Bishop refuses to condemn horde of vandals invading church

[Lisa558]

The invasion of the Cities Church was not a “peaceful protest” but rather a horde of threatening vandals violating the law and terrifying children - and this bishop refuses to condemn it.

Just go down to the video and listen to how activist Nekia’s invasion is akin to a violent, threatening, intimidating group of foreigners taking over a small town.

And P.S. Yes, female blacks are disproportionately causing these problems.

NOT RIGHT, REVEREND: Bishop Refuses to Condemn Church Invasion - The Daily Signal

It stands to reason that leaders of the left-leaning Episcopal Church may not condemn anti-ICE agitators, but it still speaks volumes when a bishop refuses to

www.dailysignal.com

 

[kyzr]

I don't think the pope would condemn anyone either. Its a "cloth" thing.

 

[pknopp]

 

[Lisa558]

View attachment 1210412

I have no idea what that’s supposed to be, other than some dig against religious people (would be my guess).

Other than that, do you condemn the mob that invaded the church, in violation of the FACE act?

 

[busybee01]

The invasion of the Cities Church was not a “peaceful protest” but rather a horde of threatening vandals violating the law and terrifying children - and this bishop refuses to condemn it.

Just go down to the video and listen to how activist Nekia’s invasion is akin to a violent, threatening, intimidating group of foreigners taking over a small town.

And P.S. Yes, female blacks are disproportionately causing these problems.

NOT RIGHT, REVEREND: Bishop Refuses to Condemn Church Invasion - The Daily Signal

It stands to reason that leaders of the left-leaning Episcopal Church may not condemn anti-ICE agitators, but it still speaks volumes when a bishop refuses to

www.dailysignal.com

There was no invasion. The question should be why a ice thug is a minister. He has no business being there. They should be protested. I don't rely on the observations of Mazi pigs like you.

 

[pknopp]

I have no idea what that’s supposed to be, other than some dig against religious people (would be my guess).

Other than that, do you condemn the mob that invaded the church, in violation of the FACE act?

You can do both. Condemn those interrupting a service and condemn a minister being a part of ICE.

 

[busybee01]

I have no idea what that’s supposed to be, other than some dig against religious people (would be my guess).

Other than that, do you condemn the mob that invaded the church, in violation of the FACE act?

The FACE act should be unconstitutional but we have 6 Supreme Court thugs who give Christians special privileges.

 

[kyzr]

I have no idea what that’s supposed to be, other than some dig against religious people (would be my guess).

Other than that, do you condemn the mob that invaded the church, in violation of the FACE act?

I think he is showing the only time Jesus showed anger, by chasing the "money changers" out of the temple.

 

[Lisa558]

You can do both. Condemn those interrupting a service and condemn a minister being a part of ICE.

What’s wrong with supporting law enforcement in their effort to rid the country of dangerous criminal aliens? You say it like it’s a bad thing.

P.S. I’m heading out now. We will resume this lovely debate late in the afternoon.

 

[Lisa558]

I think he is showing the only time Jesus showed anger, by chasing the "money changers" out of the temple.

View attachment 1210413

Ah. But that means that he (the posters) think the churchgoers in MN are doing wrong. All they did was go to church to worship.

 

[kyzr]

You can do both. Condemn those interrupting a service and condemn a minister being a part of ICE.

ICE is enforcing US Law, there is nothing to condemn.

To condemn ICE is to support the drug cartels and sex traffickers.
Ok, democrats do support criminals, its their thing.

 

[kyzr]

Ah. But that means that he (the posters) think the churchgoers in MN are doing wrong. All they did was go to church to worship.

Or the rioters are doing wrong by disturbing "a house of prayer" and should be chased out.

 

[Blaster]

The FACE act should be unconstitutional but we have 6 Supreme Court thugs who give Christians special privileges.

The FACE act is constitutional and calling SCOTUS a bunch of thugs is very stupid. Do you prefer a lawless society?

 

[kyzr]

There was no invasion. The question should be why a ice thug is a minister. He has no business being there. They should be protested. I don't rely on the observations of Mazi pigs like you.

Can you prove that the minister (conducting the service) was employed by ICE? I think you are lying.

 

[Darkwind]

The FACE act should be unconstitutional but we have 6 Supreme Court thugs who give Christians special privileges.

Agreed. We should be able to storm abortion clinics and berrate the women there for the murders they are.

Or are you so ******* ignorant to not realize that the FACE act protects both?

 

[Darkwind]

Can you prove that the minister was employed by ICE? I think you are lying.

Why should it even matter? Ministers have bills, too.

 

[pknopp]

Can you prove that the minister was employed by ICE? I think you are lying.

Easterwood said he has worked for ICE since 2015.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/19/us/st-paul-minnesota-church-protest-investigation

 

[kyzr]

Easterwood said he has worked for ICE since 2015.

Easterwood was not conducting the service when it was interrupted, from your link:

"None of the videos show Easterwood in the church, and it’s unclear if he was in the building on Sunday."

 

[kyzr]

Why should it even matter? Ministers have bills, too.

The point is democrats and leftists do not respect religion or religious services, they call it "superstition".

Saying a member of the church was a member of ICE was a feeble excuse to disturb a church service.

 

[tahuyaman]

Or the rioters are doing wrong by disturbing "a house of prayer" and should be chased out.

Actually everyone who participated in that storming of the church should be charged with a crime.