Arrested for praying

[Calm]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Full context, to clear and shatter the smoke and mirrors:

• Officer: What are you here for today?
• Vaughan-Spruce: Physically, I'm just standing here.
• Officer: Okay.  Why here of all places?  I know you don't live nearby.
• Vaughan-Spruce: …this is an abortion center.
• Officer: Okay.  That's why you're here.  Is you standing here part of a protest?
• Vaughan-Spruce: No.  I'm not protesting.
• Officer: Are you praying?
• Vaughan-Spruce: I might be praying in my head.

[Note, no arrest immediately following this line of questioning, no arrest for what she’s “maybe” thinking in her head, but they want to question her suspicious behavior over several days and regarding specific allegations of violating the order (no mention of prayer)]

• Officer: I'll ask you once more.  Will you voluntarily come with us now to the police station for me to ask you some questions about today and other days where there are allegations that you've broken the public space protection order?
• Vaughan-Spruce: If I've got a choice, then no.  
• Officer: Okay.  Then you're under arrest on suspicion of failing to comply with the public spaces protection order, which is in the anti-social behavior... 

She was not arrested “for praying”, but “on suspicion of failing to comply with the public spaces protection order” (no mention of prayer), and to question her further about “allegations” and to find out more about her suspicious behavior there over multiple days.
 
To not take her in under suspicion given the unusual behavior over several DAYS, complaints and allegations, and given her testimony that she was specifically targeting the out of the way clinic with her unusual behavior, would have been negligent on the part of the police!  At the bare minimum, some kind of statement/protest?  Praying out loud on other days (hard to tell from”pictures”)?  Something more sinister? they had no idea what it was exactly that was going on - but reasonably suspicious for sure, and questions about praying don’t seem out of line.

She never admitted to praying, so to assume that is why she was arrested is unreasonable given what the police actually said.  Again, was she ever charged with praying, or are y’all going to blindly continue their deception in the name of prayer (weaponizing it without cause) without the facts?  Was she ever charged with anything?

To make this arrest about “prayer” specifically is to completely ignore and distort what the police actually said.   Thanks, and to all a good night.

Illustrated very well, imo.  Your second post as well.  The language used by the police is most important when looking at what they are focusing on.

Edited December 26, 2022 by Calm

[provoman]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, read the definitions. It covers it only when the prayer is a form of protest for or against the clinic.

It is clear the law is written to get a collection of intimidating jerks out of the area and the locals are pretty much all for it. Trying to make them victims of the ordinance they themselves want is disingenuous.

The PSPO prohibits prayer for/against abortion "anywhere within" the restricted area. This means if your home is "within" the restricted area, you are prohibited from praying within your home for/against abortion.

If a person was praying "anywhere within" the restricted area, and police saw/heard it, the person could be arrested for suspicion of anti-social behaviour".   

 

edit: I did not purposefully leave out for/against abortion part in the previous post.

Edited December 26, 2022 by provoman

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

The PSPO prohibits prayer for/against abortion "anywhere within" the restricted area. This means if your home is "within" the restricted area, you are prohibited from praying within your home for/against abortion.

If a person was praying "anywhere within" the restricted area, and police saw/heard it, the person could be arrested for suspicion of anti-social behaviour".   

 

edit: I did not purposefully leave out for/against abortion part in the previous post.

No, it doesn’t.

And if that starts happening I will be critical of the law. It hasn’t happened and it is not likely to. I am not going to get upset over absurd hypotheticals. This discussion is happening because we already have a plethora of absurd hypotheticals along with a plethora of blatant falsehoods. Not only have the good Christian protestors made a mockery of prayer they are also practicing malicious dishonesty.

[Dario_M]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, it doesn’t.

And if that starts happening I will be critical of the law. It hasn’t happened and it is not likely to. I am not going to get upset over absurd hypotheticals. This discussion is happening because we already have a plethora of absurd hypotheticals along with a plethora of blatant falsehoods. Not only have the good Christian protestors made a mockery of prayer they are also practicing malicious dishonesty.

Uhm...in other words? Sorry that whas really dificult to understand. Are you agree that that woman have the right to pray close to a abortion clinic or do you find that she is in the wrong and should be arested? 

That is what i wanna know from you. 🤔

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Uhm...in other words? Sorry that whas really dificult to understand. Are you agree that that woman have the right to pray close to a abortion clinic or do you find that she is in the wrong and should be arested? 

That is what i wanna know from you. 🤔

This is not the issue. The woman was not arrested for praying.

[Dario_M]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is not the issue. The woman was not arrested for praying.

Yes she whas arested for that because the only thing that she did there whas praying. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Dario_M

[Vanguard]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

Was she charged for praying, first of all?  That is not why she was arrested, according to the video. If she wasn’t actually charged for praying, then this is a straw-man.  She was not arrested for the thoughts in her head (that is the smoke and mirrors in all of this) but for her suspicious and unusual behavior which targeted an abortion clinic over a several day period before she was finally reported to police, who also agreed based upon their best judgment that her behavior was “suspicious” of violating the order and wanted to question her further about her being there.

Well, they already were questioning her and they could find nothing. I wonder what the grounds for the arrest was? "Mam, someone else told us you were standing here while the clinic was closed and so we need to arrest you?" Is that it? So she's standing there quietly, another complains she may be breaking the ordinance, and boom, you're arrested. No evidence of any law-breaking. My bets are that if someone had videoed her 'offense' that all we would see is her simply standing there which is probably why there is no video! ; ) Pretty low bar. Se la vie.

Below is what seems a pretty good characterization from a 'barrister' who I have come to understand is something like a common law attorney in the UK. If I understand him, he seems to think it indeed very much about prayer. I guess though he's part of the 'smoke and mirrors brigade' too... ;o

 

11 hours ago, pogi said:

You agreed earlier that if a group of people were “just standing there” and not saying or doing anything else, that could be considered a form of statement or protest.    I am entirely unsure why it must be a group before it could be perceived by police as a statement, and why not an individual and President of a pro-life activist group specifically targeting an abortion clinic to “take a stand” in front of said clinic day, after day…potentially until someone stops her.    

That seems like an arbitrary rule that you just made up.  What if she was there 5 days? 7? 10? 30?  50??  Seriously, where is the cut-off, Vanguard, before it could be reasonably judged as “suspicious” by police?  This ultimately becomes a judgment call by local law enforcement, and I find their judgment to arrest her on suspicion for further questioning entirely reasonable given the circumstances.  I think you would be hard pressed to find a judge who would disagree given the history of protest and harassment of that location and given her person and very unusual behavior in targeting an abortion clinic to stand in front of over multiple days.

Yes, I did wonder about numerous people standing out front for extended periods of time. Anti-loitering laws would probably take care of this. I wonder why they haven't done so? If they had done so, I would imagine that is what the LEO would have first brought up. IMO, the bottom line is that if there are no plans for an anti-loitering ordinance for that area then folks are just going to have to lump it when others simply stand (when the clinic is closed no less!) in the 'no-go zone' (and across the street at that!).

11 hours ago, pogi said:

One would have to be out-of-their mind to think it is reasonable to conclude that such behavior is suspicious coming from such a person!

Suspicious of what though? Of course, she has ulterior motives! But where has her behavior run afoul of the law?

To add, I will grant that standing there for extended periods of time with one's eyes closed (some of the footage seems to indicate she may have been doing this) could merit an inquiry since the act of closing one's eyes for extended periods of time in a 'no prayer' zone does seem suspicious. If she were allowed to do that, then what would stop her also from mouthing words that - although no one could hear the words - could amount to what looks like the utterance of a prayer. Her denial of it would not suffice as someone standing there with their eyes closed uttering words that no one else could here would amount to an infraction of the no-go zone ordinance.

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Suspicious of what though? Of course, she has ulterior motives! But where has her behavior run afoul of the law?

It appears that they have authority to arrest on reasonable suspicion alone.   They didn’t have to have proof that she violated the law before arresting her on reasonable suspicion.  The legal question on hand here is did police have enough to be reasonably suspicious of some kind of protest?  You seem to agree that ulterior motives are obvious.  No words needed to read the context of the situation.  I think any judge would find their judgment very reasonable given the context of who she is and what she was doing, and given the admission that she was specifically targeting an abortion clinic.
 

Hello, police department?  I’d like to report suspicious behavior of a lady who has been standing in front of our abortion clinic, after hours, for several days now.  We recognize her as the president of a pro-life activist group in the community.  It looks like she is staging some kind of silent protest and/or possibly praying with her eyes closed.  Can you come make sure there are no other security concerns and to take care of this please?  Word is getting around that someone is coming to our clinic everyday after hours and some of our employees are getting concerned and it is making them feel uncomfortable.

Police: “so…she’s just standing there?  For 3 days now? 

Clinic: Yes

Police: So what’s your concern if she is just standing there?

Clinic:  Again, our concern is that she is staging a silent protest and may have a long-game here trying to draw media attention to her cause or something.  We are concerned that she might influence others to join her in silent protest after seeing her on the news.  Seriously, how much longer before this gets picked up by the media?  She doesn’t seem to have any plans of stopping.  We also don’t know if we should be concerned with security.

Police: but she’s just standing there.

Clinic: …yeees!

Police: just forget about it lady, you are being paranoid! Click.

Day 4: same conversation same result.

Day 5: same conversation same result.

On what day does police become negligent for not intervening?  On what day does it become reasonable for police to suspect that the President of a pro-life activist group may be staging a silent protest in front of an abortion clinic - even if she denies it, and seems determined to keep doing so until someone stops her?

 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by pogi

[Snodgrassian]

On 12/24/2022 at 12:24 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

If her plot (such as it was) was to make a spectacle of herself by standing there and doing nothing but praying silently in her mind so that somebody would have her arrested, then the prudent thing would have been to let her be. No one would have been harmed or intimidated and there would have been no arrest for the videographers to record and post. 
 

Voila! The nefarious scheme would have been foiled. 

Just because it is not intimidating to YOU does not mean others find it uncomfortable. Why can't you understand that? Where is your empathy for your fellow brothers and sisters? Put yourself in the shoes of others. Try it during this holiday season. There are things that are part of daily life that impact people differently, like I am not scared walking to my car at night, or entering my home, alone, but my wife is on high alert and always calls me or a friend. Is she unreasonable? NO. Who am I to judge. 

If I was going into a medical clinic, under stressful circumstances, I would be in a vulnerable state. I don't want people knowing my business. extra protections around facilities like this make sense. 

There are many times that public expression, especially prayers, put me on high alert. I walk past people all of the time in the city, and public religious displays/actions are out of the norm. The Gift of Fear kicks in and I make sure I am aware of my surroundings. 

[Snodgrassian]

On 12/24/2022 at 11:36 AM, Vanguard said:

Oh my. Many thanks to most of you for keeping this exchange civil. I find myself swaying back and forth between the two arguments. 'Pendulumming' (my own coined word) back and forth like this on what I believe is both invigorating and unnerving! To hopefully further the discourse, I have a few questions and/or comments -

1. Doesn't protesting something require a demonstrable behavior of such (i.e., verbally speaking to those who are entering, praying out loud, wearing clothing with relevant statements on it, demonstrable physical gestures, etc)? How is only standing outside the abortion clinic (the only demonstrable activity) not allowed? Does the particular law in question stipulate how long one can be in the zone?

2.But what if there were several people simply standing outside the clinic over long periods of time? Wouldn't that be legitimately unnerving for those entering?

3. And how does the presence of the video crew incriminate this woman? Was the crew inside the protest zone? Before the police showed up, was their presence obvious to those entering (though the crew was probably outside of the zone)? Once the police started speaking with the woman, I too would pull my crew out. The issue at that point would be the inappropriateness of the police's inquiry and would therefore need a video presence.

Thoughts?

 

I mean, she was loitering... showing up multiple times in a legally protected area is demonstrable behavior, in my opinion. She is publicly anti-abortion, and yet she stands outside an abortion clinic... 
 

She claims her group all sign a waiver that they will not break the law, yet it appears she has in this instant. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

they already were questioning her and they could find nothing. 

This is an assumption.  They were not obligated to tell her what evidence they had.  Given the statement they were aware she had been there multiple days, they were aware who she was, they could have more.

 

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

stand (when the clinic is closed no less!) in the 'no-go zone' (and across the street at that!).

If you look at the restricted area, it appears to include anywhere that has a line of sight to the clinic as well as a block radius of where one would have to pass on the way to the clinic.  This makes sense if you read the complaints.  It was not just about what those at the clinic experienced, but the neighborhood surrounding it.  The residents were tired of seeing the spectacle day after day from their front windows or on their way to the school, etc.  This was not a business only zone, the clinic is surrounded by homes where many felt their were prisoners in their own residences due to the presence of protestors.

 If one lives next door or across the street from the clinic, they would have been able to see Vaughan-Spruce standing there day after day.  That would be creepy and since they had gone through the previous protests, they would not have had to guess why she was there.  

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

Just because it is not intimidating to YOU does not mean others find it uncomfortable. Why can't you understand that? Where is your empathy for your fellow brothers and sisters? Put yourself in the shoes of others. Try it during this holiday season. There are things that are part of daily life that impact people differently, like I am not scared walking to my car at night, or entering my home, alone, but my wife is on high alert and always calls me or a friend. Is she unreasonable? NO. Who am I to judge. 

If I was going into a medical clinic, under stressful circumstances, I would be in a vulnerable state. I don't want people knowing my business. extra protections around facilities like this make sense. 

There are many times that public expression, especially prayers, put me on high alert. I walk past people all of the time in the city, and public religious displays/actions are out of the norm. The Gift of Fear kicks in and I make sure I am aware of my surroundings. 

My empathy is toward one who would be hauled off to jail because it is thought she MIGHT be silently praying in her own mind while standing in the street. Not because she was genuflecting or making hand motions or doing anything else outwardly to indicate that she she was communicating with God. Not only do I empathize with such a person, but I find it shocking, as every freedom-living person should. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

This was not a business only zone, the clinic is surrounded by homes where many felt their were prisoners in their own residences due to the presence of protestors.

Just curious how you feel about the position of Supreme Court justices who, in violation of federal law, were subjected to the presence of protesters outside their own residences. Their homes were not places of business either, and the protests were rancorous enough to attract one individual who allegedly attempted to assassinate one of the justices. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Below is what seems a pretty good characterization from a 'barrister' who I have come to understand is something like a common law attorney in the UK. If I understand him, he seems to think it indeed very much about prayer.

He appears to have additional information since he is talking about the bail agreement.

But he also appears to me to agree that the restriction of personal/private prayer in the restricted space by the abortion clinic is reasonable and lawful, if potentially a slippery slope…which he seems to think has evidence due to her bail limitations.  What he is focusing on here as inappropriate is her bail conditions, which he describes as prohibiting her from silently praying about abortion anywhere, not just in restricted areas.  He also said something like “if this is confirmed”, so I am wondering if that is just customary legalese or if the report he read isn’t official and may be commentary or he may be concerned quoted material is inaccurate. 

But even if his concerns are founded on accurate info, this commentary does not support an argument against her arrest, but only against bail conditions.

See 9:00 where he starts with “as part of her bail conditions.   At 9:50 his “obvious argument…shouldn’t be going…” indicates to me he agrees with silent prayer restrictions nearby abortion clinics/within restricted zones.  At 10:15 he is clear he is focusing on behaviour “outside the bounds” of the restricted area.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just curious how you feel about the position of Supreme Court justices who, in violation of federal law, were subjected to the presence of protesters outside their own residences. Their homes were not places of business either, and the protests were rancorous enough to attract one individual who allegedly attempted to assassinate one of the justices…

 

I do not believe protests should be around private residences, a good reason to have strong zoning laws.  I am in a small town though and a protest around my city hall would be next door to our elementary school and across the streets from private homes, so I can see how if it was a total restriction it might ban any protests in some areas. There were other options of protests for the judges though, so I think that was very inappropriate and I believe if needed restricted areas should be put in place around their homes.  A judge’s family, if they have any, did not sign up for the job and don’t deserve to have to endure harassment in their home because of someone else’s choices.  I don’t believe the neighbourhood deserves to have to endure feeling like prisoners in their own homes because of a business that was allowed to locate in the middle of them.  Protests against laws should be in front where they make the laws, iow in front of the relevant government buildings.

I tend to be pretty strong on privacy rights.

Edited December 26, 2022 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just curious how you feel about the position of Supreme Court justices who, in violation of federal law, were subjected to the presence of protesters outside their own residences. Their homes were not places of business either, and the protests were rancorous enough to attract one individual who allegedly attempted to assassinate one of the justices. 

Free speech is a sticky mess. It’s an easy enough concept to fully endorse, but at the edges there are always going to be cases that make one feel uncomfortable.  For myself, the presence of protestors in a private personal space (like outside your house, or outside a medical facility) feels very intrusive. At the same time speech is a bedrock principle. So as the two principles get ironed out, I’m not going to lose a lot of sleep over a single individual protestor out of millions of citizens being arrested. 

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

I do not believe protests should be around private residences, a good reason to have strong zoning laws.  I am in a small town though and a protest around my city hall would be next door to our elementary school and across the streets from private homes, so I can see how if it was a total restriction it might ban any protests in some areas. There were other options of protests for the judges though, so I think that was very inappropriate and I believe if needed restricted areas should be put in place around their homes.  A judge’s family, if they have any, did not sign up for the job and don’t deserve to have to endure harassment in their home because of someone else’s choices.  I don’t believe the neighbourhood deserves to have to endure feeling like prisoners in their own homes because of a business that was allowed to locate in the middle of them.  Protests against laws should be in front where they make the laws, iow in front of the relevant government buildings.

Fair enough. 
 

By the way, protests around the justices’ residences is already not just restricted but is forbidden by federal law. Not just for the sake of their families but because they comprise a separate branch of the government whose impartiality is important enough to the function of our government that they are protected (or are supposed to be protected) from attempted intimidation to influence their decision making. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[provoman]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, it doesn’t.

And if that starts happening I will be critical of the law. It hasn’t happened and it is not likely to. I am not going to get upset over absurd hypotheticals. This discussion is happening because we already have a plethora of absurd hypotheticals along with a plethora of blatant falsehoods. Not only have the good Christian protestors made a mockery of prayer they are also practicing malicious dishonesty.

"anywhere within" means "anywhere within".  The PSPO did not distinguish between public/private or audible/silent.  

And as Calm has pointed out, the law is poorly constructed

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Free speech is a sticky mess. It’s an easy enough concept to fully endorse, but at the edges there are always going to be cases that make one feel uncomfortable.  For myself, the presence of protestors in a private personal space (like outside your house, or outside a medical facility) feels very intrusive. At the same time speech is a bedrock principle. So as the two principles get ironed out, I’m not going to lose a lot of sleep over a single individual protestor out of millions of citizens being arrested. 

Then, in reference to snodgrassian’s preachiness, one can as easily be cavalier about neighborhood residents feeling inconvenienced by the presence of one woman standing there doing nothing but whom they suspect of [gasp] praying in her mind. 

[Calm]

Standing around at an abortion clinic you purposely travel to to stand in front of is not standing around doing nothing. 
 

Standing around doing nothing is when you don’t have a purpose for being there. 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Standing around at an abortion clinic you purposely travel to to stand in front of is not standing around doing nothing. 
 

Standing around doing nothing is when you don’t have a purpose for being there. 

Of course you must know where all this is heading? Satan is working behind the scenes with mailable earthy agents to eventually set up a regime in which it will be impossible for the messengers of God to call a desperately wicked world to repentance without breaking all kinds of oppressive laws designed to shut the mouths of the righteous.  The adversary’s ultimate objective is to silence the voice of warning from Lord’s prophets and missionaries for engaging in so-called “hate speech” if they dare to teach the gospel of repentance and contrition that God has always commanded his servants to preach.

And based on what I’m seeing on this thread, there will likely be many members who will soon pressure the church to teach a false gospel that asserts men can be saved in their sins, rather than saved from their sins through faith in the atoning Savior, genuine contrition and heartfelt repentance. And if there are any here who think they can dismiss me as a crazy alarmist, you will soon enough see I’m right.

But none of this should come as a surprise for the informed faithful because the scriptures abundantly warn that the day of God’s vengeance upon the wicked is inevitable. It’s for very good and fully justifiable reasons that the prophets repeatedly warn that the Lord is going to destroy the rebellious and cleanse the earth by fire at his Second Coming. The world is very obviously ripening in iniquity for those who can are able to discern the crystal clear signs of the times. And if there are any here who can’t see it, there’s not much else left to say. 

Edited December 27, 2022 by teddyaware

[Snodgrassian]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My empathy is toward one who would be hauled off to jail because it is thought she MIGHT be silently praying in her own mind while standing in the street. Not because she was genuflecting or making hand motions or doing anything else outwardly to indicate that she she was communicating with God. Not only do I empathize with such a person, but I find it shocking, as every freedom-living person should. 

Freedom-living (freedom-loving?)... To quote the formidable Inigo Montoya: "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means"

This woman went out if her way over the course of multiple days to stand in a protected zone. She is public in her stance. There is a reason she was there. If I see someone who does not live in my neighborhood show up every day and stand outside of a medical facility, I would call the police, it is then up tot he police to determine how to handle the situation. If she walked through the zone  praying in her head, she would not be in the situation she is currently in. She is chose to return to the same place, and was doing something that gave the impression she was praying, thus the new law was possibly being violated. She did not give a straight answer the responding police officer. I am sure the cops were annoyed they had to respond to the call. 

The narrative from the police officer shows that she was not targeted for praying in her mind. They were called because someone believed this woman was protesting. She was questioned and the police did not think her answers were sufficient to part ways there. You have been deflecting question this entire thread. Calm has laid it all out very clearly. 

Once again, just because you find something ok, does not mean others agree with you.

[Snodgrassian]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then, in reference to snodgrassian’s preachiness, one can as easily be cavalier about neighborhood residents feeling inconvenienced by the presence of one woman standing there doing nothing but whom they suspect of [gasp] praying in her mind. 

I will continue to "preach" lol. Calling after 4 days is not cavalier in my book. It sounds like this neighborhood has been through the a lot of protests over the years. Finally there is a way to stop the protests, and someone called the police to check out a possible demonstration. For all we know, the neighborhood didn't call it in, but it was someone affiliated with the woman, to test the new law have have us discussion it on this board. 

Pro-life activists can be way to cavalier in their actions. Their signs and pictures can be designed for shock and awe, and yet they show them on busy roads and outside of schools, requiring me to shield my children. 

Just the words you use are very telling of how you will respond to anything that you view as an attack on your beliefs. In this instance, a woman standing in a neighborhood is an inconvenience to you (mind, it is not your neighborhood), but man, you side with BYU when someone uses the "wrong" color of light on Y mountain. It is just a light, it doesn't cause any harm. 

I have found so much more peace in my life when I stopped looking for the bad or evil in the world. We need to stop telling others how to live their lives if they choose to not live by the same rule book as us. Live this life as if it is the only one you have. Treat others with kindness, you never know what they are going through. 

Quote

“Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller

 

[Snodgrassian]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Of course you must know where all this is heading? Satan is working behind the scenes with mailable earthy agents to eventually set up a regime in which it will be impossible for the messengers of God to call a desperately wicked world to repentance without breaking all kinds of oppressive laws designed to shut the mouths of the righteous.  The adversary’s ultimate objective is to silence the voice of warning from Lord’s prophets and missionaries for engaging in so-called “hate speech” if they dare to teach the gospel of repentance and contrition that God has always commanded his servants to preach.

And based on what I’m seeing on this thread, there will likely be many members who will soon pressure the church to teach a false gospel that asserts men can be saved in their sins, rather than saved from their sins through faith in the atoning Savior, genuine contrition and heartfelt repentance. And if there are any here who think they can dismiss me as a crazy alarmist, you will soon enough see I’m right.

But none of this should come as a surprise for the informed faithful because the scriptures abundantly warn that the day of God’s vengeance upon the wicked is inevitable. It’s for very good and fully justifiable reasons that the prophets repeatedly warn that the Lord is going to destroy the rebellious and cleanse the earth by fire at his Second Coming. The world is very obviously ripening in iniquity for those who can are able to discern the crystal clear signs of the times. And if there are any here who can’t see it, there’s not much else left to say. 

My only, unsolicited advice to you is to open up your world view a bit more. There are more freedoms in this current version of the world than ever before. I do not buy in that the world is more wicked than before, I actually think it is getting better, call me crazy. Look for the positives, don't dwell on the things you perceive are slights against your faith. The Church has teh ability to reach more people today than it ever has. 

In my line of work, I see the best and worst of what is happening. I would gladly take today's society over the golden years of the US (1950's). 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, provoman said:

"anywhere within" means "anywhere within".  The PSPO did not distinguish between public/private or audible/silent.  

And as Calm has pointed out, the law is poorly constructed

 

Read and parse the law more carefully. It talks about prayer as a form of protest and not prayer generally. You seem determined to make this idiot into a martyr.