Episcopal Clergy Tear gassed

[phil19034]

Does the President even attend a church service every Sunday. If so what is his regular church. That is a genuine question.

I don’t know if he does - I doubt he goes every Sunday. But he’s Presbyterian, not Episcopalian.

The reason that Church is special is because it’s “the President’s Church.” Every single President since John Adams has visited there, and all the Episcopalian Presidents in US history went there regularly.

The clergy was outside, before being moved like that, if the president wanted to go in, all he had do was ask them. Why would he not expect the church to be closed with the protesting and rioting going on.

The clergy of that Church was not outside. It was clergy from other Episcopal Churches who were outside that Church.

The pastor of St. John’s was getting ready for an interview with FoxNews , whom he was speaking with when Trump was still on his walk.

He didn’t know Trump was walking over and wasn’t even there.

BTW - Trump spoke this morning in an telephone interview and said he didn’t know people were being moved just before his walk. The order to clear the park was given in the morning and he thought it was done already. He says he didn’t know the noise was clearing the path.

The truth is, someone dropped the ball in the Executive Department (either on purpose or incompently). The park was suposed to be cleared early in the day & never was.

 

[dochawk]

Oh cool, they only hit the Episcopal clergy with smoke bombs and not tear gas. USA! USA! USA!

I missed the part where being clergy in a group attacking police means that the police can’t protect themselves when the group attacks . . . would you prefer that the police roll over and be killed, or that there shoot the would-be rioters instead of using non-lethal methods?

Then it shouldn’t matter which they used.

Again: so are they supposed to be passive and be killed by those attacking them, or should they use a lethal response?

You’re omitting that the police did this when attacked, not to clear an area.

 

[PatrickC1982]

We aren’t going to agree on what really happened here or who is at fault or why. Knowing this, I’ll leave it at that.

 

[PatrickC1982]

I have similar feelings to you on this happening in a time of pandemic. My honest opinion is that the mental stress of the pandemic is adding to the chaos we’re seeing here. I honestly don’t know what the solution is, but I understand why so many people feel it’s time to say “enough is enough” and make a stand. I can’t tell them it isn’t. I pray, and I mean honestly pray that God will be merciful and this doesn’t have the effect of greatly exacerbating the situation, which of course it likely will. These are strange time we live in and nothing is quite normal right now.

 

[PatrickC1982]

I owe you an apology. I was tired and I let my snarky side come out. It was unwarranted.

 

[StudentMI]

No problem. Thank you for the apology.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

If thats the case he needs to step up and take action. We can go into any church and pray, regardless of who uses it,
. If he was making a point he should have done that.

There are no excuses for the complete disregard of the fact we are in the middle of a pandemic crippling health and funeral industries and he and his entourage ignored that.

 

[Polak]

By his declaring ‘antifa’ a ‘terrorist’ organization, then he’s admitting that he’s a fascist

You’re kidding right? You don’t seriously believe Antifa is really ‘an organisation fighting fascism’?

 

[Inquisitor85]

It really is, I’m curious about how you can ban Antifa. Does it include anyone who conducts anti-fascist actions, which can be anything from taking down fascist posters, like I do, (always wear protective gloves if you do that), to setting up food banks, to violent street action. Are all of these things going to banned? If you’re interested I’ll either post or DM you a link a to video about Antifa and the philosophy behind it, it’s quite long but it is informative. @Polak

 

[Polak]

I actually know quite a bit about them. Antifa originated in Europe and has been around a long time.

I actually remember numerous debates on television where Antifa were mentioned before anyone in the US had even heard of it.

The point is, they are not what they say they stand for. Anytime Antifa shows up anywhere, people get hurt and things get destroyed. You can call yourself anything. You could call yourself ‘Fighting for equality’ and then go around attacking people in the streets. It doesn’t make you a good organisation fighting for equality, just because you have called yourself that.

As for how I would go about banning Antifa. I would do it in the same way Germany has banned nazism, where if you make the heil sign or walk around waving banners with swastikas, you will be prosecuted because it’s illegal. I’d do the same thing with Antifa. They are not an organisation fighting for good. They are criminals, thugs and rioters.

 

[Inquisitor85]

I’m not from the US but banners and flags are protected speech under the First Amendment aren’t they?

 

[Inquisitor85]

So you’d presumably also ban the KKK, or Proud Boys then? Surely once you ban one group you’ve set precedent for the following groups.

 

[StudentMI]

I’m not from the US but banners and flags are protected speech under the First Amendment aren’t they?

Yes. So is burning a flag. I don’t understand what symbol they’d ban. The anarchy symbol? How are you going to ban that?

 

[Inquisitor85]

That’s the thing Antifa don’t operate like a traditional cell based group, they’re too loose and changeable for that. The thing is how do you differentiate between Antifa and Anti-Fascists?

 

[StudentMI]

That’s the thing Antifa don’t operate like a traditional cell based group, they’re too loose and changeable for that. The thing is how do you differentiate between Antifa and Anti-Fascists?

Well, I could be snarky about it but I won’t be.

It would be like banning the Guy Fawkes mask because Anonymous used them.

 

[Polak]

I’m not from the US but banners and flags are protected speech under the First Amendment aren’t they?

Even the ADL, who I do not care for at all, admit, in their description of Antifa, that it is made up of 'those who proavactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived enemies.

How can an organisation looking to physically attack others be allowed to exist, when physical violence against others is illegal?

Free speech might be protected in the US (I am not from the US either by the way) but I’m pretty sure a person holding up a banner that reads ‘attack black people’ or ‘attack Jews’ or attack any other group, would be arrested, because they are calling for violence. This is what Antifa do.

So you’d presumably also ban the KKK, or Proud Boys then? Surely once you ban one group you’ve set precedent for the following groups.

If the KKK exists and calls to harm others, then yes. As for the Proud Boys, they were only set up to fight back against Antifa thugs. In effect by physically fighting Antifa, they were trying to prevent Antifa from physically hurting others. But sure, if Antifa was banned, there would be no need for the Proud Boys to exist either.

 

[pnewton]

So that cop, having been dealing with that level of violence for days, rocks, bottles and acid being thrown at them, finding stashes of bats and bricks, people trying to take their guns from them, suddenly has two people right on top of him, carrying a large object and looking like an ambush… you’re darn right jumping on them like that was the measured and appropriate thing to do.

Here is what is wrong with this statement:

1. What other people did the day before does not justify beating someone the next day.
2. The only “sudden” part was on the part of the one cop that ran, not walked, in front of the line of officers that was moving forward.
3. The large object was clearly a camera. Even in the video, this is clear.

Additionally, there was the problem that instead of using the shield as a shield to clear the man out, he used the side of it as a makeshift bludgeon. Anyone who cannot maintain ranks and his own composure should not have been a part of this operation. I am sick and tired of overly aggressive cops creating the dangerous environment that the rest of us have to live in.

 

[goout]

Really? The gov’t just walked up and intentionally tear gassed clergy?
Or is this a case of media deception that uses half truths to put forth a political narrative?

 

[englands123]

This is so very sad.

 

[pnewton]

I’m sorry, but this is really naive.
Police should do their job properly, but you cannot expect people who are aggressively pushed to behave like 6 year olds in a school desk.

Did you watch the video? The officer that struck the man was not pushed in the least. Naive? I have been doing this work for more than three decades. I am not naive. I have high standards.