Thursday, April 28, 2011

Man Arrested Outside Calif. DMV for Reading His Bible Out Loud

When Mark Mackey, a member of the local Calvary Chapel, showed up to the DMV office in Hemet, CA on February 2, he had a goal: read the Bible and introduce those waiting in line to the “gospel of Jesus Christ.” And for about 15 minutes he was successful. That is until a California Highway Patrolman took the Bible from his hands, arrested him, and told him he was guilty of preaching to a “captive audience.”
And it was all caught on video:
It seems like this kind of rights violations are happening more and more lately. We have seen the Dearborn police arrest Christians for speaking at the Arab "Muslim" Festival. It's good to see that these Christians are taking a stand and fighting back with lawsuits against these illegal arrests. This happened because this man was reading from the Bible. If this man was saying anything other then Gods Word nothing would have happened. Maybe Christians from all around can stand outside the police station that took this mans rights away and read the Bible,Quaran or whatever. Let them arrest. Christians need to do the same at the Arab Festival as well. Take a stand. And when they arrest the Christians sue them. I'm sure a city like Dearborn can afford to lose millions because they keep arresting Christians for speaking in a public place at a public event. Peaceful resistance,like Gondhi used works great in this situations.


  1. Chris, I have to differ with you on this and for very good reasons.

    If you were in that line at any one of our MI Secretary of States office and for whatever reason you had to have the required paperwork they provide and thus could not leave would you appreciate being pelted with islamofascist rants and evil Koranic cult verses?

    It is one thing to preach on a street corner where people can choose to stop and listen or to just keep on going. But it is indeed a captive audience in this instance and was inappropriate for these otherwise good people to attempt this here.

    Do not misunderstand, at the very most they should have been escorted away from the immediate area and not arrested.

  2. The law emphatically violates the 1st Amendment by "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" of religion" and it is "abridging the freedom of speech, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
    The DMV is not a business per se, it is a government services, a public place. He did not impede a captive audience as they were free to come and go.
    This should be tossed out.
    I wish California would just drop off in to the ocean and be done with it.

  3. This is a close call but if the action causes a disruption in the normal routine of the Business wheather Government or Private sector believe some action by police was nessacary. The Citizens were free to come and go but they should also have the expectation to carry out the business they were there for. There are other locations including outside the DMV to express religous beliefs. Just my Opinion.

  4. Mark, If government laws force people into going to a government facility then people are captive to it and being it is government property there can be no preaching of ANY religious type less we become Iran or Saudi Arabia.

    I will refer back to my first comment/question which goes to another point being these people had to be there, what of the freedom to not hear it.

  5. Christopher, my friend, you don't know if they HAD to be there, is my point.
    If they were inside, I can see your point, that is captive. Outside you are free to walk away and come back.
    He was outside and for all inattentive purposes, he was 'on a street corner' That will be their defense.
    Al, the government business wasn't even open so there is no disruption.
    Overzealous cop, as I see it.

  6. Mark, It is the DMV which issues all sorts of government documents that we or our vehicles all must carry by LAW, hence they HAD to be there. Otherwise why would they be there, right?

    Our State of MI has done much to streamline our version of the DMV so there is no waiting outside or in most case even needing to go at all (email, fax, snail mail and kiosk's outside the buildings). But I remember the day of such lines and having to be there and I know I myself would not tolerate a moslem doing the same as outlined in my first comment.

    To me, this is just as bad as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses showing up on my doorstep when a sign I posted clearly says no soliciting and not wanting to be captive in my own home, open the door and politely ask tell the to vacate my premise. I do not call police but at the same time they are violating my standing order and I do not appreciate in the least.

    We will have to agree to disagree on this as I see those folks clearly as a captive audience and the speakers are the ones who had the chance to walk away, and yes the cop was overzealous as you stated and I alluded to earlier.

  7. Christopher, I would not want to hear people fighting with eachother, yelling at their kids or talking about who they screwed last night. But I would have to listen to them because I am at a public place and people talk. There is a price for freedom and limiting the rights of that man reading the Bible also gives them the right to limit all speaking in public.

    There is a price for our freedoms even if it means I have to walk by a Harri Kreshna and listen to them. Or if I walk by a person singing a song about Satan on the same street. If we stop letting Americans exersice their free speech then we may all loose it.

    Christopher just think of all the "captive audiences" out in public lines. Now think of all the things you have to listen to while standing in those lines. Listen to the cursing. Would you have those people arrested as well?

    My definition of "captive audience" would be like the DMV clerk telling a person they have to listen to what the clerk had to say about anything before the clerk would issue a licens. Outside waiting in line for the DMV to open isn't manditory. And thank God I also have the freedom to not listen and the freedom to speak back without fear of being arrested.

    Would this be America Land Of The Free if we start arresting people for speaking out in public just because some don't want to listen to that person exercising their freedoms?

  8. Chris, you wish to blur the lines between what is normal (or abnormal) everyday small conversation and public speaking soapbox style,
    these are completely separate issues and definitions.

    Those people HAD to have a drivers license,
    They HAD to have license plates,
    They HAD to have State picture I.D.,,,,,etc.
    They most likely HAD to get to work or any other chore afterward for which they could not be late otherwise they would not be waiting in line in the first place, I.E., THEY COULD NOT LEAVE at that given time.

    Given the above those preachers admitted it was a perfect time to do their bidding thus proving my point. If you do not believe me, then believe them in their own word's.

    Again, I wish that you put yourself in that line and imagine an imam preaching to you.

  9. And today I had to eat and listen to a guy talk on his phone. Part of free speech is having to hear things that you don't agree or agree with. I hear people swaring all the time in line and don't want to listen to it, but they never get arrested. And we all know if it was an Imam preaching there wouldn't be an arrest. Muslims do it all the time and no one says anything. The hippies play their drumbs and sing their Hindu songs and no ione does anything. But when a Christian expesses their free speech they are arrested. Good luck finding another religion that has been arrested in that same state and town. I have been in those situations before and didn't care or listen to the people talking. Waiting in line to get into the DMV is much different then being inside the building. Should no one in line outside the DMV or any other public place not speak or just Christians and Muslims?

  10. Chris, Show me where an imam or moslem was preaching to a captive audience of non-moslems in the U.S.A. in the same situation or similar such as in the video you posted.

    It would help if they were explaining that this act was pre-mediated as also illustrated in the video you posted.

    And please have it contain no complaints and no arrests.

    Then we can discuss this further, Thank You in advance.

    p.s., Please discontinue the red herring argument of comparing everyday conversation to that of which you displayed. What they did is not 'conversation'.

  11. I see, so it's only religious talk that you think should be arrestable. Reading the Bible isn't "everyday conversation" and souldn't be held to the same standard as other speech. Christopher up until this video of a Christian reading the Bible outloud in a public place no one has been arrested. Go to the Arab Festival videos and you will see the Quaran being read outloud. Stop by a Mosque and you will hear the call for prayer out loud. Go to an airport or public place and watch the Hari Krishnas singing and and chanting. People have been expressing their views on politics and religion in public places forever. That is what is so disterbing about this man getting arrested for reading the Bible outloud in a public place. It's a slippery lope. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded place used to be the only illegal speech and that is because it indangered others. How is reading the Bible,Quaran or the US Constitution dangerous to the public?

  12. Chris, You proved my point, by going to an arab festival one EXPECTS to hear that as much as one would hear the Bible at a Christian festival.

    Neither is expected or allowed on government property at a DMV, period. What is it about this you do not understand about 'free speech'?

    I have said over and over I do not agree with the arrest, but I also maintain that had he, as requested, moved to the sidewalk where everybody and there brother could do the very same preaching he and they would not have been arrested at all, overzealous cop or not.

    If I go to an arab fest I had better be expected to hear calls for jihad and death to America. In the same vein when I go to a Christian fest I expect to run into a priest or two and happily discuss the Bible. That said when I visit our Sec. of State I expect neither and will protest as that is not the place and I do not wish to hear it there.

    You only see one side and blur the other and that is the danger in what you seek for you do not see the forest for the trees.

  13. For once CP is correct. Not surprisingly the arguments against him by the activist hypo-conserva-crites amount to nothing more than non-swimmers flailing in the deep end of the pool.

    Please go back to the shallow end if you can not see that what the man was doing was not guaranteed by the founders nor did they ever intend for it to be.

    One thing is becoming increasingly clear with many of Chris's examples, the intent on creating a public disturbance. Now in this case its clearly less than in others notably the 7idiots or whatever their name was that attempted to humiliate and draw out conflicts on tape solely for advancement of their beliefs.

    Unfortunately for Chris and others they can't differentiate someone whose baby is crying while they attempt to pacify it and those that are looking for conflict and a breach of the peace.

    Actually i don't believe that. I believe they know the difference and do not care. I believe that they honestly believe that the people advancing their agendas have a greater right amongst our fellow citizens.

    Given the choice to believe Chris and Mark are stupid and miss the obvious, or that they are either willfully ignorant i choose the latter.

    Without belaboring the point i offer this simple corroborating evidence.
    Sharia vs. Ten Commandments

    One is clearly unacceptable while the other is okay because we're a Christian nation.

  14. "For once" Joe? You never disappoint in insulting all you ever communicate with even those with whom you agree. What a lonely world you must live in.

  15. "Please go back to the shallow end if you can not see that what the man was doing was not guaranteed by the founders nor did they ever intend for it to be. "
    Go read the 1st and stop being 'stupid and miss the obvious, or that (you) are either willfully ignorant you choose the latter.'
    Christopher and I disagree with each other, but do so respectfully. Maybe take a lesson from it before you spout off with insults, Joe.

  16. Cp i was playing the villain, not insulting to you. Sorry if you took it that way.

    Mark, i read the first amendment again yesterday i also read a number of prestigious law school discussions on it along with the cases they cited, including four or five supreme court cases.

    I've also read over the years letters, text, public papers by our founders that have never indicated to me that your allowed to harass individuals for no reason other than to create a disturbance.

    Oddly enough when people go to things armed with video recorders running its really obvious that freedom of speech is not the goal but conflict. I don't afford anyone the right to use freedom of speech to attack ordinary law abiding citizens for the purpose of creating hard feelings and conflict. The exception is lawmakers and politicians who are our government, but thats covered under redress of grievances.

    Clearly the first amendment is not designed for people to run amok creating havok and conflict.

    If you think so then your the stupid one.

    And its clear that you and Chris, like many of your fellow conservatives only wish to extend our freedoms to certain groups and individuals not universally.

    Perhaps you can break your selective freedom thinking and actually be worthy of respectful discourse.

    #2 corroborating evidence
    Homsexual vs. Heterosexual marriage
    Denying consenting adults the right to a civil function (marriage) is okay because God doesn't like it.

    And it can't be considered a religious function (marriage) because then DOMA would automatically be unconstitutional. Respecting a religion.

  17. @ Joe, Now you did it again by implying I am a villain in my stance. Please do not apologize for what your DNA dictates as that term is deemed meaningless and empty.

    Mark is correct as we may disagree on this instance as well as Chris but it is done respectfully. I respect both of these gentlemen and this is an important discussion that all Americans should have. But what it does not need is for one such as yourself to muddy the waters with insults and then attempt a red herring like DOMA to change the subject.

  18. "harass individuals for no reason other than to create a disturbance....I don't afford anyone the right to use freedom of speech to attack ordinary law abiding citizens for the purpose of creating hard feelings and conflict...Clearly the first amendment is not designed for people to run amok creating havok and conflict."
    I'm sorry Joe, where in the video did you see harassment, disturbance, attacking, hard feelings, conflict or havoc? Answer no where. You heard NO complaints by those people standing there. The cop himself said 'you can preach on you're own property' Yes, and you can preach anywhere in public, as log as it doesn't impede people from moving about freely.
    Your statement is overreaching and speculations based on no evidence, but by assumption.

  19. Cp, please read it again.

    JoeC said...
    Cp i was playing the villain, not insulting to you. Sorry if you took it that way.

    Does that say your the villain or that i was taking a role to maintain a comical opposition to you in spite of my feeling that your opinion was correct?

    The correct answer would be that i was maintaining the liberal-conservative pseudo-antagonism that plays out here. I in no way harbor any real feelings of dislike for you. I don't agree with you, but to dislike you based on this little bit of interaction would be utterly stupid.

    If you would prefer a giant right wing drum circle where we all could sing Kumbaya and talk derogatory of only liberals then go ahead.

  20. The Arab Festival is not a Muslim festival Christopher. Big difference. Thanks for making my point.

  21. And just what point is that Chris?

    Are you implying that those who go to an Arab fest, be it muslim or not are captive audiences?


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.