Seriously????

[ZYX]

These are the "Christians" that give real Christians a bad name.

http://m.newson6.com/LocalNewsStory.html?pid=2264&parenturl=http%3a%2f%2fkotv.com%2fapi%2fgetFeed.aspx%3fid%3d4%26date%3d20110304&itemurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.newson6.com%2fglobal%2fstory.asp%3fS%3d14306289%26clienttype%3drssstory

[Hoss]

These are the "Christians" that give real Christians a bad name.

http://m.newson6.com/LocalNewsStory.html?pid=2264&parenturl=http%3a%2f%2fkotv.com%2fapi%2fgetFeed.aspx%3fid%3d4%26date%3d20110304&itemurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.newson6.com%2fglobal%2fstory.asp%3fS%3d14306289%26clienttype%3drssstory

Welcome to Oklahoma.  Don't scratch the Buckle.

[Conan71]

Even a polar bear knows this stinks

RIP Knut

[guido911]

These are the "Christians" that give real Christians a bad name.

http://m.newson6.com/LocalNewsStory.html?pid=2264&parenturl=http%3a%2f%2fkotv.com%2fapi%2fgetFeed.aspx%3fid%3d4%26date%3d20110304&itemurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.newson6.com%2fglobal%2fstory.asp%3fS%3d14306289%26clienttype%3drssstory

How do they give "real Christians" a bad name? Do you know anything about the Thomas More Law Center (which incidentally is out of Michigan and not Oklahoma)? Did you read the lawsuit and the supporting exhibits? What's your criticism of the lawsuit?

[ZYX]

My main problem with this is not the content of the lawsuit, rather that Captain Fields has decided to take this to court. He should've sucked it up and just gone. I also very much dislike this statement:"not to become a propaganda prop for the local mosque." All that was happening was an event to thank the officers for their service. They were not forced to take part in the prayer service as Mr. Thompson so implied. This is what contributes to the prejudice against Christians that they are self-righteous and unaccepting. Some are, but most aren't.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Proselytizing??  Yeah, right... I saw the Muslim notice.  No proselytizing. 

Gee, I wonder how the good Captain feels about prayer in school?? 

Fine to force people to pray in a secular environment, but not to make him visit with citizen's he has sworn "to serve and protect".

[heironymouspasparagus]

It took until statement 60 to say anything that meant anything.  Yep, that sounds like a lawyer all right.
That and the following few items are what it is all about and why it was pure stupid of the department to order the Captain to go.  It was a bonehead, braindead, BS thing to try to force these guys to do that. 

The city should have just put out the word about this refusal and I bet 100 other officers would have gone in response to the slight/snubbing/implicit insult of those Islamic citizens by this group of officers.  Oh, wait, that is pretty much what happened, isn't it?

[guido911]

My main problem with this is not the content of the lawsuit, rather that Captain Fields has decided to take this to court. He should've sucked it up and just gone. I also very much dislike this statement:"not to become a propaganda prop for the local mosque." All that was happening was an event to thank the officers for their service. They were not forced to take part in the prayer service as Mr. Thompson so implied. This is what contributes to the prejudice against Christians that they are self-righteous and unaccepting. Some are, but most aren't.

I don't see this is as simple as you do. Fields believed his first amendment rights were violated and he brought it to the attention of leadership. Shortly thereafter, Fields suffered an adverse employment action after his report. Pretty straightforward religious discrimination case which our courts deal with every day. Heck, I have even been eye-deep in religion cases.

You are hacked off because since Fields is a Christian, he should not be self-righteous and non-accepting and basically get over it. The thing, though, is that Fields claims he has suffered a compensable injury under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a result of a governmental body's violation of his civil rights. It is his right, as it is the rights of any other person who believes their civil rights have been violated, to seek redress in our courts. And for the record, I have seen literally hundreds of absolutely frivolous/mindless lawsuits. This is not one of them.

I am really struggling to not turn to this thread into another example of Christian-bashing. I'll leave it to those who think that if you are Christian you are not entitled to be treated fairly.

[ZYX]

If he were a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or Mayan I would have said the same thing. I agree that technically his Constitutional right was violated. But for everything else, I will simply have to agree to disagree with you.

[Hoss]

And I'm going to venture a guess and say that if this officer were a practicing Muslim, and the offer was for a show of respect from a Christian church, that a typical Christian's response would be the same...right?

That's doubtful.  If the officer declined going to that, I'm sure he'd be called Godless by many of the Christian faith.

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to turn this into Christian-bashing.  But some Christians sure can be predictable if nothing else

I'll be interested in watching this upcoming this weekend:

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2011/03/09/unwelcome.the.muslims.next.door.cnn.html

[custosnox]

I don't see this is as simple as you do. Fields believed his first amendment rights were violated and he brought it to the attention of leadership. Shortly thereafter, Fields suffered an adverse employment action after his report. Pretty straightforward religious discrimination case which our courts deal with every day. Heck, I have even been eye-deep in religion cases.

You are hacked off because since Fields is a Christian, he should not be self-righteous and non-accepting and basically get over it. The thing, though, is that Fields claims he has suffered a compensable injury under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a result of a governmental body's violation of his civil rights. It is his right, as it is the rights of any other person who believes their civil rights have been violated, to seek redress in our courts. And for the record, I have seen literally hundreds of absolutely frivolous/mindless lawsuits. This is not one of them.

I am really struggling to not turn to this thread into another example of Christian-bashing. I'll leave it to those who think that if you are Christian you are not entitled to be treated fairly.

If this would have been the local rotary club wanting to show their appreciation at an event held at a local hotel convention center and Fields refused to orderr his officers to attend because he doesn't like the rotary club, would you still think he should sue because of adverse employment actions?  Unless his religious beleifs say that he is not to enter a place of worship for another religion I dont' see how his first amendment was violated. 

Personally I don't think they should have made the demand, but a suit, IMHO, is baseless.

[guido911]

If this would have been the local rotary club wanting to show their appreciation at an event held at a local hotel convention center and Fields refused to orderr his officers to attend because he doesn't like the rotary club, would you still think he should sue because of adverse employment actions?  Unless his religious beleifs say that he is not to enter a place of worship for another religion I dont' see how his first amendment was violated. 

Personally I don't think they should have made the demand, but a suit, IMHO, is baseless.

You are comparing compulsory attendance of a police officer at a Rotary Club meeting to compulsory attendance at a religious-based event. I don't think I need to go any farther with a response, especially since it appears you never bothered reading his complaint.

[custosnox]

You are comparing compulsory attendance of a police officer at a Rotary Club meeting to compulsory attendance at a religious-based event. I don't think I need to go any farther with a response, especially since it appears you never bothered reading his complaint.

Since you decided to make a point on the fact of me not reading his complaint I went ahead and read it instead of going with the cliff notes version.  Still comes out pretty much the same.  Do you not understand that this is an attempt to help people understand a culture?  That this is them reaching out and saying "this is who I am", trying to break through the hate that is directed towards them without really understanding who they are?  As I stated before, I do not endorse the action of trying to force the officers to attend, but I do not see how his religious beleifs where in any way violated by this.  This was obviously meant to teach the officers more about the people they are sworn to protect and were not required to participate in any religious activities. 

[pmcalk]

I don't see this is as simple as you do. Fields believed his first amendment rights were violated and he brought it to the attention of leadership. Shortly thereafter, Fields suffered an adverse employment action after his report. Pretty straightforward religious discrimination case which our courts deal with every day. Heck, I have even been eye-deep in religion cases.

You are hacked off because since Fields is a Christian, he should not be self-righteous and non-accepting and basically get over it. The thing, though, is that Fields claims he has suffered a compensable injury under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a result of a governmental body's violation of his civil rights. It is his right, as it is the rights of any other person who believes their civil rights have been violated, to seek redress in our courts. And for the record, I have seen literally hundreds of absolutely frivolous/mindless lawsuits. This is not one of them.

I am really struggling to not turn to this thread into another example of Christian-bashing. I'll leave it to those who think that if you are Christian you are not entitled to be treated fairly.

Yet, somehow you see no problem with placing "In God We Trust" over federal buildings, thus necessitating federal employees to enter on a daily basis buildings representing Christian religious beliefs.  How do you reconcile that?  (FYI, you really know very little about Judaism--for the majority, the above slogan is considered an offense to God.  Should they be able to refuse to enter, even if that is part of their job?). 

[guido911]

Yet, somehow you see no problem with placing "In God We Trust" over federal buildings, thus necessitating federal employees to enter on a daily basis buildings representing Christian religious beliefs.  How do you reconcile that?  (FYI, you really know very little about Judaism--for the majority, the above slogan is considered an offense to God.  Should they be able to refuse to enter, even if that is part of their job?). 

Read my latest posts over there. I do not care one way or the other on posting the motto. As for my knowledge of Judaism, not sure where that is coming from in this thread. In here, I thought we were talking about how Thomas More lawyers were making Christians look bad or something and the officer's religious discrimination lawsuit.

Now, I did mention in another thread that whenever "under God" or "In God We Trust" issues surface, the first line of attack are "those crazy Christians are at it again". I did mention that there are other religions out there that have "God" or a supreme being at the fore of their faith but those folks aren't targeted by the naysayers. I do not know if Jews are actually offended by the national motto, but in my opinion, placing one's trust in God as the motto implies isn't offensive. But I would like you to provide a link supporting your assertion.