|
Post by lifeandliberty on Jul 31, 2006 10:10:22 GMT -5
Abortion protest set
Below is an article that ran in The Fayetteville Observer on Thursday, July 27, 2006 just prior to LLM's Tour stops in Fayetteville N.C.
A pro-life group is planning to protest today outside a Fayetteville reproductive health center.
Life and Liberty Ministries, a pro-life organization based in Powhatan, Va., is visiting areas across North Carolina as part of its Face the Truth tour.
In Fayetteville, the organization plans to visit the Hallmark Clinic before going to another location in the afternoon. Details about the second location were not available Wednesday night.
“We plan to stand outside these clinics and distribute literature, show photographs of murdered preborns and provide one-on-one counseling,” said Dennis Green, director of the group. “We are a peaceful Christian organization of parents and grandparents, and we don’t want to cause any trouble.”
The Fayetteville Police Department has been talking with the organization over the size of the signs that it plans to display. A city ordinance prohibits any sign larger than 2 by 2 feet, but Green says the group plans to use signs that are 3 by 5.
“It’s not an issue of size, it’s an issue of freedom of speech,” Green said. “The Police Department wants our signs small enough so that they can’t be seen from the street.”
Jamie Smith, spokeswoman for the Police Department, said the issue is with the size of the signs, not the message.
Green said that city ordinances restricting sign sizes have been a problem in other cities in previous tours, which took the group to Virginia, Florida and New Hampshire.
“If police have raised an issue about city ordinance, our attorney has gotten in contact with officials and it is sorted out,” Green said. “Eventually, most localities realize that you can’t limit speech in that way if there’s no reason involved, such as safety. As far as I know, there isn’t.”
As of Wednesday night, Life and Liberty Ministries had not filed paperwork to complete its permit to picket. Smith said even if the group did not file the paperwork before it went to the clinics, it would not be a problem.
“They still have the opportunity to fill out the form on site. It’s very short and will only take a few moments,” Smith said. “If they refuse to fill it out and don’t leave the area when asked, they can then be arrested for refusal to disperse.”
Durham next stop Following a Friday morning demonstration on Eastern Boulevard, the organization is scheduled to visit Planned Parenthood in Durham. Officials said there has never been an organized protest at the clinic, just small groups of people that gather outside.
Paige Johnson, director of public affairs at Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina, said she was not anticipating any problems with the organization and business would take place as usual.
“We believe that the most important thing is to keep our doors open,” Johnson said. “The Fayetteville program is all about education for kids and parents. We’ve had more people supporting us in our efforts to prevent teen pregnancies than have spoken against us.”
Fayetteville reproductive health clinics have been the target of attacks in the past. In September 1998, arsonists set fires at the Carolina Women’s Medical Clinic on Gillespie Street and the Hallmark Clinic on East Russell Street. Less than a month later, sticks of dynamite were discovered outside the same clinics. The dynamite was found to be capable of igniting, but it did not detonate. No injuries were reported.
Green said his organization was disappointed in the permit process and would take legal action against the city if it was prevented from showing the photographs.
“We’re not out to stir up trouble. We want to use a public location to just spread our word,” Green said. “When it comes down to having to ask permission to be on a public sidewalk, I feel that this is no longer the America that our Founding Fathers envisioned.”
By Jarel Loveless Staff writer
|
|
|
Post by lifeandliberty on Jul 31, 2006 10:12:54 GMT -5
Abortion protesters forced to follow sign rulesBelow is an article that ran in "The Fayetteville Observer" on Thursday, July 28, 2006 during LLM's Tour stops in Fayetteville N.C.Click www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=21 to see more photos. About 25 abortion protesters demonstrated Thursday morning outside the Carolina Women’s Medical Clinic on Gillespie Street. The protesters were affiliated with Life and Liberty Ministries, an anti-abortion organization based in Powhatan, Va. They are visiting areas across North Carolina as part of the organization’s Face the Truth tour. Officers from the Fayetteville Police Department forced the protesters to use signs that complied with a city ordinance regarding their size. The ordinance requires all signs to be 2 feet by 2 feet or smaller. The protesters originally had signs that were 3 feet by 5 feet. They used the larger signs for about an hour before switching to smaller signs that complied with the ordinance. “A car driving by is not going to see our message with the small signs,” said Dennis Green, director of Life and Liberty Ministries. “These displays are designed for mass exposure, and we’ve been stripped of the ability to present our message.” The signs showed large pictures of aborted fetuses and had messages such as “Abortion Kills Children.” Green said the graphic nature of the pictures conveys their message the best. “People say that the signs are graphic, but abortion is graphic,” Green said. “Gassing millions of Jews is graphic, and seeing pictures of thousands of them stacked like cordwood made people see the horrors they went through. We need to see the reality. It’s graphic, yes, but killing children is graphic. If it’s too graphic to look at, then why do we still do it?” Johnny Hunter, worship leader at Cliffdale Community Church in Fayetteville, was among the protesters. He said that being forced to change signs violated his rights. “We feel that this is a violation of our First Amendment rights,” Hunter said. “Any time the city can tell you the size of what you can show, and make it so small that your message cannot be seen, that’s an infringement. The city should know that we’re not just going to lay down and take it.” Hunter and Green said the organization plans to take legal action against the city. Jamie Smith, spokeswoman for the Police Department, said the only issue was with the size of the signs. Many drivers passing the clinic slowed to read the signs. Some honked their horns and a few stopped to shake hands with the protestors. The drivers were more responsive than usual, said protestor Nancy Major. Major, who is from Phoenixville, Pa., has been an anti-abortion activist for 18 years. She said she has enjoyed her time with the organization because it gives her a chance to interact with people like her. As employees entered the clinic, Major yelled at them using a childlike voice. “Don’t kill me, mommy; my little heart is beating!” she shouted. Officials at the clinic declined to comment on the protest. Dan and Theresa Frazier watched the protest from outside their home, which is across the street from the clinic. They have lived there since 1993. “Standing out here is not going to accomplish anything except causing distractions,” said Theresa Frazier. “All they want is attention. They want the police to come out, and they want the media to come out. If everybody just left them alone to stand out there in the sun, they’ll eventually just get tired and leave.” According to Hunter, there are several church groups that offer help to pregnant women, but officials are working to form an anti-abortion organization in Fayetteville. They plan to remain affiliated with Life and Liberty Ministries. “We look to build support through networking with other organizations,” Hunter said. “Here in Fayetteville, whatever an expecting mother needs, we will be able to provide it for her.” By Jarel Loveless Staff writer
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 15:12:17 GMT -5
christians have to follow the rules too. the signs would have been enforced on any group, therefore it cannot be a violation of rights. christians are always the first ones to cry persecution...
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Jul 31, 2006 19:22:53 GMT -5
christians have to follow the rules too. the signs would have been enforced on any group, therefore it cannot be a violation of rights. christians are always the first ones to cry persecution... Wrong..it's viewpoint discrimination against the Christian faith and message. They want them to display signs that nobody can see. The regulation is only enforced if somebody complains. You must also consider that the police agencies practice "community policing" as their mode of law enforcement. This is where the police are held accountable by community leaders. This is in fact a Trojan horse into law enforcement by humanist activists. The whole thing is a set up....to enforce a kind of civility. We need to exercise our civil liberties or they will be taken away from us. What Denny is doing....should be supported by every single Christian.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Jul 31, 2006 19:34:15 GMT -5
Do you really think the police would enforce rules like this against sodomites and such when they do what they do in the public relm. Of course not.... why?? Because they are the ruling elite.
|
|
|
Post by lifeandliberty on Jul 31, 2006 19:37:07 GMT -5
christians have to follow the rules too. the signs would have been enforced on any group, therefore it cannot be a violation of rights. christians are always the first ones to cry persecution... Our Nation has been blessed with a Constitution that insures certain rights. That is the basis upon which all "lawful" ordinances are to be based. If an ordinance is unconstitutional, it is no law at all. Every freedom loving street preacher understands this concept. Ordinances are often enforced that would silence a preacher if they were obeyed. Christians are to obey "lawful" orders if they don't silence the gospel message. If orders silence the message and are unconstitutional on top of that, they should be challenged and overturned.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 20:18:27 GMT -5
the size is unconstitutional? so, you have no problem with a huge sign that says, "the devil is the light, way and truth?"
|
|
|
Post by lifeandliberty on Aug 1, 2006 8:49:33 GMT -5
the size is unconstitutional? so, you have no problem with a huge sign that says, "the devil is the light, way and truth?" The freedom of speech goes beyond the spoken word. The courts have always said this. An attempt to silence speech whether it is spoken or transmitted by use of a sign or banner is unconstitutional. If a size limitation prevents the message from being transmitted (even visually), it is an unconstitional limitation. The only factor that should have bearing in this case is safety, and that isn't the issue here. Our ability to get our message across to pedestrians and motorists was infringed upon. As to your second question, you have the right under the constitution to make foolish statements like the one you mentioned above. We're talking about that which is legal. We're not distinguishing between speaking truthfully and making foolish statements.
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Aug 5, 2006 1:18:32 GMT -5
Well, sorta. Only if a court interprets that an ordinance is unconstitutional. If it's not addressed in a civil proceeding and overturned, it will still be law on the books and enforceable. It's hit or miss with courts how they'll rule.
I disagree with Dennis Green. I don't think it's a matter of the police department wanting signs to be seen from the street or not. The ordinance apparently states they have to be 2 x 2. They can't arbitrarily decide which code to enforce and which not to--and the police certainly do not have the authority to make the laws. They are charged with enforcing the entire ordinance.
I agree with their anti-abortion position, but not necessarily their entire rationale of their argument in this situation. Kinda makes them sound like loose cannons.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 5, 2006 7:54:05 GMT -5
liberty, i am glad you know that you too have rights to make foolish statements, but i sincerely doubt that the size of sign was an act of persecution against christians. also, signs DO cause wrecks, and other unfortunate events. safety is an issue. you refuse to see it because your god is 'too big' and is always in the way of 'reasoning.'
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Aug 5, 2006 17:04:23 GMT -5
liberty, i am glad you know that you too have rights to make foolish statements, but i sincerely doubt that the size of sign was an act of persecution against christians. also, signs DO cause wrecks, and other unfortunate events. safety is an issue. you refuse to see it because your god is 'too big' and is always in the way of 'reasoning.' Police officers are part of the executive branch of government. They have their own attorney...the district attorney. If they know to a moral certainty that they will be asked to enforce certain laws. 1) Then they are required to know what is enforceable and what is not. 2) They are frequently told not to enforce certain laws by the DA. For various reasons. 3) Their personal assets can be seized in cases where they were found to be deliberately indifferent. 4) The DA is their boss in cases like this..not borough managers and such. Often times cases like the above are instances of community oriented policing abuses. What is community policing: Effective community policing has a positive impact on reducing neighborhood crime, helping to reduce fear of crime and enhancing the quality of life in the community. It accomplishes these things by combining the efforts and resources of the police, local government and community membersCP is being used as a Trojan Horse into law enforcement by community activists..who seek to effect social change. Who ever made that law that the police wrongfully enforced. More than likely it was made to enhance the quality of life in the community. But that does not Trump constitutional freedoms. Politics come heavily into play. Whatever one thinks about it....there is liability involved for mistakes and community policing abuses that have become institutionalized discrimination in law enforcement. Same is being used by the politically correct as a tool to suppress Christian speech. Unless we use our freedoms..we will lose them.
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Aug 6, 2006 12:15:39 GMT -5
liberty, i am glad you know that you too have rights to make foolish statements, but i sincerely doubt that the size of sign was an act of persecution against christians. also, signs DO cause wrecks, and other unfortunate events. safety is an issue. you refuse to see it because your god is 'too big' and is always in the way of 'reasoning.' Police officers are part of the executive branch of government. They have their own attorney...the district attorney. If they know to a moral certainty that they will be asked to enforce certain laws. 1) Then they are required to know what is enforceable and what is not. 2) They are frequently told not to enforce certain laws by the DA. For various reasons. 3) Their personal assets can be seized in cases where they were found to be deliberately indifferent. 4) The DA is their boss in cases like this..not borough managers and such. Often times cases like the above are instances of community oriented policing abuses. What is community policing: Effective community policing has a positive impact on reducing neighborhood crime, helping to reduce fear of crime and enhancing the quality of life in the community. It accomplishes these things by combining the efforts and resources of the police, local government and community membersCP is being used as a Trojan Horse into law enforcement by community activists..who seek to effect social change. Who ever made that law that the police wrongfully enforced. More than likely it was made to enhance the quality of life in the community. But that does not Trump constitutional freedoms. Politics come heavily into play. Whatever one thinks about it....there is liability involved for mistakes and community policing abuses that have become institutionalized discrimination in law enforcement. Same is being used by the politically correct as a tool to suppress Christian speech. Unless we use our freedoms..we will lose them. Interesting thoughts on the "community police" model. Sounds a bit grounded in the "secret police" frame of mind. I do agree that some laws are selectively enforced.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Aug 7, 2006 1:14:13 GMT -5
It was under the justice department of the Clinton administration's first term that the trend was set for the nations police agencies to move in the direction of CP. There was a hidden agenda and no one caught it. I remember sitting in a meeting years ago when CP was first explained to me. The unsaved guy sitting nest to me said, "there has to be liability in this". You can see how deadly this has become to freedom when one considers that federal judges are picked by politicians. I think that people are right to challenge these laws. But it's not so much the law; rather, it's the combining the efforts and resources of the police, local government and community members where the collusion comes in. I hope that future court cases will start to address this problem.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Aug 7, 2006 1:21:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Aug 7, 2006 11:35:10 GMT -5
This case is unbelievable...it's the same thing occuring in both cases though. Individual rights are being subornated. Just like in a communist country.
Center for Law and Policy Press Release Case of the Bible “conveying message of intolerance” to be argued tomorrow in federal appeals court E-mail this page to a friend Printer-Friendly Version Contact: Diane O'Neal, 662-680-3886 American Family Association P.O. Drawer 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 1-662-680-3886
For Immediate Release: 8/7/2006
New York, NY - The American Family Association Center for Law & Policy (CLP) announced today that Stephen Crampton, Chief Counsel for the CLP, will argue a case tomorrow, August 8, at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals presenting the question whether it is constitutionally permissible to characterize the Bible as “bigoted” and to condemn it as conveying “a message of intolerance that is not welcome” in New York City.
The case arose when a church leased two billboards in March of 2000 containing four translations of Leviticus 18:22, which declares homosexual behavior as sinful. The billboards, which by contract were to remain up for a month, were covered over within a matter of days after the City and the vocal homosexual community complained that the billboards were offensive and should not be allowed.
Guy Molinari, then Borough President of Staten Island, where the billboards were located, wrote a letter to the owner of the billboards telling it that the scriptures were “not welcome” in the City and urging disclosure of the sponsor of the message. On the same day, the billboard owner covered up the scriptures and simultaneously released the name of the sponsor, Pastor Kristopher Okwedy of Keyword Ministries.
Pastor Okwedy, a Nigerian immigrant, immediately began receiving hateful messages and even death threats from those who found the message offensive. But although the City’s Bias Crimes Task Force investigated Okwedy for alleged “hate speech” on his signs, they refused to take any action to protect him from the death threats attacking his religious views and smearing him as a “n-g-er.” Okwedy also notified police he had received a package that he feared might be a bomb, but was told by NYPD to “just open” the package.
"This case presents the clearest example yet of the continuing erosion of the constitutional protections for churches and religion against the incessant onslaught of the homosexual agenda," said Stephen Crampton. "The actions of the City communicated unequivocally that traditional religious beliefs about homosexuality will be censored, even when simply quoting scripture," Crampton added.
The case is styled Okwedy v. Molinari, Case No. 05-6217.
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Aug 7, 2006 11:46:00 GMT -5
That is remarkable. Especially from the president of Staten Island. Who gives the "king" the right to decide what's acceptable and what's not! Good men have DIED to defend the right of free speech this country; this guy really has his nerve!! What's HIS email address!?!
The billboard owner is a true coward too.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Aug 7, 2006 12:30:18 GMT -5
Here is a link to the story: www.afa.net/clp/ReleaseDetail.asp?id=129Consider that through Cp they control the administration of law. That is scarry. Now you know why Christians can't stand on the side walk.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Aug 8, 2006 14:45:03 GMT -5
Here is a link to the story: www.afa.net/clp/ReleaseDetail.asp?id=129Consider that through Cp they control the administration of law. That is scarry. Now you know why Christians can't stand on the side walk. 'Bible Billboard' Case Being Heard Today in The Big Apple By Jim Brown August 8, 2006 (AgapePress) - A federal appeals court in New York will once again be hearing arguments in a case involving a church in Staten Island that was banned from displaying a billboard because it contained a Bible verse condemning homosexuality.In 2000, a church called Keyword Ministries contracted to post a billboard on Staten Island containing one scripture verse in four translations -- "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22, KJV). The billboard was signed: "I AM your Creator." (See earlier article) A reproduction of Keyword Ministries' billboard in New York After a great deal of public outcry, the president of the borough publicly said the billboard served no useful purpose and was essentially "hate speech." He then wrote a letter to the billboard company, arguing the sign was a message of intolerance and "not welcome" in the borough. Later the sign company took it down. In September 2000, the Center for Law & Policy (CLP) -- the legal arm of the American Family Association -- filed a lawsuit on behalf of the church, claiming a government entity exercised its influence to suppress free speech. The suit has been dismissed twice by the federal district court for the Eastern District of New York. It is being heard again today (August 8) before the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Mike DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the CLP, is appearing before the Second Circuit to present the case. He says the case is a clear-cut example of religious censorship. " The city cited their anti-discrimination law as the basis for their action," DePrimo explains. " They essentially said that stating that homosexuality is a sin violated laws against intolerance." In fact, however, the city was promoting religious intolerance, says the attorney. "What we like about the case is that this is not the pastor's personal sentiments; this is pure scripture," DePrimo says. "He simply quoted the scriptures [and] put them up on the billboard. And, essentially, the city's attack is on the Holy Bible; it's not on religious speech as such. It's on the Holy Bible itself." In a press release the legal group says it intends to question whether it is constitutionally permissible to characterize the Bible as "bigoted" and to condemn it as conveying "a message of intolerance that is not welcome" in New York City. CLP chief counsel Steve Crampton, also in New York to argue the case, believes the case is an example of the continuing attack on religious freedoms in the U.S." This case presents the clearest example yet of the continuing erosion of the constitutional protections for churches and religion against the incessant onslaught of the homosexual agenda," says Crampton. "The actions of the city communicated unequivocally that traditional religious beliefs about homosexuality will be censored, even when simply quoting scripture."The CLP attorneys say if they fail in today's bid before the Second Circuit, they intend to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is Okwedy v. Molinari.
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Aug 8, 2006 15:32:15 GMT -5
Pffft...intolerant? God's laws are intolerant?? What a joke of an argument. Maybe I should go rob a bank up there and when they try to arrest me, I'll claim they are just being "intolerant" and their laws mean nothing to me. What a goof! I'd say his speech is the most hateful, because he'd rather see people judged to Hell for their sins. Boy, what a silly yankee!
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Aug 8, 2006 16:47:55 GMT -5
Ouch...there are red necks up here to you know.
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Aug 8, 2006 22:42:27 GMT -5
Ouch...there are red necks up here to you know. Well, if they don't know how to make a still, it doesn't count...LOL
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 9, 2006 11:25:43 GMT -5
christianity is an abomination.
|
|