Joke Behar and The View
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
Could a group of people pray individually in their homes that innocent babies not be murdered in the name of convenience or any of many other lame excuses? Absolutely. Could several people meet together and pray near the doorway of a baby murder facility? They should be able to but depending on where the death house is located their right to free speech could be infringed with a requirement to be up to 100 feet away from the door. And guess what. Many of you strongly supporting building the mosque any dam where because according to you the First Amendment demands it will say it's fine to not allow that prayer to be 10 feet from the door where it blocks no one, it hinders no one, it threatens no one but where it's heard by anyone entering the murder room. So no, you can't have it both ways. Sorry. And I'm not wrong. Sorry again. Well, not really.
Sorry Leo, you're wrong. There is no reason to trek out to an abortion clinic to pray unless you want to put on a show, for publicity, to intimidate, harass and to inflict judgment on others. That's pure evil no matter how you want to justify it. People who do this are attempting to use religion and free speech to bully others into accepting their own special version of morality rather than the morality of society, into doing what they want them to do, to live as they want to live, to think as they want them to think. By attempting this intimidation, this harassment, this bullying, they are infringing on the rights of others.
They tried physical intimidation and physically blocking the entrance to abortion clinics, so laws finally had to be enacted to prevent people from selectively removing inalienable rights of other citizens. The same laws protect places of worship, incidentally.
What you and a few people believe to be the definitions of birth and death and murder are irrelevant, no matter how strongly you believe it, if you try to force those beliefs onto others by taking away their rights, harassing them, intimidating them, coercing them with threats of violence and fear if they don't comply. You wouldn't cave if the shoe was on the other foot. And you only expect others to cave because you think you're right.
The biggest fallacy of fraud of humankind is, "I believe I'm right, therefore I'm right."
In very close second place is, "There are others who believe the same thing, therefore we're right."
They tried physical intimidation and physically blocking the entrance to abortion clinics, so laws finally had to be enacted to prevent people from selectively removing inalienable rights of other citizens. The same laws protect places of worship, incidentally.
What you and a few people believe to be the definitions of birth and death and murder are irrelevant, no matter how strongly you believe it, if you try to force those beliefs onto others by taking away their rights, harassing them, intimidating them, coercing them with threats of violence and fear if they don't comply. You wouldn't cave if the shoe was on the other foot. And you only expect others to cave because you think you're right.
The biggest fallacy of fraud of humankind is, "I believe I'm right, therefore I'm right."
In very close second place is, "There are others who believe the same thing, therefore we're right."
So the only reason to build the mosque at 51 Park rather than 4 blocks away at an equally acceptable site is to intimidate and harass.
As to your comments about my statement, in some cases your argument is probably correct for specific individuals. In others it is wrong because you are judging what isn't there. I'm not saying my correct statements apply to 100% of the individuals who would pray near a murder house. I am saying, correctly, that it is possible to do so without intimidating or harassing and that in some instances in some locations the Constitutionally guaranteed right to do so is infringed. Now, if you want to argue that they are free to be Christians and they are free to pray because it's guaranteed but they are not free to do so within 100 feet of a death doctor because that might be intimidating or may upset someone and therefore it's fine to restrict where Christianity is allowed to avoid any possibility of harassing and intimidating then you've also said the mosque can't be built at 51 Park for the same reason.
I may not use as many words most of the time or as fancy words but I'm right whether anyone agrees or not and whether anyone likes it or not.
As to your comments about my statement, in some cases your argument is probably correct for specific individuals. In others it is wrong because you are judging what isn't there. I'm not saying my correct statements apply to 100% of the individuals who would pray near a murder house. I am saying, correctly, that it is possible to do so without intimidating or harassing and that in some instances in some locations the Constitutionally guaranteed right to do so is infringed. Now, if you want to argue that they are free to be Christians and they are free to pray because it's guaranteed but they are not free to do so within 100 feet of a death doctor because that might be intimidating or may upset someone and therefore it's fine to restrict where Christianity is allowed to avoid any possibility of harassing and intimidating then you've also said the mosque can't be built at 51 Park for the same reason.
I may not use as many words most of the time or as fancy words but I'm right whether anyone agrees or not and whether anyone likes it or not.
That's a pretty bizarre conclusion. I would imagine that ownership of the property at 51 Park is a factor in where it gets built. If people feel intimidated, it's because of what all is going on in their mind, because the mosque certainly isn't doing anything intimidating. At this point, it's just an idea. And not a very intimidating one at that.
Yeah, it's absolutely possible. I know at least two people personally who have walked past an abortion clinic, stopped for a few seconds, said a silent prayer, and then kept moving. No one considered them to he harassing or intimidating.
But those who make the abortion clinic their destination to pray, they do that for a reason other than prayer, like making a public spectacle in making a political, religious or moral statement that harasses and intimidates others, it's those people who are prevented from carrying out their disingenuous plans by the buffer zones around the clinics. If someone wants to pray unobtrusively without turning it into a demonstration, then it's not a problem, and they are indeed afforded Constitutional protection.
Someone standing on public property minding their own business and not bothering anyone else can do pretty much anything they want, including praying. But people's inalienable and Constitutional rights end exactly when the exercising of those rights remove or infringe on the rights of others.
That's some kind of special convoluted logic right there. Building a mosque at 51 Park Avenue is not even remotely the same as a harassing and intimidating demonstration specifically designed to berate and/or instill fear into those in and around the clinic.
There is no law anywhere that I know of in the US that says you can't pray near an abortion clinic. There is no law that restricts where Christianity (or any other religion) can be practiced. The Buffer Zone laws don't deal with Christianity or any religion at all. They deal with demonstrations, picketing, obstruction, vandalism, harassment, intimidation and other actions. If Christians can't pray without employing any of the above, then they've crossed the line of moral and civil behavior in infringing on the rights of others.
A Park Avenue Mosque cannot engage in harassment or intimidation, and any such activities lie solely within the minds of those who don't want it built. Members of the mosque may or may not engage in harassment or intimidation, but that's a separate issue, and one that can be dealt with if it happens. The bottom line is, there are people who don't want that mosque built for the sole reason that they don't like Muslims. Period. At this point, it's a matter of will and wanting to win. They want to be able to tell those no good ragheads what to do. And if it means selectively applying and supporting only those parts of the Constitution they like, so be it.
Well, that settles that, then.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Actually Leo is doing a great job of reinforcing my position, keep proving my point there sport.
As far as any connection between Christians, abortion clinics and the Mosque in NYC, that's a frickn' stretch too.
Unless you have been working at the clinics or did something that put you in or around them daily or weekly, then you may not know the reality of what really happens outside these clinics. One thing is for sure, a lot of these people do pray and not harass anyone but they are not the zealots and "In Your Face" Christians who are causing the problems by harassing people, even postal workers and utility people, and by trying to shame or intimidate the people who work there.
On the opposite side of this issue with the Mosque, I have yet to seen any Mosque scream out to people walking by how they will go to hell or how it is a sin to be there.
As far as any connection between Christians, abortion clinics and the Mosque in NYC, that's a frickn' stretch too.
Unless you have been working at the clinics or did something that put you in or around them daily or weekly, then you may not know the reality of what really happens outside these clinics. One thing is for sure, a lot of these people do pray and not harass anyone but they are not the zealots and "In Your Face" Christians who are causing the problems by harassing people, even postal workers and utility people, and by trying to shame or intimidate the people who work there.
On the opposite side of this issue with the Mosque, I have yet to seen any Mosque scream out to people walking by how they will go to hell or how it is a sin to be there.
Indeed. Whatever the original intentions for building it there, that's not gonna happen anymore. It's an insanely stupid idea to build a mosque that close to Ground Zero now. There are simply too many idiots here who will hang out down there just looking for a fight, and they'll find one, even if they have to start it. It'll get real ugly.
The use of such terms as "baby murder facility" and "death house" are a perfect example of exactly why folks have been restrained from 'praying' within a certain distance from the doors of places such as Planned Parenthood. Shouting or displaying these phrases to the [almost invariably young] emotionally vulnerable women who use Planned Parenthood is cruel bullying - meant to inflict distress, and therefore despicable.
As Turtle pointed out, your beliefs are not shared by everyone, nor are they the only possible 'right' ones, and civilization requires you to allow others to believe what they wish without interference.
Like the Reverend Phelps' 'demonstrations', the antiabortion protesters are guilty of emotional bludgeoning of particularly fragile people, which ought to be anathema to any true 'Christian'.
A true Christian can, and does, pray without bludgeoning anyone with it.
Ah but you see one can identify it for what it is AND can pray 17 feet from the door in a manner that doesn't threaten anyone. Now certainly there are some who are obnoxious just like the Kansas charlatan and his 'congregation'. Everyone can and should believe as they choose but that doesn't keep the facilities from being baby murder facilities, death houses or whatever highly negative and highly accurate term is assigned to them.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The above is possibly one of the most ludicrous comments I've ever run across .......
The poster believes that merely because he says something it is therefore true .....
What I'm referring to specifically is the "doesn't threaten anyone" aspect mentioned above .....
Such a viewpoint in regard to what is threatening is ill-informed at best, and likely to be highly delusional at worst.
How anyone could come to the conclusion that someone (seeking an abortion) would not find their (protesters - because that's what they are) behavior threatening, when said protesters are clearly opposed (in some cases violently) to what is occurring on the premises is almost beyond belief ....
Poster has already stated the following:
"to not allow that prayer to be 10 feet from the door where it blocks no one, it hinders no one, it threatens no one but where it's heard by anyone entering the murder room."
The above quote clearly demonstrates that the intent is not to just pray silently .... but to attempt to enforce one's views on another vocally ...
It is clear from the language used (murder, murderer, murder house) to characterize the entire subject being referred to, how the issue is viewed by these folks - and what is also quite clear is their hostility .....
It does not require anything approaching genius to have a reasonable understanding of why such folks might be threatening to certain people frequenting these facilities.
But some - being utterly frickin' clueless - are totally incapable of seeing how that possibly could be ......
Apparently there is some confusion with regard to freedom of religion vs. freedom of speech .....
I suppose I really shoulda guessed that might be the case .... as this confusion about mixing these two up is something that some evangelical Christians seem particularly susceptible to ....
LDB - you do clearly understand that the right to free speech only assumes speaking ..... it does not assume that one is automatically entitled to an audience .....
That is another thing that some evangelical Christians seem to be particularly confused about as well - that they are entitled to an audience .... even if it has to be an unwilling one ..... otherwise, said lack of an audience somehow constitutes "religious persecution" ....
Essentially what LDB - others of his ilk - are looking to have happen is to be allowed access to private property - property that exists and was secured for a specific purpose (provision of medical services) - and where I suspect that in 100 cases out of 100, they would not at all be welcome - ostensibly because of their intent to deliver a message that is opposition to both those providing said services, and those receiving them ....
One wonders whether these folks are at all respecters of the rights to private property, and the free enjoyment thereof .....
You really screwed the pooch with that one little slip up of mentioning free speech - because it reveals exactly, the mindset what I've been talking about all along:
It isn't at all about prayer, or freedom of religion, really .... it's about getting in someone's face, inserting yourself into someone's private and highly personal affairs - and trying to get them to change their behavior under duress and harassment .....
And the most disgusting thing about it is the apparent degree of disingenuousness and dishonesty to which some folks will stoop in order to accomplish that ....
One truly wonders whether such folks have absolutely no shame whatsoever .....
Yeah .... certainly there are .... and I rather suspect - after listening to you spout off on various matters here on EO for a number of years - you would easily qualify as one of the truly obnoxious ....
In fact, the more you speak, the clearer it becomes ....
That's true - that they can be characterized however anyone see fit .......
The real irony (joke, if you will) is how stupid some folks are, in not being able to see that by their own choice of the language they use (and the manner in which that they have chosen to deliver it), they themselves have caused the situation they find themselves in:
Barred from the immediate vicinity of others, as a threat to safety, health, and welfare of their fellow citizens .....
It is truly, stupidity, at it's finest ....
Last edited: