The “Dearborn Four” are to be arraigned this morning. Here’s a local news report on their situation (via answeringmuslims.com).
What shall we say about this, especially the mayor’s remarks? I don’t recall it being illegal to talk about one’s faith outside a “designated free speech area.” I wonder what name you give to public places surrounding such a zone. Maybe, “designated First Amendment-free zone.” The city of Dearborn has published a letter explaining their position on this.
For those of us with limited access to the facts, it all remains to be sorted out. It seems odd, though, that Dearborn would not have returned this group’s video equipment to them. The city clearly wants not to be condemned for their actions (see the title of their letter, linked above). If they did nothing wrong, they have been taking unusual pains to hide the evidence thereof.
Now, even though I’ve been building a friendship with Nabeel Qureshi, one of the Dearborn Four, since last November, I don’t know enough about the circumstances there to be convinced their evangelistic methodology was the best. Other Christians I respect strongly, especially Josh McDowell, have been developing positive relations there while also sharing Christ. I’m suspending judgment on that while we all wait for further information. But there is another issue in question here, which is liberty and the rule of law.
With respect to Mayor O’Reilly’s comments, I wonder especially what law there is against “motives” that “violate the spirit of the Constitution.” What were this group’s motives? How does the mayor know them, and how does he know that he knows them? Usually we infer motives from what people say and what they do. This group has not provoked controversy in other Muslim-centric venues, only in Dearborn, where in 2009 (based on video testimony) it seems it was others besides themselves who escalated the confrontations. How do we infer evil motives from that? They’ve said they came for respectful, peaceful dialogue. How do we infer evil motives from that?
Motive and intent are relevant when an actual crime is being contemplated or has been committed. They form part of the distinction between first-degree murder and other lesser crimes. They are obviously relevant to laws against conspiring to commit a crime.
But this has more the flavor of a bad Western movie plot line:
“I’m locking you up for disturbing the peace, Smith.”
“What for, Sheriff?? I was just sitting and talking peaceably with the bartender here.”
“Sure, but you knew when you rode into town that Big John is here, and Big John wants to pick a fight with you. You came here just to stir him up.”
“Is that right, Sheriff? How does that work, then? I’m sitting here as peaceful as can be, and I’m doing nothing wrong. Big John wants to pick a fight with me, and for that, you think I’m the one disturbing the peace?”
“That’s right, Smith.You came to town wanting to get Big John to pick a fight with you. That makes it your fault, clear as day, and that’s why I’m putting you behind bars.”
What’s wrong with that scene? First, the peace was not yet disturbed. Second, if it were to be disturbed, it would be Big John who would be doing it, not Smith. And third, the Sheriff claimed he knew why Smith came to town—and he made that the cause for arrest.
If we are going to have elected officials in this country who think they can decipher motives that way, then we’ll have elected officials who will think they can have us arrested based on what—their impressions? or their telepathic abilities?
As for violating the “spirit of the Constitution,” what on earth does that mean? Probably whatever anyone wants it to mean. Suppose, though, this group actually did go there to stir up trouble by talking about their religion. I don’t think so, but suppose they did. Where in the Constitution do we find a “spirit” violated by that intent?
I don’t know what’s in Mayor O’Reilly’s mind, but I know where his words could lead, if he or anyone else took them seriously: arrests made without any actual crime in view, just on the basis of some mysteriously interpreted motive, or for violating some privately inferred “spirit” of the Constitution. What do you think—could the rule of law survive?
This is an interesting issue that I’ve been following, although a bit passively. I realize that the content of your questions in this post are more about law and less about theology, faith, or Scripture.
However, I was and remained intrigued by the response which was posted here: http://www.fairlanealliance.org/downloads/letter_concerning_acts_17.pdf
I’m not defending the mayor or defending/condemning Acts 17. I agree that the wait and see approach is best. However, I do think their YouTube video was more than a little bit misleading precisely because of the facts it leaves out. And the Scriptural critique presented in the link above has some merit, I think.
It would seem to me that there are some legitimate charges that could be made, depending on whose version of the story is true.
For example, any street preacher who amasses a crowd so large that it restricts an avenue of public transportation could be guilty of crime depending upon which city/county/township the event occurs. If Acts 17 is guilty of this, then the arrests may be justified, even if the Mayor has been awfully vague (intentionally or not) in his choice of words.
No doubt we need more info.
Bah, forgot to link this as well, a link to Acts 17 YouTube response: http://youtu.be/BAwlLLH2RKI
That last link isn’t working now. I think it’s related to this blog post from Nabeel, in which he refutes a number of points the mayor makes in his letter. They seem to have canceled public access to it for now.
That video link from Nabeel is live again.
Looks like my instincts about this were WAY better than yours, Tom. Acts 17 is going to lose and lose big (well, as big as these minor charges can be, I assume it’s just a misdemeanor) if half of what the mayor says is true. Like I said in my initial comments, cities and policy have well-established policies about these things, policies typically already ruled constitutional by courts. Protest zones are also well-established. Cities are typically not just making it up as they go; they don’t like getting sued.
And that letter sounds very heartfelt and sane to me, written by a guy who sounds Christian about a town, Dearborn, which he loves, which has achieved that has been repeatedly attacked for being “too Muslim”, “un-American”, and the like, probably just because it has a lot of Muslims in it. Acts 17 is apparently not the first group to exploit this emotional button.
Now, take your new-found “we need more facts” sentiment and take a look at what the fans of Acts 17 have been saying on youtube and elsewhere about Dearborn and the Arab Festival last year and this year. You can start with “Arab Festival 2009: Sharia in the US” and go from there. (Holy moly that’s offensive! The title of that video, which Acts17 posted, even taken just by itself, pretty much proves that the mental attitude of Acts17 people is about as bad as the Mayor says it is.)
Finally, your focus on the following is emotional and not clear-headed:
“With respect to Mayor O’Reilly’s comments, I wonder especially what law there is against “motives” that “violate the spirit of the Constitution.””
O’Reilly didn’t say or imply there is a law against activities that violate the spirit of the Constitution. He said there is a law against doing things like causing a public disturbance in a highly crowded special event space. That’s what Acts17 is on arraigned for.
*Then*, as a different matter, O’Reilly pointed out the hypocrisy involved in (a) Acts 17 proclaiming (apparently inaccurately) that their constitutional and religious rights had been violated while simultaneously (b) (allegedly) stirring up religious hatred against Dearborn and its Muslim citizens for the purposes of propaganda and fundraising. The spirit of the Constitution is religious tolerance, not religious hatred. That’s what the Mayor was saying.
Acts17’s video responding to the Mayor has the nice ugly touch of repeatedly showing the Mayor with a Muslim woman. It looks like a swearing in of the Mayor, but it could be a citizenship ceremony or just about anything. Acts17’s not-so subliminal message is clearly “the Mayor is one of those Muslims or a toady to the Muslims.” This kind of thing will not increase sympathy for Acts17 amongst anyone but the “America is a Christian nation, un-Christian is un-American” extremists.
Nick, congratulations to you on your WAY better instincts. As for me, I’m sticking with what I know based on the evidence.
You accept the “facts” of the mayor’s letter, and you complain about the manipulation you think is in the video. But the video presents hard facts refuting much of what the mayor wrote. How can it sound heartfelt and sane after you’ve seen firm evidence that he’s wrong in so many ways?
I still don’t know whether a First Amendment-free zone is legal in cases like this. I’m not a legal scholar. I thought it worthwhile to include a reference to the mayor’s letter in my post because I thought that side needed to be heard from, especially (but not only) with respect to that legal question.
As for “stirring up religious hatred,” I guess you think Smith is to blame for disturbing the peace. (That’s a reference to the original post, for those who came straight to the comments.) I wonder if you also think Islam has a better record on this than Christianity.
My focus on motives and “the spirit of the Constitution” led me to certain general conclusions that still stand.
This is what I was getting at in my comment above regarding what is left out of the videos published by Acts 17. I was first alerted to this whole situation through the video Nick mentions. The title itself certainly implies that Sharia is being implemented in Dearborn, and the content of the video serves as the “proof.”
However, the facts we do know suggest precisely the opposite. The fact that at least two other Christians groups were even present at the event, let alone being allowed to proselytize freely (!!!), proves beyond question that this isn’t a case of Sharia trumping American Law.
I don’t understand why Acts 17 doesn’t simply acknowledge this.
The last comment I have on the topic is this: sometimes, there are more important things that being right. In every thing I’ve seen (literally, not a rhetorical statement) from Acts 17 — from their debates with Muslim scholars to their debates with atheists to this event in Dearborn — there’s such a heavy emphasis on being right, at the expense of all else. We have the true Scripture, we are the ones being consistent in our arguments, everything we do is perfectly legal, etc. Is that ultimately what being a follower of Christ is all about?
And I have to ask, finally, is that really the most effective way to bring people into the Kingdom of God?
Hmm, posting from bed is bad:
cities and policy –> cities and police
which has achieved that has –> that has
…etc. Apologies!