Re: Should Street Preaching be Banned in the USA?

[MrsSassyPants]

Yes, and there is a newbie that reminds me of him.  Only been banned a couple of days.  But he may have returned from the dead, like some other weirdo I know.

[St Giordano Bruno]

No, I love the comedy. I love rolling on the streets laughing at them. :rollin:

[gomtuu77]

I think the question misses the point.  Typically, when protests become truly disruptive and problematic for others, they can be dealt with under local law.  I doubt that singling out street preaching makes much sense in that context.  Personally, I think free speech is already curtailed enough.  What you may be complaining about is basic levels of civility and manners.  Those are different questions.

What he was complaining about was street preaching.  He thought he had some right to not have to hear them.

I doubt that you'll find many atheists who agree with that viewpoint.  Not even the most rabid anti-Christian or anti-God atheists.  Free speech should be curtailed only when it presents a clear danger, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.  Yelling "repent" on a street corner may be annoying, but if we curtail the free speech of a street preacher today, we may curtail the free speech of someone seeking legitimate redress of grievances tomorrow - for the same reason.

I would love to not find that kind of thing here, but I've run into that kind of thing all over the place when dealing with atheists.  I've run into multiple people who don't think I should be allowed to vote, and quite a few who think that my child should be taken from my custody because of what I might teach him.  So while I hope you're right, in that people here are supportive of the freedom of conscience and free speech, I'll wait and see.

[JonathanG]

I would love to not find that kind of thing here, but I've run into that kind of thing all over the place when dealing with atheists.  I've run into multiple people who don't think I should be allowed to vote, and quite a few who think that my child should be taken from my custody because of what I might teach him.  So while I hope you're right, in that people here are supportive of the freedom of conscience and free speech, I'll wait and see.

By this logic, then because I've run into Christians who hold signs reading "GOD HATES FAGS," I should assume any Christian is like that until they prove to me otherwise.  Sure, I should hope not all Christians are like that, but since some of them are, I'll take a "wait and see" approach when meeting one.

[Colanth]

I've run into multiple people who don't think I should be allowed to vote, and quite a few who think that my child should be taken from my custody because of what I might teach him.

That's a totally different topic.  Teaching a child that he might end up burning in hell for all eternity, when he's not mature enough to make decisions that affect the rest of his life (we call that "the age of majority", and kids aren't deemed to be mature enough to make such decisions until then) is pretty much the definition of mental and psychological abuse.  No one has any problem if you start teaching a child your religious beliefs once he reaches the age of majority.

So while I hope you're right, in that people here are supportive of the freedom of conscience and free speech, I'll wait and see.

Freedom of conscience?  So if your religious beliefs are that your diabetic child should receive only prayer, not insulin injections, you should be allowed to watch that child die young of a completely curable condition - because doing otherwise would violate your freedom of conscience?

Or do you think those people are perverting Christianity, and only people who follow the "right" kind of Christianity should be allowed "freedom of conscience"?

I'm not being snarky, I'd really like to know your views on this.