Lawyer sues to end Dallas group's 'threat' prayers

[derby378]

Source: Dallas Morning News


A former military lawyer who served in the Reagan White House and worked for Ross Perot is suing a Dallas-based religious organization in a case that could test the limits of free speech and prayer.

Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said he wants Gordon Klingenschmitt, a former U.S. Navy chaplain, to "stop asking Jesus to plunder my fields ... seize my assets, kill me and my family then wipe away our descendants for 10 generations."

...

Weinstein, 54, said his family has received death threats, had a swastika emblazoned on their home in New Mexico, animal carcasses left on their doorstep and feces thrown at the house.

Weinstein, who is Jewish, said the harassment started several years ago when he began protesting Christian proselytizing at his alma mater, the Air Force Academy. Weinstein started his foundation shortly after that to battle the influence of extremist evangelical Christians in the armed forces.

Read more: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/100509dnmetprayersuit.3fb3560.html

[MineralMan]

1. Yeah, the love of Christ just oozes out of every

orifice of those folks. Time for a security camera on that house, recording everything that happens there. There are really good ones that get a nice HD image. Let's identify the cowards and link them to this imprecation of a minister.

[derby378]

2. And just think...

If Weinstein were to keel over tomorrow, Fred Phelps would be there to protest his funeral while stomping on an American flag. Stay classy, Freddy!

[patrice]

65. AND the f-er runs a church, Westboro Baptist in Topeka, so he doesn't pay taxes.

[GillesDeleuze]

3. love mikey's org

keep up the good work.

death threats in the guise of prayer are not acts of protected speech

[bertman]

4. Let Gordy Boy pray from the cozy confines of a prison cell. Fascist bastard posing as a

man of dog.

Mikey Weinstein deserves the support of all Americans.

[No Elephants]

11. I don't know what Reagan's lawyer deserves. But the principle for which he is fighting is worthy.

[bertman]

18. Sometimes it takes becoming the victim to make someone see the light. What's going on

at the Air Force Academy is not only disgusting, but illegal as hell.

Even if this guy is a Republican I'll support him in this effort.

[tblue]

51. I'm sure the non-Christian fellas there will just love them some him! nt

[Soylent Brice]

5. reading this made me picture some nut holding a voodoo doll.

about the same equivalent.

Stay classy, Gordon!

[groundloop]

6. Ahhh Gordon, you might want to actually read the bible one of these days.....

Especially the second testament. You know, the part that details Jesus' teachings. The part that says to turn the other cheek, to love your enemy, and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Edit to add ---- that nutcase needs to do some bible reading from a prison cell for a while.

[caseymoz]

33. His followers should leave him, en masse.

What kind of man of the cloth would pray that God fulfill Satan's wishes? That's just blasphemous, and it's wrong so many other ways . . .

If I were a Christian, I would pray that Rush Limbaugh go on his show one day and admit to his followers that he has been lying to them all these years. I wouldn't pray that Rush and all his relatives were killed and sent to Hell.

[surrealAmerican]

44. They won't though.

He likely gains followers this way. People love to be able to feel righteous while doing violent acts. It's so much easier and more fun than self-improvement.

[caseymoz]

72. That's because he attracts violent, half-insane people . . .

. . . waiting for the right words to push them over. All I am saying is, this isn't compatible with Christianity. What you have here is a perversion.

[Bette Noir]

7. Sounds more like incitement than prayer.

[paulsby]

8. here we go with the incitement canard again

everytime there is a free speech issue, we either hear the word "incitement" or we hear "fire in a crowded theatre" (note that it's actually FALSELY crying fire in a theatre, same meme was used to support the prosecution of a war protestor, and it is no longer the law of the land - brandenburg superseded schenck)... but back to the instant case.

the law with threats (generally speaking) is whether it's a "true threat" under the law.

some points to consider

1) was the threat communicated
2) was the threat one that a reasonable person would be in fear of
3) did the recipient of the threat fear the threat would be carried out

etc.

i strongly doubt this "threat" will meet the "true threats" standard. and clearly it shouldn't. we have never once in any court i am aware of taken judicial notice that god caused any particular event/death.

so, praying to god to cause X is probably not going to be a true threat, even IF the recipient believes god is listening and will or could carry out the threat.

it's also because it leans much more towards opinion than a threat. telling , asking, or wishing for god to do something is usually looked at that way. case law over and over again.

you can differentiate this with a person telling somebody else to kill somebody, or even sic'ing a dog on a person, both of which are criminal acts.

i think the former military chaplain will win on free speech grounds, although remmeber this is a civil case, not a criminal case, so he may be able to prevail on some sort of infliction of mental distress type thang.

i hope he loses the suit, though. it's too much of a free speech issue for me to support his lawsuit.

also, if he is suing to prevent the person from doing this act in the future, he is essentially trying to invoke prior restrain, which is especially problematic

[defendandprotect]

22. This is no different from other religious/Biblical preachings vs women, homosexuals,

Jews -- and all took their toll, as intended.

[paulsby]

23. i'm not sure what your point is

this is tangential to what particular religion is praying and for what.

is there a difference between a text or person saying "god will do X" - for example, "god will strike down all nonbelievers" and a clergyman saying "god will strike down john smith because he's a nonbeliever?"

i would say - no

i'm not saying it doesn't suck to be the subject of some nutjob's crusade, and to hear him pray that god does X to you.

i am just sayin' it's free speech imo and not a true threat.

[defendandprotect]

29. See: Crusades, Women's Holocaust/Hammer of Witches --Leviticus . . .

When a religious nut suggests that their loving God will send a "sinner" to hell, that's
fairly general --

When organized patriarchal religion declares war on Jews, that's actual war on a class of people.

Same with Women --

Same with homosexuals --

Same with the Native American -- Same with Africans enslaved in America --

See: Papal Bulls

[paulsby]

34. but that's not relevant to the law

what the preacher did, if it was merely praying to god to kill john smith, saying god will kill john smith, is not a criminal act. and imo, not even civilly actionable.

the only difference between saying "god will smite all sinners"

and "god will smite john smith, who has sinned" is specificity.

[defendandprotect]

38. This isn't private prayer . . . this is preaching to a congregation . . . an audience . ..

[paulsby]

77. and public prayer is SPEECH

and this speech does NOT meet the "incitement test" and thus is not criminal.

based on what i have read thus far, it is not even civilly actionable.

again, study the case law.

READ brandenburg for pete' sake.

[Bette Noir]

32. Except that the guy has been personally threatented, and his property vandalized.

The preacher's followers are doing the Work of God, as directed.

[paulsby]

35. but that

does not establish nexus

sorry.

if i publically say "god will strike down all fat people in spandex"

and somebody who hears me say that goes and threatens and vandalizes a fat person in spandex, *i* have no criminal liability.

and CLEARLY what i said does not meet the incitement test.

you are using a results based analysis. assuming arguendo that the person(s) who threatened and vandalized the guy were acting in RESPONSE to what the preacher said (again, ASSUMING), it still does not establish that what the preacher did was an INCITEMENT because what he said does not meet the incitement test under brandenburg.

you cannot use results based analysis on this question

you are using the "oreilly canard"

the claim (amongst many opponents of the 1st amendment here) that since oreilly claimed tiller was a baby killer, and somebody who murdered tiller listened to oreilly and/or oreilly inspired some wackjob, that oreilly is liable.

sorry. doens't work that way. if it did, free speech would be meaningless

[defendandprotect]

40. GOP also uses NRA as a threat to presidents and politicians . . .

though not actually acknowledged --

It's their THUG-base . . .

whether religious fanatics - "pro-life" murderers --

the GOP-fascist rallies to stop the vote counting in Miami Dade County --

their THUGS on the Supreme Court --

And, certainly O'Reilly, Beck and Limbaugh will eventually be held accountable --

as we see happening now.

[paulsby]

84. none of them have been held "accountable' in

civil or criminal court, because their speech is 1st amendment protected.

just as openly praying to god to smite somebody is.

[defendandprotect]

125. Nonsense . . . threats can be investigaged by Secret Service, FBI . . .

and some of this speech crosses the line into advocating violence against
the president --

[me b zola]

71. Civil liability for this type of activity has been proven in court

Several years ago the Southern Poverty Law Center won a court case where they showed that a powerful KKK leader was responsible for the acts of violence that his followers committed against a victim. This case seems very similar.

[paulsby]

76. there was a hell of a lot more to that case

i am well aware of morris dees and the case law surrounding suing both the KKK and the supremacists up in idaho

these cases are very dissimilar.

i suggest you READ the actual case summaries of these transcripts, from a decent legal source and get back to me

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. You are pretending that the active ingredient in this is 'god'.

The active ingredient is the hate-preacher and the loose cannon he preaches to.

This is EXACTLY the same as O'Reily preaching violence against abortionists, and one of his followers taking it upon himself to carry out O'Reily's subtextually spoken wishes.

[defendandprotect]

126. Exactly . . . oops! simple coincidence . . . !!!

[Toasterlad]

24. What About the Death Threats?

While it may be (and should be) ludicrous to sue someone for asking a children's book character to "smite" you, this nutjob has obviously stirred up enough animosity towards this lawyer that he's receiving death threats. Knowing how wacky your garden of Eden-variety nutjob is, I'd certainly take those seriously. How can you claim "no incitement" in this case?

Not to mention, it must truly suck to have feces thrown at your house.

[paulsby]

25. i addressed that

the issue is whether praying to god to smite somebody IS in fact a "death threat"

and i have explained why that proposition is problematic.

i can claim "no incitement" (incitement is an incredibly misunderstood term, but i don't want to delve into every nuance), because well.. let me just quote a source on brandenburg...

to be "incitement" there must be subversive advocacy calculated to produce IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION.

that is a VERY high standard.

it's much higher even than the standard required in most true threats cases. heck, i once testified at such a case, and the guy got 3 yrs for the threat. it was entirely different though, than the kind of rhetoric we are addressing here

but again, INCITEMENT could lead to criminal trial. this is not a CRIMINAL trial, it's civil. nobody is prosecuting the preacher for "incitement", fwiw.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incitement.htm
"The incitement test first urged by Learned Hand did not become part of the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence until 1969, in the per curium decision of Brandenburg v Ohio. In reversing the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who gave a speech warning "that there might have to be some revengeance taken" for "continued suppression of the white, Caucasian race," the Court held that the First Amendment allows punishment only of subversive advocacy calculated to produce "imminent lawless action" and which is likely to produce such action. Thus, Brandenburg brings together the incitement test urged by Hand and the "clear and present danger" test urged by Justices Holmes and Brandeis in their famous dissents in the 20s. The Court applied its Brandenburg analysis four years later in Hess v Indiana to reverse the conviction of a demonstrator who was overheard by a police officer to say, "We'll take the fucking street later." The Court concluded that Hess's statement, taken in context, was not aimed at producing imminent lawless conduct but rather, at the most, lawless conduct at some indefinite future time.

The Court also failed to find the Brandenburg test satisfied in NAACP v Clairborne Hardware (1982). The Court found First Amendment protection for the NAACP's practice of writing down names of blacks who violated a boycott of certain white businesses, and then reading them aloud at NAACP meetings. The Court also found constitutional protection for the statement, "If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're going to break your damn neck." The Court said the statement fell short of a direct threat or ratification of violence.

Rice v Paladin Enterprises considered the First Amendment arguments of a publisher of a how-to guide for hit men. Paladin's book, Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors, was concededly used by a reader as a guide for committing the brutal contract killing of three persons. A panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in Rice that Brandenburg did not bar a jury from imposing civil liability on Paladin for aiding and abetting murder. The Fourth Circuit read Brandenburg not to require imminence for the type of speech involved in Rice. In 1998, the Supreme Court denied cert in Rice. "

[Toasterlad]

26. So It's Totally Cool For a Preacher To Tell His Congregation To Go Out and Kill Someone.

Seems to me that should be illegal.

[paulsby]

28. if he told his congregation to do that,

that would be illegal.

i am saying if he prayed to god, exhorted god to, or said god will smite the guy, - that is certainly not a crime.

if the preacher said to his congregation "you need to go out and kill John Smith" , that would be illegal.

[Toasterlad]

30. What's the Difference Between Asking Jeebus to Kill Him In Front of Your Congregation

and asking your congregation to kill him?

[paulsby]

31. i keep explaining the difference

in brief, telling somebody to go kill somebody can be seen as "subversive advocacy calculated to produce (and likely to produce) imminent lawless action"

that is the "incitement test" under brandenburg.

that is NOT the case if you ask or pray for god to smite somebody.

are you seriously making that argument?

i strongly suggest you read the brandenburg decision.

[TommyO]

36. So, if somebody said, "may God smite paulsby"

giving your full name, address, phone numbers, family information and more, you would be fine with it?

Gotcha

[druidity33]

59. i don't expect a response to that. nt.

[paulsby]

79. i gave a response

i'll give it again

you created a strawman first. the issue isn't whether one LIKES the speech, the issue is whether it is constitutionally protected.

in brief, i would not like a preacher to say "god come down from on high and smite paulsby who lives at..."

but that is CLEARLY a legally protected form of speech (not criminal) and not civilly actionable either.

fwiw, there is a local guy who prints scathing reviews of officers (he called one officer a murderer) and prints their addresses, birthdays, etc. he's up in kirkland. the only thing the court prohibited him from doing is publishing officers' SS#'s. addresses, names, dob's are legal.

THAT is constitutionally protected. we don't LIKE it. but the 1st amendment is what matters.

[druidity33]

107. what strawman?

that was the first reply i made to this post. I appreciate that you are very adamant about the letter of the law. But honestly, if i were a preacher and i asked Jesus and God to do something for me in front of my congregation, i'd be a fool if i didn't expect some of my flock to try to do the very things i thought it would be great if Jesus or God did. Yes, the letter of the law might prohibit prosecution because of semantics. But it's the fucking INTENT that's important buddy. And if this preacher didn't intend for Jews to get hurt somehow, you can call me a monkey's uncle.

Book him, i say. Or change the law to include intent to harm through God as prosecutable.

:)




edit to make me a MONKEY's uncle, not a money's uncle...

[TacoD]

110. Yeah, just amend the constitution!

Then we can make all sorts of crazy laws!

[druidity33]

119. was i talking to you?

no, i wasn't.

:eyes:

[paulsby]

78. i wouldn't be fine with it. i would dislike it. but it would not be ILLEGAL or civilly actionable

here's a little hint for you. the constitution protects speech we don't like.

i don't like holocaust denial, but it's legal too. unlike many countries.

[Toasterlad]

37. I'm Not Arguing That What Was Done Is Illegal.

I'm saying that it SHOULD be illegal for a person to get up in front of a group of highly suggestible, superstitious people and effectively beg an invisible person or persons to have someone killed.

[paulsby]

80. i strongly disagree

but then i generally respect much broader 1st amendment rights than most (alleged) liberals and people at this board.

if people would research the kind of speech that was COMMON during the time of the revolution, after which the constitution was written, they would have better respect for free speech. incendiary, hateful, vitriolic speech was common in colonial times, and is specifically the kind of speech meant to be protected by the 1st.

[Toasterlad]

94. Surely There's a Difference Between Speaking Against the Government

and inciting violence against a private individual.

Even the law should be able to differentiate between the two.

[paulsby]

100. and clearly for the 100th time

praying for god to smite somebody is NOT inciting violence.

it does NOT meet the brandenburg incitement test.

it is no more incitement to violence (and note that under brandenburg, there is an imminence requirement as well) than a modest proposal was an incitement to eat children.

[Toasterlad]

102. I Wasn't Speaking Legally

I was speaking realistically. It may not meet the legal definition (and PLEASE stop saying "brandenburg". PLEASE. We get it. You know a legal case. Good for you.), but that pastor pretty much told his congregation to kill a man.

For the 100th time, I'm not saying he DID break the law. I'm saying what he did SHOULD be breaking the law.

[paulsby]

104. based on what i read in the article,

it appears what he did was use the type of rhetoric such as "god will smite this sinner, mr ..." etc.

if you think that is pretty much telling the congregation to do it themself, then i disagree with your analysis.

i LOVE my freedoms. i revel in them. and i don't want them diluted.

[66 dmhlt]

109. What are your thoughts WRT "Fighting words" in

US Supreme Court - CHAPLINSKY v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568

Old and mostly eroded, but still there.

[No Elephants]

43. Delete-wrong spot. Sorry.

[Bill McBlueState]

60. I think you're right

Leave it to a Christian pastor to find a technicality in the laws against inciting violence. Asking his god to do violence is a great way to encourage illegal activity under the cover of law.

[paulsby]

81. a "technicality"?

it's not a technicality. it's a fundamental aspect of free speech.

and fwiw,. it's not just christian pastors. there are TONS of islamic, and jewish clergy who have said similar things.

do we really need to quote them?

[Bill McBlueState]

112. yep, many clergy in all the big religions resort to shady tactics

The thread's about a Christian pastor, so I limited my comments to Christian pastors. But you're right: Muslim, Christian, and Jewish leaders all have a lot to be ashamed of.

As to your other point, I'm not sure how one would determine whether cloaking a wish for violence in religious language is a "technicality" or a "fundamental aspect" of free speech. Regardless, it's deplorable.

[paulsby]

116. i agree 100%

that it's deplorable. that was never an issue with me. my issue is it's status as legal speech

[Zhade]

69. The congregation actually exists.

And can be held accountable for any crimes.

[lumpy]

115. So Jeebus, being the supreme leader of the this congregation,

should be held resposible through his agent(the preacher,4 star general)) for ordering his followers to go out and harass/kill someone?

[smoogatz]

56. What if he prays to God to smite John Smith

then, in the next sentence, reminds his congregation of the importance of doing God's work? Incitement, or not?

[Zhade]

70. Yes, that's incitement -- because the suggestion would be made to a group that exists.

Since there is no evidence that any gods exist, praying to one to harm someone is an empty threat, in much the same way that blasphemy is a victimless crime.

[paulsby]

82. try that argument in court

it's absurd. it does NOT pass the incitement test, and any legal scholar would know that.

that's why nobody has ever been prosecuted for praying openly to god to smite somebody. NEVER.

do you really think there haven't been THOUSANDS of such incidents, publically?

and did you READ brandenburg?

i strongly doubt it. this is the typical anti civil liberties response i see SO typically. people don't respect the 1st amendment and want to ban hateful speech.

[The abyss]

88. Paulsby

Your arguments are sound and well stated!

The truth hurts and obviously in this case it is causing major bruising.

I particularly enjoyed your comments at post #80.

[paulsby]

89. thank you

i just take a strong dose of voltaire (I may disagree with what you say, but i support your right to say it).

that's a principal i live by.

it really saddens me that SO many people want to scream incitement or fire/theater everytime somebody says something nasty.

free speech is DANGEROUS. that's a price of freedom.

again, thank you. sometimes i want to throw my hands up.

[The abyss]

90. Don’t throw your hands up in despair.

Continue to post and state your logic. Continue to point people to another idea/concept. Wake them up in ones and twos.

No – you and I will probably never agree on all things.

But I sure as hell respect your opinion!

[paulsby]

92. i appreciate that

i have pretty eclectic opinions. been accused of being a freeper, for example, because i support the 2nd amendment.

but it's all good.

i respect your opinions too. heck, i've posted that i respect opinions of people i strongly disagree with. that seems to help the process. better cause it's true

[The abyss]

96. 10-4

10-7

10-3

[Toasterlad]

95. You're Accusing Us of Being Dismissive of the First Ammendment...

...while you're being dismissive of the threats made against this man's life; threats made by people the likes of which have been historically prone to carrying out such threats.

If your zealous protection of people's rights is going to cost people their lives, what's the point of having laws in the first place? There's a reason that the very FIRST right quoted in the Declaration of Independence is LIFE.

I'm all for free speech (it's been in short supply around here, especially, lately), but I'm not willing to put people's lives at risk for a blind adherence to some abstract truth.

[paulsby]

97. because they are not THREATs. &if you believe in civil rights, you accept the cost is life sometim

in the legal sense.

if i say "god is going to smite all the people in this world who don't respect the sabbath, and that includes you!" that is not a threat, in the legal sense.

you gloss over the point, which is that UNDER THE LAW, what this man did is not a threat.

and here's another hint. zealous protections of people's rights OFTEN cost lives.

when an obviously guilty murderer gets off because of a legal technicality and/or smart lawyering, that can and often does cost lives.

even alan dershowitz admits that. he also admits the vast majority of criminal defendants are guilty.

our justice system is based on the concept that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man (the 10:1 doctrine). that means it costs lives, but that is the standard we place on the state to convict.

when cops can't get a warrant because they can't meet the evidentiary requirements in their state (mine are particularly strict in regards to nexus, etc.) and a guy they would have caught, ends up killing somebody, that costs lives.

here's a hint. civil rights cost lives sometimes. it's the price of freedom.

the right to remain silent (many countries don't have it. in england, your silence can be used agaisnt you in court) sometimes means that people get off who would not have gotten off in countries where their silence/refusal to testify can be used against them.

civil rights have a cost. it's a cost of freedom. we could be safer in a totalitarian country, or even in a country less respective of the rights of free speech and freedom against unreasonable searches.

it's a tradeoff. rights are ALWAYS about tradeoffs.

if we adopted , for example, japan's legal system, i have zero doubts lives would be saved. is it worth the costs? not in my opinion.

but again, for those who are enemies of the 1st amendment or other civil rights, it's always an argument they could use, as you did

[Toasterlad]

101. Thanks For the Civics Lesson.

I'm familiar with the concept, thank you. My point (and where we disagree) is that what this oh-so-holy man did was tantamount to telling his stupid flock of killer sheep to go exterminate a man. I don't think you should be able to do that, and I don't believe it tramples the spirit of freedom in this country to prevent people from doing it. I'm perfectly okay with losing the right to preach death to all who disagree with me.

Speaking of which, not everyone who disagrees with you is an enemy of the 1st amendment. They just might have different priorities than you. Like lives over idealism.

[paulsby]

103. well, not only can we agree to disagree

but the case law is on my side. if you would read brandenburg, you would see the kind of disgusting speech that is protected.

it works for the left and the right.

i saw angela davis speak on my college campus. she said, and i quote "we need to kill the rich".

that didn't meet the incitement test either.

but yes, i do have fealty to the constitution. as a cop myself, i have told the truth (always) in court, where a lie might have helped convict an obviously guilty man. but sorry, i'm an idealist. i believe in the constitution, in civil rights, etc.

[Toasterlad]

105. Okay, I Think I've Been Condescended To Enough For One Night, So I'm Going to Bed.

While you're patting yourself on the back for being the one true defender of civil rights, you might pause at some point to consider the radical notion that not everyone who disagrees with you wants to rip up the constitution, burn the tatters, and piss on its ashes.

I guess that notion wasn't expressed in brandenburg.

[paulsby]

106. i am aware that erosion of civil rights

rarely happens in one fell swoop. it is incrementalism that does it.

and we have already seen most of europe, canada, etc. severely restrict speech rights. we have also seen people advocate it here. heck, we've seen people here say it should be illegal to say all sorts of things that are legal.

when i say somebody is an enemy of the 1st amendment, i don<'t mean they are some sort of fascists who wants to eliminate all right to dissent.[br />
i mean that they want to dilute it.

i don't.

it's unique strength when compared to other nations is somethign we should treasure and jealously defend, even if it leads one to be condescending.

am i above being condescending. pretty clearly, i am not :)

my bad

[TommyO]

111. Making death threats and vandalism are not civil rights

This has crossed over from protected speech to harassment and worse.

[paulsby]

123. there is no evidence the preacher did the vandalism

and praying that god will smite somebody is NOT a death threat.

it does not meet brandenburg's incitement test.

[The abyss]

99. Get off the pot.

Paulsby is telling it like it is.

There are no “both ways”.

Free speech exists under the 1st or you decide when and where it applies?

And I sure as hell don’t want paulsby telling me what I can or cannot say.

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. "Will nobody rid me of this troublesome priest?"

'nuff said.

[Zhade]

68. Since there is no evidence that any gods exist, it can't be a legitimate threat.

Not if the violence suggested against the man is left up to an unproven god to carry out.

If, on the other hand, the preacher had said "god's followers should...", that WOULD be incitement.

[paulsby]

98. i made that point

im not aware that any US court has taken judicial notice that

1) god exists
2) he responds to prayers that request he smite somebody

[Kolesar]

113. Your posts would be more readable if you used proper capitalization

just sayin'

[paulsby]

124. i developed this habit

when i was on leave due to a knife wound to my right hand. when typing one handed, using the shift key is problematic. the habit stuck with me.

plus, i'm a huge ee cummings fan :)

[Zhade]

121. Indeed. I was agreeing with you.

NT!

[RaleighNCDUer]

120. So he's saying "please, god, strike him down" while the followers are saying

"make me an instrument of thy will".

The insane followers do NOT listen to a mythical being - they listen to the preacher.

Get it?

[No Elephants]

46. I imagine Weinsten is very familiar with Brandenburg v. Ohio, yet he is suing.

He must see some hope of winning his case.

Holding of Brandenburg v. Ohio: "Held: Since the statute, by its words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action, it falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, overruled."

I think what these clergy did may come within the holding. There were repeated acts of lawlessness by members of the congregation. After the first few, it must have occurred to the preachers that their words were producing lawless actions and, if repeated, like to produce more lawless actions, yet they continued.

BTW, Weinstein is not complaining only about the prayers, either.

"Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said he wants Gordon Klingenschmitt, a former U.S. Navy chaplain, to "stop asking Jesus to plunder my fields ... seize my assets, kill me and my family then wipe away our descendants for 10 generations."

The suit also asks the court to stop the defendants – Klingenschmitt and Jim Ammerman, the founder of the Dallas-based Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches – from "encouraging, soliciting, directing, abetting or attempting to induce others to engage in similar conduct."



The article does not specify what the encouragement, solicitation, inducement attempts, etc. consisted of, but, apparenttly, there was something more than just the prayers.




BTW, didn't the Warren Court decide Brandenburg? That was the most liberal court ever. Also, at that time, people were not committing murder based upon what some talk show host or clergyman said. And 1969 was a long time ago, too. Maybe Roberts will be inclined to find for his fellow Reagan attorney.

[kristopher]

74. Perhaps that doesn't sum up the content of the suit fully.

Weinstein and the Foundation have protested issues such as soldiers pressured to attend religious events; distribution of Bibles by soldiers in Muslim countries; and the display of religious symbols on military equipment.

The lawsuit says the Chaplaincy is not a religious organization but "a front for anti-government extremists."

"Ammerman has made his position quite clear, in publicly available speeches and articles," the lawsuit says. "He believes that the United States government is planning to turn over sovereignty to the United Nations ... he believes that our highest government officials are traitors."

But Ammerman stops short of advocating anti-government violence in his speeches, the lawsuit says. "He whips his crowd into a frenzy and then nods and smiles while members of the audience make the actual threats of violence," the suit says. ...

I think the crux of the matter is whether this group is a legitimate religious organization and whether they should be allowed to certify military chaplains. Institutions for religious worship on military installations are distinctly different entities than their civilian counterparts - particularly overseas.

[GinaMaria]

45. Agree. It's incitement dressed in prayer

He's not in his home silently praying. He's in public, saying these things to a captive audience. The aggression toward this lawyer has already started. His private property vandalized. Sad that for some, this clown is an authority figure. Sadder still is that this clown does not manage his authority well.

What is happening lately? Is it just me or do we seem to be teetering at the brink of public violence? Tea baggers screaming in rage over things that are not even true, people bringing weapons into a crowd of people where the president will speak, people calling for an uprising and a coup to overthrow our government...this just seems part of the whole continuum.

How do we get people to calm down, take some deep breaths and get some oxygen to their brains? Where was all this rage born?

[SpiralHawk]

9. "Damn these phony republicon Xtians" - X

[kestrel91316]

12. I think somebody is a fellow fan of the General, lol.

[pundaint]

10. If only the teachings of the Prince of Peace were followed...

there would be a revolution in US Christianity.

[No Elephants]

13. Let's see....

"Weinstein said he also hopes to cripple the Chaplaincy financially and to have the organization stripped of its status with the Department of Defense.


Military chaplains

The Chaplaincy has been an endorsing or approving agency for military chaplains since 1984. Religious denominations generally endorse chaplains from their own churches, but the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches represents independent churches that may not be affiliated with a denomination."



Hmmmm. Weinstein was a milittary lawyer in the Reagan White House. 1984, when the Chaplaincy began approving chaplains for the DED, was during the Reagan years.

"I morphed from being a lawyer and a businessman to this thing called a civil rights activist," he says. He is an unlikely activist, Weinstein said: a Jewish Republican from a long line of military members.


You're on the wrong side, Weinstein.

[abq e streeter]

14. Mikey Weinstein is a true patriot, and it's an honor to live in the same community

and I'm profoundly ashamed and embarrassed that some other members of this community have done these acts of terroristic intimidation to he and his family.

[Joanne98]

15. They're terrorists!

[Ozymanithrax]

16. Gordon Klingenschmitt is pursuing a legitimate expression of Christianity...

that is common throughout history. Clearly, he is also a scumbag of monumental proportions. There is a dark side to any religion, Christianity is no exceptions.

This comes down to the question; is imprecatory prayer considered the same as screaming fire in a crowded theater? If it is, how do we balance the right to worship free of government intervention. I think that Mr. Weisnstein will and should lose. In a free nations, people are free to be scumbags and worship whatever expression of the Deity they see fit. Now, if anyone carried out these threats and it could be traced back to this scumbags sermons, then he should be able to sue the Church and all its officers into bankruptcy.

That was done to White Supremacist Tom Metzger in Fallbrook, North of San Diego.

When freedoms collide it can be very difficult to adjudicate where the line lays. To me, Imprecatory Prayer should be placed right up there with racism, anti-semitism, and other vile human expressions. But freedom is dangerous. Sometimes we just have to live with the danger in order to remain free. I will be interested to see how the court decides this case.

[No Elephants]

48. I disagree that Gordon is pursuing a legitimate expression of Christianity. Theology aside,

we do not know that prayer is all he was doing. To the contrary, the article linked in the OP suggests there was more, but does not specify what. Please see Reply # 46.

[Ozymanithrax]

53. Violence and intolerance are part of Christianity from its incepton...

This is true of all religions. Yes, I know that Jesus message was supposed to be one of peace, but for many, including Jews, Witches, American Indians, Muslims, Pagans, and people who worshiped Christianity a little different from the church up the hill were far more often attacked than they were accepted. That is the simple historical truth. This is also true of most other religions and it is part of the religious experience.

The belief that God will destroy the enemies of God's church and help God's followers against God's enemies is history. The majority of Christians would feel dirty if they were involved in an Imprecatory prayer. But most of them do not blink at the idea that at the behest of God whole cities were wiped off the map. That is all I was saying.

I still think the case will be lost because no court will be willing to curtail religious freedom or freedom of speach. In this case, these two freedoms colide. As long as the minister pretends to demand that God be his hit man, no one will touch it. Now if he tells his followers that God is telling them to do God's wet work, that would be winable.

[caseymoz]

73. Hey, we look alike.

Violence occurs because of our drives to separate into tribes that cut the throats of other tribes. I consider it useless to try to argue that creeds cause this. I think people will have religion of some sort whether they are at peace or at war.

[Deep13]

17. Antisemitism, a traditional Christian value. nt

[Demit]

39. Hey, now.

You don't have to indict all Christians.

[smoogatz]

57. He/she didn't.

Only traditional ones.

[phasma ex machina]

87. Traditional Christians ...

along the lines of William Wilberforce, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cassius Clay, and Vernon Johns?

[Deep13]

108. I did not mention Christians (noun).

I'm talking about Christian (adj.) values.

[Demit]

117. Christian values aren't held by Christians? What kind of fine point are you attempting there?

I'm assuming you're trying to snark on Evangelical Christians. You are forgetting that there are other denominations of Christians, who have what they would consider traditional values, who are not antisemitic, who don't consider that being antisemitic would be a traditional value. You should think before you speak.

[Deep13]

118. You need to take the blinders off.

Is it really necessary to detail the 2000 years of Jewish oppression by Christians with full approval of their church or the NT condemnation of Jews for the death of Christ? The Jewish blood libel, the pogroms, the blame from everything that went wrong from war to plague. The very day Columbus left for the New World, the harbor was crowded with Jews leaving Spain due to the crown's expulsion order.

Antisemitism IS a traditional Christian value whether you consider it to be one or not. It has really only been since the end of WWII that mainstream Christianity has backed away from these things. Further, many believers still hold this view. Evangelicals are by and large the notable exception since they see the Jewish state as a necessary step to bring about Judgment Day and a fulfillment of Yahweh's promise to the Jews. (So you're assumption is wrong.)

Believers and their church leaders today who reject antisemitism do so largely in the face of traditional values, not because of them. To put it another way, Christians to not adhere to Christian values like they used to do. Right now in the developed world the churches are weak and have no real choice but to make a virtue of necessity and go along with the liberal attitude. Nevertheless, we should never forget how they acted when they were strong and their powers were unfettered by conscience or law.

You might want to make sure you know what you are talking about before calling a knowledgeable person ignorant.

[Demit]

122. I am very troubled by what you refer to as your 'knowledge'.

For one thing, Evangelicals' support for Jews is limited to those Jews who will convert to Christianity & thereby be 'saved' in the Rapture. They don't care a whit for Jews who would stay true to their religion. Some notable exception!

You seem to think it is not possible to be Christian ('Christian adjective', in your parlance) without being a member of an organized church. You are wrong. Being Christian refers not to following the dogma of church officials, but to following the teachings of Christ. That was my initial objection.

But, with your breezy assertion that it is only since the end of WWII that Christianity 'backed away' from antisemitism, I now see that you wish to deny that there even existed any righteous Christians during WWII, although their actions are well documented. I find that really offensive.

I didn't call you ignorant. I said you should think before you speak. Your bitterness at Jewish oppression throughout history is understandable, as is your scorn for the agency of organized religion in it. But it does not give you license to smear everyone who is—or was, throughout history—Christian ('Christian adjective') with the same brush. Knowledgeable people know the fallacy of making such sweeping assertions.

[Deep13]

127. Again, I'm criticizing the belief system, not the individuals.

Sure it's possible to be a good and conscientious Christian. Many do so. During the Civil Rights movement, the odds that a volunteer was religious versus nonreligious was about 50-50. Nevertheless, racism and segregation existed solely because of irrationality supported in large part by most of Christianity.

The fact that many Christians are reasonable despite their religion or because they pick or choose the parts of their religion they wish to follow does not undermine my point. Christianity taken at face value is irrational, unreasonable, cruel and it makes a virtue out of suffering. That some believers reject these things in whole or in part demonstrates the strength of their humanity and not the virtue of their religion. So yes, there are and have always been good and even heroic individual Christians.

There was a whole building at Dachau just for Catholic priests who resisted the Nazis. Good for them. They are heroes. They were acting against their church which had made a deal with Hitler. Most German Christians obeyed the party and ecclesiastical line. Recall that the reason the actions of the Vatican matter is because people believe them and will follow what they saw. In centuries past, it was either that or the noose. Now it is out of habit.

The Rapture only happens at the end of the world. Until then the Jews are still Jews and Evangelicals are sympathetic to them.

[Quasimodem]

19. Klingenschmitt asked who Jesus would hate and got the wrong answer.

When a supposedly spiritual person starts praying hate-filled prayers to the fictional founder of a religion based on His belief that it’s always better to love one another, it seems to be just as much an instance of mental disease as it is of hate speech.

Sometimes they’re just too close to call.

[defendandprotect]

20. Praying for god to fulfill hatefilled requests . . . ???!!!

[defendandprotect]

21. Real issue here is the effort to crate a Christian-Taliban military, PLUS...

We're building $50 million of new chapels for the military!!!

WTF?

[caseymoz]

27. It should be recognized that prayer is being used here to influence and incite people.

Couching it in prayer gives it a veneer of religion, but it's practical effect is to invoke actions by real people, either in the form of harassment or in assault and murder. What you're preaching in making an imprecatory prayer is that God wants this guy dead. So, how are followers supposed to respond? If it were me, I would say you should not in prayer preach to God what is right, nor should you pray for something from God that would be evil for a person to do, like murder of him and his whole family. I admit an atrocity like this happens often in the Bible, but probably because human beings are very poor a visualizing the actions of any righteous God. (Gee, after studying Christianity, this Atheist is practically going native.)

This is a difficult case, though. Whether God exists or not, outlawing certain prayers would seem to suppress several rights at once.

[katkat]

41. ten generations

How can you wipe out someone's descendants for ten generations? I mean, you wipe out them out now, which certainly doesn't consist of ten generations, there aren't going to be any more, right?

[Ozymanithrax]

54. In the Old Testement, God was often said to punsih a people for ten genergations...

delivering the curse of the father upon the son. That is the basis for original sin, so that children are all born sinful and bound for hell if they are not baptised. Original sin is one of the basid doctrins of the Christian Church. Babies are never innocent by church doctrine. God, not being limited by time, is believed to punish people for the sins of the father.

[derby378]

62. Actually, original sin is not such a basic doctrine...

I think most of my fellow Quakers renounced the idea a long time ago, as it speaks of the concept of the "total depravity" of man. If humankind was so totally depraved, God wouldn't have bothered with creating us in the first place, let along enduring crucifixion on our behalf, so there has to be some inherent goodness in us to begin with. Or, as a Quaker blogger put it:

Robert Barclay, in his Apology, challenged the theology of original sin and formulated a Quaker theology that says we aren't sinners until we have sinned. Still, he claims that humans have "the propensity to sin" – not a one of us will avoid sinning. Knowing that God only has flawed human beings to work with is liberating! We don't need to be perfect, nor do we need to insist that others be perfect. We know God's work will get done with whatever raw material God has to work with. Jesus routinely despaired at the limitations of his disciples, yet they were his beloved companions and founded the church. Saul was a persecutor of Jesus' followers - until he was blinded, turned around, and became a leader of the church! So we can be kind and merciful with a person who falls short, knowing it is only a matter of time until we ourselves fail and want to be met with kindness and forgiveness.

http://quakersusanne.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/liberal-quaker-heresies-part-i/

[winyanstaz]

42. The far religious right has taken over the airforce....

And are threatening, kicking out, failing to promote etc anyone that doesnt buy their brand of "Christianity."
I hope they get kicked out.

[tomm2thumbs]

47. when outcomes can show the effect, they should be able to sue

saying 'don't hurt this guy -wink,wink' is not a defense of their actions if something happens as a result of their words, and it sounds like they can show cause and effect.

you can't jump up and yell 'fire' in a crowded theater because you say you were praying aloud and are protected by your religious rights.

[Politicub]

50. Weird - so many christians are f'd up

Whatever happened to praying for God's will to be done?

Oh wait - most Christians think they are smarter than their god, and need to tell him to what to do.

Christianity in America seems to get crazier and crazier. The already ludicrous prosperity gospel is giving way to the smite thine enemies gospel.

[Initech]

55. Man these are some seriously deranged motherfuckers.

:yoiks:

[valerief]

58. Yeah, those Turn-the-other-cheekers sure do have a lot hate in them, don't they? nt

[Honeycombe8]

61. OMG. I hope this hasn't happened here in America. If so, this is a call to arms.

NOT IN OUR COUNTRY!!!!! I am not Jewish, but I will NOT stand by and watch our fellow countrymen, especially the Jewish community, be targeted.

I live in Dallas. I'm going to check up on this matter and see how to help.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

63. Backward, Christan Soldiers. n/t

[Wizard777]

64. His suit should be dismissed. He's trying to violate the free exercise clause.

[bemildred]

66. This weasel needs to face more than a lawsuit.

Though I am OK with the lawsuit.

[RedCloud]

67. Thou shalt kill! A new commandment for the sheeple.

[sonias]

75. Very interesting

I hope he does cripple the Chaplaincy financially because that's the only thing that will get them to stop. As long as there is money to be made - hate will always be for sale.


Sonia

[Odin2005]

83. Religion should not get special treatment. Hate is Hate

The Religion apologists that say that religious beliefs are somehow special and criticizing them is "offensive" need to get that through their heads.

[DWilliamsamh]

93. Just what exactly can the court do to stop people "praying?"

Seriously - this law suit is ill considered.

[LiberalFighter]

85. We should all pray that Klingenschmitt and his followers are neutered.

[FarLeftFist]

86. Everyone join in on the fun

http://hannity.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/10/05/george-w-bush-the-lefts-scapegoat/comment-page-4/#comment-83636

[DWilliamsamh]

91. And just what can teh courts "do" about this? What is the remedy sought?

Just in practical terms - no matter how odious this "we'll pray for you" crap is, how exactly is a court going to stop people praying?

[ZombieHorde]

114. What a coincidence people's gods have the same values as the believers. nt