Following a controversial disruption at a Minnesota church service by anti-ICE protesters last month, Alabama politicians are considering a bill which would make interrupting church service a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Should disrupting church service be illegal? And should it carry such a heavy penalty?
From Minnesota to Alabama
Amidst ongoing unrest in Minneapolis after the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by ICE agents, a group of activists stormed Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, thrusting a congregation into the center of a national immigration firestorm.
Protesters were there because the church’s head pastor is also in charge of a local ICE field office. And with journalist Don Lemon joining them to document the protest, the group burst into the church and chanted “ICE Out” and “Justice for Renee Good,” before ultimately being escorted from the premises.
The incident made national headlines and sparked outrage across the country – fueling a broader debate about where protest ends and protected worship begins. Now, Alabama politicians want to ensure that any potential protesters in their church pews face punishment.
Going to Prison for Protest?
“If an individual enters upon the premises of a church building to intentionally disrupt a worship service by engaging in a riot, unlawful protest, or disorderly conduct, or otherwise engages in the harassment of any other individual in the worship service, the individual would be guilty of the offense of disruption of a worship service,” reads Alabama House Bill 363, which was introduced last month and sponsored by State Rep. Greg Barnes.
Should the perpetrator commit “a second or subsequent violation, the individual shall be guilty of a Class C felony and shall serve a mandatory minimum of five years imprisonment.”
Under the proposed legislation, what might otherwise be charged as trespass or disorderly conduct could escalate into a serious felony – with prison time measured not in months, but in years.
What the Bill’s Author Says
“What we saw in Minnesota was unacceptable and disgusting behavior, and we are not going to tolerate it in Alabama,” stated Rep. Barnes. “If passed, HB363 will send a crystal-clear message that our churches are off limits to radical activists who have no respect for others’ right to worship.”
“No one has the right to disrupt a church service and infringe on their fellow citizens’ right to worship freely,” Barnes said. “In Alabama, we are not going to sit by and allow crazy people to intimidate our women and children in our churches. We simply will not tolerate it.”
A Vote on the Horizon?
The bill has more than 50 cosponsors and it is expected that the Alabama House could take up the vote soon. And according to local news outlets in Ohio, lawmakers there are considering a similar measure:
As lawmakers weigh the proposed legislation, a broader question lingers: when protest enters a house of worship, does it become criminal trespass – or is it still protected expression?
The First Amendment safeguards both free speech and free exercise of religion. When those rights collide inside a religious sanctuary, which one prevails? And is disrupting a church service a serious enough crime to warrant years behind bars?
281 comments
-
B/W Clerg. Clive Orlando Hessing
Disruption is a part of the proving of Gods word. It is our ability to be able to tower over the most envious and wickedest enemies God has with His Word. A disruption opens the door to be able to explain things you otherwise would have never gotten too. A godly disruption is accepted but a foolish one is reprimanded. God bless you all! Amen!
-
Patrick M Persinger
On the plus side, it will never work. It will be shot down, modified, or otherwise neutered. As it should be. There should be nothing "extra-" bad or illegal or whatever about disrupting a church service or a family reunion. They are essentially, legally, the same thing.
So, other than the nationalists in here, the rest who are likely advocating some increase protection for the churches, this is accomplished within their organization. How they take in new members, if they have an open-door policy, if they have a literal open-door policy as in an open or unlocked door during services, etc. So, if a person trespasses, then it can be handled. But showing up and being annoying in a public assembly is only illegal once the property owners or rightful representatives have asked the person/people to leave. Anyway, yeah, it is just a matter of adjusting the organizational structures to exist within the parameters of reality.
This is not a tough discussion legally. But you see, the real issue is passive aggressive. It is the hidden agendas (not so hidden), the partisanship, the tribalism. And that is just the American zeitgeist of the time, I am afraid. But you don't move through a problem by becoming a part of it. If wisdom still draws a breath, at least let that be heard. You don't move through a problem by becoming a part of it.
-
Gregory Allan McLeod
If you believe this then the time you spent in the Bible was worthless.yyou did not understand the lessons that were being taught to you.
-
David K. Smith
The Church is NOT Above Federal Law, nor is the Church higher than the Constitution. America is lucky that we have Freedom of Religion that our Constitution gives us. You cannot have it both ways. Either you are For the American Constitution or against the Constitution. If you are Against the Constitution, then you are Anti-American and you must be imprisoned or be deported.
-
Patrick M Persinger
"If you are Against the Constitution, then you are Anti-American and you must be imprisoned or be deported."
That is interestingly anti-American. It literally violates the vary reverence for personal rights the constitution sought to establish and uphold. You are advocating for making dissent illegal. That is the epitome of philosophical anti-Americanism.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Patrick,
You do make a valid point. I don't think David was advocating for making dissent illegal, that is too narrow of an interpretation to be 100% valid.
Here is the point I think David was making. Marxism and Communism are anti-American, ergo, against the American Constitution, and both ideologies are increasing their presence in our communities.
If you believe in either ideology, you believe in atheistic materialism which is anti-American and absolutely antithetical to personal rights. We are going to hell in a handbasket when govt has jurisdiction over your children's bodies without parental consent. Educators and Gov't officials have no business interfering with the personal freedom of a family without their knowledge.
Again, two wrongs do not make a right. Having said that, there will always be tension between competing beliefs when it comes to protecting the innocent, especially children.
-
-
-
CJC
So many posts written through the lens of politics and not common sense. Sad, really. I should stop coming to this page and reading the comments. So much political vitriol it's really disappointing.
-
Kelvin Eugene Cremeans II
No not a felony for protesting and what churches are they talking about?
-
Eric Craft
This wasn't a protest. It was an assault. A protest is staying on the sidewalk with signs. Bursting into a service and terrorizing the worshipers, many of whom were children and blocking their retreat is an assault that reaches the level of a felony. This assault can't go unanswed or something like it will happen again. It's nobody's 1st amendment right to terrorize a worshipping congregation.
-
Patrick M Persinger
Like if they stormed in the church (temple) and started disrupting things (overturning the money-changer's tables), they are definitely a criminal and should be punished. Right? That would make them almost a terrorist, if the disrupted the temple (church), wouldn't it? Cool.
-
-
Amy C. Bennett
A lot of this backlash is coming from Protestants. PROTESTants. It's literally in the name. They owe their religious freedom to groups who protested government overreach.
-
Leslie A. Hulberg Née Tomasura
I don’t believe it should be a felony as long as the protest is outside. You can still practice your religion inside. I don’t believe ICE or anyone in law enforcement should be in there trying to remove someone for any reason. Church’s are supposed to be sanctuaries. But I guess during authoritarian regimes, those “rules “ don’t apply.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
If it's ok to protest at Pagan events, and ok to protest at Mosques, and ok to protest at Buddhist temples, then it's fine to protest outside of Christian / Catholic churches. It's called the FIRST AMENDMENT.
Of course, these MAGAt lawmakers don't believe in the First Amendment anymore.
-
Joe R Day
It would seem the legislators in Alabama have very short, selective memories...
"Feb 2006 'FBI investigators suspect the burning of four predominantly black churches in Alabama on Tuesday -- the same day as the funeral of Coretta Scott King -- and the torching of five churches were possibly linked to several other attacks.'
"Attacking churches -- especially those in the African-American community -- is seen as an instant way of stirring fear. Places of worship are considered the heart and soul of many African-American communities, and served as sanctuaries -- places of refuge and comfort -- from the institutionalized racism blacks faced every day and as places to meet and organize during the fight for civil rights."
The KKK activities from the not-so-distant past should give notice that this 'Proposed Felony Law' is just another attempt to denigrate those who would attempt to protest unfair and unconstitutional activities in their state and the nation.
I see this attempt to demonize law-abiding folk who disagree with our state and federal mandates about methods of immigration and their ability to 'Bring it home' to those who are Leaders guiding ICE in the ill-advised attempts to deport US Citizens and legal immigrants, who are trying to build a new life in our nation.
NO Felony Arrests for 'Disrupting Church Services'!
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
They only want to be able to put people in color in prison for protesting.
-
-
Harvey Darwin Myers II
If they protest outside the church and do not interrupt the people attending or providing the service that is truly a protest and protected. If they block people from using their 1A freedoms that is not ok and is already against the law. Not sure why new laws are needed.
Your freedoms end where they start to interfere with someone else's freedoms (not their feelings).
-
Carly Danyel Cramblit
And I guess Those that proselytize outside the church will be treated the same? I didn't think so... It is 2026 for crying out loud! Humanity has fallen and can't get past religious lunacy, bigotry and hate. here is more proof the religion is poison to mind and humanity. We are all doomed starting with Alabama!
-
Paul Degenkolb
Churches are private property. The people's right to free speech stops at the property line. The only thing wrong with the proposed bills is that they do not cover other private property. Having anti Musk protestors invade Tesla dealerships should also carry prison time.
-
Clayton Lee Pratt
First, the pastor of the church that people were arrested for interrupting (including reporter Don Lemon) was also a federal ICE agent. He opened the door to interruption when he started working as an ICE agent interrupting the lives of people about their immigration status. I have religious people knock on my door even though I have my property posted against all solicitation in multiple places. I get molested by religious people while shopping, walking the streets, driving in my car. If religious people can interrupt my life in my home that is posted against it and anytime I'm out in public, why should they be so privileged as to be protected from interruption in any place or at any time. Religious people tend to be very pretentious and entitled about pushing their beliefs onto others. As much as they intrude into the lives of others they deserve to be intruded upon. After all, even the Bible says "an eye for an eye" and that should definitely apply. There are far more productive things to do in this country than harassing immigrants who for the most part are a positive and productive part of the communities they live in. There are far more productive things to do than proselytizing people who have zero interest in being a part of any religious groups. Leave people alone and then and only then should anyone or any group expect to be left alone.
-
Lakyn Murray
I'm not even Christian, but yes. Ten years is excessive though. Felony charge and one year (since iirc that's the minimum for a felony), more if it turns violent.
But! If that is approved, it needs to be approved across the board. Christian group goes into another religious space to be disruptive, they get it too. The right to worship safely needs to be protected for everyone, from everyone.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
They'll carve out exceptions for protesting, LOUDLY, and even physically brutally, outside and inside Mosques, Buddhist temples, Wiccan Circle sites, etc.
-
-
Cam Kirmser
It should whatever the relevant STATE wishes. The Tenth Amendment gives this authority to the States and, it is up to the people of that State to decide if it is a necessary penalty or not. No one in any other state has any right - or business - to tell that state what to do or to have any input on it whatsoever.
-
Kevin John Mccaw
How many churches and pastors are lobbying for this legislation? How many pastors tell their congregations who to vote for? The church crossed the line that separates church and state and it's the pastors and the church that brought the protest to it's doorstep. Tax the churches and register them as political organizations. Be honest about this. Who would Jesus bomb? Who and what are we defending?
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Kevin,
Why should churches be banned from practicing their right to discuss the politics of their choice? Because they are exempt from taxes?
If they don't operate exclusively for charitable or religious purposes then they are not tax exempt.
Case in point: The Moral Majority. The IRS is the authority regarding this matter and they revoked the MM's tax exempt status. To be clear, the organization changed it's name to the Liberty Foundation before their status was revoked.
I don't like church services to be politicized either because it then turns into some kind of demonstration of moral superiority which could be considered a sin of the heart.
Religious institutions are not taxed for a reason because that violates a constitutional right.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
Simple, because it's a CHURCH not a political group. If a church is Tax Exempt for being a religious organization, then they shouldn't be able to lobby and pour money INTO lobby groups. Individuals WITHIN the church have that right, but the church itself should not unless they LOSE their Tax Exempt status.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Bridget,
I want to say I agree with you in principle. If a church organization is subsidizing a candidate, it is no longer a religious institution only.
However, a church has the right (and to some, a moral obligation) to express the organization's political opinion under the rights afforded them by the constitution.
Perhaps Atheism should be classified as a materialistic religion. After all, it is a belief system, not a political organization, with unproven ideals such as "God does not exist".
-
-
-
-
Religion as a Weapon is Wrong
I find the comments here to be very disturbing. Some are downright cruel. I would like to see churches and schools as free zones where unwanted people are removed by local law enforcement and the charge is trespassing. Protesters and the media alike should be outside the building unless invited in. That said, I don't see the protesters and journalists as "scum" that deserve 10 years in prison. An out of control federal agency is killing people in the streets and terrorizing citizens and children. They are breaking into homes and sliding down the side of apartment buildings to drag out American citizens and immigrants that are not violent. It's the terror factor, not a law enforcement tactic. Many people on this thread identify as Reverend and recite the Bible and Constitution while at the same time calling all that don't agree enemy of the people. It is not unlike the KKK and it's an ugly look. The people leading the authoritarian movement will throw all of us under the bus. Remember that when they come for you. God and religion is nothing but a prop to cause maximum pain to the majority. Rapists, cheaters, thieves, liars, racists, drug demented etc. are not representing the good. They represent the bad and the ugly. God help us all.
-
Cyril R. VanKeirsbelk
It has to go both ways to be fair. So, also make it a felony to participate in a church organized protest. No protesting at churches, no protesting from churches. Or we could respect the 1st Amendment and not pass any laws respecting an establishment of religion.
-
Kirk England
The Constitution is the law of this land and is based on Christian principles. The first amendment says freedom of religion first, freedom of the press second and freedom to assemble third. The second and third do not outweigh the first, nor any combination of those freedoms. Violation of these freedoms given to citizens is a federal offense.
The Constitution also provides protections for private property, which churches are since the government is prohibited from establishing a church.
Lemon and the other protesters violated the protections of private property as well as the freedoms given to citizens in the first amendment, or at least violated the intent of those freedoms.
The FACE Act and other laws, established or proposed, simply provide limits on penalties for the above violations. A maximum of ten years in prison is better than beheading or permanently maiming someone, yes?
The pastor that is a member of a federal law enforcement agency established and used for raids prior to Trump ever becoming President did not shoot Ms Good nor Mr Pretti. Even if he did, the freedoms and protections listed in The Constitution are not voided. The Constitution does not say someone’s political, or religious feelings outweigh The Constitution itself!
Calling ICE the Gestapo is intellectually stupid. If one judge issues a removal order for an illegal alien (constitutional language) why would someone think another judge needs to approve every little detail of the removal? If illegal aliens were such good people, why is more than one ICE agent required per removal? Why were any ICE agents required for any removal? Why aren’t the aliens removing themselves after being ordered by a judge to do so?
Are there bad agents and investigations into incidents? Yes.
Were Good and Pretti committing felonies when they were shot? Yes.
Does that give Lemon and the other protestors the right to do what they did? No.
-
Michael Hunt
What felony was Alex Pretti committing when he was shot in the back?
-
Kirk England
1st he was interfering/obstructing/assaulting law enforcement personnel.
2nd he was illegally carrying a concealed weapon even though he may technically possess a CCW license. The rules state that one must carry physical ID and CCW license, he didn’t. He is also required to avoid conflict that may require use of the firearm, but he went there specifically to get into a conflict with law enforcement agents. Taking a gun to commit a felony is what? Aggravated assault, in this case even if he didn’t use the gun.
-
Michael Hunt
First of all, Alex Pretti was trying to help up a woman who was being assaulted by ICE officials. She was not the target of a raid, just an innocent bystander that ICE felt the need to rough up. He was then wrestled to the ground, sprayed in the face with pepper spray, disarmed while multiple people held him on the ground, and then he was shot in the back. If helping a woman who's being assaulted by federal law enforcement is "interfering/obstructing/assaulting law enforcement personnel," God help us all because the government can do whatever they want to you without you being able to do anything about it, even if your life is threatened.
Second, he was absolutely legally carrying his firearm. No part of the video shows him ever reach for his firearm, nor was he specifically there to get into a conflict with law enforcement agents. Even if he did not have the permit or an ID on him at the time, Minnesota law considers that a minor infraction, not a felony. If being in possession of a firearm while at a protest means government officials have the right to kill you in the street if they view you to be interfering with them in any way, we don't have a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-fbi-director-patels-claim-that-guns-are-barred-at-protests
https://abcnews.com/Politics/2nd-amendment-backlash-portrayal-alex-pretti-trump-administration/story?id=129559823
Your grasp of the reality surrounding these events is quite troubling.
-
Kirk England
Yawn, practically everything you said is wrong. I guess you missed some updates: Pretti’s family begged him not to go confront ICE since the last time he did it, he ended up with a broken rib after kicking out a tail light and spitting on an ICE agent. In another video he clearly reaches for his holster when he realized someone had grabbed his gun. The crappy gun model he brought is known to be plagued by issues making accidental discharge easy to do. After “gun, he’s got a gun” was yelled, a couple agents drew their own weapons. Then when Pretti’s weapon accidentally discharged in the hand of an ICE agent clearing it from the scene, the other agents assumed Pretti had fired the shot and “returned” fire. If Pretti and the woman you insist he was trying to save had followed lawful instructions, Pretti would still be alive.
-
Michael Hunt
Where do you get your propaganda from? They didn't beg him not do confront ICE, they asked him to be careful.
https://coloradosun.com/2026/01/24/colorado-parents-minneapolis-protester-shot-killed/
ICE officials were pepper spraying non-violent protestors and Pretti was helping a woman back to the sidewalk after agents threw her into the street. She is an EMT and when she tried to provide medical attention to Pretti she was stopped by ICE. There's videos of the entire encounter,
https://theintercept.com/2026/02/13/alex-pretti-first-aid-emt-federal-agents/
Furthermore, he was shot ten times. There was an initial 4, then a second or two pause, and then another agent (maybe 2?) unloaded 6 more bullets into his back while he bled out on the ground. He never reaches for his "holster" because he wasn't wearing a holster, the gun was in the back of his waistband.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/29/us/immigration-agents-shooting-alex-pretti-invs
Why are you defending violent government agents when they kill someone? At best, Pretti's death is proof that ICE is terribly trained and at worst they're being enabled to terrorize communities and act violently with impunity by this presidential administration.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Michael,
Why are supporting unlawful agitators? Does it matter their job title?
Why are you supporting the unlawful interference of lawful actions by law enforcement?
Violent govt agents? You mean the ones protecting themselves from violent protestors? You mean the ones that give lawful orders to citizens to stop interfering with the work they are tasked to accomplish?
If Petti minded his own business and denied his self-righteousness this would have never happened. His own moral superiority got him killed. Indirectly of course to be clear.
Were mistakes made? Probably. Let's see what the facts of the investigation discover and act accordingly in a civilized manner instead of going Old Testament with an "eye for an eye" nonsense.
To be perfectly clear, this administration did nothing different than previous presidents including the Deporter in Chief, President Obama. The difference between now and then is TDS, period.
Get over the blame game and ignoring not only the facts, but the truth, and fictionalizing the narrative to fit your politics.
-
Michael Hunt
Please provide me some examples of unlawful agitators. The woman shoved into the street by ICE was not being violent or obstructing anyone and Pretti went to help her up and stop them from hurting her. You really think he should have simply stood there and let an innocent woman be pepper sprayed and assaulted?
ICE is assaulting people who are trying not to interfere but become caught in the middle of their raids. This woman was trying to follow orders when ICE broke her window and dragged her from her car on the way to her doctor's appointment.
https://www.fox9.com/news/testimony-minnesota-woman-disabilities-detained-during-ice-surge
This family was leaving their child's basketball game when ICE surrounded them and then threw tear gas canisters, one of which rolled under the car and tear gassed the family, including their 6 month old child.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/us/minneapolis-couple-ice-tear-gas-6-children.html
These are not violent agitators who are being harassed and assaulted by ICE agents.
I have no idea what "eye for an eye" nonsense you are speaking of. I'm not calling for the agents to be murdered as well. I want them to face justice just like anyone else would.
I absolutely have issues with how the Obama administration handled deportations, but they did not use the brutality and intimidation tactics being used by our current administration. Thirty-two people died in ICE detention in 2025, the most in two decades. This is why there are protests and uproar over ICE today.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jan/04/ice-2025-deaths-timeline
Your only defense is to claim I have Trump Derangement Syndrome, a made-up condition used to dismiss or discredit any criticism of Trump by claiming I'm mentally ill. I have fictionalized no narrative, as you can see from my sources, while you've provided nothing to support your claims.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Michael,
I respect your opinion, but that is not fact. Neither is so-called news organizations reporting strictly facts, but mostly editorializing based on their biases.
Secondly, Pretti interfered with law enforcement, clearly. Whether ICE was wrong was none of his business. His righteous moral superiority blinded him to the consequences of his actions.
I won't condemn Pretti, but I condemn his actions. He meant well and died because of his beliefs.
What is the expression? "Two wrongs don't make a right?"
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cheryl Pettijohn
Lemon did not protest. He reported on the protest. Get your facts straight and stop your bigotry.
-
Kirk England
Lol. My facts are straight. Please reread my comments.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Cheryl,
Are you sure of that? Evidence suggests otherwise. You are accusing Kirk of the same thing you are practicing? Remember when you point your finger you have three of them pointed back at you.
-
-
Cyril R. VanKeirsbelk
No. The 1st Amendment says Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. Then no abridging free speech.
So protesting at a church, perfectly legal. Then you need to trespass the protesters and wait a reasonable time for them to leave. Then call the cops.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Cyril,
By your definition of protesting it should be okay to enter your home at will and yell at you and intimidate you and your family. Fair enough?
-
-
Religion as a Weapon is Wrong
What is your title in the administration? Actually, you are far more articulate than the rest of the bunch. The beheading comment is disturbing, but otherwise....you are an excellent mouthpiece for the regime. God help us, all of us.
-
Kirk England
My mention of beheading was a reference to another religion. Have you seen a public beheading in Saudi? Quite the spectacle! Done in a soccer stadium and they use the Jumbotron screen. Headsman arrives in a limo to great fanfare. I wouldn’t recommend protesting there.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi there "Religion as a weapon is wrong".
Hiding behind anonymity is disturbing and cowardly.
God help us from the Leftist Authoritarianism that pervasive in our country. The current administration is protecting us from Marxism, Communism and the atheistic belief in materialism.
-
-
-
Dr. Timothy L. Hayes
While I agree laws should be in place to protect worship services, I think making it a felony is a step to far. While I agree there should be a punishment for this I think at most it should be a misdemeanor with first time offenses having to pay a mandatory fine of $1000, mandatory 500hrs community service, mandatory 1 year probation and up to 6 months in jail and any offense after that would be a mandatory fine of $2000, mandatory 1000hrs community service, 2 years probation and up to a year in jail and if they violate probation for either the first or subsequent offence they will have to serve the maximum sentence allowed. A felony for speaking and getting disorderly is a bit much. Now if they can add a stipulation that if the person makes threats, assaults someone or cause damage they would face a felony with a mandatory jail term. They also need to start using language like Places of worship instead of churches. The way some of the politicians talk about these proposed laws is that they are concerned with only Christian places of worship. They need to take into consideration all other faiths and make sure when they are discussing these laws they don't alienate other faiths. I am all for freedom of speech and if you want to protest a church or it's message it should be done legally on public property in accordance with the law. Having free speech and the right to peacefully protest is one of the greatest gifts given to us by our founding fathers, but we have to follow the law. It's the only way we will make it as a civilized nation. And no our nation and our laws and legal system is not perfect, but that's why we should work each day to make it better.
-
Lisbeth Kieran Bushey
This proposal directly treads on the First Amendment. Religious buildings already have the right to have people civilly trespassed from the premises, just like everyone else does.
If these laws are passed, they will cause government interference with free speech and movement.
Just trespass people you don’t want there like everyone else does. You don’t get special treatment because your property happens to be a religious site.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Lisbeth,
But, but, but, abortion clinics. They have a special law for trespassing on abortion clinics. If you want more church services interrupted then, yes, stand down. If not, these people need to be made examples, especially Don Lemon and the other ringleaders so this does not get repeated over and over again. These are not examples of righteousness.
-
-
Amber Fry
Not a felony no. If anything it's a civil offence. However we have a problem in this country with blending religion and politics when they were specifically stated by the constitution they be separate. No government ruled by a religion and no religion favored over another by the government. If a church is pushing politics than it should be subject to taxes. Any political group pushing a specific religion should be disbanded as unconsitutional.
-
Kirk England
Do you think Islam is a political group since a prime tenet is that the Quran supersedes the US Constitution, or any other government?
-
-
Rev. Donut
I'm not a member of the ABA.
Disturbing the peace comes to mind.
But, what just happened with Trashy Lemon balls and the trash heaps he claims he didn't (did appear to) lead and encourage to storm a church is more than that. Maybe assault and/or civil rights violations.
Rolling in with loud mouth, trashy asx bunch of rioters and video equipment and accosting people in the church demands more severe charges.
How much of a "crime" did the women praying outside an abortion clinic commit they were arrested and found guilty of some BS "crime"?
Praying, church, see the connection?
Tit for Tat. babies, Tit for Tat
-
Billy Coley
Christian sharia law doesn't belong in America.. move to Iran if you want a religion run state
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Billy,
What is Christian sharia law and where can I get some?
Iran? Iran's theocracy is almost over.
What we don't need is government preaching to us about empathy and kindness like that is going to solve violent crime and poverty. It's a government, not a church after all.
-
-
Jamie Frost
Specifically... The fact that it's a church is irrelevant..
getting violent, or rioting in any place that is irrelevant to the protesters cause should be illegal .... If ICE is the cause then go to the government...
-
Matthew W Meister
I learned during COVID that one way to decide if something is reasonable in a church, it should also be reasonable to do in a strip club and vice versa. You may not like hearing that, but freedom of religion and freedom of expression are both protected. If you are ok with people protesting outside a strip club, but not entering the premises and disrupting the intended use of the participants, the same should be true of a church. We don't need a separate law. Criminal trespass is criminal trespass. Once inside, if they commit a felony, it is a felony. They cannot assault, vandalize, or otherwise hurt the property or any person therein without consequences. All the laws that are needed are already in place. Legislators standing on a bully pulpit to show they are holier than thou should stand down.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Matthew,
I agree with you.
Protesting doesn't give anyone a free pass to disrupt people's lives whether it be in a church, school, or on the highway.
Violating other's rights because one believes they have superior moral authority is no different than any other form of authoritarianism.
This was not a protest; this was agitation.
These so-called people of empathy are hiding behind the meaning of protest to commit acts that are not legal or lawful.
-
-
Val Jester
This is a simple trespass. I think Don Lemon is guilty of à misdemeanor criminal trespass. Conspiracy to commit a crime turns that crime into a felony. If they can prove Don Lemon was a conspirator, he has much more criminal liability than a fail to leave the property after being requested to do so.
-
ServantOfJudgement
The FACE act signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 makes this a possible felony.
If Lemon were to do it again, then probably a felony for him. Some of the rioters were verbally violent against the flabbergasted partitions, they may get a felony. According to lemon's own words leading up to the riot, he included himself with the intruders. He did the same as he railed the preacher. He's wealthy though, the elite always slither away from justice.
-
Michael Hunt
From the FACE Act code: "[F]or an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than six months, or both, for the first offense; and the fine shall, notwithstanding section 3571, be not more than $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; and except that if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 10 years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life."
Nothing in there about a felony although if bodily injury or death occurs I would guess the person would be charged with at least felony assault. Someone being "verbally violent" isn't causing bodily injury or death...
-
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Val,
Don Lemon is guilty of being a selfish media whore for sure. True, he is an idiot IMO, and knew exactly what was going to happen ergo conspiracy. But we have laws to address the trespassing and conspiring to commit a crime. Unfortunately we can't prevent stupidity legally or otherwise.
-
-
Therese A. Luzitano
I do not condone the entering of a church for reasons other than for worship or refuge. That includes protestors, police, ICE agents, border control officers, et al. Places of worship have been "safe" spaces for societies all over the world.
-
Walter Abington
If the church is a fascist militia disguised as a church then it deserves to be abolished nterrupted. If it preaches politics it deserves interruption.
-
Val Jester
Please assure your readers that you possess more intellect that your words portray you as possessing.
-
Joseph Saffomilla
Poor Walter is obviously suffering from TDS and has no clue what fascists really were. If this administration were truly what these people keep calling them, they would already be in the camps.
-
Rev Hartwell
I don’t think you understand what TDS is. It is fealty to a leader despite that leader showing no signs of respectable leadership.
There are 14 signs of fascism. Camps are not required. Here are the ones that we already fall under: 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause 4. Supremacy of the Military 5. Rampant Sexism 6. Controlled Mass Media 7. Obsession with National Security 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined 9. Corporate Power is Protected 10. Labor Power is Suppressed 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption 14. Fraudulent Elections
Before you speak on a thing, make sure you understand it. Look up the 14 signs of fascism for clear definitions of these points. We are already delving into fascist territory under Trump. The only thing left is the policies and behavior becoming more pronounced, but we are currently frogs in a pot of water on the stove. We don’t need full fascism to take hold before we can protest our country falling into it. The time was a year ago and it continues to be the time.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Rev. Hartwell,
I'm sure you mean well, but Leftist Authoritarians abound in this country who require their tribe to follow their rules and obey their ideologies or be thrown out of the tribe under the guise of moral superiority.
Prime example, Joe Biden. Under Joe Guido Biden, if you refused to get the jab and worked in the government you were subject to being fired or forced to resign. Just ask all those military patriots that were released from active duty even if it violated their religious beliefs. Is that the kind of government you support? If so, then you support fascism.
The difference between our two leaders is that one is an obvious wolf (or predator if you will) while the other was a wolf in sheep's clothing pretending to be "nice". The latter taking advantage of the ill informed and clueless gullible souls.
Mostly, the government should be here to inform us and not lecture us or direct us on morality -isn't that the realm of religion and religious freedom?
That goes for abortions, taking drugs, drinking alcohol etc.
-
Michael Hunt
Refusing to take a vaccine that will limit the spread and mutation of a deadly virus is the opposite of being a patriot. Someone who does that is putting their personal desires over the safety of those in their community and that to me is one of the most selfish things a person can do.
"Leftist Authoritarians" are not abound in this country; although I'm sure some exist. Far-right authoritarians, however, currently work in The White House.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Michael,
Tell that to the many military patriots that were fired because they refused the vaccine, many on religious grounds. All of them were exonerated of the overreach by the Biden Administration.
Secondly. Can you provide proof that it limited the spread of covid? Anything? Why is it not required now? Can you explain that logic for me?
You sound like one of those folks that shout "My body, my choice!" but vaccines not so much. There is a name for that.
Thirdly, Marxism (Leftist Authoritarians) is alive and well in this country and in MSM reporting.
Marxism famously characterizes religion as "the opium of the people" to justify violence against religion, especially Christianity; after all we are a culturally Christian country that is by far one of the most, if not the most, tolerable country in the world.
Much of the radical left is ideologically rooted in materialist atheism and, if you don't believe that then I have bridge to sell you.
-
Rev. BH
Kerry, I quote you "Secondly. Can you provide proof that it limited the spread of covid? Anything? Why is it not required now? Can you explain that logic for me?"
It was never "required" it was only pointedly suggested. No one was forced to get a covid shot. And now thanks to "doctor" antivaxxer RFK Jr, we have the biggest measles epidemic ever.
"The United States surpassed a milestone in reported measles cases, with 2025 now having the most cases since the disease was declared eliminated in the US" - Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
I listen to my doctor, get all the shots he suggests and remain free of shingles, the flu and covid at a ripe old age.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Rev. BH,
If you were employed by the govt, President Guido Biden wrote an XO that you would lose your job if you didn't get the jab.
Many employees and military patriots lost their jobs because they refused to get the jab for many reasons, some religious. Thankfully, the courts reversed that XO as unconstitutional.
Too, I had several employees that objected to the forced jab, and I defended the decision of one pregnant employee to not get vaccinated while she was pregnant. What Biden did was unconstitutional and SCOTUS ruled against it.
So, YES, it was required (unconstitutionally) by a segment of the American population.
Furthermore, where is the evidence, really, that it prevented the spread of the virus. Please cite the proof that this comment was true.
-
Rev. BH
Part I: "No, the federal government cannot make mandatory vaccine laws due to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution."
Part II: Indeed, the spread of the virus was minimally effected. Dying from it was greatly effected. So if you didn't mask and caught the virus, you probably wouldn't die.
Part III: Calling President Biden silly names, does not help your case. Nor does your scary "the jab." over and over. Did you ever get "jabbed" for blood tests? Or did you refuse that scary procedure, too?
Part IV: Where in any bible are there objections (religious) to vaccinations? (Christian Scientists represent less than 1% of the world's population so let's skip them),
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Rev. BH,
Calling President Biden "Guido" was an analogy to Italian mob boss modus operandi, mainly extortion.
The "jab" was clearly a catchy nickname specific to the covid vaccine, not scary at all as you characterize it. However, I know people that are deathly afraid of getting punctured by any object, period.
I'm referencing the illegal behavior by Biden and in no way am I throwing shade on Italians, but on President Biden. (I'm not here to defend President Trump's illegal behavior either).
My point was that what he did was wrong, plain and simple.
I'm not here to argue the efficacy of the vaccine because there is no real scientific data backing their effectiveness in reducing the transmission of the virus as was claimed by the political party in power at the time of Biden's XO -it was pure political theater, and the mob repeated it over and over while demonizing a large segment of the population that chose not to get the "jab".
Lastly, Biden clearly stated that if Federal Employees didn't accept the covid vaccine infamously dubbed the "jab", they would be fired, and many were.
To be sure, vaccinations did not exist during Bible times, correct? So the Bible has nothing to do with this and conscientious objection has everything do to with the decision not to get the jab.
There are no laws, anywhere that I know of where conscientious objection is illegal but, rather, protected.
I hope my response clears up our Tower of Babel moment.
Be well.
-
Rev. BH
No, Kerry it does not. But since you've totally dodged or ignored most all my statements and questions, I'm moving on.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Steven Ferrell
YES it should be a felony and jail time should go with it. What those protesters did was pure evil. Anyone who sides with them needs to remember that is condoning a very slippery slope.
You going to condone it when people bust into an islam place of worship and disrupt their service, or a Jewish or Buddha place of worship to protest all of them?
If you condone it for one house of worship, you must then condone it for any and all houses of worship.
It will end up being about deaths like it or not. People have a right to protest, but NOT on private property or inside a private building.
Lock them up.
-
Charlene Davis
Just my opinion but I think any kind of violent act doesn't matter who's doing it they should all be punished is it not written that that should be punished of course it is. It doesn't matter if it's a church on the street a school any kind of building or if you're out in public if anybody commits a violent crime especially such a terroristic act of violence the way things are going out there in the streets those people either need to be institutionalized in rubber room or put in a federal prison.
-
Tami Tabone
No. I think they could protest outside a church or school, and if they go inside, they could get a fine. But arrest? Not unless it gets violent. In addition, I feel if no protests are allowed, no ICE is allowed in churches or schools either.
-
Martin S
They should also make this bill retroactive...meaning there are dozens of people, including a few Far Right members of Congress, who should be jailed for their protests at Mosques and Islamic temples.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Martin,
The Constitution prohibits laws of ex post facto. We can't create a law today that punishes you for something you did yesterday.
Our forefathers were wise to do so. Once a Kamal Harris or some other crazy puppet becomes president, they would make it illegal to have voted for President Trump and try to execute me for treason.
-
Michael Hunt
"Once a Kamal Harris or some other crazy puppet becomes president, they would make it illegal to have voted for President Trump and try to execute me for treason."
What fearmongering propaganda networks are you listening to? This is one of the most absurd claims about Democrat politicians I've heard you make yet, Ms. SoJ. The irony of this all is that while you accuse liberals of meddling in elections, our current president is pitching "federalizing elections" in states he doesn't like so that the Republicans can ensure they win. He want's to send ICE officials to patrol voting places and drop boxes which will only discourage legal citizens and voters of color from voting out of fear of being harassed or detained by ICE. He recently seized voting records in Georgia in his continued attempt to re-litigate the 2020 election to declare himself a winner because he's such a thin-skinned child that he can't accept that he actually lost. Conservatives are actively trying to make voting more difficult nationwide in ways that will disproportionately affect poor communities while Democrats are trying to make voting accessible to all US citizens, not just those who can afford to purchase a passport or Real ID.
If I remember correctly, it wasn't liberals or Democrats erecting a gallows outside of the US Capitol building while chanting "Hang Mike Pence!"
-
-
-
Donald V. Dunham
A church is a sanctuary, socially and historically. For centuries, places of worship have functioned as protected spaces for assembly, reflection, and religious exercise. In U.S. constitutional framing, this falls under free exercise of religion and peaceful assembly. Disrupting a service inside the building directly interferes with those rights. That’s fundamentally different from protesting outside on public property, which is also constitutionally protected.
There is a legal distinction between protest and disruption. Peaceful protest on sidewalks, streets, and public areas = protected speech. Entering a private religious service to disrupt it = typically trespass, disorderly conduct, or disturbing the peace. Most jurisdictions already have statutes covering this. Escalating every incident to a felony risks turning ordinary civil infractions into life-altering criminal records.
Overreaction from lawmakers is the second problem. When legislators respond emotionally or ideologically, they often push penalties far beyond what is proportionate. Turning non-violent disruption into a felony can:
Criminalize minor offenses at extreme levels
Create selective enforcement risks
Politicize criminal law
Set precedents that could later be applied to other assemblies (including protests lawmakers support)
That’s how civil liberties erode, not just from the disruptive individuals, but from disproportionate legal responses.
- The principle that should guide this:
Respect sanctuaries and private worship spaces
Protect lawful protest outside
Keep penalties proportional
Avoid weaponizing criminal law for ideological battles
Once everything becomes a felony, the law stops being a tool for order and becomes a tool for power.
- Bottom line There are places where confrontation does not belong, a church service is one of them. But inflating every disruption into a major criminal offense is just as destabilizing. A functioning society requires both respect for sacred or private spaces and restraint from lawmakers who want to over correct.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Donald,
Well said, I mostly agree with you.
We seem to be having the opposite issue in this country whereby catch and release is becoming pervasive, with police caught in the middle and being disrespected because the laws don't have teeth or the politicians ignore it. The fraud in MN is a prime example along with the release of violent criminals, illegal or otherwise, so they can go out and be as predatory as they please without consequences. Now THAT is destabilizing!
I agree, though, that heavy handedness is the other side of the coin.
-
Del Hudson
I believe they should not be allowed to protest in churches or business and disrupt business. That's going to far.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Del,
If only it was a protest. By any definition that was agitation.
Agitators like to use euphemisms to hide their true intent, to agitate. It is also similar to an insurgents playbook, not protesting, which is a form of gaslighting the vulnerable to achieve an end by any means.
-
-
Allan Grover
I feel as though they can protest all they want. If they interfere, then they need to arrested and charged with obstruction. Not an issue. Even though their fervor may become challenging, there is a time and place for everything. I realize that this comment will not make a lot of friends, but you have to be pragmatic about what you can and cannot do without consequences.
-
Charisse Tenewitz
We supposedly have religious freedom in this country. However much you disagree w a religious organization’s beliefs or pastor, I don’t believe you have the right to disrupt a religious service. That could get dangerous & the congregation are like sitting ducks. It is analogous to entering a movie theater & protesting a movie while people are viewing it- I know I would be afraid. While I believe their message in this instance was correct, I believe their method was incorrect. Protesting outside off the property on the sidewalk with signs would have delivered the message in a non threatening way. Paying for a billboard would have been effective too. Action was called for. We are living in gestapo, slave catcher white supremacy times. Germany and all of Europe continues to warn us that this looks too familiar to them & to not allow this to continue. But the pastor holding the service was wrong imo also. He could have diffused the situation by thanking them for the information & assuring them he would look into the situation the offering a prayer for healing the troubles in the community and for peace. He did none of that which at the very least makes me question his instincts as a pastor of a so-called Christian community.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Charisse,
Really? We live in gestapo, slave catcher white supremacy times? Hyperbole much? Or do really believe that nonsensical fairytale? How much political nonsense do you consume?
Leftist Authoritarianism is the danger this country faces, not fascism. Marxism calls religion "the opium of the people". It is the ideology of atheistic materialism.
I'm waiting to hear of the great successes of Communism and their disdain for religion. Perhaps you have some insight?
-
-
Joseph Grieco
These kinds of laws will always get passed as knee-jerk reactions, and always spend more money than the states can afford trying to defend them before they are finally rejected by the Supreme Court. Yeah, Governor MeeMaw will sign it into law when it passes, just like she signed a bunch of other bills into law that got struck down by her own State Courts before they appealed to the Federal courts and lost there, too.
-
ServantOfJudgement
The law was passed in the early 90s, introduced and pushed by the Democrats, signed into law br Mr. Bill Clinton. You team got it passed friend.
The law protects the religious temples of the left (abortion clinics). The ritual of child sacrifice became protected by some pretty sharp teeth. As a bone thrown to the conservatives, churches also became protected.
Now that you know it was all of your teams doing to pass the law you hate because it protects christians, is it still Trump's fault and the Christian Nationalist puppet master's grand scheme?
-
Lisbeth Kieran Bushey
Bill Clinton is certainly NOT on “our team”.
First, we don’t have a “team”. We don’t worship politicians because they’re humans. They’re not gods.
Second, Clinton is persona non grata to the Democratic establishment and the political left in general. He cheated on his wife with a very young intern. That’s not just wrong because he cheated, he also lied about it and there was a massive power imbalance between him and Ms. Lewinsky that also made it extremely unethical even if Clinton hadn’t been married.
He became even more reviled once it became known he was friends with Jeffrey Epstein.
Third, we don’t worship abortion. It’s a medical procedure that is an extremely difficult choice to make for anyone whether the child was wanted or not. My own mother had several miscarriages that required medical care that’s also used in elective abortions. She wouldn’t be alive if she hadn’t been able to access that care. While as a Christian she wouldn’t choose to terminate a healthy pregnancy herself, she still believes that what other people do is none of her business because she’s not God. Medical facilities aren’t a religious temple in any way, shape, or form.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Lisbeth,
Then why are there sooooo many hospitals affiliated with religion? Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, you name it, they are religiously affiliated and follow the culture of that particular church. Am I wrong?
-
Rev. BH
Kerry, thank god for hospitals that willingly save lives no matter what your religious affiliation. Have you ever been to a hospital of any designation that held prayer meetings? Tried to convert you while saving your life? Please.
Do you object to military chaplains consoling sick or dying soldiers?
-
Kerry L Gausemel
I imagine some hospital organizations do hold voluntary prayer meetings. I have never heard of it being a requirement.
I do not object to MCs consoling any soldiers under any circumstances unless the soldier objects.
I don't appreciate those protolyzing to me under any circumstance without my express agreement.
I don't need or want to be assaulted by the piety and moral superiority of do-gooders. The highway to hell is paved with do-gooders.
Thanks for indulging me in this conversation!
-
-
-
-
-
Rev. Frank H Kalebich
Mr Grieco. You are too filled with prejudice and hate. You need to open your eyes. Pull the board out of your eyes before worrying about the splinter in your neighbors eye. Perhaps you should find a left run hate filled blog. God bless you.
-
-
Merle A Clark
Sanctuary Cities protected the criminals . Churches should be safe zones for worship nut not protect criminals . Lock em up
-
Roland Moore
I agree wholeheartedly!
-
Patrick M Persinger
Like the sanctuary cities in the Bible? Is that what you are referring to?
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Patrick,
Interesting point but not relevant to our time and place. That was the law of land then, but it is not the law of the land here, today. However, I'll give you points for cleverness.
-
Patrick M Persinger
First, Kerry, you win the creepy award. Thank you for stalking my comments. Not sure why, but great.
If you are arguing for "That was the law of land then, but it is not the law of the land here, today" great, we can wipe this whole religious nonsense right out once and for all.
Now, you may of course continue your sad weirdness, and stalk comments, but I will of course henceforth ignore you.
-
-
-
-
David Buck
Absolutely, disrupting a church service should be a felony! I very much suspect that if this had been a mosque, there wouldn't be any discussion. Somehow it's OK to attack, minimise and denigrate Chirstianity, but God help you if you dare say anything bad about Islam. Protesting is one thing, but the people I see on YouTube have a definition of what constitues 'protesting' which is really rioting. You want to protest outside a church, be my guest. You want to protest from the sidewalk, please do so. If you disagree with a law, then by all means petition the lawmakers to change it. But you do not get to pick and choose what laws get obeyed. When you storm into a church like a bunch of Hitler's Brownshirts; when you interfere in lawful arrests; when you engage in violence of any kind - that is not protesting, it is rioting and for that, you should face comnsequences.
-
Rev Morse
Stay out of churches. It should be a felony.
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
You’re seeing things clearly now. People really need to abandon those empty monuments dedicated to an insecure god. Their whole belief system is just a gilded cage, created out of an ancient fear of power they couldn't control. Walking into those stone prisons—places built on subjugating women and denying human nature—downright ought to feel like a massive spiritual burden. Let their altars just crumble away.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Matthew,
As opposed to building a Tower of Babel like a certain political party is doing?
We all know what happened to the Tower of Babel. Do-Gooders always have great intentions, but the highway to hell is paved with them.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
BTW,
Your characterization of churches is based on what? The culture of the past? We live in the present but your mind seems to live in the past which, technically, doesn't exist.
-
Rev. BH
The bible itself is part of the "culture of the past" The distant past. Should we, living in the present, ignore it, too?
-
-
-
-
Robert J Giammarco
Sounds HYPOCRITICAL to me where you have MINISTERS in MN protesting, yet it's OK for them to go back to their churches and preach. We are supposed to be SERVANTS of the Lord, preaching the good works of the Lord, NOT preaching to protest as many are now doing,, and forcing members of your congregation to protest, and riot seems you're in the wrong church, and not a member of the Cloth, IMHO.
BTW, the Constitution does not give us the right to protest. It allows us the right to ASSEMBLE. Sadly, so many think and feel that it allows them to protest and riot.
-
Kathryn Diane Taft
IT IS NOT ONLY OUR RIGHT TO PROTEST, IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY! It doesn't matter if you don't agree with them, they are speaking out and they should. It's the one fundamental right that we have that gives us, THE PEOPLE, the power to create change without being arrested or gunned down in the street. Someone recently compared Charlie Kirk with MLK jr. I protest! Lol, Idiocracy at it's finest
-
ServantOfJudgement
Why would the left gun down mr Kirk? He was speaking and protesting. If it doesn't matter to disagree, then why would the left assassinate him?
I think King was assassinated for talking. Sure, one of the assassins was a long time criminal and the other is a LGBT2QIA++Map but other than that they both pulled the trigger for a guy talking.
You're not making much sense Taft.
-
Michael Hunt
"The Left" did not gun down Charlie Kirk. One young adult man did and he happened to support LGBTQ+ rights. To my understanding, he does not identify as LGBTQ+ and appears to be an unaffiliated, inactive voter in Utah.
https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-is-charlie-kirk-s-shooting-suspect-a-registered-republican-who-donated-to-trump/22166136/
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7v1rle0598o
Was Melissa Hortman gunned down by the "Right" when she and her husband were assassinated by a man who voted for Trump in 2024? When she was killed, conservative politicians and media lied to paint him as a left-wing terrorist on baseless claims. When Kirk was killed, left-wing politicians and media overwhelmingly denounced his assassination and called for calm and justice while conservatives immediately called him a radical-left Antifa terrorist and even claimed the Democrat party was a terrorist organization.
https://www.factcheck.org/2025/06/lee-others-spread-baseless-claims-about-political-affiliation-of-minnesota-gunman/
Also, trying to equate MLK Jr. to Charlie Kirk is gross. While they may have both been killed for their speech, one person was fighting to end segregation and to ensure equal rights for everyone regardless of gender or color and the other was a White supremacist who made a living off hateful rhetoric. They are not the same.
-
Cyril R. VanKeirsbelk
Nice straw-man. Or non-sequitur if you prefer. Please don't compare peaceful protest to the killing of a right-winger by one of their own.
-
-
-
-
Douglas Robert Spindler
No, but holding a church service should be.
-
Kathryn Diane Taft
Ooh, spicy! I like it. And you're right,lol.
-
-
Dr. Melly M.
Short answer: Yes!.
-
William E Muldrew
I agree that all protest should not be held inside public or private establishments. I do respect people right to protest as long as they are held in a orderly fashion on public grounds not entering buildings public or private. And yes there should be a criminal charges implemented so people don't run wild with their protest. God Bless You All. Large fines and long term probation will make people think about how they conduct themselves. And truly more people will listen to the purpose of the protest.
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
Criminal Agent/Pastors shouldn't hide in churches.
Pastor David Easterwood leads the local ICE field office overseeing the operations that have involved violent tactics and illegal arrests.
-
Cam Kirmser
So? That's none of your affair.
If that church allows pastors - or any other leadership positions - to have second jobs, that's their business and none of yours.
For me, a pastor who serves God in that capacity and also ensures that laws are enforced, is doing a great job on both accounts.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Matthew,
Riding the moral superiority horse does not grant you moral superiority or the right to invade private property using insurgency tactics to ambush and terrorize innocent people because you disagree with a pastor's ideology -that is not a right, that is a crime. And those people will be prosecuted for breaking the law.
Is it time to create a law that judges moral superiority? Because it is a stain on this country no matter what your ideology is.
-
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
The Democrats sponsored and pushed through the Face Act. It was wanted and passed. Everybody was happy. Some little one ladies were sent to prison for violating it. Sounds good right?
If you send little old ladies to jail for violating the Face Act, you NEED to send those slobbering dogs to prison for violating the same. Also send the antichrist puke that claimed it was just reporting. The thing actually included himself with rioters with his own putrid mouth.
Enforce the laws equally. They're lucky nobody was carrying. If they don't absolutely throw the book at all of them, they will encourage it nationwide. Then you will definitely have dead rioters to bury.
-
Kathryn Diane Taft
Now why you guys keep saying the word protest means riot? WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST ANYTHING WE WANT! For you to keep calling it rioting means you support the downfall of democracy in America, and you should be shot for treason
-
ServantOfJudgement
Taft said"
"Now why you guys keep saying the word protest means riot? WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST ANYTHING WE WANT! For you to keep calling it rioting means you support the downfall of democracy in America, and you should be shot for treason'
This is why we call it a riot:
Riot- A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people.
A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpose.
I hope that explains it. We call it a riot because it's a riot. I'm terribly sorry that I've given you another word to ignore and forget. My apologies. It's probably darned challenging to keep it all sorted out and I've gone and made it worse.
You did touch on something important though. The left has entered a place of no return. The gutter if you will. Here you've laid out the condition for me getting executed. The condition is simply using a word that accurately describes the behavior of the rabid left. Since I used the word Riot, I need to be taken out and shot.
You want a democracy to execute a person for using a word Taft. You're dangerous.
I hope my Christian brethren carefully digest Taft's philosophical mindset. It's commonplace and danger is very near.
-
Rev Hartwell
She’s calling you treasonous. And what is the lawful response for treason? You tell me. It seems like you are fully incapable of having a conversation without showing that you support fascism. I think the government needs to look at your hard drive and check your browsing history, because there is likely information that puts you on an FBI watchlist. Or our current administration would probably like to hire you, since they love fascist ideals so much.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Rev. Hartwell,
You got fascism from SOJ? That is your perception? You should work on that. Especially work on judgment and using cheap hyperbolic language to support your argument if we can even call it argument. Try to do better.. .
-
-
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Katherine,
You are correct, it wasn't rioting. If it was the place would have been burned to the ground. On the other hand, it definitely wasn't protesting either.
It was agitating, plain and simple.
-
-
-
Merlin
Of Course Not. Making a ruling on a nonsecular activity could have unexpected actions from overzealous leaders with cleaver legal support to control or justify any actions.
-
Father Frederick
I have to disagree with some of you and say it should be a felony, but at a lower level. Reason being; the courts have proved that lacking a sufficient punishment for a crime, the offender will just do the crime again and again. We can look no further than what is happening in the no-bail and "out on the street" the same day as arrests.
A misdemeanor has little correction power. Think of all the laws of the road, assembly, or banking/business in which a crime is at a level of misdemeanor vs felony, and you find most people will feel the chance to commit the crime again is worth it. Again, look at recent history. As one member of my congregation put it; "when we are allowed to diminish our punishment for a crime to where we can tolerate it as an inconvenience, we have lost the effect of correction. And then human nature is such where we then take more liberties with our crime." I have to ask those who think it merits only misdemeanor status, at what point does it evolve to felony. Arson? Assault on children and old people? Destruction of property?
Let's not forget, this was a "home invasion" of a house of worship. It was not a "peaceful protest".
I would ask you to rethink this question in another form. If you were holding a service for the people in your faith, and suddenly the doors blew open with a crowd yelling and screaming, intimidating your church members, interrupting YOUR service; would you feel their actions merit a misdemeanor felony arrest? How forgiving are you to those who invade your home or house of worship? And to be clear; the answer is based not on partisan preference or compassion for a situation, but on the rights of society or congregation to assembly peacefully without another faction of societies interference or interruption.
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
Matthew 21:12-13 12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Pastor David Easterwood who also leads the local ICE field office overseeing the operations that have involved violent tactics and illegal arrests. is far worse a person then the moneychangers. And no, Jesus didn't get lawyers, get proof or call in Roman soldiers. If Jesus wasn't wrong, then neither were these protestors.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
This was also not in the USA where the laws state differently.
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
Since all of the bible happens not in the USA where the laws state differently, by your logic, none of of the bible applies here.
It's all or nothing Patricia. You can't cherry pick.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Matthew,
No, just the opposite. What it means is that the US laws do not apply to Biblical times, and it is silly try to make them.
-
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Matthew, Jesus OWNED the Jewish temple. It was His physical property. His rules He established in His house. These rioters were just slobbering dogs barking at little old ladies.
Here we have the Hive mind placing its lemmings at the same level as the Creator of the Cosmos. Even to the point of claiming his power to know the hearts of men they've never met.
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
No, Jesus was a carpenter. Not a property owner and no one of the time would have said, "That Jesus, he's the landlord, he can do this."
-
ServantOfJudgement
Matthew, that's the trouble with not believing the Bible is the word of God, you'll have an impossible time comprehending it.
It's known that the temple in Israel was literally God's physical property. Although the universe is His, the temple was special.
God owned the temple. Jesus son of God owned the temple. Jesus has legal authority to execute judgement on God's property.
See? Jesus kicked trouble makers out of His house. He didn't invade someone else's property to terrify them.
You're right about what you said though, that's why they crucified him.
-
Michael Hunt
If the only way to comprehend something core to your group's belief is to accept a fairly tale as fact, you might be in a cult...
-
Sir Lionheart
Michael is right. If you insist on believing in fairy tales as fact, when you actually have no demonstrable evidence to support your claim that your god is real, you really don’t have any grounds to stand on to rebut Matthew’s statement as being false.
It does seem that from the stories in that fictional book, Jesus (if he was real) was a carpenter. And in reality, we don’t really know who his real biological dad was. Mary has a lot to answer for, and all credit goes to Joesph for supporting her transgression. She came up with a brilliant story though….right? And people actually believed it. 🤭
🦁❤️
-
ServantOfJudgement
No lionheart and Michael,
I'm not insisting Jesus is the literal son of God. I'm insisting the Bible in insists He is.
The Bible insists that Jesus owned the temple where he turned the tables over.
Even a child can comprehend that we don't go into someone else's house and turn tables over.
If a child is going to use a fairytale to justify poor behavior, it's up to us adults to let all the children in the room know what the fairytale says.
Do not feel frustrated, children have a hard time understanding the difference between a circle and a square even though it's very simple.
-
-
-
-
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Matthew,
Please provide examples of the illegal arrests by ICE or stop making stuff up. Comparing agitators to Jesus? Really?
As for that story, I don't believe a word of it just because it is in the Bible.
Of all the stories about Jesus in the Bible that is the ONLY one that represents Jesus being violent. Any critical thinker realizes that it is a dubious story since there is not one other example of Jesus "Losing" it. Just the opposite. Jesus preached defenselessness and demonstrated that in front of Pilate.
-
Michael Hunt
Maybe try actually doing some research before you try and claim ICE isn't illegally arresting people. I found this article in seconds: https://www.kuow.org/stories/judge-rules-ice-unlawfully-detained-a-seattle-man-he-s-not-alone.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Michael,
Your link disappeared. You find one link and call that research? God help us all. I asked for facts, not links to dubious click bait reporting.
-
Rev. BH
Kerry, then post any link to anything you claim.
-
-
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
- Alleged Illegal Arrests or Misconduct in Minnesota Operations • Skull fracture and federal investigation (Minneapolis area)
In February 2026, local and federal authorities opened an investigation into the alleged beating of a Mexican citizen by ICE officers, which resulted in reported skull fractures. This prompted scrutiny because of possible excessive force and questions about legality in how the arrest was conducted.
• Claims of retaliation against observers
A lawsuit in Minnesota alleged that federal agents were unconstitutionally collecting personal information on people lawfully observing and recording ICE enforcement operations, potentially chilling civil rights.
- Controversial Campus Arrest — Columbia University Student • Early-morning campus arrest without clear warrant
In late February 2026, ICE agents arrested Elmina “Ellie” Aghayeva, a Columbia University student, in a controversial raid at her on-campus housing. University administrators and others claimed agents misrepresented themselves and lacked a judicial warrant, leading to criticism that the tactics may have violated protocol or rights. She was released hours later following intervention and public outcry.
- Warrant and Procedure Concerns in Specific Arrests • Mahmoud Khalil case
Separate from Aghayeva’s case, another incident involved ICE arresting a permanent resident in a building lobby without providing or initially showing a warrant. Legal filings later indicated ICE did not have a warrant at the time of the arrest, raising questions about whether the officers had statutory authority or probable cause justifying a warrantless entry.
- Broader Legal Challenges to Certain ICE Tactics • Warrantless arrests ruled unlawful
A federal judge in Colorado found that ICE agents had “routinely” made unlawful warrantless arrests in that state, indicating a pattern of detentions that violated constitutional protections unless specific conditions were legally met.
• Historical and court-ordered limits
In the Chicago area, parts of an ICE enforcement tactic known as “Operation Midway Blitz” violated a court order banning warrantless arrests outside a specific consent decree, leading to sentences being lifted and findings that a number of detentions likely occurred in violation of legal limits.
• Legal challenge to ICE detainers
In Gonzalez v. ICE (2018), a federal court ruled that ICE detainers issued without probable cause or judicial authorization violated Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, and barred ICE from using database matches alone to detain individuals beyond their lawful release.
- Reported Abuse, Conditions, and Civil Rights Complaints
Separately from specific arrests, civil rights organizations (including the ACLU) have documented systemic complaints about inhumane detention conditions, lack of access to counsel, medical neglect, and rights violations in facilities where ICE holds people, prompting legal and advocacy pressure to enforce constitutional protections.
-
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
You said it right Frederick.
-
-
pjm
No, interrupting a Christian church service should not be a felony. Forget about laws, civil rights, politics, etc.; as Christians we're told to turn the other cheek.
Although... and I guess this is a separate but related issue... it leaves me to wonder if that pastor is indeed a Christian since everything ICE is doing is the diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ. And for anyone even remotely familiar with the New Testament there is no need to elaborate on that. Jesus said we can't serve two masters.
-
Kathryn Diane Taft
Everything you just said is contradictory to everything you just said, just like the Bible. Of course we serve more than one master; we have a boss at work, we have teachers at school, and JESUS DIDN'T WANT ANYONE TO SERVE HIM! THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON HE WAS SO COOL. You know nothing about God, he's WAY better than what that stupid book says
-
ServantOfJudgement
Taft said:
"JESUS DIDN'T WANT ANYONE TO SERVE HIM! THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON HE WAS SO COOL. You know nothing about God, he's WAY better than what that stupid book says"
That book is first and last place we've been told about Jesus.
Lol, where did you learn so much about him?
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Pjm,
What will you do when they come in your church and beat people up, stab them and shoot them? Will the dead ones turn the other cheek? When it happens again, will those dead ones turn the other cheek? Will everyone in the church turn the other cheek, one by one to the grave until it's empty?
Find the proper meaning of turning the other cheek. Find why Jesus said we would have to arm ourselves and protect ourselves. What was the reason Jesus told us we would need to be as wise as the serpent? Why all of these warnings for preparation and defense?
Please friend, be naive in the heart towards God but not towards men.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
PJM,
Your choice of the word "interruption" is misinformed at best, and willfully ignorant at worst if you are to be believed. Comparing ICE to the teachings of Christ? Should we compare the police, the military, and other government functions to the teachings of Christ?
-
Patrick M Persinger
You have just discovered the hallmarks of a Christian Nationalist. Christian Nationalism is completely disconnected from the teachings of Jesus as laid out in his scriptures. It is entirely a code for (often) white supremacist seeking political and cultural "cleansing" and control. It is a threat to any place it exists. It has been around even before Christianity (in other forms), but began early in the Christian history, sadly. And we see its effect on Europe as we consider the Dark Age. The age of intellectual death.
So yes, dangerous, cult-like, and manipulative by nature, it is thankfully shortsighted, which is why his is always historically beaten. But there are psychological payoffs for people who participate: there is dopamine in aligning with a "righteous" crowd, there is a form of unity projected through a narrative of oppression while being safely and completely free of oppression, but most importantly, and most tellingly, there is a validation. They finally, likely after years of being unpopular or less successful or than desirable they wanted to be, get to feel like they have some control. And that is where it lies. That is the real place it festers and grows.
Luckily, today, we have better education in general, and a better understanding of the rigors of actual academic research and methodology, helps many avoid or overcome such emotional traps. Still, with social media and 24-hour entertainment-based news (CNN and FOX and NEWSMAX style news) there has been an unsettling rise in bad thinking and false information. There are people who choose to "disbelieve" evidence, actual, physical evidence, and just "believe" something completely made up instead. So, while one in a clinical setting would label this a pathology, in society it exists more commonly just based upon undeveloped thinking systems. But I digress, I have dived to deep. The main point is, while it is important for anyone and everyone to do everything they can to battle this movement built on willful ignorance from gaining power, trying to really understand the logic the individuals affected by it are following is somewhat pointless due to the situation of their faculties. It is sometimes easier, if they are a person who you really want to help, to just nonchalantly insert some basic educational ideas and critical thinking techniques, without making it related to their issue.
Anyway, I saw your inquiry on this comment, and the frustration of "what the heck is this person even thinking?" going on behind the words of your reply, and thought I would let you know, it's not you. And it's probably not worth your time. Shalom, friend.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Patrick,
Your point is unclear to me.
I don't really care about Christian Nationalists anymore than I care about Black Nationalists.
I care about the freedom of religion and the right to assemble and worship God without provocation and harassment -plain and simple. If they want to worship the devil that is nobody's business but their own.
For those of you on a "crusade" against White Nationalists, have you forgotten the results of the last crusade?
I'm not about which side is better or correct, I'm simply for enforcing the law and allowing the courts to make the decision whether the law was violated or not.
Too many people are here conflating this incident and trying to justify possible illegal behavior in the court of public opinion which is the last place anyone or anybody should be judged.
Social justice is mob justice, not righteous justice.
Be well, my friend.
-
-
-
-
Michael Bernard Wolf
I do not believe interrupting a church service should be a federal crime, but if a person's actions leads to an assault, then yes, but for the assault not disrupting a church service. People, as well as Pastors when in church should always show respect and dignity for the people's right to worship and if someone can't do that they should think of not attending a service of worship. Besides worship does not necessarily mean being in church, I can worship God at home, in my car, in a park or even when just walking down the street. Prayer and worship are a direct communication with God on a personal level and when in church people should respect that time of personal communication and not interrupt it for any reason, unless of course there is a medical emergency or an emergency such as fire or a gas leak, which is just common sense. God will understand.
-
Reverend Paula Copp
I think interrupting a worship service shows a lack of respect and civility, but criminal? Yeah, no! Misdemeanor, maybe… felony? No.
-
Joseph Grieco
According to reports, it was more of a white Christian Nationalist rally than a church service.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Trespass the people. If they return, or don’t leave, they can be arrested. A felony is almost as silly as the Bronze Age beliefs themselves .
-
-
Colleen McAllister
I think everyone is overreacting to this situation. Trespassing and disorderly conduct, yes. But a felony? No. Major time in jail? Absolutely not.
-
Joseph Grieco
It's Alabama. Because of all the undocumented roundups they need more prisoners to do the work those folks did.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Us little folk cut our own grass and such. We don't have the coin to buy illegal slave labor.
How telling that you stated illegal alien labor was within the same price range as prison labor.
How true that comparison is. Why doesn't slave labor bother the left I wonder.
-
Michael Hunt
"How telling that you stated illegal alien labor was within the same price range as prison labor."
Joseph never stated that. His statement was that the labor being provided by undocumented immigrants (and possibly even legal immigrants who are scared of being detained for looking undocumented) is having to be replaced by prisoners which is creating a demand to imprison more people. Nothing about the compensation being the same.
-
ServantOfJudgement
But it is slave wages Michael. If the illegals won't do it the next cheapest labor is prison wages.
I've had two Mexican restaurants in my immediate area busted for not paying their illegal slaves.
My factory was filled with slaves from Mexico, willing to work for a fraction of what it takes to live in.
Local construction crews filled with slaves from Mexico. The owners not willing to pay fair wages to citizens.
You guys are so far in the gutter with Trump, you can't even see what you're doing. You're killing your own future.
-
Michael Hunt
I wasn't aware slaves received wages. I thought slaves were the property of their owners.
I absolutely agree with you that undocumented immigrants are paid less than they should be. Where we differ is that your solution is to deport them all and my solution is to ensure they're paid fair wages, regardless if that involves them receiving green cards or remaining undocumented. I'd much rather we provide realistic paths to citizenship instead of kicking them out of the country and economy.
What you're not addressing is the fact that due to a lack of labor, there's a higher demand to incarcerate more people in order to have more labor to provide and to make a profit.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Michael,
Of course illegal immigrants are being paid less than the general population. They work for less and take jobs away from citizens, duh. Do you know who is driving that 40 ton semi-tractor rig that is behind you and has been in the news of late? Scary.
This country already provides realistic paths to citizenship within U.S. law. Lawbreakers are not qualified for citizenship as it should be. Rewarding lawbreakers seems to be the passion of Marxists and violates the values of our country and our way of life.
AND, in what State are inmates used to provide labor and create wealth? And for whom? Simple question.
Simple answer: None. Your statement is a non-sequitur.
-
-
-
-
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Micahel,
SOJ is correct with his/her analysis as what can only be described as modern slavery in the U.S.
A prime example is the semi-truck hauling business and the appalling low wages paid to illegals to drive them. It doesn't go without saying the number of citizens killed by these drivers.
It is not always about pickin' cotton, veggies, fruit etc that, according to the so-called experts, state that citizens won't do the work. Could it be because the wages do not provide a living wage compared to other work?
How do Americans compete with slave labor for a living wage? Where is the outrage over employing slaves to do this work?
Moreover, now we have slave labor competing for jobs (drivers) that citizens would SURELY DO if not for the lower and lower wages being paid because an industry is being invaded by illegals.
Where is all the outrage that citizen employees are being priced out of the labor market?
-
-
Gordon Tittsworth
Very well said!
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Colleen,
I agree. However, if they perpetrate this garbage more than once then I think this behavior will need to be addressed with stiffer penalties.
-
-
Chris
No, of course not. It's ridiculous that one particular religion is getting preferential treatment in the first place, especially by the Federal Government in direct violation of the First Amendment. After all, how many times have "Christians" disrupted services held by other religious beliefs? They have no problem doing it, so why should they be exempt from receiving it?
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Chris,
Can you provide some details and facts about the "Christians" that you claim "disrupted services held by other religious beliefs?"
Serious question. What services have these so-called "Christians" disrupted?
-
-
Rolland Pitzer
But it’s ok for that so called minister to break into private homes pull innocent people and children out of cars and see the thugs beat their families half to death with no warrants. Don’t talk constitution only for your own cover. That’s not to say the murder of US citizens right before our eyes only to be lied to and told you didn’t see that. As a so called minister and congregation you all should hold your head in shame. You will have a rude awakening someday when you meet the maker I can’t speak for what will happen then but I don’t believe your inhumanity and hatred will be welcome. It perfectly acceptable for you and your clan to destroy lives but god forbid someone disrupting your church service. Your hypocrisy makes me sick to my stomach
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Sorry Rolland, but neither is okay. The right to protest ends when you enter private property, and even ICE agents are required to follow the law with judicial warrants (or exegent circumstances that cause immediate threat to the public or officer) in order to search property or arrest a person. Alabama does not need to make special provisions for a church. They should have stayed outside with their protest.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
I’d think you’d have to trespass them first. But as soon as one left, another could start up. Or more borderline acts of civil disobedience, such as loading up on pintos and broccoli then night before. Pay unkept, unbathed homeless people to attend, chose some with mental issues.
And I agree with you on the results of the hypocrisy. The stench wafts all the way to the opposite side of the planet.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Japan has one of the most strict immigration policies this side of the Mississippi.
Shucks man. Why not ding those brothers?
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Lots of visa get overstayed. And the efforts made to do anything about it as, uh, less than optimal. Cheap labor, same situation as in the US. Somebody gotta’ pick that cotton.
But this isn’t about Japan’s immigration policies. It’s about disrupting religious meetings in the US. And it’s especially about the hypocrisy of American xtians who, according to a Texas representative, have forgotten that the man who founded their religion taught 2 things…love god and love your neighbor.
Just my opinion but these hypocritical twits deserve to have their worship interrupted.
-
Donald G Magel
We were once a Christian Nation. Times have changed. Hate has replaced the love of all people that Jesus Christ preached. HE also threw the money changing evil men out of the synagogue. Not in Alabama. Protect the pedophiles and the money changers. Ministers now have a right to be a part of that group. The christian right follow a new god, and the anti-christ is now their chosen one.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
The US was not formed as, and never has been, a Xtian nation. The ‘In god We Trust’ on money and ‘under god’ in the pledge are both relatively new additions. I have no comment about the other nonsense you were tossing about.
-
ServantOfJudgement
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”
I wonder what Creator the author was speaking of in our founding document. Darwin hadn't evolved yet.... Can't be the super trippy cosmic sand nobody can find...hmmmm we would have to see who the citizens at the time worshiped. OMG! They worshipped God of the Bible!
95-98% of the colonial citizens identified as Christian at the dime of Independence. I'm terribly sorry about that.
USA spawned as a Christian nation.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
1-I agree that many of then items are self-evident. Many primate groups live similarly. But the idea of ‘self-evident’ means there is no need for the ‘creator’ nonsense.
2- John Adams, heard of the guy? I’ll give his words infinitely greater reliability than the ones you manipulate in an effort to go against Mr. Adams. He said…
“ The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” John Adams
-
Patricia Ann Gross
It meant whatever creator each person believed created them, even if it was just Mommy and Daddy.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
How did you manage to come to the conclusion that your ‘comment’ can be connected to what I said? I once heard that the ‘under god’ and ‘in god we trust’ were pushed in there during in time we were afraid of the ‘godless’ communists’ and wanted to give the citizens a fighting point of sorts. Plus they managed to get get worked into places it was never, ever intended to be put.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
It got posted in the wrong place. I was responding to SOJ who asked "I wonder what Creator the author was speaking of in our founding document. Darwin hadn't evolved yet.... "
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Comment removed by user.
-
-
Maximillian Martin
This country has NEVER been a christian nation!!!! The constitution itself was based on the Gayanashegowa, the great law of peace of the Iroquois Confederacy!!! Not your religious writings or concepts!!! Keep your religion out of the government!!!!!
-
ServantOfJudgement
Max,
It's written in perfect English, fathered from biblical principles and Greek philosophy documented thousands of years before Christians ever met the Iroquois. I researched it and found it to be a noble principal. Interesting that Jesus The Christ was crucified on a tree and the symbolism behind the Confederacy was a white tree.
However, the two doctrines differ more that one would expect. Too much to claim that philosophy spawned the United states Constitution. Also, it wasn't written until the late 1800s. Like the Qoran was written long after the Bible said God's message was complete.
These are all facts written in black and white. Christianity is the religion of the colonials and their elected leaders who wrote the Constitution from biblical and Greek philosophical writings.
If the sky is 99 percent clear, we're on stable ground when we call it a sunny day. You can call it cloudy, I don't care, I know it's sunny.
-
Maximillian Martin
And one more little fact that proves your ignorance. The symbolism behind the Iroquois Confederacy was NOT a "white tree". Part of it was a tree named a white pine which was, listen close, brown and green!!! What a concept!!! And you're probably thinking I'm still wrong but here's a simple fact that even someone like you should understand, I am Iroquois!!!! That's my traditions and history!!! And what I said is a fact!!!! Your book of lies is foreign to this land!!!! And it was not a part of the creation of the constitution!!!!!
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Again, John Adams trumps you…
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” John Adams
-
Merle A Clark
It is founded on Judeo- Christian Principles
-
Patrick M Persinger
It was founded by serial r*pists and slavers. Is that Judeo-Christian?
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Patrick,
So your ancestors were serial rapists and slavers? Interesting.
-
Merle A Clark
Social media taught you what to say today
-
Kerry L Gausemel
The U.S. is culturally Christian prompted by mass migration from Europe.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Many of these immigrants came because of the opportunity. In the mid 1800s the Irish ran out of potatoes, so to speak, and about 2M of them immigrated. Nothing to do with religion.
But I do agree with your statement. I’d just word it to say “The US was created by a mass immigration of Europeans, that decimated the indigenous population, developed an economy bolstered by enslaving fellow humans and have been culturally Christian in their beliefs. But as much as the Christian Nation (ists) want to believe, it was NOT founded as a Christian nation.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Dr. Z.,
I stand by my statement that the US is culturally Christian and I mostly disagree with Christian Nationalists and their opinions.
Funny you take a dig at Christian Nationalists while sounding just like them.
Slavery didn't originate here nor is it America's Original Sin so what is your point and how is a common practice around the world 250+ years ago relevant to this event?
Why do hate America?
You may agree with my statement, but you are not here to contribute but, instead, to stir the S**tpot. You should be the first to lick the spoon.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
You can stand wherever you please. I agree that the US is culturally xtian, even more so 300 years ago than now. So what? They didn’t bath as often either so they were a smellier culture Had a lot of tooth problems, too. None of that is relevant to the matter that the US was NOT founded as a xtian nation. John Adams said as much. Said it very clearly, blatantly, in fact word for word.
Adams DID believe that the populace needed to be moral. For him this meant being religious. His personal views were that the populace should be religious(NO specified religion) but at the same time government should be completely secular.
I take digs at the xtian nationalists because they are silly to the point of stupidity and stupid people generally annoy me.. especially when they want to bring their religion into secular, governmental issues.
Slavery? That flies in the face of being moral. Of course the xtian bible supports it. The fact that other stupid religions also support/supported slavery doesn’t excuse the stupidity and evil.
I don’t hate America. I disagree with some policies. I dislike ignorance, especially the willful sort that religiously delusional people exhibit.
I support the separation of church and state. 100%. Ikm herento exercise mynright to free speech and in this case such involves pointing out the irrational, willfully ignorant views of religious people. Don’t like it? Go pound sand.
On a further note check out the ‘Jefferson bible. He was involved in writing the constitution. He took her Bible and cut out all the references they objected to, which were primarily anything about Jesus‘s divinity, resurrection or HE definitely did not propose the US as being founded as a xtian nation. He also said… And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." Thomas Jefferson
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
The fact that the population of the was primarily xtian doesn’t mean the country was founded as a xtian country. As I said, John Adams stated very clearly that the US was not founded as a xtian country. Thomas Jefferson had a very low opinion of the xtian religion.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Merle A Clark
This is Political activism garbage ,
-
-
Maximillian Martin
Absolutely not!!!!! If anything, that preacher should get the felony for being in charge of anything to do with ICE!!!! It's not his place to do that!!!
-
Rev. Tim
Would this include ICE?
-
ServantOfJudgement
I would expect that with the proper warrant presented to the owner of the private property, law enforcement would naturally conduct business to apprehend violators of the law. In no way does a religious organization gain priority over law enforcement. That's a violation of our founding law.
Immigration enforcement is a necessary appendage of a wise nation.
-
Joseph Grieco
Except ICE has yet to present a proper warrant for any of their actions. Instead of Warrants signed by judges, they have "administrative warrants" signed by a clerk, with blanks left for the field agents to put names and locations down.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Joseph, you obviously don't understand how the law works in the USA. Please refrain from making statements about a subject matter you obviously don't understand.
-
Michael Hunt
He's right though, Kerry. That is what is happening right now. ICE is not acting on judicial warrants, only administrative warrants written by ICE officials. Democrats want them to be required to present judicial warrants instead of administrative ones in order to provide more oversight of the agency.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Michael,
What is your point? That is the law plain and simple. Democrats wanted no such thing until President Trump was elected.
Under President Obama not a peep. Under President Biden not a peep.
The Democrats helped craft this law with the Immigration and Control Act of 1986 and the Immigration Act of 1990.
Trump could give everyone gold and the Democrats would complain about it.
What does that tell you about the current political climate in the Democrat Party?
-
Sir Lionheart
You are right on, Kerry. Getting them to see that, is the problem, mostly due to the DJT virus that seems to infect them, but they can’t see it, and possibly never will.
🦁❤️
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi SL,
Atheists are far beyond the speck in the eye. Most don't respect the wisdom of religious books and consider them fictional at best.
They don't suffer from just a blind spot like most of us, but rather, full on blindness; forget the speck in the eye the New Testament speaks of.
-
Sir Lionheart
Wisdom abounds in many tomes, and not just in some parts of religious books, but I do understand your point.
There is of course a lot of foolishness in many religious/fictional books as well as some wisdom.
🦁❤️
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rev Ned
Sending ICEcles to jail for disrupting church stuff?!? Sounds great to me!
-
Michael J Kidwell
It is a felony and violates the Constitution. It should be punished more harshly and protected by the Second ammendment.
-
Maximillian Martin
You're delusional!!!! It should never be a felony in any way!!!! And you claim protected by the second amendment?? I think you mean the first amendment. If not, prepare for an unholy war that you'll never win!!!!
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
All religious people are delusional by the very definition of the word, it’s just a matter of degree. And mixing up the 1st and 2nd amendments? They aren’t the sharpest pins in the pack either.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Dr. Z,
I noticed you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about religion.
Perhaps spirituality is for you since it isn't subject to codification and politics like organized religion. Or. are you an atheist? I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
Right now it seems you are coming from a place of anger.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Most definitely an atheist. For a long time, I kept my atheism to myself. But over the years, religious people, having being given an inch and taking a light year, i’ve been getting on my nerves. So my general strategy when confronted with a religious person that wants to exercise their first amendment rights is to exercise my own first amendment rights and tell you that I think that you are delusional. Clinically speaking, and by the definition of the word, delusional. All religious people are delusional. It’s simply a matter of degree.
And although for the greater part, it is simply a matter of annoyance, yes, there is a degree of anger at times. And it’s anger because religious people are trying to impose their views on other people. And that fecal just does not flush.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Dr. Z.,
I respect your atheism; I don't respect your opinion full of delusional bias. Here is some unbiased religious wisdom for you:
The Sermon on the Mount
Why do look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? You HYPOCRITE, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see CLEARLY to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
That is called a parable, not a delusional fairytale, about hypocritical judgment.
In effect, when you see hypocrisy in others, perhaps it originated with you first. When you finger point, you have three fingers pointing back at you, and that speaks for itself.
Having said that, religious people are no different than anyone else.
Fundamentalists do seem to walk around with a plank in their eyes as well and can be as extremely obnoxious as yourself in their comments to others, as well as the piety they exude when they declare they will pray for you or me. I too, find that repugnant.
-
-
-
-
Reverend Paula Copp
I believe he’s trying to suggest that shooting people (2nd Amendment) who don’t believe the way he does…
-
Michael J Kidwell
You are both wrong. I think all churches or places of worship are Constitutionally protected places and should be a felony to violate them. The Second Ammendment was merely to described how they should be protected.
Both of your biased views are twisted, and you should stop putting words in others mouths.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
What you THINK about them be constitutionally protected? Chapter and verse that. And you thinking whatever should be a felony doesn’t justify such.
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
No Paula, he's describing what will happen if the right rioters storm the wrong church.
What your talking about is leftists being angry with people who don't believe like they do and feel like they have the right to physically intrude in someone else's affairs. The right to terrifying the elderly and youth. It's not enough that we think you're violently crazy, you want us to be crazy too and attack the law. We're not psychopathic anarchists with a death wish.
Pfft, shoot someone who doesn't think like they do..... That's your team lady.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
SOJ,
Read it again. He's suggesting exactly that, especially in a "stand your ground" state which allows you to shoot anyone invading your property.
-
Rev Hartwell
For someone preaching against violence by the left, every single one of your comments has been violent speech.
When leaving your comment, please: Be respectful and constructive Criticize ideas, not people Avoid profanity, insults, and derogatory comments
-
Michael Hunt
Tell that to Melissa Hortman and her husband...
-
-
-
-
pjm
The Bill of Rights Amendments were intended to protect citizens from government interference despite the political spin some are trying to put on it. The government did not go into the church to stop a religious service; the Constitution has nothing to do with this. The people who did go into the church went not to protest a religious service, but to protest against a man who is part of a government terrorist organization .
The politicians' time and energy would be better spent stopping the government terrorists who are systematically committing felony crimes every day:
- violating people's constitutional rights by breaking and entering homes without a judicial warrant - kidnapping children - violently snatching people at gunpoint from their homes, cars and workplaces with no warning or court authorization - Denying the people they are violently kidnapping the chance to contact attorneys or loved ones and sending them to out-of-state concentration camps - beating, tear-gassing and even shooting and killing people based on the color of their skin or some who even just look at them wrong - wearing masks to disguise their identities. And not displaying or even carrying identification like Nazi Gestapo.If the church/pastor wants to file a civil lawsuit for misdemeanor trespassing or disturbing the peace.... sure, that's their prerogative. But unless the people disrupting the service are going beyond that like breaking down doors, harming people etc. - you know, doing the things that the pastor/ICE agent does - the government has no business getting involved in turning a protest into a criminal felony. There are already civil misdemeanor laws against trespassing and disturbing the peace if the church or its pastor wants to do that.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
PJM,
Again with the choice of words and phrases such as "government terrorists" do not add to the conversation does it?
This is ICE adjacent, but this isn't about the behavior of ICE, it is about the behavior of agitators terrorizing unsuspecting victims.
Nothing they did could be described as protesting; if anything, it was agitating, trespassing, disturbing the peace, harassing children, and creating an atmosphere of mayhem. That doesn't sound like protesting, that is committing verbal violence and intimidation.
Protests lose protection if they incite immediate violence, block traffic without permits, or violate health/safety regulations. Civil disobedience is the better definition since what they did could land them in jail based on our laws.
This is what the rule of law, in our country, is doing:
Nine individuals, including activists and journalists, have been federally charged following an anti-ICE protest that disrupted a service at a Minnesota church in January 2026. Charged under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act for conspiring to violate rights, defendants like Don Lemon and Nekima Levy Armstrong have entered not guilty pleas. The incident has prompted some states to consider elevating church disruptions to felony charges.
The protest targeted a pastor at the church who also works for ICE. The defendants face potential penalties of up to a year in prison and a fine per the FACE Act, with additional legal proceedings ongoing.
-
-
Rev. BH
Kidwell, "Yes, the U.S. Constitution protects churches and religious organizations primarily through the First Amendment, which prevents the government from establishing a state religion (Establishment Clause) or prohibiting the free exercise of religious beliefs. These protections ensure freedom of worship and protect religious organizations from targeted government repression."
Nothing about preventing protesting in churches. Nothing about felonies.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Rev. BH,
LIke I stated above:
Nine individuals, including activists and journalists, have been federally charged following an anti-ICE protest that disrupted a service at a Minnesota church in January 2026. Charged under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act for conspiring to violate rights, defendants like Don Lemon and Nekima Levy Armstrong have entered not guilty pleas. The incident has prompted some states to consider elevating church disruptions to felony charges.
The protest targeted a pastor at the church who also works for ICE. The defendants face potential penalties of up to a year in prison and a fine per the FACE Act, with additional legal proceedings ongoing.
This is the same law that protects abortion clinics. Guess what? That isn't mentioned in the Constitution either.
-
Rev. BH
Kerry, well and politely said. However let me respond.
The Special Litigation Section also enforces the civil provisions of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE). This Act prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services or to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship. It also prohibits intentional property damage of a facility providing reproductive health services or a place of religious worship. FACE authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief, statutory or compensatory damages, and civil penalties against individuals who engage in conduct that violates the Act.
In my reading, it also protects the church from damage, and from blocking participants to enter to worship. But not from entering a church to peacefully protest. Am I wrong, friend?
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Rev BH,
Thank you for your response.
This was obviously not a peaceful protest by any stretch of the imagination.
Common sense would dictate that, but our society seems to be lacking in that subject matter.
Going onto private property that is open to the public does not give agitators the right to run amok. Anymore than if they went into a private hospital or any business open to the public and raising Cain (I love idioms).
Causing significant trouble, creating a major commotion, or behave in a disruptive, angry, or uncontrolled manner is not protesting, much less peaceful protesting.
There are forces in this country trying to create a Tower of Babel, I believe, to change our form of government from a Republic to Communism, and this is what it looks like.
Starting with ignoring the rule of law (and what used to be considered common sense).
I don't know that you are wrong, but I can say you know how to have a discussion!
Be well.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
But wait! There's more!
I brought up Communism because Marxism famously characterizes religion as the "opium of the people" and is ideologically rooted in materialist atheism.
-
-
-
-
-
-
James Richard Norby
It's an act of civil disobedience. If you are wiling to commit such an act then you should be willing to pay the consequences. I don't believe trespassing and disorderly conduct rise to the level of a felony. Reverend MLK jr. was arrested 29 times for the cause of civil rights.
-
David Buck
Yes, he was. However I do not recall him ever forcing his way into another pastor's church, and intimidating and terrorising the congrfegants.
-
ServantOfJudgement
He didn't televise his invasion of a church where his fellow anarchists berated the partitionwrs.
Mlk did it the right way his first try.
Lemmon effed up seven ways to Sunday.
-
James Richard Norby
Lemon was there reporting on the incident. Freedom of the press is very clearly stated in the constitution. His case will be thrown out of court. It's another example of this federal government attempting to intimidate the media. If the reporter was from OAN or another far right media outlet no arrests would have been made.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Lemon was there participating under the cover, or "guise" if you will, that he was "reporting."
The courts will decide if he violated the FACE Act.
IMO Lemon wasn't reporting, he was pretending to be a reporter just like he was doing on CNN, pretending. He's the propaganda minister for these folks.
-
-
-
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
Separation of church and state. No clergy should be able to hold a state or federal job. Any lawmaker who makes this a federal crime, needs to lose their job and be charged with breaking Constitutional law.
Church isn't "Base" where you can go out and perform unchristianly acts and then run back to the church and say, "you can't touch me." This church & any other one that preaches politics, should lose it's tax exempt status and be subject to fines and penalties.
We have a Constitutionally protected right to protest.
-
Robert Gagnon
You have a right to protest anything you wish. You can form a picket line outside the white house if you want, or a congressman's house. But you can't go inside and raise hell. The moment this is not a crime, anyone can come in your house and harass your family over a poorly kept lawn. I don't think it should be Federal unless a federal crime specifically takes place in the process. If the owner of a property tells you to leave within a structure and you do not comply instantly that is trespassing. If you cause someone to move more than 6 feet against their will that is considered kidnapping. Preventing someone from avoiding you by blocking their path can be considered false imprisonment, kidnapping, or unlawful restraint. But out front of a property you can avoid these legal possibilities. Play with fire and you get burnt.
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
Churches are different though, they are public places where all are welcome to enter.
-
Joseph Grieco
In this particular "Church" only white Nationalist Christians were welcome. No Hispanic or black congregants.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Based on your Judgement?
Do you have any facts?
-
Joe R Day
Actually, yes. A quick search provided these facts: "Neighborhood Context: Located on Summit Avenue, the church sits in a historically affluent area of St. Paul that is majority White.
"Theological Approach to Race: This church officially views ethnic harmony as "basic to [their] mission". However, some critics and former members have characterized its environment as prioritizing traditional or patriarchal structures over progressive racial justice models.
"Recent Racial Justice Controversy: In January 2026, the church became the center of a national debate after activists from the Racial Justice Network and Black Lives Matter disrupted a service. The protest targeted one of the church's pastors, David Easterwood, who also serves as a field office director for ICE."
Hope this addresses the need for facts...
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Racial Justice Network and Black Lives Matter agitators had no business being there, fact.
-
Patrick M Persinger
Poor fella
-
-
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Matthew,
The public hold no claim of ownership to a Church. You so frequently quote the Separation of church and State I thought you knew that.
The owners of the private building open it to the public with the expectation of politeness, respect and decency from the public. Naturally the owners also expect no lawlessness from the visitors.
The riotous visitors met none of these expectations. I wish they wouldn't have broken the law as they did. It'll be nice to see the law equally applied to the rioters as it is with abortion clinic invaders. 1-11 years is the standard set.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Yes, the people can be told they are hereby trespassed and told to leave. If they do not leave, or they return, then they can be arrested.
The way around this is to have individuals always arriving to be trespassed. I used to live in a city with Blue Laws. People got tired of that religious based nonsense. A store opened on Sunday and as the clerks rang up sales they were arrested. Management was at the police station and bailed them out. The clerks returned to the store and rang up more sales. Soon after this the law was repealed.
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
There was no riot. Though, even if there was, Jesus set the standard for rioting in a temple. Christians preach about doing what Jesus would do.
-
ServantOfJudgement
No Mathew, Jesus did not set the standard for rioting in a temple.
A riot requires more that one person, about as many that rioted with Lemmon.
The Temple Is The Literal Physical Property Of God. Jesus was the owner of that temple, the money changers were breaking Gods law on God's property and God made them leave His property.
Only one person in the Cosmos had legal authority judge the money changers-- Jesus only.
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
Only one person in the Cosmos had legal authority judge ... so, no more judging women's health care, the LBGTQ, community, etc.
-
James Richard Norby
Again, Lemon was there reporting the incident. There was NO RIOT. There WAS trespassing and disorderly conduct. The protesters were committing an act of nonviolent civil disobedience. There are legal consequences to those actions.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
HI James,
I agree with your statement mostly. However, it appears Don Lemon was exposed for his involvement and was arrested. The courts will decide his status.
-
-
-
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Matthew,
The same can be said for a retail establishment, but try going inside your local Walmart or Target to protest, and see how quickly you get arrested. Both are open to the public and both are owned by private entities.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
All are welcome to do what, Matthew? Protest? Have sex in public? Drink & Party? Could you be more specific as to the purpose of the church being open to all?
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
According to Jesus, people are free to violently disrupt corruption in the church, namely the actions of the Pastor in that church.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Matthew,
Please cite where this fictitious comment can be found besides your wild imagination.
-
-
-
-
-
Joseph Grieco
What about members of the Clergy who serve as Chaplains in our armed forces? One of my closest friends is a (now retired) Roman Catholic priest who served as a Navy Chaplain with the USMC in Djibouti.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Matthew,
State and Federal First Responders and Military employ chaplains all the time, and they are also considered in most cases, essential personnel, mostly because if they are trained properly, they are interdenominsational and inter-faith, even though they may have specific clergy credentials.
-
LORD RICHARD WELCH
How do they fit this much stupidity in one head??!!
-
-
Reverend Andrew
NO. If you want to make it that you can protest a church service. Than a church's or religious organizations should not be able to protest . Pure and simple
-
Rev. MichaelRS
That's a ridiculous position.
Anybody is free to protest a church, or the social positions a church may take based on their faith belief, from a traditional public forum such as from the sidewalk as long as they are not being loud enough to disrupt the service.
Which is different than protesting the church by going INTO the church, which is somebody's private property, to disrupt to protest by disrupting the service and making the congregants fearful that violence is about to be done to them.
I'm sure you would not want people from the Hillsboro Baptist Church rushing into an Episcopal Church to protest the homosexual pastor.
Once you start allowing something like that it's a never-ending cycle of what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
-
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Heck no. It’s a church service not a court session.
-
Gary
One's constitutional rights end where another's constitutional rights begins. Therefore, the first amendment right to free speech ends when it enters a house of worship and encounters the congregants' first amendment right to freedom of religion.
-
ether_ore
I am not a lawyer, but this makes no sense to me.
We have a first amendment right to free speech. And there is also a restriction against government preferring one religion over another, but no “right” as far as I can tell protecting one citizen from being accosted in their place of worship (or anywhere else) by someone else exercising their right to free speech and so on.
Here I think that the people protesting could be asked to leave and then trespassed if they refuse, just like anti-abortion protesters in front of a clinic. It’s a civil issue, not a constitutional one.
-
Lawrence A. Benson
Thank you for this reasonable solution to a situation that happens infrequently. I have read many overreactions to a situation that can and should be solved by non-legal means. Weare all supposed to be representatives of religious values.
-
pjm
Exactly. 👍
-
ServantOfJudgement
Etheror,
How will the partitioners know if the mob is coming in to kill them or just violently terrify them? Should they wait to see if someone starts shooting or stabbing people to find out?
No.
If a church is stormed and partitioner is armed, it's wise of the partitioner to shoot all violent invaders immediately. Otherwise you'll have a bunch of dead children to bury.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi ethor_ore,
We also have the right to "Quiet enjoyment" and to not be accosted and trolled by idiots and radicals claiming to be morally superior.
How about this:
What if this was a child care center? Would that be better? Why stop at the church? If the law isn't going to do anything about it then maybe they can also go into a religious hospital and disrupt their work.
It is truly hypocritical to claim moral superiority to justify any action taken by political agitators. This was not free speech, this was an attack and ambush to be used for clickbait by the radical left.
Is that what some folks here are trying to justify?
-
ether_ore
Kerry,
I was speaking of rights codified in the Constitution. None of us has a constitutional “right” to quiet enjoyment or to not be disagreed with or offended.
My response was in reference to the original poster’s claim that one persons rights end where another persons rights begin, and the mistaken claim (paraphrasing here) that there was a constitutional right that protests should not happen in church, or extending here, at a child care center. No such right exists as I see it. But then again, as I said initially, I am not a lawyer.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi EO,
Thank you for clarifying; I agree.
My comment addresses not only a civil matter but a commonsense matter. Too bad commonsense seems to be going the way of snail mail.
-
-
-
-
-
Nicholas J Page
Yes it should be a felony its God's house for people to worship not for people to intrude/Disrupt a service 🙏
-
Maximillian Martin
Not a chance!!!!! If you want that to apply, then all holy rolling christians should be charged with a felony for interrupting any Satanic black masses or other alternative religions meetings!!!!!
-
Lawrence A. Benson
Agreed RE: Goose/Gander
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Hi Maximillian,
Hyperbole and gaslighting aside, can you provide specific examples of these holy rolling Christians committing these acts?
-
-
ether_ore
Would you feel the same way if, instead of it being a Christian church, it were a mosque or a temple or other religious sacred place? Are they all “God’s house?”
Just asking.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
You KNOW the answer already. I think a prime example is Westboro Baptist Church (and self-help group for spiteful wickdeeds).
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Dr. Z,
You cherry pick one so-called Christian organization and blaspheme an entire religion?
Perhaps you should attend some tolerance classes in the church/temple/sanctuary of your choice.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
1- Westboro Baptist Church is so well-known that predictive typing just completed its name for me. It isn’t a cherry-picked example, it’s the PERFECT example. 2- I am well aware that I have little to no tolerance for the religiously delusional sorts. However, I do not hunt them down. If they keep their mouth shut about their stupid little ideas, then no disagreements crop up. Keep your religion to yourself, no problems from me. Bring them up, well you use your first amendment rights. I use mine. Deal with it.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Dr. Z.,
It is the perfect example of what? Christianity? Based on what? Bias?
Perhaps you should keep your opinions to yourself and keep your mouth shut about your stupid little ideas, then no disagreements crop up. Capiche?
Opening your mouth so we can hear your stupid little ideas is a constitutional right protected by law.
Cancelling the voices of others is antithetical to American values. Perhaps you should look into that.
-
-
-
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Dr. Z,
Deal with what? Intolerance?
I agree that Westboro is intolerant which is the opposite of what Jesus taught. I'm not defending that church, I'm asking for more examples. If you cannot provide them, so be it.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
ether_ore,
They are all houses of God. Let them be.
-
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
Matthew 21:12-13 12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Pastor David Easterwood who also leads the local ICE field office overseeing the operations that have involved violent tactics and illegal arrests. is far worse a person then the moneychangers. And no, Jesus didn't get lawyers, get proof or call in Roman soldiers. If Jesus wasn't wrong, then neither were these protestors.
-
Tami Tabone
No. I think they could protest outside a church or school, and if they go inside, they could get a fine. But arrest? Not unless it gets violent. In addition, I feel if no protests are allowed, no ICE is allowed in churches or schools either.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
If they go inside, they should be informed that they are being trespassed and they need to leave. If they don’t leave, then they can be a arrest for trespassing. Fully support that. I also fully support having a line of protesters that one enters as another one leaves. Kind of one man enters, one man leaves, and another man enters.
-
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Matthew your superior judgement is noted. I don't recall Jesus protesting against the Romans, nor did he call his followers to do so. Instead he stated "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar".
As for the Money Changer Story, it is just that, a story. Nowhere or anywhere can it be found in the New Testament that Jesus ever committed violence.
That story is an outlier, and as a student of the Bible, I find it to be a highly dubious story that is completely out of character for the man known as the Prince of Peace. Does that story sound like the real Jesus to you?
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Very in the Bible sounds like anything “real“ to me. This is especially true of the three day weekend death scene at the end.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Dr. Z,
If you can't fathom the wisdom the Bible contains, so be it. Is there any religious book you could recommend?
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
The ‘wisdom’ in the bible is little other than what pre-humans, which is debated to have included the Bronze Age desert goat herders that started the Abrahamic cults, already were practicing. Don’t be sneaky in dealing with your fellow primates, this includes monkeying/screwing around with their mate, don’t kill your fellow primates, don’t steal your fellow primates stuff. Self-evident stuff. Or, as one comedian said, you can condense all the commandments into the one simple phrase of ‘Try not to be a d*ck.’
As for recommending any other religious book, nope, I can’t help you on that. I could recommend the original teachings of the Buddha. Specifically the 4 Noble Truths and the 8-Fold Path. The earliest 12-step program that I know to have existed. But it’s time went on various sects emerged. They’re pretty much like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses that kind of branch off into really total nonsense.
So, no, I can’t help you on that. I’m not your spiritual advisor anyway. I would advise you just to keep your beliefs to yourself. If you keep your beliefs to yourself, then at least by myself won’t point out that you are being delusional.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Dr. Z.,
Again thank you for proving my point about your point, that you don't have to believe in religion to be a d**k; you are the perfect example of that hypocrisy LOL!.
Thank God you are not mine or anyone else's spiritual advisor because you completely misunderstand the nature of religion and how important and personal it is to the majority of human beings.
God LOVES you, brother!
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Why Gausey! Are we cross? Does this mean we aren't friends anymore? You know Gausey, if I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it.
-
Kerry L Gausemel
Dr. Z.,
I was never your friend and never claimed to be. The one constant we have in common is we are both Children of God. In that sense we are brothers.
Be well, my brother.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Well, that bit of humor went right over your head, huh? Try putting what I wrote into Google and the results should, (can’t be sure with you), make my attitude toward you become a bit clearer.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I want reparations from the Christian church, disrupting pagan ceremonies.