“Free Speech Zone” Follies

Pages: 1 2

In a case that tests the limits of the First Amendment, controversial pastor Terry Jones, who runs the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, and fellow pastor Wayne Sapp, were arrested and jailed last Friday by Dearborn, Michigan police after refusing to post a one dollar “peace bond” ordered by District Judge Mark Somers. The judge’s order came after a six-person jury ruled that both men would “breach the peace” if they held a protest outside the Islamic Center of America. Jones vowed to file a lawsuit against prosecutors and promised to return for a rally in Dearborn next Friday at 5 p.m.

After three hours of deliberation, the jury sided with prosecutors who had sought a $25,000 bond from the preacher and his associate, claiming their protest outside the mosque would likely start a riot. Prosecutors also told both men they could be jailed for up to three years if they declined to pay the $1 peace bond in protest. “I strongly voice my disagreement with the ruling,” said Sapp, when asked by Somers if he had any comment. “The peace bond is to prohibit free speech.” Both men subsequently paid the bond and were released.

But Sapp has a point. The “peace bond” is the result of a law enacted in 1927 which “may require a person to give security to keep the peace.” Yet this particular application of it appears to be somewhat novel, as the law has been used primarily in domestic violence cases to protect spouses from violent partners. Charlie Langton, lawyer and WJBK Fox 2 legal analyst, was taken aback by the ruling. “Nobody expected this,” he said. “It is prior restraint, but the judge followed the letter of the law. It’s purely legal because it’s never been challenged. That is not right. It’s an old law that I don’t think applies to this case. I think they’ll have to appeal it.”

Yet this was not the most controversial part of Judge Somers’ ruling. In a move that reportedly roiled the courtroom, he also ordered both men to stay away from the Dearborn mosque property — and the area surrounding it — for three years. In a bizarre addendum, Somers said the order would remain in effect, unless mosque leaders asked him to rescind it in the future.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had unsuccessfully petitioned the state of Michigan to throw the case out, contending that Dearborn officials had violated Jones’s free speech protections, even as ACLU spokeswoman Rana Elmir was upset that the trial had given unwarranted publicity to a “divisive and fringe figure” by banning his demonstration. “We vehemently disagree with Mr. Jones and his cohorts. However, this is a complete abuse of the court process and all those involved should be ashamed,” she said. “I believe that Rev. Jones came to Dearborn for his 15 minutes of fame and the judge and prosecutors have now effectively given him hours of that…In a free society no one should be thrown in jail for speech, even as distasteful and offensive as Mr. Jones is,” she added.

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy disagreed: “These proceedings were solely about public safety,” she said in a statement.

“This was never about prohibiting free speech or fearing rioting, but about a situation that could potentially place the public in danger in Dearborn.”

The case arose from a request by Terry Jones for a permit to demonstrate on public property across the street from the Islamic Center on Good Friday. Dearborn police denied the request claiming that that particular area, where four churches and the mosque are located, would be crowded with thousands of worshippers on that day, and that protecting Jones and his followers from violence would cost $46,000. Dearborn Mayor John “Jack” O’Reilly Jr. contended that Jones’s demonstration would create traffic problems, and in an open letter to Jones published last Wednesday, ridiculed Jones’s contention that Sharia Law had any influence in Dearborn, and urged the preacher to stage his protest in one of the city’s “free speech zones.”

Free speech zones are the result of a 1989 Dearborn ordinance requiring permits for demonstrations to be secured 30 days in advance. In 2003, the ACLU sued the city with regard to that limitation, when a protest against Israel was held in response to their soldiers entering the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin. In 2005, the federal Court of Appeals sided with the ACLU, and in 2008 the law was changed leading to the free speech zones. Former Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga contends that the law may give the city some leeway, but that it “cannot pigeonhole someone into a free speech zone if they have a valid reason for wanting to conduct speech in a different public place.” The Mayor stood by the law. “Nothing is static and the Constitution is not static either–it’s evolved,” he said.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.waterforfighting.org JFS

    I remember footage from Bobby Kennedy's California Primary Campaign of 1968, from somewhere in the Central Valley. Some local Sherriff boasted of arresting Chavez supporters and demonstrators, “locking them up before they cause trouble.” Kennedy lit into the Sherriff, citing protections under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments as to why this Sherriff was a legal danger and imbecile for arresting these demonstrators before the fact.

    In the 1970’s, this footage was shown every year by a liberal instructor of a History and Civics course at my high school. He was actually an honorable type and would be dismayed by the story above. I wish I could provide a link to that footage to rub in the face of any post-modern liberal trolling here.

  • Chezwick_mac

    “This was never about prohibiting free speech or fearing rioting, but about a situation that could potentially place the public in danger in Dearborn.”

    Ahhh…not about rioting, but about "danger". Sounds eerily validating of Robert Spencer's thesis that the violent Jihad aids and abets the stealth Jihad…and vice-versa. If the threat of "danger" is enough to revoke our first amendment rights, they no longer exist in the4 first place.

  • WildJew

    Arnold Ahlert may be right. Jones previous stunt of burning a Koran could demonstrate a level of bigotry and disrespect that should trouble reasonable people. Nevertheless, the reaction to Jones is instructive. Like much of Europe, America is becoming a dhimmi nation; a nation of supplicants.

    • StephenD

      Being disrespectful to something that encourages murder is a respectable act to my mind. But apart from this there is more at issue here. Ahlert goes on to say " Yet there is something even more troubling about Muslims who used the previous incident as justification for murder and mayhem half a world away in Afghanistan,"Something more troubling? Flat out murder is…more troubling?!? This is the direction these things take and slip right past us. Rockets from Gaza are bo-hooed. Retaliation from Israel to those same rockets provokes outcry from the world as inappropriate. Burning a Koran is bigoted. Disallowing churches to be repaired is acceptable in Muslim lands. Please, I am so sick of the unbalanced evil inherent in Islam getting a pass. Time to call it like it is. Since the Fogel Family Massacre, I give no benefit of the doubt to them and find Islam itself  more than “troubling.”

    • ziontruth

      In a day of zillions of copies of everything, burning the Koran amounts to nothing but theatrics. That said, the blame is 100% on the Muslims for their reactions. Anyone who says Jones had it coming is part of the problem.

  • OLJingoist

    The last crusade has begun. They have declared war on the world and our arrogance won't see it.
    To me Jone's is expressing his frustration with islam and the problem they refuse to acknowledge, and actually appear to support. ISLAMIC TERRORISM and Islamic totalitarianism.
    Maybe imans should be fined and jailed for reading hate (the koran) filled retoric that has caused the problem to begin with.

    • Richard

      Kudo's OLJingoist, Amazing that no one has ever raised this issue before.

  • Jared

    Its interesting the ACLU was quoted in this article. I thought conservatives couldn't stand the ACLU and have called them anti-American many times for their concern for Guantanamo detainees being tortured and the faux legal proceedings. Just curious.

    • Sprinklerman

      Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes

      • Jared

        But if you believe an organization is not credible, then why quote them?

        • Chezwick_mac

          Because doing so highlights the extent to which the authorities in Dearbornistan have violated Jones' constitutional rights even by LIBERAL standards. I would bet the farm a liberal would readily quote from the Tea Party if it meant highlighting the extent to which a conservative political entity was violating constitutional norms – for as long as that liberal and the Tea Party happened to be on the same side of the issue.

          The over-all criticism of the ACLU remains absolutely valid. They chose NOT to legally challenge the teaching of Islamic prayer in some California middle-schools (under the rubric of "cultural education") that clearly violated the separation of church-and-state…something they would never have stood for had it been Christian prayer. They are clearly selective and hypocritical in their defense of constitutional rights.

          • Jared

            My point though was that the ACLU has been portrayed by conservatives not simply left leaning, but not even a credible organization. For example, I would quote the Cato Institute to prove a point, but not James O'Keefe.

            The case you are referring to was an elective course on culture taught in Byron MIddle School. Parents could request their child be given "alternative assignments" while studying the Middle Eastern content, and three families requested alternative assignments. Not quite the cases that ACLU takes on. There has to be some kind of infringement on free speech to win a lawsuit.

          • Chezwick_mac

            I see. Because it was an "elective", it somehow didn't broach the church-state firewall?

          • Jared

            The difference is elective is an option versus mandatory which is not. Choice. That's the point.

          • Chezwick_mac

            I disagree. There are no "electives" teaching Christian prayer in our public schools…the ACLU has made sure of that.

            Furthermore, was this course an "elective" BEFORE the 'Thomas Moore Law Center" took it to court?…i.e., was it an elective when the ACLU decided NOT to litigate?

    • Morty62

      I'm a supporter of the ACLU because they stick up for the Bill of Rights no matter what the political stripes of the person whose rights are being violated. They also stood up for Rush Limbaugh over seizure of his medical records.

    • AB7

      Your problem is thinking like a liberal and prejudging entire groups or organizations. With regard to the problem of Islam, it is so great, that literally ANY person or group who figures out the truth about Islam and is willing to speak or write about it, well they become part of the solution. If Satan himself decided to join the forces of anti-Jihad he would need to be welcomed. If the lowest child molester or murderer figured out the truth about Islam and chose to write and speak about it, even his efforts would be helpful. The situation is simply that dire. If your house was burning down you wouldn't turn away someone willing to help put the fire out no matter who they were or what their political beliefs or actions were.

      And there is an interesting comparison of this aspect of the problem to Islam itself. If a non-Muslim commits a crime, even murder, his crimes will be forgiven if he becomes a Muslim. Islam overrides everything. For non-Muslims only the same attitude will save us from destruction at the hands of Islam. It is literally Islam VS. everything and everyone else that does now or ever will exist.

  • Ollie North fan

    Yet they allow those who protest at the funerals of soldiers who were kia to continue their distasteful exhibits under the guise of free speech. Strange…

    • Jared

      I agree in this case. Living in Arlington, I have been to funerals with the protestors there, which is perhaps the most despicable kind of protest out there in my opnion. Jones has been denounced by people of his own faith even. He is already on the fringe and irrelevant. By paying attention to him makes him artificially important.

  • tpartisupporter

    Youtube has video of a group of christian men handing out Gospels of John "by" the Dearborn Islamic Festival, within minutes they are surrounded by at least 8 police officers and ushered away from the protected Islamists. We have a problem here!!!

    • Chezwick_mac

      "Deabornistan" has been christened such not just because of its huge Arab/Muslim population, but because of its thoroughly dhimmified city hall and police dept.

  • Stephen_Brady

     ”Nothing is static and the Constitution is not static either–it’s evolved …”.

    Obviously, the man has never read the Constitution.

    • trickyblain

      But it has evolved. Blacks are no longer considered 2/3 people. Women can vote. The voting age is now 18, rather than 21. Amending = evolving.

    • tagalog

      I don't think a piece of paper with writing on it can evolve. Our understanding of it can change over time as perceptions and customs change, but I don't know if such a change can be called "evolving."

      • Stephen_Brady

        I agree with you. It can be amended, and that process was intentionally made difficult. It can be changed through "judicial activism", but I doubt that process' constitutionality.

        For example, I have been in favor of a Constituional Amendment banning deficiti spending, i.e., a Balanced Budget Amendment, since I was in my early 20's (about 40 year ago!). I would be opposed to any court imposing balanced budgets.

  • Liberty Clinger

    "There is no question that Terry Jones is a rabble-rouser, and that his previous stunt of burning a Koran demonstrates a level of bigotry and disrespect that should trouble reasonable people."

    No. Mr. Jones is not a rabble-rouser; he is a patriotic American who is defending our Bill of Rights (man's God-given right to free speech).

  • AB7

    "There is no question that Terry Jones is a rabble-rouser, and that his previous stunt of burning a Koran demonstrates a level of bigotry and disrespect that should trouble reasonable people. "

    What an absurd statement! Burning, shredding, defecating on, spitting on, or in any other way mutilating a koran is 1000 times less offensive than the contents of the koran, 1000 times less offensive than the millions of souls lost due to Islam, 1000 times less offensive than the civilizations destroyed by Islam. In fact, paying respect to the koran is a more offensive act than most anything else one could imagine doing to or with the koran. The koran is a categorically evil book that has caused countless destruction and evil in the world – the time has come for people to stop paying respect to the koran because the fact is, it is evil to respect the koran.

  • Liberty Clinger

    Witness the rational intolerance of our Founding Fathers:

    “In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live.” Samuel Adams

  • ObamaYoMoma

    To sum it up, this is another loss for freedom and another incremental victory for Islam. The question is where will we draw the line? Will we end up sacrificing away all of our freedoms and values because of the fear of violence?

    Indeed, this whole issue is very perplexing and worrisome. Obviously, without a population of Muhammadan immigrants and thousands of mosques and madrassas already present here in the USA, the 9/11 terrorists attacks would have been completely impossible. Yet, no one ever points to this obvious fact. In fact, it is avoided like the plague. Instead, our federal government tells us that Islam is a Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists.

    Despite the fact that in every non-Muhammadan country in the world where mass Muhammadan immigration has occurred, the vast over-whelming majority of the Muhammadan immigrants have flat out refused to assimilate and integrate and formed Muhammadan no-go zones ruled by Sharia as parallel societies within societies and in direct contravention of the laws of the states in which they reside.

    Despite the fact that in every Muhammadan majority country in the world, without exception non-Muhammadan unbelievers that are citizens of those countries are violently oppressed and systematically persecuted, when not outright slaughtered altogether.

    Despite the fact that although Muhammadan immigrants living in Western democratic countries are free to build thousands of mosques and madrassas and to practice their religions openly, even while they refuse to assimilate and integrate and form Muhammadan no-go zones ruled by Sharia instead, non-Muhammadan unbeliever citizens living in Muhammadan majority countries, on the other hand, are not only forbidden from building new houses of worship, but they are also forbidden from practicing their respective religions openly.

    Despite the fact that everywhere in the world where Muhammadan countries border non-Muhammadan countries, jihad is being waged against the neighboring non-Muhammadan countries in places like Israel against Jews, Thailand against Buddhists, the Philippines against Christians, Chechnya against atheists, Kashmir and Jammu against Hindus, the Ivory Coast against Christians and animists, and Bosnia and Kosovo against Christian Serbs to name a few, and the one thing they all have in common is that they are all unbelievers.

    Plus in reaction to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration, a Republican administration no less, reacted exactly as if it was a leftwing administration by nearly doubling the size of the federal government via the creation of the massive Department of Homeland Security and the behemoth National Intelligence Directorate, ostensibly to protect the homeland from the scourge of terrorism, but in reality to create a false sense of security so that mass Muhammadan immigration with all of its excess baggage can continue to be accommodated.

    On top of all of the above, Americans have also been forced to not only sacrifice our constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and our right to privacy, but also all kinds of insidious and inconvenient security measures have now been imposed.

    Thus, I have a few questions. What do Muhammadan immigrants with all of their excess baggage have to contribute to America that makes all of the above worth it? Has the federal government and the American people ever been force to bend over backwards before just to accommodate another immigrant group with so much excess baggage? Does anyone remember being asked if we were willing to make all of the above sacrifices just to continue accommodating mass Muhammadan immigration with all of its baggage? Why did the federal government never fire anyone for gross incompetence that resulted in the intelligence failure that led to the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Why did the so-called MSM never question Muhammadan immigration in the aftermath of 9/11? Why did our federal government never question Muhammadan immigration in the aftermath of 9/11, especially when it is obvious that the 9/11 terrorists attack couldn’t have been possible without it? Why is our federal government lying to us about Islam being a Religion of Peace™? Why does our federal government and the so-called MSM hide from us obvious realities about Islam with respect to immigration that occurs in all other countries and also with respect to the systematic oppression of non-Muhammadan unbelievers living in Muhammadan majority countries? What the hell is going on?

  • Alfonz Shmedlap

    M., 04/25/11

    Orwell's "1984" is alive and well in The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
    It's o.k. to mock Christianity and to rejoice openly when Jews are murdered in Israel,
    but criticizing Holy Islam can be punishable by judicial decree and in some cases,
    beheading (a decided lack of due process of law).

    If you think that it's bad now, join a Tea Party and support anti-jihad politicians to prevent an Obama 2.

  • sedoanman

    “…the jury sided with prosecutors who had sought a $25,000 bond from the preacher and his associate, claiming their protest outside the mosque would likely start a riot.”
    Wasn’t this the same argument used by those who tried to stop the American Nazi Party from parading through a Jewish neighborhood, an argument shot down by the courts?

    “Prosecutors also told both men they could be jailed for up to three years if they declined to pay the $1 peace bond in protest.”

    Remember the 1970s TV movie “QB-VII"? The fictional story took place in England and involved a Polish doctor suing an author for defamation of character because the author identified him as the one who performed medical experiments on Jews in Nazi death camps.

    The defense proved that what the author wrote was true. When the verdict, "We find for the plaintiff [the doctor]…" was announced by the jury, the whole courtroom gasped … that is, until the jury followed with, "…and award him one penny, the lowest coin in the realm.” Thus the jury awarded the doctor what it felt his reputation was worth.

    Terry Jones should have recognized the $1 for what it was – the value placed on the Qur’an, and Muslim claims in general.

    “…denying him a permit based on what might happen is nothing more than a surrender to ‘intimidation and fear’.”

    That’s exactly what it is.

  • muchiboy

    "In a free society no one should be thrown in jail for speech, even as distasteful and offensive as Mr. Jones is,” she added.
    Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy disagreed: “These proceedings were solely about public safety,” she said in a statement."

    I respect the ACLU,and have supported the organization in the past.I don't always agree with their positions,but think it a valuable voice and watch dog on human rights abuses and abusers in our society.I do wonder about their position on free speech quoted above,realizing at the same time the contextual usage.Slander is obviously criminal,but what about hate speech in your country?Surely there are restrictions on advocating hate and violence,or need I be corrected here.I would want a similar ruling against Islamic extremists threatening a similar protest at a synagogue,given this unholy mans unchristian like behavior and activities. muchiboy

    • Liberty Clinger

      Slander is a crime because it is based on that which is untrue – slander is based on lies. "Hate Speech" in regards to totalitarian Islamic Sharia Law and murdering Islamic Jihad is not a crime because it is true speech; because hatred of evil and speech against evil is good.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Actually if it is true and therefore legitimate criticism, then it isn't hate speech. Hence, as long as criticism of Islam is legitimate criticism, that is it is true, then it is not considered hate speech.

        Nevertheless, even though Canada has hate speech laws, Jew bashers, on the other hand, get away with using lies and libels to openly incite hatred and violence against Israel to foment another mass genocidal holocaust of Jews. While Muhammadans exploit those laws to stop the legitimate criticism of Islam exactly because the left has hijacked so much power in Canada and is in bed with Islam.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      but what about hate speech in your country

      The USA doesn’t regulate hate speech. If we did, Jew hating Israel bashers like you wouldn’t be able to use lies and libels to incessantly incite hated and violence against Israel to foment another mass genocidal holocaust of Jew like you do on here ad nauseum.

    • KS Jeffersonian

      Slander is not generally a crime. It is a civil matter. And even then, under the Sullivan decision, it is very difficult to get a judgment.

      Hate speech is a new idea which is very offensive to those of us who believe in the Constitution. In the late 1970's, when the National Socialist Party of America (American Nazi Party) wanted to hold a march in Skokie, Illinois,a heavily Jewish community with many Holocaust survivors, the permit was denied. However, the ACLU filed suit, and Illinois appellate court ruled for the Nazis.

      The 1st amendment specifically denies the the federal government the right to regulate or forbid offensive speech. This was prohibition was extended to the state governments and subdivisions thereof by the 14th amendment. There are, obviously exceptions, such as not yelling "fire," in a crowded theater, but banning speech based on speculation that the target of a protest may become violent is repugnant to our constitutional protections.

      So yes, Islamic extremists would and should have the right to peacefully protest outside a synagogue or church.

      By the way, the idea of an evolving Constitution is also very offensive, since it really means that there are no limits on what power is granted to the government.

    • ajnn

      "in your country"

      It seems that Mr. Muchiboy, aside from being a pro-terror racist (see his other postings) is also not an American.

      Yet he was born and raised here.

      He may fit the profile of a radicalized Muslim perhaps?

  • Liberty Clinger

    The Medieval Roman Church was in an un-holy totalitarian alliance with Kings and Princes; and together Church and State collectively possessed the individual's (serf's) unalienable rights to life, liberty and fruit of labor in pursuit of happiness. The more things change the more they stay the same because today's Marxists believe they collectively possess the sacred rights of the individual (prole) based on Godless Darwinian natural selection (they have evolved with superior rights), and Islamists believe they collectively possess the sacred rights of the individual (ordinary Muslims and all non-Muslim kafurs) based on the "divine right" of Caliphs and Imams – similar to the "divine right" of Medieval Kings, Princes, Bishops and Priests.

  • KS Jeffersonian

    The Westboro Church/Phelps case was only about whether a private party could bring an action seeking to hold them responsible for the damage they caused. The case did not seek to stop Westboro from their protests and was not brought by a governmental unit. When I was in law school, that was permissible. The 1st amendment forbid prior restraint and would protect a person from being imprisoned for speech and from being fined by a governmental unit for speech, but would not protect a person from liability for the damage their speech caused. A person had a right to free speech, but had to be responsible for any damages they caused by that speech. That is apparently not the case now.

    However, the jury and Judge Somers apparently believe they have the right to actually forbid speech which might offend someone. Using this rationale, Westboro would have been forbidden from their protests all together. Not only are their protests offensive, but at some point, I fully expect a father who has lost his only son in combat to attack and kill the Westboro protesters.

    If Jones and Sapp were threatening to physically attack the mosque or those attending it, there would be a reason for this ruling, but this is clearly a prior restraint which should be struck down.

  • trickyblain

    I almost didn't put the "18 to 21" thing in — I agree with you there.

    But the amendment process was included specifically to evolve the Constitution as needed because of circumstances that the founders could not have forseen.

    • Stephen_Brady

      I understand completely what you're saying. What I would like to see is for the politicians of both sides to put their beliefs to the test. Instead of purposely attempting to bring sweeping legislative changes to the country through Supreme Court activism, ask the American people what they think. Pass a Constitutional Amendment, and let the States decide. In other words, let the people decide.

      Thirty-six states (or would it be 37), and the people of the United States have their way, for once.

  • JosephWiess

    After three hours of deliberation, the jury sided with prosecutors who had sought a $25,000 bond from the preacher and his associate, claiming their protest outside the mosque would likely start a riot. Prosecutors also told both men they could be jailed for up to three years if they declined to pay the $1 peace bond in protest. “I strongly voice my disagreement with the ruling,” said Sapp, when asked by Somers if he had any comment. “The peace bond is to prohibit free speech.” Both men subsequently paid the bond and were released.

    The only reason that any demonstration would "Cause a riot" is because Muslims have to sense of restraint and act on barbaric impulses that western people (Except liberal democrats, black panthers members, and union thugs) would find stupid. The aforementioned people take offense at everything around them, except when it's them doing the offending.

  • scum

    While I don't believe in the verdict, taking pro-active steps to stop rioting happens with some frequency. It's not at all unusual…

    • ajnn

      wrong. it is absolutely unusual to the point of being a violation of the constitutional right of free speech.

      prior restraint is allowed in only very specific cases where the damage will be irrevocable.

      Here, the damage is speculative, not certain at all.

  • AB7

    Muslims/Islam need to post a peace bond not the pastors. Since it is the Muslims who will riot and kill it is they who extra police are needed for. In fact, Islam needs to post a multi-trillion dollar Civilizational Bond to the West to [partially] compensate the West for the increased security costs (for terrorism) and the eventual cost of the destruction of freedoms, destruction of way of life, destruction of museums and on and on and on. If they cannot pay this several trillion dollar bond then they need to leave the West.

  • Mark Matis

    Is it time for the filthy maggot pigs to rot where they belong? The stench is overwhelming. I thank God every time he sends another of them to hell where they belong. At least God is still just.

  • The Man

    I have two immediate thoughts about this case. 1. Hasn't this issue been resolved by National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), at least insofar as "immediate appellate review" is concerned? 2. Can we draw the conclusion that the Jewish residents (and holocaust survivors) of Skokie Illinois are more peaceful and law abiding than similarly situated muslims?

  • Chezwick_mac

    Please do share with us all the "real" world.

    What is the name of this "public" school? What is the name of such a "faith" class? Is part of the course curriculum having students pronounce the profession of faith (Shahada), take religious names, etc., as they do at Byron?

    • Jared

      Do some research, its not that hard. And why would I tell a creep on the internet where my children go to school. pervert.

      • Chezwick_mac

        I knew you were lying through your teeth.

        • Chezwick_mac

          Perhaps you could just share with us the name of the course? Lo and behold, we'll find out it is a generic class studying comparative religions, nothing resembling the indoctrination into Islam going on at Byron….which includes the recitation of the profession of faith.

          The hypocrisy of liberals knows no bounds.

          • Jared

            ahahaha! my comment was deleted on here. I had posted a list of schools, then made a disparaging comment that conservatives didn't have the brain power to look things up. I guess the editors can dish it out, but can't take it.

  • MixMChess

    I guess you never attended a Holy Land Foundation fundraiser?

  • Wesley69

    This is wrong. A no-go-zone??? Not here!! This is APPEASEMENT, plan and simple. Whether you support Pastor Jones and his colleague Assistant Pastor Wayne Sapp or not, they have rights as American citizens that should not be limited by the ruling of some judge.

    It is time we realize the danger this country faces from creeping Shariah complimentalism. We need to maintain the division between church and state. That serves all religions. It is time to act. It is time to guarantee freedom of religion for all but expanding on its definition in the Constitution.

  • Wesley69

    What I propose needs to be the Law of the Land. This is not aimed at Islam. It is aimed at the excesses of ANY religion. HOWEVER, MILITANT ISLAM IS A THREAT. Shariah complimentalism is a threat. These amendments, in themselves, are to be religious neutral, but they will insure that the US remains a secular country.

    First, the provision(s) of the Amendment is listed. What follows in parenthesis is a brief explanation of what I'm trying to outlaw under Shariah. Shariah must NEVER be allowed into our system of justice. There are certain laws that we must ALL abide by.

    1-The beliefs and practices of a theopolitical sect shall not be restricted, unless such beliefs and practices cause physical harm or monetary damage to its adherents or to citizens of the United States.
    (Forbids stoning, beatings, mutilation, honor killings)

    2-All forms of Speech by citizens about any theopolitical system shall not be restricted.
    (Forbids any retaliation against those writing about Islam, its faults, making cartoons of Mohammed)

    3-Forced conversion or persecution of those who would renounce their beliefs in any religion is forbidden.
    (Forbids conversion by the sword or murder of apostates)

    4-Religious Authorities, Courts or Assemblages that proscribe physical and/or monetary religious sanctions to an individual, contrary to the Constitution, are forbidden.
    (No religious leaders or courts approving of a punishment or a religious order to harm any individual is allowed, including the fatwa)

    5-Indoctrination regarding a particular theopolitical ideology for the purpose of conversion utilizing public institutions or public funds shall be forbidden.
    (Forbids any public money for religious education designed for conversion)

    6-Theopolitical practices may be allowed at public functions as long as no one is compelled to participate and as long as these practices are not excessive in natural.
    (Protects the rights of the majority to the public expression of their religious beliefs as long as it is reasonable)

    7-Public accommodations or restrictions made for one religion, must apply to all religions, when reasonable.
    (Protection from having to meet the needs of every religion in public and private concerns)

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Wait until the Muslims take to the streets to spread out on their prayer rugs
    five times a day and Allyoop!………..Demonstrating is as American as apple
    pie and pigs in a blanket, ham and cheese, bacon bits, Piggly-Wiggly……….
    If there is a next generation it may be then that the Islamist/Leftist colonies
    can be dealt with…………………………………………………….William

  • dirtybird

    Terry Jones may be as misguided as John Brown was to the cause of abolition. However crudely, his actions have shed light on the barbaric culture of our enemies, as if we needed any more light.

    American and European leaders remind me of the beaten wife who holds out hope that if she doesn't set him off, her husband won't beat her next time. After all, his response was all her fault…

  • Harlan

    I think Terry Jones is a nut, but the way he is being treated is unconstitutional, and it is time for Americans to respect freedom of speech again.

    As much as I disagree with the aclu on certain issues, I am glad they are standing up for him, and glad they stand up for freedom of speech no matter the situation. The first amendment isn't for everyday speech, it is for offensive speech. If we don't have freedom of speech for words we despise, we don't believe in freedom of speech at all.