• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

City corrals Christians at weekend Arab fest

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
A federal judge has upheld a decision by festival organizers in Dearborn, Mich., which is about 30 percent Muslim, to ban a Christian ministry from handing out religious information on public sidewalks.

The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmonds and affects this weekend's celebration but will not affect the free speech lawsuit over the event, filed by the Thomas More Law Center and the Becker Law Firm.

The case is being brought on behalf of the Arabic Christian Perspective, a Christian group that ministers to Muslims. According to the Thomas More Law Center, Pastor George Saieg and scores of his volunteers have visited Dearborn for the city's Arab International Festival to hand out religious information several times.

At estimated 30,000 of Dearborn's nearly 100,000 residents are Muslim.

While there never has been a disruption of the public peace during the five years the ministry has been attending, this year Dearborn police warned Saieg he and his group would not be allowed to walk the public sidewalks to hand out information and instead would be confined to a specific spot, the lawsuit said.

More Here
 
Marcia

Marcia

Active Member
I find this news disturbing. Why can't Christians hand out brochures on the sidewalk? As long as they don't impede foot traffic or driveways, or create a scene or ruckus, they should be allowed to hand these out.
 
D

donnA

Active Member
well,, it was recently announced to the world we are a muslim country, so what do we expect when our president has come out on the side of islam, supporting it before the world.
 
R

Robert Snow

New Member
donnA said:
well,, it was recently announced to the world we are a muslim country, so what do we expect when our president has come out on the side of islam, supporting it before the world.
Click to expand...

You surely don't think President Obama is directly involved in this decision, do you?
 
C

christianyouth

New Member
Well, the festival was about going to enjoy Arabic food and culture(I'm going later today), not sure what these people are trying to accomplish. "Hey, let's interrupt everyone when their trying to eat and have a relaxing Sunday, and then go back home".

Apparently some people from Toronto came down here to do this, among other people from other areas. It's baffling how people think this is how to effectively reach people.



Of course it was wrong of the judge to rule against free speech... Just saying though.
 
P

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Well, the festival was about going to enjoy Arabic food and culture(I'm going later today), not sure what these people are trying to accomplish. "Hey, let's interrupt everyone when their trying to eat and have a relaxing Sunday, and then go back home".
Click to expand...
They are trying to engage willing people in conversations about eternal matters. What's wrong with that?
 
Baptist Believer

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Pastor Larry said:
They are trying to engage willing people in conversations about eternal matters. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with that if they go with a humble attitude and a warm and open Christ-like spirit.

Regarding the legal issues, if this Christian group (at least, the U.S. citizens) wants to challenge this decision, it should be quickly overturned. The Supreme Court decision, Cantwell v. Connecticut, clearly protects the right of religious groups to present their message, even if it is unpopular to the audience.

And I'm guessing that just about any civil rights group (including the ACLU) would be happy to take their case free of charge.
 
Baptist Believer

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
rbell said:
Riiight.

If the ACLU were about civil liberties, then you would be correct. Methinks their agenda differs from that.
Click to expand...
The ACLU has fought on the side of free exercise of religion many more times than most religious right people know or want to admit.
 
R

rbell

Active Member
Magnetic Poles said:
This is true, but people with an axe to grind care not about facts. Such information will upset the apple cart of their incorrect beliefs.
Click to expand...

Many years ago, I had a family member who entered a talent show at his high school, near Christmastime. He, and 3 others, were going to do a Christmas song with a Christian message ("God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen").

They were going to be prohibited by the high school from singing it. And guess what? The ACLU refused to get involved. The ACLJ, however, made some calls, and within a couple of days the situation was rectfied.

So no...I don't have much use for the ACLU. But much of this is based upon personal experience.
 
Baptist Believer

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
rbell said:
Many years ago, I had a family member who entered a talent show at his high school, near Christmastime. He, and 3 others, were going to do a Christmas song with a Christian message ("God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen").

They were going to be prohibited by the high school from singing it. And guess what? The ACLU refused to get involved. The ACLJ, however, made some calls, and within a couple of days the situation was rectfied.

So no...I don't have much use for the ACLU. But much of this is based upon personal experience.
Click to expand...
Well most of the major "free exercise" cases that have gone before the Supreme Court have been defended by the ACLU. And here's a list of much more recent cases where the ACLU has defended self-identified Christians in "free exercise" cases: The ACLU Fights for Christians. Much of the vilification of the ACLU regarding religious liberty issues revolves around the ACLU's vigorous advocacy for the separation of church and state, a position almost all mainstream Baptists held until about 40-50 years ago. But certainly the ACLU holds viewpoints on other issues I do not agree with, so I am certainly not a member or financial supporter of the organization.

But getting back to the original post, the decision to restrict the rights of one religious group from communicating with another religious group/culture is clearly unconstitutional and has been tested by several Supreme Court rulings over the last 100 years. This is a case where those who may disagree on the issue of separation of church and state would find common cause.
 
B

billwald

New Member
Jesus told HIS disciples

"Go into a community. If they reject your message, leave." (paraphrase). When's the last time real Bible believing evangelical Christians obeyed THAT commandment?
 
P

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
"Go into a community. If they reject your message, leave." (paraphrase). When's the last time real Bible believing evangelical Christians obeyed THAT commandment?
Click to expand...
He said that to his disciples about the kingdom message, not about the church.
 
A

Alcott

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist Believer said:
Much of the vilification of the ACLU regarding religious liberty issues revolves around the ACLU's vigorous advocacy for the separation of church and state, a position almost all mainstream Baptists held until about 40-50 years ago.
Click to expand...

More than 40, but less than 50, years ago came the 2 major SC cases in which a brief word of organized prayer or a reading from the Bible were held to be unconstitutional. Not all states had these things, but it's significant that in the "Baptist strongholds"-- mainly the South and the plains-- these did regularly occur until these cases struck them down. So when you say "mainstream Baptists held" a strong separation of church and state position, obviouslsy they did not see a moment of prayer or scripture in public schools as a violation of such. If you wonder why Baptists began to change on that position, that explains it.
 
Baptist Believer

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Alcott said:
More than 40, but less than 50, years ago came the 2 major SC cases in which a brief word of organized prayer or a reading from the Bible were held to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
You are of course referring to the "school prayer" and Bible reading cases from 1962 (Engel v. Vitale) and 1963 (Abington v. Schempp).

Not all states had these things, but it's significant that in the "Baptist strongholds"-- mainly the South and the plains-- these did regularly occur until these cases struck them down.
Click to expand...
These exercises were wildly inconsistent from place to place and many school districts did not engage in state-prompted prayer and Bible reading. For instance, neither one of my parents ever had a teacher prompt them to pray during their time in public school (my father was in public school from 1930-1942 and my mother from 1948-1952) in Port Arthur, Texas. However, when my father taught school the first year after college in a very small town in North Texas, he was expected to enforce prayer and Bible reading every morning.

The major pattern that seems to be consistent is that prayer and Bible reading tended to be required in school districts where there was little religious or denominational diversity.

So when you say "mainstream Baptists held" a strong separation of church and state position, obviouslsy they did not see a moment of prayer or scripture in public schools as a violation of such.
Click to expand...
Many Baptists did but were outnumbered by religionists who did not. Furthermore, you argument assumes that Baptists are internally consistent in what they believe and what they do. I grew up in church hearing how God made all people in His image and they are loved and equal before God, yet black people are inferior.

If you wonder why Baptists began to change on that position, that explains it.
Click to expand...
I think a general ignorance of the theological and historical foundation for the separation of church and state, coupled with the desegregation of the public schools and the 1973 abortion decision swept Baptists into following and uncritically adopting the entire agenda of the so-called "Moral Majority" (I say "so-called" because the name is incredibly self-righteous) and other similar groups. And then today you have revisionist "historians" such as David Barton who allege to provide a true historical foundation to reject the principle of separation of church and state. Of course Barton has been exposed many times as a fraud, but I'm sure there will be many churches and "Christian" television stations watching his videos around the Independence Day holiday in less than two weeks.

If you look at the confessions of faith of most Baptist groups today you will usually see a strong statement of separation of church and state included somewhere in a statement on religious liberty. That has not changed even though many Baptist pastors avoid talking about it because it is not popular with the people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top