship in peace.



my feeling on the sodomy law...
why do you care about what 2 gay people are doing in the privacy of their own bedroom?

Who I am sleeping is none of anyones concern, that is MY business and MY business only.

I do not like public displays of affection but i don't like it from anyone. It is not limited to seeing a heterosexual couple kissing or a homosexual couple kissing.

My question to the people that think homosexuality is abnormal and they should not be allowed to wed....

How would you feel if they passed laws forbidding straight people to wed? It a fact that you don't need to marry in order to have children...

My view on marriage has been greatly destroyed, I always thought marriage was a union of souls, something people do when they wish to show how much they really love their partner, now i see marriage for what it truly is....

A union of genitalia...It's appaling to me and I vowed that i will never marry until marriage is once again a union of souls. Thank god in MA its still legal, the day it becomes illegal again I will start planning to move out of this country and live somewhere more accepting of people.