Have groups ever protested INSIDE churches?

[Poll_Blind]

Just wondering. This is a request either for more information or at least a pointer on where to look. There are a few churches in my area which delight in being more "fundamental" and "evangelical" than the others. Since a church is a nonprofit, does that treat the property differently than if they were a regular place of business? I'm wondering what the legal ramifications are to disrupting a church service from inside the church after being admitted with the other parishioners. Basically, think SOTU protests- protesters gain access with other patrons then begin protest at (whatever) time.

Like I said, just wondering. 8^)

PB

[libnnc]

1. I believe the group Act Up did a few years ago...

Protested inside St. Patrick's Cathedral against the Catholic Church's stance on Homosexuality and people with AIDS.

[William769]

2. Anyone who prtests inside is a church

No coment. :eyes:

[Skidmore]

9. If churches are going to act in the political arena, then they should

pay taxes and be fair game as forums for dissenting PUBLIC opinions.

[seriousstan]

10. When you take power, you can change that. Until then, they don't

and they are not.

The hatred and disrespect of religious beliefs have not served us well in connecting to VOTERS of faith in the past. Why do you think further fanning the flames would help now? Does the political ramifications of the actions enter into this? I think it does.

[noonwitch]

19. As a liberal christian, I disagree

My beliefs are why I am a liberal. Some people's beliefs lead them down a conservative path.
I see a lot of potential for abuse in making any church's foray into politics cost them their tax exemption. Liberals would get worked up over anti abortion groups meeting in churches, conservatives would get worked up over peace groups meeting in churches. Whichever group is in power at any given time could use such a policy to punish religious organizations they disagree with.

Televangelists, on the other hand, should be required to pay taxes. Especially "The 700 Club", as they now have commercials. Religious broadcasts do not constitute a church. I don't care really if it's Pat Robertson or Mother Angelica, they can pay their share of taxes for their enterprises.

[Bill McBlueState]

23. leave it to the courts

The courts frequently rule on what tax-exempt organizations can and cannot do. Having a meeting to talk about peace is allowed; endorsing a specific candidate is not. This isn't new ground we're treading on. :)

All I want is for existing law to be enforced uniformly; whereas now, religious groups that support the president get a lot more leeway than those that don't.

[CornField]

3. It would simply add to their persecution complex

and it wouldn't garner any positive results.

It's one thing if members of a congregation decide to get up and walk out or give voice to their disgruntlement, quite another for outsiders to come in for the purpose of protest.

[baby_mouse]

4. Yeah, 'cept

Act up carried it off fine. Mind you, many of the were dying of a terminal disease for which the government wouldn't release the legally reserved funds necessary for research and treatment. Because they were gay.

However, since they wish to legislate what we all do with our genitals I see no reason at all not to protest in their "holy" houses. These places are holes of evil, where bigotry and venal greed is propagated. They SHOULD be exposed to the light of day.

[f-bush]

5. Good Job!

[CornField]

6. I'm probably one of the most anti-Christian people on this board

(for very good reason too -- but that is for a different post)

Let me point out a few things:

1) Most churches are not "holes of evil, where bigotry and venal greed is propagated." Most are community hubs of networking and social activity. Most are good influences within their communities, offering food and shelter to the impoverished. (The sermons which go hand-in-hand with such services not withstanding.)

2) Christians - liberal, moderate & extreme - are being banged over the heads with information showing that the rest of us are out to get them. If an organized effort is launched to infiltrate their places of worship, how do you think it will be rationalized? Definitely not as others wanting them to wake up to what their higher-ups in the Christian community are doing. It will be seen as nothing but a personal attack against their faith and against their religion.

In short, you are suggesting a course of action which will spend vast amounts of energy and will not produce the desired results. Why not approach your local ministerial alliance and present them with an outline of community outreach programs including programs aimed at congregational education which correlate with Democratic ideals? (anti-poverty, tolerance, etc.)

Granted, such an overt course of action would not produce major headlines overnight, but it would be viewed as non-threatening and, in the long-run, would produce the results you most want: for people of faith, particularly evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, to start looking outside their very narrow view of the world.

[flashdebadge]

7. As a democrat of faith, I would be appalled if ANYONE came to my church

with the idea of doing anything accept worshiping. They would only reap resenters not supporters. There is a place and a time for protests and places of worship are not an acceptable place at anytime.

[Bill McBlueState]

24. (I think protests are supposed to be appalling.)

The concern is that a loud minority of churches use their tax exemption to preach hate, while those who suffer at the hands of the churches are supposed to sit quietly and respect others' religious beliefs.

If "worship" is a code word for "promulgate hatred of minorities," then that worship needs to be interrupted with protest.

[seriousstan]

8. Disorderly conduct and arrest. Then a trespassing warning and

trespassing arrest if you return.

The disorderly conduct is obvious, it is a catch-all charge that encompasses almost anything.

The trespassing warning/charge is because it is private property and the church can dictate it's use in purpose and person.

[KansDem]

13. I've thought about something like this with the I.D. "debate."

Get a few friends and go to a particularly right-winged church some Sunday. Dress up, just like the rest of the congregation. When the preacher starts in, chime in with "What's intelligent design?" Make him explain, or try to explain. Keep asking questions, rebutting each of the answers. The rest of the congregation will become annoyed and tell you to quiet down. Ask then if God's House is on private property. Ask why. Have the rest of your group chime in with additional questions about I.D. Don't let up! Just say you want answers.

Keep it up until the police arrive. Keep asking if God's House in on private property, then does God cater only to corporate interests. Act confused and indignant when the police lead you away. Say you only wanted answers.

[CornField]

14. You do realize that the congregation doesn't typically engage the pastor?

Seriously, have you ever attended a Sunday morning church service?

[seriousstan]

15. No, it sounds like this is all undiscovered territory to him/her.

But I'll bet they have the "act dumb and naive" part down to an art. :evilgrin:

[KansDem]

17. "Act dumb and naive"

Actually, I haven't attended this "territory" often enough to have this down to an art. It will still be a challenge to me.

[KansDem]

16. Yes, I've attended a "Sunday morning church service."

Many times, back when religion was taught "in church" and did not encroach on public life. We were raised in a church whose teachings guided us and prepared us for life in the community.

Of course, you have noticed of late that religion is no longer content with guiding the soul and forming the citizen. Of course, you have noticed that religion wants to control all things having to do with the state. So why not new "engage the pastor?" If churches can damn it's members to Hell if they vote for the "wrong candidate," (like what has happened in recent elections), then by all means, break down all established institutions between church and state and let people question the pastor in his house. You got a problem with that?

[CornField]

21. There is a time and place for everything

Sunday school is typically the time and place for the congregation to have discussions of faith, not during the sermon.

And, yes, I have noticed that much more public policy is being driven by religious policy. What I have not noticed, however, is the vast majority of American Christian congregations advocating such during Sunday sermons. In other words, you are painting with a a very dangerous and broad stroke.

[Occulus]

18. I for one DO realize that

and happen to think it's one of the single greatest things WRONG with the entire faith (this particular fact happens to be true for nearly all christian sects that I've EVER heard of).

People who advocate for the "quiet congregation" when it comes to asking questions are essentially asking people to not use the minds their own god gave them, in particular when they are in his house.

It's a silly, ridiculous, and flat-out dangerous custom. I'll paraphrase something I heard elsewhere on this board in the past couple days: "When you turn over your own sense and good judgement in favor of what someone else is telling you, you open that same good sense and good judgement up to manipulation by people who have ulterior motives.

[CornField]

22. Again, there is a time and place for everything

Sunday school -- Bible studies -- Outreach Programs -- Women's Groups -- Youth Programs -- and more all allow time for open discussion, questions and disagreement. To show up at Sunday morning services with only an attempt to disrupt and/or protest, would not only be political suicide, but alarmingly disrespectful.

Matter-of-fact, the stereotyping being done within this thread alone are alarmingly disrespectful. We aren't at war with every Christian in the United States. We don't wish them harm nor do we wish to dismantle the fabric of their religious faith.

As a brief side note, one of the major problems with Christianity today (at least in my opinion) is that many families show up only for Sunday morning worship and ignore all the other "educational" opportunities. Sunday morning worship is a dog and pony show. Real understanding and growth takes place in the smaller services where people can and do ask questions.

[Bill McBlueState]

25. "alarmingly disrespectful"

I can understand why some people would leap at the chance to do something "alarmingly disrespectful" in a church. After all, the teachings of certain churches have resulted in some people being treated with much worse than "alarming disrespect."

I'm not saying I would join such a protest, but I can understand where the protesters would be coming from.

[NaturalHigh]

11. That's just about the stupidest idea I've ever read.

[kineneb]

12. why bother?

just have a group stand outside as the service gets out...silently, dressed all in mourning (solid black), with nicely lettered signs stating compliant... that would be more effective than any "active" protest...

I also think the anti-war protesters should consider the all-black approach...think- thousands of people, dressed in black, totally silently marching through Washington DC... that would be truely scary...

[TX-RAT]

20. Not a wise idea.

It's private property.