Quantcast

80 year old priest arrested for peacefully protesting Notre Dame's decision to have BO give the commencement speech. Is this right?

~Mikki~ Is back & ready to fight! 2009/05/16 15:33:19
You!
Add Photos & Videos
+7
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • belle 2009/05/16 15:51:45
    No...
    belle
    +7
    How disgusting of the ones that pressed charges. He has his right to express his thoughts and beliefs of a religion he has been part of for so long. Shame on Obama for getting involed in church business. Weeping for America will be happening more and more often as long as Obama is President. Guess he is smiling that silly grin of his while watching this terrible wrong act on the rights of this priest.
    I guess Wanda will have a joke about this priest next.
    watching terrible wrong act rights priest guess wanda joke priest
    >> See Replies

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Suzie1001 2009/05/27 15:47:44 (edited)
    None of the above
    Suzie1001
    +1
    Its just a sign of the times. We are on way to into the tribulation with a quickness like never before. I watched that in a restaurant with my husband and a guy he worked with. It broke my heart to see that we don't have the right to free speech anymore. How sad for a catholic priest to get arrest at a catholic college for something they believe to be a sin. Abortion is wrong. It is killing the innocent because someone did not do the right thing to begin with. The only time I might consider it to be (ok) is when it comes to rape or incest. catholic college sin abortion wrong killing innocent begin rape incest
    reply
  • Dinah 2009/05/19 12:16:02
    None of the above
    Dinah
    +1
    In this country we have a right to practice any faith or no faith as we are free to choose our own spiritual paths. The constitution guarantees this. We are also free to protest any public policy and any view of decision makers. He should not have been arrested ,unless the presence of the crowd of protestors was threatening the President or the spectators in some way.He has a right to disagree with the Presidents policy. Having said that,I think he's a little too old and a little senile and should probably not risked being there...his head is in the past.This is a new world with broader ideas.
    reply
  • Constitutional Conservative 2009/05/18 22:50:21
    No...
    Constitutional Conservative
    +1
    This priest, and all who were arrested for peacefully protesting, need to find a team of good attorneys, and sue the hell out of the police department for this aggravated assault against their right to do so. That was sickening, and watching an 80 year old man getting hauled off to jail for NOTHING by these nazi bastards makes my American blood boil.
    Had they all been homosexuals protesting outside of a Baptist church, you would not have seen any of them arrested at all, because it's politically correct to be a sodomite, but to actually protest for the protection of innocent life is anthema to socialist. They don't believe in LIFE (they kill the unborn and pant for uthanasea), or LIBERTY (for their enemies), and they want all misery spread evenly, so there goes THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS too. When are we gonna fight back people?
    reply
  • Nikki +In God We Trust+ 2009/05/17 20:52:54
    It is ok to kill a baby but not ok to protest against it...
    Nikki +In God We Trust+
    +2
    This is disgraceful.
    reply
  • GANGA~Patriotic Revolution ... 2009/05/16 23:04:21
    No...
    GANGA~Patriotic Revolution BL-100+
    +4
    God bless him.........that is sad! What would a prestigious college like Notre Dame want Oscumba to speak???
    reply
  • hook 2009/05/16 21:49:12
    It is ok to kill a baby but not ok to protest against it...
    hook
    +4
    it is a sad thing the cops looked like they did not want to be there. ps omama sucks
    reply
  • ZILdeactivated 2009/05/16 21:15:37
    No...
    ZILdeactivated
    +4
    This is what it was like for a lot of black people during the marches and protests in MLK Junior's day. Very sad.
    reply
  • chow 2009/05/16 20:31:02
    No...
    chow
    +5
    It's a sad day for America when an 80 year old Priest is carted off like a bag of garbage (whether you call it trespassing or not). This poor man was peacefully protesting a pro-abortion president speaking at a Catholic University (not to mention receiving an honorary degree). You don't see 80 year olds carted off like that for any other type of so called crime (trespassing: see "personx" below)...this seems to be more of a statement from the University than anything else. I pray the negative press will have an impact on Notre Dame.
    reply
  • divajinx 2009/05/16 20:19:45
    None of the above
    divajinx
    +2
    I think it's terrible of the local police officers to arrest an 80 yr. old priest for a peaceful protest. If he had been unruly or riotous then it would have been substantiated. I agree, but not because of BOs abortion stand. I don't really care who speaks, I just don't think they should give him the honorary degree. Other former Presidents have spoken there so Obama is welcome.....to SPEAK, not receive the HD. That's the main objection of us locals. Catholic or not, we don't want him to get the HB since that goes against the church's beliefs. It's the principal of the thing.....
    reply
  • Worried about our Country 2009/05/16 18:15:24
    No...
    Worried about our Country
    +6
    This is absolutely despicable...... I almost cried when I watched this last night..... I'm speechless and we, as a country, should be ashamed that something like this can happen here......

    How much harm can an 80 year old praying be to a university..... its sad....
    reply
  • ENR 2009/05/16 18:15:23
    No...
    ENR
    +3
    Clear discrimination.
    reply
  • personx 2009/05/16 17:28:58
    None of the above
    personx
    +1
    Let me explain something...
    Peaceful protests and freedom of speech in PUBLIC FORUMS. THAT is protected speech.

    Notre Dame is a private university and has every right to prohibit and even arrest those who come onto campus without permission. That is meant to safeguard the security of the students there. Otherwise, why not just have people walk into your living room, protesting? Because that is a private residence and they are BREAKING A LAW by ENTERING YOUR HOME WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

    That man broke a law by entering the campus and the university had every right to have the protesters arrested.

    Again, free speech in a PUBLIC FORUM is fine and much different than entering (without consent or permission) a private forum (Notre Dame). That is called breaking the law.
    reply
  • jer1five personx 2009/05/16 18:13:42
    jer1five
    +3
    It's refreshing to read a post from someone who is tough on all types of crime. I used to get so angry at people who defended President Clinton's criminal behaviors. From having all those FBI files in his possession, to perjury, to having one of his menions steal classified documents, all I heard was excuses, rationalizations and justifications. I agree with you, a crime is a crime. No priest should be allowed to just walk onto a Catholic university campus. And this priest was clearly a dangerous threat. Why, he could have used that cross to really hurt someone. Don't let his age fool you - I saw that look in his eyes and he was certainly up to no good. And that group of thugs that were with him - they should have hauled them off to jail too. I join you as someone who is willing to take a stand against this kind of intolerable behavior.
    reply
  • personx jer1five 2009/05/16 18:27:35 (edited)
    personx
    +1
    My argument was not concerning the severity of the disturbance and possible violence. My argument was that it is a PRIVATE university and the university has every right to pursue the arrest of people who have not received permission to enter said university. Otherwise, I might as well expect the Protestant denominations banging my door down to protest my preference for wine over grape juice. Here is Indiana code concerning trespassing:

    IC 35-43-2-2
    Criminal trespass
    Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
    (1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
    (2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;
    (3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
    (4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
    (5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of a...'





    '



    '
    My argument was not concerning the severity of the disturbance and possible violence. My argument was that it is a PRIVATE university and the university has every right to pursue the arrest of people who have not received permission to enter said university. Otherwise, I might as well expect the Protestant denominations banging my door down to protest my preference for wine over grape juice. Here is Indiana code concerning trespassing:

    IC 35-43-2-2
    Criminal trespass
    Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
    (1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
    (2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;
    (3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
    (4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
    (5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's consent;

    (b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
    (1) personal communication, oral or written; or
    (2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public.

    It has nothing to do with the threat posed by the group or person and has everything to do with not having permission. The sentence where I stated the university has an interest in the student's safety was merely an ancillary and general justification. That does NOT mean trespassing arrests and charges are only because of the threat posed by such groups.

    Nice try skirting the issue, though. You sarcasm is useless because your point was as equally useless.

    EDIT: This isn't about how to handle a situation with dignity. This was about trespassing and there is a reason 19 out of a large group were arrested: they refused to move off campus. They were given the opportunity but refused.
    (more)
    reply
  • jer1five personx 2009/05/17 17:21:42
    jer1five
    +2
    You did pick up on the sarcasim, which is good, because you'd be surprised how many people don't. And, you are technically right in your lengthy reply. But my point is that maybe an institution such as the University of Notre Dame did not have to send out the police to arrest an 80 year old priest and could have handled this situation with a little more dignity, and, being a Catholic institution, a little more compassion, than they did.
    reply
  • windwolf14 2009/05/16 17:24:43
    No...
    windwolf14
    +2
    its sad it also shows what this nation is comeing to
    reply
  • Dewymoon 2009/05/16 17:04:37
    No...
    Dewymoon
    +2
    Shameful.... it actually brought tears to my eyes and even more disgust to the present Adminstration and its standings.
    They drag off a aging priest for protesting in a PEACEFUL way ...... BUT the let the PINKO SQUAD hound Donald Rumsfeld..in a VERY THREATING MANNER ... I did not see those whack jobs carried off and handcuffed ...
    You are noticing if you are NOT Protesting for what the Liberals stand for you are unfairly treated? ....... Get ready to see alot more of this kind of actions taken against Americans that are fed up and totally against what the government is turning the country into.
    reply
  • Lin 2009/05/16 16:48:42
    No...
    Lin
    +4
    Good for him. You don't see many 80-year-olds protesting something they disagree with. And he gets arrested for it? What happened to our first amendment rights?
    reply
  • personx Lin 2009/05/16 17:30:22 (edited)
    personx
    +1
    Free speech is fine if you don't trespass on private property.

    EDIT: It doesn't matter if its a Catholic University. It is private property. By that logic any Protestant minister can waltz up to my house and protest my drinking of wine. Or any Catholic priest would be able to walk into any Catholic's home. It doesn't work that way. & no, he did not work there and served no function there because if he did he would not have been arrested for trespassing. Criminal trespassing means you serve no function, purpose on the private property and won't leave.

    I'd also like to mention that there was a large group of people protesting outside the gates of the university. A select group, including the priest, decided to go on campus and disregarded the warning of law enforcement.
    reply
  • Lin personx 2009/05/18 13:58:10
    Lin
    +1
    It's a catholic university! Besides that, I'm sure he's probably one of the priests that work there; there are hundreds of them on that campus.
    reply
  • Watchman 2009/05/16 16:46:39
    Yes....
    Watchman
    +6
    A Catholic Priest gets arrested on a Catholic University. This is pathetic. He was not being unruly or destructive. Again he is a Catholic Priest on a Catholic University.
    reply
  • O'Grady 2009/05/16 16:37:52
    No...
    O'Grady
    +5
    It's not right at all. Alan Keyes has been jailed at least twice, and is still jailed, I think, for basically the same thing. This is a violation of free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to peaceful protest. These are honorable men, and this is dispicable. I just wonder if those women from Code Pinko were arrested for harrassing the Rumsfelds. There should be no double standard.
    reply
  • Ayebaw 2009/05/16 16:20:31
    Yes....
    Ayebaw
    +2
    I could be wrong, but I believe Notre Dame is a private school and they have the right to not allow people protesting on their property.
    reply
  • Dewymoon Ayebaw 2009/05/16 16:53:19
    Dewymoon
    +5
    An independent, national Catholic university located at Notre Dame....... NOTICE NATIONAL CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY.... SHAME on them for arresting a CATHOLIC PRIEST from what I could see on the video ...was PEACEFUL. I hope the actions of the school make parents and students think twice where they spend their money on schools NOTRE DAME has just showed it hypocritical side .....the leaders of the university are giving a platform and honorary degree to an individual who is a relentless advocate of unrestricted abortion: President Obama. But yet drags off a aging priest for standing up for what Notre Dame USED TO represent

    SHAME ON NOTRE DAME, SHAME ON THE OFFICERS , SHAME ON OBAMA
    priest standing dame represent shame dame shame officers shame obama
    reply
  • personx Dewymoon 2009/05/16 17:31:54
    personx
    +1
    It is a private university. They trespassed. End of story.
    reply
  • personx Ayebaw 2009/05/16 17:30:50
    personx
    +1
    YES.
    reply
  • thessa 2009/05/16 15:59:53 (edited)
    No...
    thessa
    +3
    No its not okay at ALL. But at least he went standing up for what is RIGHT. If i was closer id be there right with them protesting it. I think all the ones that go and protest are heroes! I cry each time i see him being treated like that....his reward is in Heaven.
    reply
  • Dan D 2009/05/16 15:51:53
    It is ok to kill a baby but not ok to protest against it...
    Dan D
    +3
    Obviously this man was more dangerous to those in power today than the prisoners at Gitmo.

    What happened to our priorities?
    reply
  • Dark Kn... Dan D 2009/05/16 16:50:35
    Dark Knight
    +4
    They got shoved under one of the vehicles operated by the shoved vehicles operated Obama Transportation Co.
    reply
  • sailhou... Dark Kn... 2009/05/16 17:54:44
    sailhounds2
    +4
    I love that photo. Make room for Nancy Pelosi!
    reply
  • Dark Kn... sailhou... 2009/05/16 18:04:51
    Dark Knight
    +3
    We can't get our hands on her - her security thugs won't let us near the military airplane that she uses at our expense!
    reply
  • belle 2009/05/16 15:51:45
    No...
    belle
    +7
    How disgusting of the ones that pressed charges. He has his right to express his thoughts and beliefs of a religion he has been part of for so long. Shame on Obama for getting involed in church business. Weeping for America will be happening more and more often as long as Obama is President. Guess he is smiling that silly grin of his while watching this terrible wrong act on the rights of this priest.
    I guess Wanda will have a joke about this priest next.
    watching terrible wrong act rights priest guess wanda joke priest
    reply
  • HolyRoller 2009/05/16 15:48:14 (edited)
    It is ok to kill a baby but not ok to protest against it...
    HolyRoller
    +7
    I entered this answer, because this is basically the position of Pro-Death advocates...While I am not a Catholic (see screen name) I do have great respect for this Great and Powerful Church....It simply amazes me, that "so called Catholics" voted for, support, and defend....
    ......BARACK the BABY STALKER.........................

    Obama is to the left on this issue, of nearly every abortion rights advocate....He has NO PROBLEM...with late-term murder...or...tossing born-alive botched abortions in the trash...or spending OUR tax $$$ to pay for murders worldwide...or..supporting no restrictions at all for these killings...He eagerly trades baby's lives for liberal votes...He is past disgusting on this issue...and it really isn't open for debate....The proofs of these statements are overwhelming...

    As for the Priest who was arrested...GOOD FOR HIM...He is a Catholic in name and practice...The Church is crystal clear on this issue (regardless of what soon to be ex-Speaker Pelosi says)...and any Catholic who supports this man, knowing his stance...would be in danger of Hell-Fire...

    If you are a Catholic, and you don't agree with the Church, the Pope, or the Bible...Then leave...you are a ..... catholic supports stance danger hell-fire catholic church pope bible leave
    reply
  • MADDOG HolyRoller 2009/05/16 17:57:51
    MADDOG
    +4
    I agree with you 100%
    reply
  • HolyRoller MADDOG 2009/05/16 18:11:25
    HolyRoller
    +2
    Thanks...the pretend to be Catholic or for that matter any Christians, who support this "man" astound me. They do not believe that life comes from GOD..

    ...."Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..."

    It is a dangerous road they follow....
    reply
  • JuJu1 2009/05/16 15:47:13
    No...
    JuJu1
    +5
    This is disgusting. Welcome the gestapo, ladies and gentlemen!

    disgusting gestapo ladies gentlemen
    reply
  • personx JuJu1 2009/05/16 17:33:20
    personx
    +1
    Its disgusting how little Americans know about free speech or law -- such as the fact that you can't just goose step onto a private property. That is breaking the law and which is why you would be arrested.
    reply
  • JuJu1 personx 2009/05/16 19:09:48 (edited)
    JuJu1
    +4
    The point was not whether it was lawful to ARREST him or not, but whether it was right. The word LAWFUL never showed up in the original question now did it?
    He is an 80 year old man. They could have escorted him off the property without tying his hands behind his back and such. And, if the CRIME he committed was worthy of anything but a ticket and a summons, why weren't those who were with him arrested?!?

    This was a display of power over an old man and nothing more to set an example for anyone else who might speak their mind in this situation, private property or not.

    Edit to say: I find it disgusting that you come on this thread and try to insult the intelligence of everyone here without even understanding the premise of the original post.

    Again, it was not whether or not it was LAWFUL to arrest him, it was whether or not it was right. And, in this situation, I do not find the manner that they handled this right.
    reply
  • personx JuJu1 2009/05/16 19:24:32
    personx
    +1
    "The point was not whether it was lawful to ARREST him or not, but whether it was right. The word LAWFUL never showed up in the original question now did it? "

    What are you talking about? The whole point was he was ARRESTED FOR PROTESTING, which is not the case at all. He was arrested for breaking the law by trespassing.

    "He is an 80 year old man. They could have escorted him off the property without tying his hands behind his back and such. And, if the CRIME he committed was worthy of anything but a ticket and a summons, why weren't those who were with him arrested?!? "

    Criminal trespassing. & there WERE other people arrested for the same thing.

    "his was a display of power over an old man and nothing more to set an example for anyone else who might speak their mind in this situation, private property or not."

    This is not about power. This is about breaking the law and he wasn't the only one arrested.

    "Edit to say: I find it disgusting that you come on this thread and try to insult the intelligence of everyone here without even understanding the premise of the original post.

    Again, it was not whether or not it was LAWFUL to arrest him, it was whether or not it was right. And, in this situation, I do not find the manner that they handled this right."

    If I deem it necessary to 'insult the intellige...''""

    ''''
    "The point was not whether it was lawful to ARREST him or not, but whether it was right. The word LAWFUL never showed up in the original question now did it? "

    What are you talking about? The whole point was he was ARRESTED FOR PROTESTING, which is not the case at all. He was arrested for breaking the law by trespassing.

    "He is an 80 year old man. They could have escorted him off the property without tying his hands behind his back and such. And, if the CRIME he committed was worthy of anything but a ticket and a summons, why weren't those who were with him arrested?!? "

    Criminal trespassing. & there WERE other people arrested for the same thing.

    "his was a display of power over an old man and nothing more to set an example for anyone else who might speak their mind in this situation, private property or not."

    This is not about power. This is about breaking the law and he wasn't the only one arrested.

    "Edit to say: I find it disgusting that you come on this thread and try to insult the intelligence of everyone here without even understanding the premise of the original post.

    Again, it was not whether or not it was LAWFUL to arrest him, it was whether or not it was right. And, in this situation, I do not find the manner that they handled this right."

    If I deem it necessary to 'insult the intelligence of everyone here' you will know it. I also think you missed the point of the post: this post was claiming people were arrested for free speech. They were arrested for trespassing. Let's see the title: "80 year old priest arrested for peacefully protesting". That is leading the reader to believe Notre Dame arrested him protesting...clearly. He was arrested for trespassing.

    If this post were about whether or not it was 'right' then the title should have been '80 year old priest arrested for trespassing after protesting...'
    (more)
    reply
  • chow personx 2009/05/16 20:18:45
    chow
    +3
    You seem intent on missing the point. If the point were trespassing....then why don't we all have everyone arrested for walking across our driveway or cutting through our back yard as a short cut? It's like a cop stopping you for changing lanes without using your turn indicator and then giving you a ticket for no seat belt. He didn't care about your lane change...he wanted you for the seat belt ticket. This Priest was arrested because he was protesting Obama, a pro-abortion president, speaking at a Catholic University, under the guise of "trespassing".
    reply
1 2 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/21 10:13:57

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals