Are these vieled Threats? Started something we can't finish? Sounds like FIGHTING WORDS to me, what will Mayor Rocky think? Are the LDS forming a Posse? Are the LDS Inciting violence? Here is an interesting Provo Article that generated enough angst among the faithful, that Rocky moved on it.
Escalation likely at next LDS Conference http://archive.harktheherald.com/archive_detail.php?archiveFile=./pubfiles/prv/archive/2003/November/30/Commentary/7464.xml&start=0&numPer=20&keyword=escalation+likely+lds§ionSearch=&begindate=1%2F1%2F1997&enddate=12%2F31%2F2004&authorSearch=&IncludeStories=1&pubsection=&page=&IncludePages=&IncludeImages=&mode=allwords&archive_pubname=Heraldextra.com%0A%09%09%09
| Escalation likely at next LDS Conference | |
| Date | November 30, 2003 |
|
If you are one of the large number of people repulsed by the vulgar use of LDS temple garments by street preachers during October's LDS General Conference, brace yourself. At next April's conference you're likely to see a major escalation. Emboldened by the lack of consequences to their attempts to incite a riot, so-called street preachers will be back with a new level of insult. In October, they used LDS garments as symbolic toilet paper as they confronted conference attendees. In April, they promise the crowd will see reenactments of LDS temple ceremonies, parodies of sacred rites, complete with ritual clothing. Tens of thousands of Mormons will be attending, as they do twice yearly. Street preachers clothed in sacred LDS vestments and shouting vulgar insults will place themselves directly in their path. It's the equivalent of a member of the Ku Klux Klan parading through a heavily black district of Washington, D.C., or southeast San Diego and shouting racial epithets. Violence is virtually assured. Such behavior cannot be condoned, nor can it hide behind the Constitution's protection of free speech. It contains nothing of value and is likely to incite ordinary people to anger and action. Of particular worry is the potential that a militant LDS faction, still seething over the garment incident and looking to settle accounts, could take matters into its own hands in significant numbers. The powder keg is very likely to blow up if Salt Lake City's police fail to take vigorous action during April Conference against the provocations of uncouth street preachers. To give police the tools they need, the city council should immediately amend the overbroad city ordinance on disturbing the peace. If written properly, a new ordinance can prevent a major civil disturbance. It needs to have real teeth, and it needs to be enforced. A U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1942 still applies: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. We thought it was important enough to include the full text of that decision on this page. In Chaplinsky, the court outlined the limits of free speech, in part as follows: "[I]t is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument." An amended Salt Lake City ordinance should draw on the language of the Chaplinsky decision. If it does, it will withstand Constitutional scrutiny. Ken Paulson, executive director of the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, said the current city language that would punish a person "... intending to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm," is too broad to enforce. Mere annoyance or inconvenience is not enough to shut down the First Amendment. Many a political protest has been annoying to those holding a contrary view. If the standard for disturbing the peace were simple annoyance, public discourse would soon settle to nothing but bland platitudes -- an undesirable result for a healthy republic. "It's a matter of a court looking at the intent and the setting," Paulson said. "If someone in a bar says 'You moron, I slept with your mother,' that would be considered fighting words." He also said using LDS garments as toilet paper to say that "your religion is feces" or "I defecate on you" would likely constitute fighting words. A street preacher on Main Street Plaza clearly used fighting words, Paulson said, when he shouted at a newlywed bride that she was a "whore." Such examples illustrate the difference between overt provocation and political or religious comments that might simply annoy some listeners. But Salt Lake City's disturbing-the-peace ordinance is flawed in another way, according to Paulson. It expressly refers to "words that are intended to cause acts of violence by the person to whom the words are addressed." By specifying words, the ordinance could be difficult to apply against inflammatory actions, such as the scatological burlesque the Salt Lake street preachers so crudely performed with LDS garments. The revised law needs to include gestures and actions that amount to speech, since many actions do just that (the actions of a flag-burner at a political rally, for example). To be airtight, the Salt Lake ordinance should be adjusted to cover all forms of _expression_, whether written, spoken or acted out. To their credit, a number of non-LDS ministers have condemned the street preachers' desecration of symbols held sacred by Mormons. In truth, all people of decency have a stake in this issue, regardless of religious persuasion. The anti-Mormon antics at General Conference are equivalent to defiling a Torah scroll on the street outside a Jewish synagogue, or making sexual or scatological references to the Virgin Mary in the presence of Catholic parishioners. At risk is the peace and tranquility to which any citizen with deeply held religious beliefs is entitled. When decency is violated for one, it is violated for all. A stronger Salt Lake City law against disturbing the peace would not abridge the constitutional right of street preachers to express themselves; they could stand on a corner and rail to their hearts' delight against Mormonism and pass out tracts outlining their differences with the LDS Church. It would, however, dampen their ability to provoke a fight with Conference attendees, then seek money in court when the desired fight comes off. One step the city can take (it was suggested during the debate over the Main Street Plaza) is to establish buffer zones where street preachers can go without interfering with Conference attendees. Allowing known provocateurs to engage in their offensive theatrics virtually at the door of the Conference Center is both unwise and unnecessary. The courts have already upheld buffer zones with abortion clinic protests. A block or two distant should work just fine in this case. The city needs to take action now, before things escalate and real harm is done. Anti-Mormon street preachers need to know that if they're going to pick a fight at Conference, they should be prepared to cool their heels in jail. | |
Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message -----From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 8:56 PMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speechBlaine wrote:
> I disagree that it is because "men like to control
> others and local government ALWAYS seeks to eliminate
> free speech," although that may be what happens in
> some instances. Rather, I think it is to protect the
> rights of the populace--which is the right not to have
> to listen to themselves being insulted, provoked, verbally
> abused, and thereby preventing them from pursuing life,
> liberty and happiness, all considered fundamental natural
> rights. As I said, your right to throw a punch ends
> where my chin begins.
You have convinced me that you do not believe in free speech. Maybe you
now need to convince yourself. I could respect what you are saying here
much more if you just came right out and said that you do not believe in
free speech.Blaine I believe in responsible free speech, but not just letting it all hang out. I also believe in natural rights, and I do not believe the supreme court ajudicates responsibly all the time. Maybe they do the best they can, but then again, maybe they just hold themselves above it all and never come down to earth and look at what nonsensical laws they have created. I think they do the latter too much. Before they allowed pornography on the internet, you could hardly even find a photo of a girl wearing a lowcut blouse showing cleavage. Now, anything goes. I think they made a huge mistake in calling that stuff freedom of _expression_, and saying it is all legit. The same with Larry Flint and his Hustler mag, and others like it.I now see sites on the internet oriented towards helping people get unhooked from pornography. Kevin posted one last week. This is a growing trend. Children who are unsupervised, as a lot of them are not, are doomed by this irresponsible adjuducation to becoming perverts. If guys like President Clinton don't ruin this country, I am sure the Supreme Court will. I am willing to bet Clinton was himself hooked on pornography. And Pres. Kennedy. You can't tell me freedom of _expression_ is all OK just because the courts allow it. Why do you think they no longer enforce laws against adultry? Because the police and the law enforement people are all hooked on porno crap and the adultry that it spawns. The cops would all have to be arrested, and probably the judges and prosecutors too. Pretty soon we will not be able to walk down the street without either meeting a street preacher, a porno addict, a baby murderer, a gay married couple, or whatever. (:>) (I like that one, what do you think?) LOLIf people need to be protected from the public speech of others, then
this is a clear statement that you do not believe in FREE speech. You
believe in CENSURED speech. You want only that speech which is
palatable and edifying for everyone. You believe like Dean apparently
does, that whoever says anything that is not edifying ought to be
silenced after a few rebukes and they still do not listen.Blaine: Dean means well . . . I think. But I think what you are seeing in me is a good ol' Republican conservative stance. You street preachers are too liberal. I side with Sean Hennity, and people like him. I am not part of the lunitic fringe, if that is what you are saying.
Blaine wrote:
> If what the person is saying is known to him as
> being an insult to the other person, he are
> definitely crossing the line, even if by his
> own definition the word may mean something else.
Hold on there. You just crossed a big line in my book. :-)
I know that the homosexuals want to be called "gay." They are offended
to be called a homosexual. However, I am offended that they have
hijacked the English language and call themselves gay. I refuse to use
the word gay in reference to them, and I rebuke those who call them gay.
In my opinion, they are playing into the deceptive game of Satan.
Homosexuals are not gay, so we all ought to stop calling them gay!Blain: I have taken no stance on Homosexuals, other than I believe laws disbarring their activities should have been enforced a long time ago. But what you say is true, as far as I am concerned.
Now here you come along and say that if I know that the term homosexual
offends them, then I am crossing the line if I refer to them as
homosexual. Or, suppose I use the Biblical word "sodomite." Now I know
they don't like the word "sodomite," so are you saying that when I read
Deut. 23:17 in the KJV, that I need to edit the words "whore" and
"sodomite" out of it before I read it, just because I know that some
people will feel insulted?Blaine: OK, well , what I think we should be talking about is whether or not street preachers are right in condemning decent people at all. . You are basically telling me street preachers have a right to be bigots, and to foist their bigotry off on anyone they please, and use freedom of speech and _expression_ as a cover. Isn't that what street preachers are all about? At least regards Mormons?
David Miller wrote:
>> Blaine, do you think it should be illegal to use words
>> like "whore" in public? Do you think that words like
>> "queer" or "faggot" or "homo" or "homosexual" also
>> should be made illegal? What about the word
>> "fornication"? I had a student this week tell me that
>> he thinks this word (fornication) should not be used
>> by preachers. I asked him what alternative word he
>> would suggest we use, but he couldn't think of one.
>> I was not surprised. :-)
Blaine wrote:
> Using these terms per se, is often done, even in church
> services and church scriptural classes. On the other hand,
> accusing people of being such is and has been held to be
> basically illegal. I am surprised the street preachers
> who did this were not sued.
LOL. What planet do you live on? If a college student tells me that he
or she has sexual intercourse on the weekends with different partners,
you can bet that I will refer to that student as a "fornicator" to the
other students. It is NOT illegal to do so, and I have never been sued
over it.Blaine: I think what we are talking about is street preachers going in among Mormons and denigrating their religion. The justification given for doing this so far has been that its OK to harrass these good people BECAUSE the street preachers do not agree with their brand of religion. Again, this is pure bigotry. Do you agree with that? or not, and if not, what would you call it?
I remember a girl coming up to me crying one night because the preacher
I was with called her a fornicator. She said he had no right to call
her that. As I talked with her, I learned that she had slept with three
different men that last year and had an abortion too. She was about to
go on a missions trip as a missionary the very next week! Well, God
brought conviction upon her and I assured her that she WAS a fornicator
and that she needed to repent. The preacher was not her problem. Her
problem was that she was deceiving herself because she did not see
herself as God saw her, which was as she really was: a fornicator.
Other Christians had deceived her into thinking that she was a good
person.Blaine: Hmm, this story sounds suspiciously like another you told me--the person was a guy, that time. (:>)
Blaine wrote:
> Regarding the yelling, waving underwear, etc, I am
> not speaking from my personal experience. I am
> speaking of what I read about later in reliable
> reports. According to reports from various sources
> --sister missionaries assigned to stand on the streets
> with the street preachers, media reports, and even
> reports from members of Protestant denominations--
> there was yelling of obscenities, waving underwear,
> even donning some of these garments.
Has it ever occurred to you that you have been lied to?Blaine: Of course, people lie all the time. Including street preachers. But the media can't seem to get away with it, or they get manhandled sooner or later. I think my sources are basically good ones however. As good as the street preachers, who obviously have an ax to grind. However, I did believe Ruben's account, pretty much. He seemed to be telling it like it was. I thought it was a little humorous even. I did see the situation as avoidable however. I think Ruben and his boys get a little too worked up over some of the gossip they hear about what goes on in the Mormon temples, don't you? (:>)Can you imagine
what the news reports were when Paul came into town? You Mormons are
treating street preachers the same way the Jews treated the apostle Paul.Blaine: There is a basic difference between being a pariah and a martyr. I see the street preachers as pariahs, not martyrs. (:>) They bring it on man, and start things they may not be able to finish. (:>) I hope all works out for the Church and them, too bad we can't feel more amicably toward one another. I think Ruben means well he just has his ladder leaned against the wrong wall.. (:>)
I suggest you go down yourself and see what is going on. Don't base
your opinion on glorified gossip.
Peace be with you.
David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
