Police To Stop Enforcing Laws When Catholics Are Attacked

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298772508' post='2215941']
I didn't see any police admitting a statute was being broken. I saw yellow journalism, where the author of the article wrote about how "disrupting a religious service" is a crime, while offering no evidence that such a disruption ever took place (unless Masses are said on sidewalks, now.)

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

"The city of Chicago ordered its police force not to enforce the law"

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298774545' post='2215955']
"The city of Chicago ordered its police force not to enforce the law"
[/quote]

According to the perception of the author? I'd [i]really[/i] love to see the complete story on that in its actual context, something the article seems unwilling to oblige.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Brother Adam]

Thank you for that admission.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298774759' post='2215963']
Thank you for that admission.
[/quote]

Admission? That was a reiteration of what I said in the previous post: there was no infraction of the law, so how could they have been ordered to enforce the law? It's like telling a Roman Rite priest to stop beating the wife he doesn't have. Possibly a deliberate and emotional abuse of words on the part of the author. Much like the title, which mentions Catholics being "attacked." If that's being "attacked," and police aren't enforcing the law which protects people from being "attacked," the problem lies with the people who have a [i]really [/i]twisted idea of "attacking," not the police.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298774851' post='2215964']It's like telling a Roman Rite priest to stop beating the wife he doesn't have. [/quote]Whoever gave the order to ignore this is equally as guilty as this mayor. You should see how clear and transparent this is.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1298775028' post='2215966']
Whoever gave the order to ignore this is equally as guilty as this mayor. You should see how clear and transparent this is.
[/quote]

Oh, I see right through it.

~Sternhauser

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298774851' post='2215964']
Admission? That was a reiteration of what I said in the previous post: there was no crime commited, so how could they have been ordered to enforce the law? It's like telling a Roman Rite priest to stop beating the wife he doesn't have. Possibly a deliberately sloppy and emotionally advantageous abuse of words on the part of the author. Much like the title, which mentions Catholics being "attacked." If that's being "attacked," and police aren't enforcing the law which protects people from being "attacked," the problem lies with the people with a [i]really [/i]twisted idea of "attacking," not the police.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

The connotation of the word attack does not just lie with a physical brawl, even if you disagree with the strong language. You admitted that you do not know if the law was broken. I chose to trust in the responsibility of the journalist to accurately portray what happened, but if I am wrong, and the protesters did not break any law, then I take back what I said. If they did break the law and the police were ordered not to enforce the law, then it sets a dangerous precedent and is a sign of escalation which could lead to the outright persecution of Christians.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298775342' post='2215972']
The connotation of the word attack does not just lie with a physical brawl, even if you disagree with the strong language. You admitted that you do not know if the law was broken. I chose to trust in the responsibility of the journalist to accurately portray what happened, but if I am wrong, and the protesters did not break any law, then I take back what I said. If they did break the law and the police were ordered not to enforce the law, then it sets a dangerous precedent and is a sign of escalation which could lead to the outright persecution of Christians.
[/quote]

As I've said twice before, I really saw no proof that any statute was violated, and I want to see the author offer something concrete. Otherwise it is merely sloppy reporting, which is [i]irresponsible,[/i] and something I cannot trust at all.

In their most vague, extra-statutory definitions, all sorts of "attacks" are permitted by statute. That demonstration was one of them.

Persecution of Christians? Brother Adam, no fear. Just appeal to the State to uphold justice. That's what it's there for.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298775342' post='2215972']The connotation of the word attack does not just lie with a physical brawl, even if you disagree with the strong language. You admitted that you do not know if the law was broken. I chose to trust in the responsibility of the journalist to accurately portray what happened, but if I am wrong, and the protesters did not break any law, then I take back what I said. If they did break the law and the police were ordered not to enforce the law, then it sets a dangerous precedent and is a sign of escalation which could lead to the outright persecution of Christians.[/quote]The police did seem to be monitoring the peaceful protesters on the public sidewalk. The most real accusation I can see against them is "[i]fear of harassment[/i]", which explains the police being there to monitor and oversee the situation.

If the mayor gave an order that the law be ignored or not enforced, I can understand the concern. However, it just seems unlikely or perhaps misunderstood. Why would police be dispatched to a protest that they were told NOT to enforce the law at?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1298775626' post='2215976']
If the mayor gave an order that the law be ignored or not enforced, I can understand the concern. However, it just seems unlikely or perhaps misunderstood. Why would police be dispatched to a protest that they were told NOT to enforce the law at?
[/quote]

Yes. Another important question (and left unanswered by the article), what statute was allegedly ordered not to be enforced? That wasn't clear, just as its relation to the events in front of the Cathedral was not clear.

~Sternhauser

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298775557' post='2215975']
As I've said twice before, I really have no proof that any statute was violated, and I want to see the author offer something concrete. Otherwise it is merely sloppy reporting, and I cannot trust that at all.

In their most vague, extra-statutory definitions, all sorts of "attacks" are permitted by statute. That demonstration was one of them.

Persecution of Christians? Brother Adam, no fear. Just appeal to the State to uphold justice. That's what it's there for.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Then we have made good progress from "no statues were violated" to "it is possible" a statute was violated as reported.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298775935' post='2215981']
Then we have made good progress from "no statues were violated" to "it is possible" a statute was violated as reported.
[/quote]

According to that article, it is "possible" that a child was sacrificed to Moloch on the front of the steps, and police were told to stand down. I'm calling emotionally-charged tripe until I see some proof, instead of watery, vague half-accusations. Nothing I saw on the video was a crime. Nothing depicted in the article was a crime. Where's the crime? "Say, did you hear, the police were told not to intervene when the Pastor doesn't 'attack' his non-existent wife?" That's what the article was.

"[b]While it was illegal for the protesters to disrupt a religious service, the Chicago City Council announced that police would not enforce the law in this instance[/b]." [url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/02/creepy-homosexual-demonstration-at-chicagos-holy-name-cathedral/"]http://wdtprs.com/bl...name- cathedral/[/url] A butchery of sound journalism. The author might as well have written, "While it was illegal for the protesters to behead a goat in front of the Church, [which they may or may not have done, we'll leave that to your prodded, imagination] the Chicago City Council announced that police would not enforce the law in this instance." If no goat was beheaded, it certainly is hard to enforce a law against beheading goats, isn't it?

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Brother Adam]

That is your perogative.

Since the Chicago Tribune, National Organization for Marriage, Catholic League, Life Site News, and City of Chicago are all reporting the same thing I am choosing to accept the premise - that the law was broken and that the police were told not to do anything about it, even if we do not yet have all the facts (which seems to be common of all news).

[Brother Adam]

Also, I agree with Cardinal George:

“No matter the issue, Catholics should be able to worship in peace, without fear of harassment,” he continued. “An open display of prejudice against the Catholic Church because of resentment of Church teachings prejudices civil discourse in our society.”

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298776477' post='2215987']
That is your perogative.

Since the Chicago Tribune, National Organization for Marriage, Catholic League, Life Site News, and City of Chicago are all reporting the same thing I am choosing to accept the premise - that the law was broken and that the police were told not to do anything about it, even if we do not yet have all the facts (which seems to be common of all news).
[/quote]

My prerogative is to not jump to conclusions about who did what and start talking about how the poor Catholics are getting hosed. I'm giving the Mayor, the Statepolice, and the deviants the benefit of the doubt. That's how poorly-written that article was. Do you know how frustrating it is to have to do[i] that[/i] in order to remain intellectually honest?

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

What law or ordinance was broken? Did someone spit on the ground?

Police brutality should of ensued.

[CatholicCid]

Apparently, there's an ordinance in Chicago that "bans protests within 150 feet and 30 minutes of a religious service in a place of worship, with an exception for labor protests."

The actual code, Chicago Municipal Code 8-4-010(j), states:
[quote]A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(j) Pickets or demonstrates on a public way within 150 feet of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship while services are being conducted and one-half hour before services are to be conducted and one-half hour after services have been concluded, provided that this subsection does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship involved in a labor dispute.[/quote]

This protest was not a labor dispute, was within 150 feet of the Church, and was within 30 minutes of the religious service. The protestors clearly violated all aspects of this ordinance, but, as stated, the city of Chicago decided not to enforce it at this time.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1298776863' post='2215991']
What law or ordinance was broken? Did someone spit on the ground?

Police brutality should of ensued.
[/quote]

Yes. Where's the blood? It just doesn't add up.

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298777025' post='2215993']
"it was illegal for the protesters to disrupt a religious service, the Chicago City Council announced that police would not enforce the law"
[/quote]

No, you're missing a key word: "while." "While it was illegal . . ." It's a weasel word, which implies [i]that[/i] they [i]did [/i]disrupt a religious service. Where is the evidence that they did disrupt a religious service? There was [i]none [/i]offered by the article, unless, as I said before, Masses are said on the sidewalk now. And what was the precise statement of the Chicago City Council? Without their exact words, such a statement is [i]useless. [/i]It's like having a ruler with no gradations on it: you can only whack someone with it.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='CatholicCid' timestamp='1298776962' post='2215992']Apparently, there's an ordinance in Chicago that "bans protests within 150 feet and 30 minutes of a religious service in a place of worship, with an exception for labor protests."

The actual code, Chicago Municipal Code 8-4-010(j), states:


This protest was not a labor dispute, was within 150 feet of the Church, and was within 30 minutes of the religious service. The protestors clearly violated all aspects of this ordinance, but, as stated, the city of Chicago decided not to enforce it at this time.[/quote]I am no constitutional or civil rights lawyer, but I suspect this is unconstitutional or a violation of human rights.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat