What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Sharia heating up in Dearborn [Updated below the fold]

There are very alarming things going on in Dearborn, MI, right now, and if you don't read Jihad Watch as religiously as I do, you should know about them.

First of all, for some background, see this year-old post of mine concerning Christian missionaries being assaulted and driven off of the public streets of an "Arab festival" sharia zone by Muslim "security" personnel at last year's Arab festival.

Second, the other piece of background I have is something I've hesitated as to whether to post, so I'm going to try to split the difference and say just this much: I have fairly strong reason to believe that there was a window of opportunity last year during which it was up to the Christians (or at least this was what they believed) whether to press charges on the assaults you see in that video from last year. They apparently chose not to do so. That's all I'll say, though in giving no further details I realize I'm asking you to take my word for it. I'm saying this because things have now gotten so much worse, and it might appear that it was entirely a matter of police choice last year to do nothing about the Muslims' behavior. This year, the police appear to be solidly on the Muslims' side and to be enforcing sharia in a blatantly unconstitutional manner. But it's only fair to say that the Muslim impunity last year may have been partly a result of a decision made on the Christian side. And this is relevant to the point of this post, which is just this, to these incredibly courageous Christian people, including former Muslims, for whom I have such great admiration: Don't only make videos about how bad sharia is in the U.S. Do something concrete about it in law. Use the rule of law to the max. Don't just illustrate the spread of sharia and get yourselves nearly beaten up and then arrested in the process. Fight it by every possible legal means at every step of the way. The Muslims will rejoice if you merely show their power and say, "Something is terribly wrong in America."

Now, on to the recent events: Last week, David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi, whom you also see in last year's video, went to the Arab festival again with two people videotaping. Within the festival area (which takes place on public streets), they voluntarily followed self-imposed guidelines that should not even be necessary: They did not approach anyone but waited for others to approach them. They did not pass out literature, despite the First Amendment. (By the way, this ruling should mean that Christian literature passing is permitted at the festival, but they didn't do it.)

Moreover, according to eyewitness testimony found here, they were observed by police, who also saw that they were surrounded by Muslims and did nothing wrong. The police then (according to the same eyewitness) went away for a few minutes, after which they returned and arrested all the Christians, including those who were merely taking video. They were led away in handcuffs to joyous shouts from the crowd of "Allahu akbar!"

As of the last post I saw that addressed the issue, they still seemed unsure of exactly what had even been alleged against them, and the police refused to look at the video on the spot to confirm their innocence (of whatever it was) during those few minutes the police were away. They appear to have some reason to believe that (this is a joke, right?) one of the Muslims alleged that they "surrounded" him and "wouldn't let him go," completely contrary to what the police themselves had witnessed.

Most disturbing of all, their cameras were confiscated and were not given back to them when they were released on bail. As far as I can tell, they still do not have their footage, which would of course be relevant in proving their innocence of whatever allegation has been made. Robert Spencer states that there was a hearing today, but I haven't been able to hear what happened, despite repeated inquiries in the comboxes at Answering Muslims.

A detailed account (video discussion) from the arrested missionaries after they were released on bail can be found here.

But it doesn't stop there.

They went back the next day and stood outside of the festival area. There, they distributed the Gospel of John to passersby. Now, again, a court has affirmed the right to distribute Christian literature on the public streets at the festival, but this wasn't even there. (Note, again: They were not distributing literature when they were arrested the previous day.)

As you can see here, a whole gaggle of hefty police officers approached this terrible menace to public safety--three people passing out the Gospel of John to passersby within sight of a sharia no-go zone--made them turn off their cameras, and took them away to a "security booth." There, they recount, they were told the rule: No passing out Christian literature within a five-block radius of the Arab Festival. So the radius of the hole in the First Amendment in Dearborn is now 1/2A + 5 blocks, where "A" stands for the diameter of the Arab festival, which is itself on public streets.

This obviously cannot be allowed to stand. Now, the message of the video about the huge "no Christian activities" zone is that something is terribly wrong in Dearborn. Well and good. This is obviously true. But it cannot stop there. This must be challenged and stopped by a First Amendment lawsuit against the town of Dearborn for enforcing such a rule. Moreover, any suit that can be filed for false arrest or for libel (by false witnesses) in connection with the arrest must also be filed. There must surely be legal recourse if, God forbid, the exculpatory video should be erased or the cameras never returned. This recourse should be planned right now and followed out to the full extent of the law should it become necessary.

It is worse than useless merely to go about provoking and then documenting Muslim outrages against American freedoms. If the message sent is merely, "Look, look, Muslims are in charge in this part of the United States, isn't this awful?!" then this will simply be popcorn-popping material for the guys who were yelling "Allahu Akbar." (They can wind up with a nice beheading video to round out the evening.) As long as there is a rule of law in the United States, these things must be challenged in as concrete a way as possible. Last year, charges should have been pressed to the full extent of the law, and if the police then refused to cooperate, that itself should have been publicized. This year the tables have been turned, and now the Muslims are charging the Christians. This is bad enough, but it will be even worse if all that comes of all of this is a couple of "isn't that outrageous" Youtube clips.

Get some good legal representation, fellas, and, this time, make these people pay as far as in you lies.

Update 1: Correction--The court ruling I mentioned gave the other Christian missionary, Mr. Saieg, permission to distribute literature within the insanely large five-block-radius "bubble zone" the police are attempting to impose on literature passing, not within the streets used for the festival itself. Thanks to reader Al for clearing this up from the court ruling.

Update 2: Thomas More is now representing the missionaries and has written to Police Chief Haddad (ahem) demanding the return of the confiscated cameras and footage. The four appear to have been charged with "breach of the peace," and Nageen has also been charged with "failure to obey a police officer's orders." (So I wonder: What was the "breach of the peace" originally in addition to the refusal to give up her camera promptly enough? Standing there videotaping?) Comments from the President of Thomas More seem to imply that Police Chief Haddad is now arguing that people can be arrested for "breach of the peace" if other people are threatening them on the street. That's a nice trick. Don't arrest the people doing the threatening; arrest the victims. Never mind that issuing threats is itself illegal but standing around talking to Muslims on the street isn't. Scary times we live in.

Comments (45)

Thanks for this Lydia. You are absolutely right. If Paul, preacher of the Gospel to the Jews and Gentiles, saw fit to appeal to Caesar, based on his rights as a Roman citizen, then we Christians should appeal to the American courts with the full force of the Constitution behind us, to cement our First Ammendment Rights even in the face of Muslim anger and agitation. I thought I was sitting down to relax after a full day of activity with my grandsons and now I am determined to fight this fight on their behalf.
I live in a communtity that is starting to see an increase in Muslim households, but the answer to this is the same kind of flight, that I saw as a teenager in my Chicago neighborhood. There,it was a flight from the integration of blacks, in spite of my own mother and other whites encouraging folks to stay in an integrated neighborhood and preserve the community. Today, the very Christian community in my suburb is beginning to leave. If Christ is the answer, then why not stay and witness, witness, witness? And if your True-to-the-Gospel witnessing makes the incoming Muslims uncomfortable, then so be it.
Christians have become fat and lazy and only want the comforts of suburbia. This lethargy could mean that the Gates of Hell may just prevail in America.

Next time, the Christians should bring lawyers (even a judge if one can be found) with them. Let's see the police argue against officers of the court trying to collect evidence of wrong-doing on the Muslim and police's part. That will go over really well in a court.

The Chicken

The problem is that on or around 9/11 muslims were designated with that ultimate sobriquet, protected minority. Well do I remember the Times repeated articles on some Abdul Abdul Jamal or other fearing backlash, from red neck racists naturally. We can't get through a newscast on some kind of problem today with muslims without a jackass, seeing his duty as bearer and defender of tolerance and enlightenment, reminding us primeval throwbacks that "most muslims are peaceful", and "love America", and "can read and write", and "bathe regularly".

Be prepared therefore for the next media escalation, "muslims under assault in Dearborn". Frank Rich is already working on the story line, Katie Couric is even now practicing her concerned face before a mirror. And the enemy of our enemy is still true in all the wrong quarters.

Oops, omitted "is our friend" in the last line.

As I am ignorant of the contents of sharia, I wonder: which principle of sharia law were the Dearborn police enforcing?

Christians are not allowed to proselytize under sharia.

It is a wonderfully wacky world where tolerance and intolerance can lead to the same behavior. Shar'ia Law is intolerant (mildly tolerant) of Christians. The police are tolerant of Muslims. The effect is the same. I don't know that Shar'ia was directly involved. I think it was involved by proxy in that the Muslims got the same outcome by stressing tolerance for them rather than intolerance for Christians.

The Chicken

Well, one advantage to the cops taking the video away - if they do lose or destroy it now that it's in their possession, the Christians should be entitled to a presumption that the material destroyed would have proved their innocence.

Any decent judge would give such a ruling. Not sure how many decent judges are left.

The truth is that cops will intimidate people passing out literature until you start talking about constitutional rights and supreme court rulings and getting their badge numbers and bringing lawsuits.

I've done my fair share of passing out literature and this is my usual experience. They should not have complied with the request to shut the camera off. They should force the police to do so and then sue their pants off.

I can't tell you how outraged I am with this as this is a clear violation of their constitutional rights. Where again is the ACLU? Bueler? Anyone? I hope to tears that they sue the city and cash in and then use the money to buy loud speakers.

Perry, I agree. It's particularly terrifying that they apparently arrested Nageen (the young woman) simply for videotaping and because she yelled when they came to take away her camera. I guess that was "disturbing the peace." She was not even near David and Nabeel, she was videotaping from a distance, so the lying complaint (yes, I do presume it is a complete lie) against them--e.g., about "not letting someone leave"--could not even have applied to her. The sheer fascism, and I do not use that word lightly, of arresting a young woman simply for videotaping conversations on a public street and for not taking it completely passively when police try to stop her from doing so is truly shocking.

One wonders how this would go if someone were videotaping in some more secret way--say, with a camera hidden in their clothes. Police walk up to the person, and what do they even say to the person? "Do you have a camera? Are you associated with those guys over there?" I mean, on what basis would they even accost someone just standing on the street apparently watching them taking away the Christian preachers?

If this comes up in a future year, they should certainly have people filming in a more surreptitious way. Ideally, there would be some sort of uplink software that would allow the film to be live-streamed immediately to the Internet so that it could not be lost even if the camera were found and confiscated, but I don't know how expensive that would be. To think that we have to even think of such things in connection with our own police in our own country is really horrifying.

Meanwhile, they should sue them big-time for clear First Amendment violations. A five-block bubble zone for leafletting around a festival already taking place on public streets? You've gotta be kidding.

"sharia no-go zone-"

Place and manner restrictions on First Amendment activities are well established and have nothing to do with "establishing" sharia law in the United states.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11701573265002478765

As for the disorderly conduct arrest I would ask folks to remember the Gates DC arrest last year and the position they took on that incident. Speaking for moi and, as always, seeking to be fair and consistent, I find a black man being arrested for DC on his own property and a peacefully abiding group of Christians being arrested for DC on a public street to be equally troubling. Those championing the police in the one case and decrying them in the other might want to engage in a little reflection.

Yeah, that's right, Al: Yelling abuse at a police officer who is walking away is _just exactly_ like standing around talking to Muslims on a public street. And I'm sure Nageen was roundly abusing those police officers with all sorts of screeched epithets (not). And wasn't it terrible the way the policeman in the Gates case took away the camera from a bystander who was recording the incident and then arrested that person, too? Oh. That didn't happen, either. And standing around talking to Muslims on a public street looks _just_ as suspicious as breaking into your house.

Gee, how many non-parallels can we find here. Let me count the ways.

Take your moral equivalence, Al, and throw it in the lake.

_By_ the way: Last year, a judge refused to issue a restraining order against the police rule against leafletting within the festival area. (This was before we heard about the crazy five-block bubble zone in addition.) The case in question concerned one particular Christian group who then were considered to be "ordered" not to leaflet within the area. But _all_ Christian groups, including Acts 17 ministries, considered themselves bound by the rule and followed it.

This year, a judge has indeed issued a restraining order pertaining to another Christian group enjoining the rule against leafletting. But the "place and manner" folks are saying expressly that this ruling applies only to the person who brought the suit. To make things still more ridiculous, the woman pushing this line at the Acts 17 blog comboxes declares that if the judge's ruling is upheld the no-leafletting rule will disappear for everyone next year. Oh, how interesting: So as long as the ruling is "new," as it were, it applies only to the person who actually brought the case. But once it wends its way through more courts, it magically comes to apply to everyone. What a novel notion. I'd love to see that applied to abortion: "Oh, a judge ruled that our local attempt to stop abortion is unconstitutional in the case of Dr. Jones, but until a few more courts have upheld that decision in the case of Jones, we're still allowed legally to arrest all the _other_ abortionists in town."

Perhaps you would find it interesting to look into Hurley v. GLIB, the case in which the Supreme Court decided that there was no right for the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston to participate in a public St. Patrick's Day parade (organized by the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, a non-state organization).

The Court ruled [unanimously] "that private citizens organizing a public demonstration may not be compelled by the state to include groups who impart a message the organizers do not want to be included in their demonstration."

Suppose that the GLIB had decided to "join" the parade (by simply walking en masse in its midst perhaps with placards celebrating being gay-ly Irish) after the organizers had rejected their request to join it. I suspect that police might have made some arrests. Would this have been the police enforcement of sharia law?

BTW: You might be interested to know that the Court's decision did not rest on Sharia law... but, rather, something about Constitutional freedoms.

Al,

I can't see how the ISKON case is comparable given that they wished to distribute in airports and these people, even on public sidewalks were forced to move. Even Planned Parenthood isn't as restrictive at abortion clinics. Suprem Court rulings even permit students on public school grounds to distribute religious literature.

See Lovell vs. City of Griffin. (1938) which surpasses place and manner restrictions.

"The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our history abundantly attest. The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated."

&

"The hand distribution of religious tracts is an age-old form of missionary evangelism - as old as the history of printing presses. It has been a potent force in various religious movements down through the years . . . . It is more than preaching; it is more than distribution of religious literature. It is a combination of both. Its purpose is as evangelical as the revival meeting. This form of religious activity occupies the same high
estate under the First Amendment as do worship in the churches and preaching from the pulpits."

Second, the Gates case isn't comparable. The police weren't called on a breaking and entering where the identity of the home owner was not known.


"This year, a judge has indeed issued a restraining order pertaining to another Christian group enjoining the rule against leafletting. But the "place and manner" folks are saying expressly that this ruling applies only to the person who brought the suit."

I assume you missed this when you read the injunction.

"Therefore, the motion for an injunction pending appeal is GRANTED as follows. The relief
granted hereby pertains only to the Festival to be held June 18, 19, and 20, 2010, after which this
order will be deemed to have expired. During the hours that the Festival is open to the public on
June 18, 19, and 20, 2010, Saieg shall be permitted to distribute his religious literature in the streets
contained within the area referred to as the “outer perimeter” or “buffer zone.” This order leaves
undisturbed the ability of the defendants to prohibit Saieg from distributing his religious literature
within the Festival itself. See Heffron. Obviously, this temporary order shall be fully subject to
reconsideration and revision or modification by any merits panel of this court to which this appeal
may be assigned"

Therefore, the motion for an injunction pending appeal is GRANTED as follows. The relief
granted hereby pertains only to the Festival to be held June 18, 19, and 20, 2010, after which this
order will be deemed to have expired. During the hours that the Festival is open to the public on
June 18, 19, and 20, 2010, Saieg shall be permitted to distribute his religious literature in the streets
contained within the area referred to as the “outer perimeter” or “buffer zone.” This order leaves
undisturbed the ability of the defendants to prohibit Saieg from distributing his religious literature
within the Festival itself. See Heffron. Obviously, this temporary order shall be fully subject to
reconsideration and revision or modification by any merits panel of this court to which this appeal
may be assigned.

I assume you mean Lake Michigan. I was only pointing out that folks actually familiar with these things understand that DC arrests and pleas are too often of a dubious nature.

Perry, read the decision and you will see it concerns ISKON and a fair in Minnesota. The Sixth Circuit cited the case in granting the injunction.

"JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented for review is whether a State, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, may require a religious organization desiring to distribute and sell religious literature and to solicit donations at a state fair to conduct those activities only at an assigned location within the fairgrounds even though application of the rule limits the religious practices of the organization."

Alex H,

So the Arab festival is a "demonstration?"

Al,

These guys weren't selling. In the second case, they weren't asking for donations. Third, they weren't even distributing literature on the grounds. Fourth, they then went outside to the public streets to distribute. Fifth, they weren't rebuffing being required to use a booth or an assigned location. Hence that case is not applicable.

Alex H, this is not a "demonstration" or a "parade." This is a matter of simply standing around on public streets talking to people. Or, in the case of the Gospels of John, standing on public street corners where people are simply going about their normal public business and passing out the Gospel of John. You can see for yourself that this is true in the video of the Gospel passing.

Al, I hadn't been able to get a copy of the Saieg ruling and appreciate the correction concerning the buffer zone--namely, that the ruling applied only to the buffer zone rather than the streets designated for the festival. However, I stand by my statement that it is absurd to hold this to apply only to Saieg until and unless it is upheld by a higher court.

Moreover, Al, the very decision you linked concerning "place and manner" _expressly states_ that this does not apply to walking around and engaging in conversation on the fairgrounds. (I would add that the Arab festival does not take place on a fairgrounds but merely on streets in Dearborn, if this is relevant.) The Acts 17 guys _followed_ the rule about not passing literature within the festival area. They were arrested while engaging in activities expressly protected even in the very decision you are citing.

Especially disturbing is the attempt to ban photography. In a free society this definitely should not be allowed to stand. Part of the whole point of our freedoms is that the police are not allowed to act in the dark and hide their actions.

Especially disturbing is the attempt to ban photography. In a free society this definitely should not be allowed to stand. Part of the whole point of our freedoms is that the police are not allowed to act in the dark and hide their actions.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/maryland-cops-say-its-illegal

"They were arrested while engaging in activities expressly protected even in the very decision you are citing."

Hence my scoffing remarks re; the DC arrests. The videos might be considered evidence or maybe the cops are just being jerks.

The courts have consistently ruled that even though an event is on public property, under some conditions and uses it temporarily can be treated as private. Some parks allow citizens to reserve areas for example. Also we have the Hurley vs. Irish Gay Folks on who could march in Boston's privately organized St. Patricks Day Parade (they couldn't).

Perry, Did you read Heffron? The three judges on the Sixth Circuit found it on point. Distributing literature in the main fair area fits even if no donations are solicited. I am not, of course, asserting that the folks who got arrested were distributing literature and hence breaking the law.

The was a recent arrest of a person using a sound + video recoder to record police beating an arrestee. Apparently, in some cities, it is illegal to record police with both video and sound. I know that sounds silly, but the presence of the video camera may have played into at least some of the arrests.

The Chicken

Al,

Then I have the distinct honor of thinking they are wrong. Nothing much follows from the fact that the district court thinks otherwise.

Secondly, they were arrested when they were not distributing any literature on the fair grounds. Just talking. But I guess TALKING about stuff that other people at the fair don't want to hear is against the law too, eh? If you admit that they were arrested without distributing the literature, then why even bring up the case?

Chicken, if that weren't so suspiciously evil, the irony would be positively delicious. Is anyone aware that the police now videotape (with sound) tons of their own actions - arrests and interactions with suspects?

Thank you, Step2. This link seems to indicate that Michigan's wiretapping law applies to a "private place" where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." It states, "[A] place to which the public also has access is not a private place."

http://www.lawrefs.com/item/unauthorized-recordings---eavesdropping---michigan

Lydia, what about organizing (or getting an org like the Catholic League) a write in campaign to the city to put the cops on trial for wrongful arrest? Probably wouldn't succeed outright, but it might make them reprimand the cops and change future policy. My point is that, although we should indeed encourage the arrestees to fight tooth and nail, we should ourselves help out too.

To whom would one write, do you think?

If one could get Pamela Geller on board with that, they'd get lots of letters. (evil grin) Unfortunately, PG doesn't like me much, so the suggestion shouldn't come from me.

Islam is God's punishment to Christianity. Basically is a " religion " dominated by the demonic from its founding. Christians better wake up and stop worrying about political correctness. As a Bishop in one of the African countries advised " defend yourselves. "

Thank, to The Lord Jesuschist for to The Thoms Moore Center. The Message should be clear,You can not do in America what you do not let us do in you country. This is the Land of Liberty, not of Coercion, Nor submission. If you want to live In America, you obey the USA low, like every one else.
Keep us informed, about the corrupt politicians, that are selling our County, and are allowing, foreign lows to discriminate people.I would like Canon Low to govern my neigborhood, if you do not obey you shall be beheadaded, is that what this people are treatening us with ?

Arresting the victims makes as much sense as awarding the boxing match to the man lying on the floor or bailing out a coorperation that crashes the economy...oh, wait...

I think we've discover anti-reason. I get publication rights on describing the phenomenon, but what journal would accept (or believe) the article?

The Chicken

Lydia, I would assume we would write to:
Dearborn mayor and city council;
police commissioner / chief;
police disciplinary board;
Dearborn newspaper's ombudsman;
local federal attorney who needs some publicity (hate crimes, anyone?).

The other thing they should have done is re-stage the whole thing, with a video camera in a building and not easily visible, and use a microphone with a radio connection to a tape recorder (that is in a nearby building) as well. I suppose it is too late for that, but they might be able to use the technique in a suitable provocative location - maybe half a block from the Imam's house?

The remote recording thing could be very important. Increasingly so, if police are going to start making people's video evidence disappear.

Update 2: Thomas More is now representing the missionaries and has written to Police Chief Haddad (ahem) demanding the return of the confiscated cameras and footage. The four appear to have been charged with "breach of the peace," and Nageen has also been charged with "failure to obey a police officer's orders." (So I wonder: What was the "breach of the peace" originally in addition to the refusal to give up her camera promptly enough? Standing there videotaping?)

Question to the legal types: is it lawful for a police officer to demand that a person surrender private property without a warrant and without probable cause? Isn't the camera private property? She was not videotaping copyrighted material (an offense for which a camera can be confiscated). Where was the probable cause?

There is, as I mentioned above, a movement among law enforcement to make videotaping police activity illegal. At the current time, in some states, one may videotape police without sound, but add sound and it becomes wiretapping, even in a public street (okay, where's the wire?). There is a push for this restriction among law enforcement (with an exemption for when they videotape YOU). They seem to not understand that the right not to self-incriminate has an inverse, the right to prove one's innocence. Can the police take that away from a man? Which is the higher law: the discovery of truth or the preservation of privacy? Clearly, the light of truth must not be overcome by the darkness of privacy.

The Chicken

The link Step2 provided implied that a lot depends on whether the state law contains an express provision that it applies only in a "private place" where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Michigan law does appear to have this provision, so there should be no problem at all with videotaping (including sound) in public.

At some point at least one of these recording cases will wend its way to the Supremes. Liberty loving folks should consider the likelihood of Justices appointed by a conservative president doing the right thing. Just saying - elections do have consequences.

In most of these cases the question would be the interpretation of state law anyway. I would far more trust the people who are considered "conservative" state justices (such as some that we have here in Michigan--ours are elected rather than appointed) and who therefore bear the greatest resemblance to SCOTUS justices like Scalia to interpret the relevant state law in a straight-up manner than anyone else. And the clear implication of the "private place" provision is quite obvious as regards recording police activities in a public place.

al, you're "just saying" something that makes no sense, which is that a conservative theory of jurisprudence is more likely to lead a judge to rule against the defendants in this case. Shallow nonsense is what that is, which is why you make your point so obliquely.

At some point at least one of these recording cases will wend its way to the Supremes. Liberty loving folks should consider the likelihood of Justices appointed by a conservative president doing the right thing. Just saying - elections do have consequences.

Yeah, like giving us the five morons who voted in favor of New London in Kelo... (none of which were a "conservative" judge)

I'd also like to point out that it was Scalia and Thomas who took the liberals out to the woodshed over civil confinement for felons. Both of them ruled it was an unconstitutional breach of due process and well outside the scope of any enumerated power the feds have.

Regarding the arrest of the Christians in Dearborn, MI, I strongly urge you to send an e-mail to the Mayor of Dearborn, MI expressing your thoughts, not just sounding off here. He is Mayor John O'Reilly at mayor@ci.dearborn.mi.us (With a good Christian name like that, you wonder where his loyalty is rooted.)

Or comment directly to the Detroit News article at:

http://apps.detnews.com/apps/forums/writeus.php?forum=newstalk&referrer=http://detnews.com/article/20100623/METRO/6230376/-1/ARCHIVE/Christian-ministers-challenge-arrests-at-Arab-fest

Thanks, Bud. It seems to me that police dept. needs a major housecleaning.

As I am not sure if you will post my comments (since they are contrary to your beliefs and what you are trying to portray), I will make them short and to the point. I am an educated young Muslim professional who has grown up in Dearborn, MI. Let me enlighten you and your readers to some of the other things that may explain the possible reasons why we feel threatened by the missionaries. The problem has been that for a number of years your fellow Christians have been trying to preach to our children by passing out videos/dvds and pamphlets. I am no legal expert, but am sure that this is probably not legal and causes discomfort in the community just as it would if Muslims were trying to do the same in your community. Perhaps you should blame them for making the Muslims of Dearborn feel threatened by their behavior which may have led to this unfortunate event. I am sure that if the missions were truly peaceful and directed at adults, it would limit the number of incidences and prevent further division amongst all of the people who make up the United States of America.

I am no legal expert,

You can say that again. Newsflash: Since this is America rather than Saudi Arabia, it is perfectly legal.

Nor does the "discomfort" with these alleged actions in any way, shape, or form remotely begin to excuse the actions taken by the police or the Muslim groups in any of these videos or highlighted in this post. Nabeel's and David's actions were perfectly legal, they were standing around merely talking to people who approached them on the street, and having a conversation with Muslims while non-Muslim isn't (yet) illegal in the United States of America.

Get used to it, or take your sharia back to your Middle Eastern countries.

I can not believe that in the USA, in the year 2010, people are aloud to do this. Our Constitution protects the right to participate in any relgion we choose, as well as our freedom of speach.
I would be willing to exercise my rights as an American and attend this festival. I will also be honored to carry my bible, in plain sight of all, and anwser any and all questions anyone may have about my relgion, my savior, my God.
I would also be glad to talk to anyone about having a bible study. If they want to arrest me. That will be fine. My lord knows I am ready to stand up for him and be counted.
Makes me wonder what they are so afraid of?
If you believe that you are right and Christians are wrong, why not try to show us that we are wrong in a manner that would make us wonder, not confirm what we know to be true.........

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.