So after looking at a lot of articles about this, it appears that the whole story is fuzzy at best. It looks like the Christians were trying to get a reaction--not from the Muslims but the police (who got some heat last year for overreacting)... and they succeeded. Did they do anything illegal? They say no, the cops say yes. Surprise, surprise. My take is, even if they didn't have a permit, arresting them is over the top, roughly akin to arresting someone for jaywalking. If they were asked several times to knock it off and didn't (which I haven't been able to tell if anybody's making that claim, and the video that I found seems to indicate that that is not what happened, but even so), then the arrest was legit and I have no beef with it.

The thing is, they were not arrested for passing out literature without a permit (probably not an arrestable offense)--they were arrested for "disorderly conduct".  And there was no indication of that at all. That seems to be a catch-all for when they can't think of what actual crime happened.

The lawsuit has already begun. It'll be interesting to see how it comes out.

Good point.  And it goes back to my original statement about laws and police arresting you for anything.  They can arrest you and charge you with anything.  Proving it in court is another matter and none will be.  But unfortunately the police will be acting like gestapo in some instances, and this appears to be one of them.

ahhhhhh so this is the crux of the whole matter eh?  You're just anti-Christian.  Why not just come out and admit it?

You'd be very surprised, to know, that I'm about as normal and plain as vanilla ice cream.  I'm a mom to three grown boys and the grandmother of three young children.  I run, bike, swim, line dance,  and love to watch TV and read good books...it's the one book in question you don't like and makes me a loon in your eyes, isn't it? 

Well your believing I'm a loon just because I believe in the God of the bible can be turned into a double sided argument.  I can say you're a loon, an ignorant loon to boot, because you don't belive in the God of the bible. 

There, we're even. 

i lived from age 8 to 15 one suburb away from dearborn and then near downtown detroit from age 18 to nearly 23.  years before i was born and some years after i left the area for good, one orville hubbard presided as mayor of dear ol dearborn. he managed to win a total of 15 consecutive terms--1942 thru 1978--by promising to "keep dearborn clean" (by "clean"  he meant keeping it all white).  

he pretty much succeeded in that endeavor for all those years thanks in no small part to his dearborn police department, members of which made detroit's elite jackbooted  tactical mobile unit look good by comparison (by jackbooted, i mean even exactly that--even though they drove patrol cars, their uniform included knee high boots into which they tucked their trouser legs)  it was dearborn pd who enforced that enlightened municipality's 'don't let the sun set on you here' code that continues to resonate seeing as how a whopping 1.3% of its current residents are black  .

so i find myself really torn here having to argue that yes, dearborn--just like every other city since the birth of our republic--is permitted to enact reasonable and constitutionally compliant local statutes defining and prohibiting disorderly conduct.  as they were prowling my old neighborhood with weapons ready and badge numbers concealed, i never dreamed i'd one day find myself agreeing dearborn's law enforcement personnel are empowered to enforce said statutes.  members of an organization who willfully refuse to comply with such city ordinances stipulating times, locations and acceptable conduct for all similar organizations as a condition of receiving approval to participate in public events put themselves in jeopardy of being cited or taken into custody for (this will apparently come as quite a surprise to some of yall, so please sit down and take a breath before reading on)  conducting themselves in a disorderly manner.

with apologies to my homie, bob seeger, it happens out in vegas and it happens in moline, on the blue blood streets of boston, up in berkeley and out in queens.  it went on yesterday and it's goin on tonite, somewhere someone's actin out and claimin it's their right.

ironically  none of this woulda happened if hubbard had not so badly failed his former constituency in one crucial aspect.  despite his claims to the contrary ("i'm not a racist, i just hate those black bastards') hubbard was, in fact, an equal opportunity segregationist committed to keeping his city free of not only blacks but virtually all middle eastern peoples from jews to arabs and beyond ('syrians are even worse than...').

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHEk_kaXmTk

That movie had some great lines.  I loved that part where Malone was squirming to distance himself from O'Connel.

Oh that it were only irony!

Come on people this is just another Dan_l "Crazies, wackos, and idiots did this and got that....but I'm impartial so whatever" blog. I found it quite amazing and hardly serious.

pleasantly shrouded with fog in the least los angeles part of la. 

Time blow the dust of my copy.

Peace,

Eric.

No, I am pointing out parallels that are happening.  Not every persecutor is a Nazi, not every persecuted is a Jew, and not every fiend is a Hitler.  Nor did I say any were.  I merely pointed out there is a reason the ACLU defends Nazis.  For whatever reason you hate or love them, they do realize that we are just a "Civilian Defense Force" away from totalitarianism.

You may not like the Christians.  You may cheer when they get "put in their place".  But I do not.  I do not cheer liberals getting shouted down, nor do I cheer when some jackass is assaulted because he dared to speak out (regardless of what he is saying).  I know that if they can do that to people, then my rights are in danger as well.

I do sincerely believe that a right lost is one lost forever.  And who loses it does not matter.  Once lost by the most vile of us, it will be lost by all of us.  It only takes a Napoleon to get the sheep bleating a new mantra - for the good of all of course.

america's most recent and egregious abrogations of liberty in favor of security are the so-called 'homeland security' and  'patriot' acts.  regarding the latter, their misleading and meaningless titles--nothing at all even vaguely patriotic there--couldn't be more evocative of that sort of totalitarian doublespeak orwell so artfully skewered. homeland security is a barely euphemistic revision of 'state security' combined with essence of those ol favorites 'motherland' and 'fatherland'.

wanna escape onerous municipal codes?  looking for a state where revelation trumps mere legislation?  wanna enjoy a community where bearing--and baring--arms is more than just some silly right?

waziristan beckons!  tear down the traffic signals mofackies!

You have to be brain dead.  Seriously.