Totally agree. I don't understand why they chose that manner of protest and I personally think it's in extremely poor taste to disrupt a church service. I would think protesting outside the church would be much more effective appealing to church goers and non church goers alike to let them know the pastor is a
.
I’d agree with you 100% if boundaries were kept both ways: I don’t ever walk into anyone’s house of worship, and no one comes proselytizing at my house or office (yes). In other words, not to misbehave, we all have to first start behaving like citizens of a secular country. Because we are.
The case of Don Lemon is hard to comment on because I was not there and can’t imagine how much of a commotion was created. So I am trying to think logically: in cases when we have no potential to interrupt any act, be it protest, commotion, violence, crime, do we have the right to register the event for history?
I think we do. Otherwise we won’t have any proof that events happened. (If we didn’t have photos of burning crosses, or much worse, no one could prove that that part of US history took place. For sure, there would be many deniers. Just an example). And what about subway attacks? What if the observers are unable to interfere, but can make photos? It is photographing violence, but at times such photos help finding criminals, and are very useful at court.
Journalists come to make photos of any protest march, for good or bad reason - they assemble in advance, not knowing how the protest will end. Sometimes they end unexpectedly, even violently, but it all becomes part of our history.
We have no evidence that Lemon was going to use the photos and videos for nefarious purposes. He was just live-streaming the event, not commenting. Had he later published it with calls for violence/disruption, it would be one thing. As it happens, he was just live-streaming it.
