Christian arrested at Pride Event

[Gingerbeardman]

I wonder if the cops didn't go to tell this guy "hey please be quieter" then he made a threat or something, and the cops maybe thought "we know the charges will get dropped but the best way to get this guy out of here and de escalate the situation is just book him so we don't have a bigger problem later." I don't have any formal police training but if this is the situation, then all the extending circumstances really don't matter. The discussion, however, has been fascinating and honestly pretty civil, which is cool.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I do not see that in my constitution can you point it out for everyone?

It's just an opinion, that's why I said should. The golden rule isn't in the constitution either but we all think it's a good idea. It's probably based on the verse "do onto others..." I won't quote it cuz there are some bible geniuses here and I'd screw it up.

 

[XMil]

Congrats on cherry-picking the easy case of table flippin' Jesus. (someone make that into a Tshirt).

Allow me to explain how I'd study this passage with my college students (I'd have them mark up the passage with colored pencils, but we won't) - first let's look at the whole passage. What comes after this? Then let's dig in at look closely at the words - who, what, when, where? (we'll get to why).

It's in the Temple, analogous to our churches. And who? It was the greedy. Those preying on the travelers (dare I say immigrants?), those from far away that needed to buy an animal to sacrifice. When? It was after Jesus entered... Where? Jerusalem. This is Holy Week. This is near Jesus's bodily end. And that brings us to why? Well, on the surface it's to remove the wicked, but if you had included the following text:

or Mark's account:

Hmm... He talks about the rebuilding, which we know now is about his death and resurection, and he did this act of defiance right squarely in front of those who have the power to condemn him to death. When we flip over tables is it really the same motivation? Be careful what you imitate.


I'm have trouble right now thinking of one passage in any of the epistles, or elsewhere in the NT advocating for Christians to behave this way. This was one situation with a defined objective in a defined place - a place of so-called believers.

Now let's go take a look at how Jesus acted in the homes of sinners...

If you're initial thought is to go to indignation and rage, are you really, fully embodying the spirit of Christ? Are they enemies that must be destroyed, or are they too children of God who are lost like you were once?


Are we like Jonah after prophesying to Nivevah? "There God, I did it. I told those wicked people your message. Now smite them!"
And speaking of, a lot of OT prophets weren't excited about what they had to say. No, they were reluctant and mournful. There lives were not happy and prosperous. Is that our attitude? One of sadness and anguish? Or is our attitude smug and haughty?


Sure does. Make no bones about, the Bible is pretty darn clear about how God feels about sexual perversion.

Are we using that to condemn those in the pews next to us or the lavish preacher in front of us? Or are we only using it against safe targets? Most everyone in this discussion (including me) have no need to worry about any homosexual temptations. It's a good sin to stand up against, I'd go so far to say repugnant. Plus, we don't have to interact with them - we stand on the other side of the street.

Why are we so intent to point out sins in non-christians why allowing sin in ourselves and other Christians?

One can even argue that ignoring Christ altogether is the worst sin. So are we as vocal in one area and not others?

Between two atheist - one straight, and one gay, who is going to hell?



Look, I'm not saying we cower, or change to match social whims - we can be strong and confident in Christ - put on that belt of truth!

We just don't have to be an ***hole about it.

There are a lot of bad cases of this:

 

[printcraft]

I do not see that in my constitution can you point it out for everyone?

It's right next to the abortion clause and the "reasonable" restrictions on the 2nd Amendment footnote.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

From a more objective point of view, I still contend this iteration of the LGBT movement has its roots in a Marxist/communist revolution. The reason why is based on the Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which calls to relentlessly attack the opposition without letting up the pressure (8), fight by no rules while forcing the other side to abide by theirs (4), provide an opposite dichotomy to your enemy and eventually it will break through (ie. every positive has its negative, support the opposite of your enemy)(11). Most relevant of all is ridicule the enemy as there is little counter offense, which infuriates the enemy causing them to react to your advantage (5). These are the same tactics being used here, from calling everyone that disagrees with you a "homophobe", to coming out with more and more ridiculous claims like men competing in women's sports or high schoolers "identifying" as cats and dogs.

It's a shift in the culture war. Like it or not, the foundations of our society were forged with Judeo-Christian values of Justice, Equality and Freedom (I know other cultures have this, but the founders and framers of our society today were inspired and enshrined Christian values into our founding documents) that was centered around the family unit. In other words, there is a specific order to our current society, and this movement is doing its best to tear these foundations asunder. It is why the opposition has put their full support behind this. It's why they target families and why they try to counteract the "conservative" dichotomy at every turn. They intend to destroy the foundations and rebuild them in their design, not through bullets and bombs, but by hijacking the minds and hearts of the future.

The foot soldiers of this movement mostly do not know they are merely pawns in this operation, and some may have legitimate reasons they walk in step with this, but they are walking down the same path many civilizations have throughout history in a collapsing society. They have been demoralized, told up is down and down is up and confused, making them easier for control as they no longer have sound footing in their judgement. This is backed up by Yuri Besmenov's (probably misspelled his name) when he described how marxism would come to America. We are in the times of the Age of Decadence described in Sir John Glubb's "Fate of Empires".

 

[buckwacker]

From a more objective point of view, I still contend this iteration of the LGBT movement has its roots in a Marxist/communist revolution. The reason why is based on the Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which calls to relentlessly attack the opposition without letting up the pressure (8), fight by no rules while forcing the other side to abide by theirs (4), provide an opposite dichotomy to your enemy and eventually it will break through (ie. every positive has its negative, support the opposite of your enemy)(11). Most relevant of all is ridicule the enemy as there is little counter offense, which infuriates the enemy causing them to react to your advantage (5). These are the same tactics being used here, from calling everyone that disagrees with you a "homophobe", to coming out with more and more ridiculous claims like men competing in women's sports or high schoolers "identifying" as cats and dogs.

It's a shift in the culture war. Like it or not, the foundations of our society were forged with Judeo-Christian values of Justice, Equality and Freedom (I know other cultures have this, but the founders and framers of our society today were inspired and enshrined Christian values into our founding documents) that was centered around the family unit. In other words, there is a specific order to our current society, and this movement is doing its best to tear these foundations asunder. It is why the opposition has put their full support behind this. It's why they target families and why they try to counteract the "conservative" dichotomy at every turn. They intend to destroy the foundations and rebuild them in their design, not through bullets and bombs, but by hijacking the minds and hearts of the future.

The foot soldiers of this movement mostly do not know they are merely pawns in this operation, and some may have legitimate reasons they walk in step with this, but they are walking down the same path many civilizations have throughout history in a collapsing society. They have been demoralized, told up is down and down is up and confused, making them easier for control as they no longer have sound footing in their judgement. This is backed up by Yuri Besmenov's (probably misspelled his name) when he described how marxism would come to America. We are in the times of the Age of Decadence described in Sir John Glubb's "Fate of Empires".

Yep, we have a prolific poster that shall remain nameless, we'll just call him\her\zim\zer poster X, here and in the groomer thread employing these tactics. It's transparently obvious.

 

[Shadow01]

If this “arrest” was justified, then I can only conclude that those representing the law in marion county failed on race day at the roundabout on georgetown and crawfordsville road. The preachers were interrupting my free speech by using a loud speaker that was drowning out my voice

 

[Gingerbeardman]

It's right next to the abortion clause and the "reasonable" restrictions on the 2nd Amendment footnote.

How would you prefer it be exercised?

 

[printcraft]

How would you prefer it be exercised?

You want government to be able to limit speech?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

You want government to be able to limit speech?

My statement was as follows:

Heaven forbid someone reads the Bible at a pride parade. He had as much right to be there as the rainbowers did.

As long as he's not shouting and trying to force his beliefs on others, I completely agree. The first amendment should be used in a courteous manner

What I meant was no matter what you have to say, the message is better received when conveyed in a courteous manner. There was another response along the lines of suggesting I was forcing my beliefs on the preacher because I thought he should be courteous. The point I'm trying to make is when exercising your free speech, you should be polite. That is to say, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all, and nobody likes being yelled at. I'm not sure where all the rest of this malarkey came from. I didn't suggest the Constitution was wrong or should be amended and I darn sure didn't mean to suggest the government should have more control. In fact, I strongly agree with Jefferson's idea of a limited national government with more power given to the states. Nowadays however, I would like to see our entire government thrown out so we can start over in the spirit of a democratic Republic, as originally intended, not the hulking overweight monster it has become. All we should keep are the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

 

[xwing]

As usual, "free" speech seems to only apply to liberal ideas, as authorities in liberal-dominated areas shut down all free speech they disagree with, while ignoring any absurd example from their own side.

 

[DadSmith]

Indeed, I wonder which fruit of the spirit he was exhibiting?

Christians are to be known for our joy and love, yet why are so many quick to anger and condemnation? Does he (or anyone else) think that someone celebrating there is going to hear him yell at them and decide they want to be a part of what he's selling? I'm a Christian, but I want none of it. Better to show someone that Jesus offers a a better and more beautiful life than to try to frighten them with threat of eternal conscious torment in hell.

I'm certainly not condoning that lifestyle - I firmly hold to the traditional biblical view of marriage, but that's not the way to win souls to Christ.


As to his arrest, I have no clue what took place before his allied started filming.

Obviously you haven't read that Paul was arrested for preaching when he was told to shut up as well. In Jerusalem and in Rome.

I do not believe the street preacher was threatening them at all with eternal damnation. I believe God's word does that.

 

[shantyshaker12]

Ok, lets go another route. I 100% can arrest someone in Indiana for DOC on a public sidewalk based on HOW they are saying it, not based on the content of their speech.
IC 35-45-1-3 Disorderly conduct
Sec. 3. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;

(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or

(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.

(b) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Level 6 felony if it:

(1) adversely affects airport security; and

(2) is committed in an airport (as defined in IC 8-21-1-1) or on the premises of an airport, including in a parking area, a maintenance bay, or an aircraft hangar.

(c) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Level 6 felony if it:

(1) is committed within five hundred (500) feet of:

(A) the location where a burial is being performed;

(B) a funeral procession, if the person described in subsection (a) knows that the funeral procession is taking place; or

(C) a building in which:

(i) a funeral or memorial service; or

(ii) the viewing of a deceased person;

is being conducted; and

(2) adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.

According to the law you've proven you "can 100% can arrest someone in Indiana" for an act such as the one in in the original post. Do you ever ask yourself if you should arrest someone for an act such as this before doing so just because you can. I'm hoping you would answer that question with, "yes, I take the situation and the circumstances into consideration before I initiate an arrest". I agree that we don't have the full context of the situation that transpired, but I hope that you use common sense and make rational decisions based on your training, experience, and hopefully based on Christian morals and principles. This reply is in no way a condemnation of your post, rather a hope that our sworn officers do not look at us citizens and decide to arrest us because either they don't agree with what we are doing, they are just having a bad day, or really just want to be elsewhere and take their anger out on someone who irritates them.

 

[blain]

In the current political climate, could you image how many heads would explode (from shock, not violence), if "National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie" were to happen now?

(Warning: sarcastic comment below)
Freedom of speech means that people advocating the same beliefs as me are free to do so.
Freedom of speech means that people advocating something other than I do should not be allowed to speak.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I just caught up on this thread. INGO is first and foremost a discussion forum. Some discussions are pretty contentious, like this one.

I'm not saying it stayed between the ditches (it did not) but it's not locked so the water went under the bridge a couple pages back.

I hadn't read the Indiana Code disorderly conduct chapter and verse in a while (thanks for posting @Denny347 .) Unreasonable noise... anything by the Bee Gees seems like unreasonable noise to me.

Politics... nuff said.

 

[chipbennett]

I dislike shouting bible thumpers as much as I dislike supergays. Just quietly be about your life and don't disrupt others.

With respect to free, lawful exercise of rights: your dislike is wholly irrelevant.

 

[chipbennett]

As long as he's not shouting and trying to force his beliefs on others, I completely agree. The first amendment should be used in a courteous manner.

The only one doing the "forcing" here is... you. Courteous is rather subjective. Also: I don't see "courteous" exception in the first amendment. In fact, I would suggest that petitioning for redress of grievances might even imply quite the opposite.

 

[chipbennett]

Indeed, I wonder which fruit of the spirit he was exhibiting?

Christians are to be known for our joy and love, yet why are so many quick to anger and condemnation? Does he (or anyone else) think that someone celebrating there is going to hear him yell at them and decide they want to be a part of what he's selling? I'm a Christian, but I want none of it. Better to show someone that Jesus offers a a better and more beautiful life than to try to frighten them with threat of eternal conscious torment in hell.

I'm certainly not condoning that lifestyle - I firmly hold to the traditional biblical view of marriage, but that's not the way to win souls to Christ.


As to his arrest, I have no clue what took place before his allied started filming.

The guy filming was there before the guy who got arrested even showed up.

The video is obvious, as are the quotes from the article:

Damon Atkins, 41, was seen on camera holding a sign at the Pride event on June 3 in the city of Reading that read 'Jesus said go and sin no more' and was quoting Bible verses at the marchers.

Police came over and confronted Atkins, who pointed out that he was on public property.

The officer can be seen telling him while 'it is public property' he should 'let them have their day' and 'respect it' - referring to those celebrating Pride.

Atkins can be heard replying: 'Know who's cheering for us? The people who are in Hell. So you do you and I'm going to do me.'
...
As the video continues, Atkins can be seen continuing to preach a verse from Corinthians when Officer Bradley McClure is heard saying: 'That's it, you're done' before putting Atkins into handcuffs.

Atkins is then taken off and put against a wall to be secured - as applause rings out from people in the background attending the Pride event.

'I can't believe this is happening in Reading,' a person can be heard saying off camera.

Matthew Wear, who took the video, added that it was 'an incredible providence that the Lord is allowing me to film this.'

Reading Police Chief Richard Tornielli said that Atkins was only arrested because he was being 'disorderly' and had nothing to do with the content of his speech.

'Our officers gave him warnings to cease that behavior as it was disrupting the event that was taking place,' he told WFMZ.

I especially like the Fascist response from the Pride attendees, clapping for the police violating the civil rights of someone they disagree with.

This is blatant violation of civil, constitutionally protected rights. I hope it earns the city and those police officers a 18 USC 242 lawsuit.

 

[chipbennett]

So what? Point is that we are taking this at face value. When does ANYONE here take news articles at face value? Oh right, when it aligns with their belief system. Like I said, they very well may be 100% wrong but more info is needed. Like body cam or a detailed PC. My story was to lay out that a 100% legit arrest could be twisted to sound EXACTLY this article and many here would see it that way, take the story at face value.

The entire encounter is on video. The guy recording was there, recording and narrating, prior to the guy who got arrested even being there.

 

[chipbennett]

So you agree that the idiot yelling bible verses should have been removed?

In who's house/on what private property did this interaction take place?