Conversion by zeal (no spam)

[fable]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
As our friend mental_nomad points out, what's more pervasive or disruptive: a Pentacostal preacher in the park or some punk kid playing his car stereo loud enough to be heard three blocks away or a motorhead with a Glasspack muffler on his Chevelle one lane over?

All of those are annoying; the only difference is that the latter two are simply noise pollution and the first is often intentionally pushing your buttons about your spiritual beliefs.

I'd feel inclined to add a second, siginificant difference: the first is attacking your hearing alone, more by lack of awareness; the second is attacking you, personally and deliberately. The first acts in ignorance. The second knows exactly what he's doing. The first is running loud background noise. The second might well be calling you a variety of curse words as he hands out insults.

I see this as two very separate matters, IMO. Sound ordinances can deal with the former, but the latter is a matter of defamation of character, possible slander, etc.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by fable
Sound ordinances can deal with the former, but the latter is a matter of defamation of character, possible slander, etc.

Many street preachers are very smart about the things they say and the way they say them. While my experience is that they tend to take the fire and brimstone angle, many do not attack individuals unless they draw a reaction from someone in the crowd and react in kind.

For instance, if a girl is walking down the street minding her own business and someone calls her a whore, she is entitled to either make that person prove their claim or she can have them arrested for slander. However, if she encounters a street preacher who says that fornicaters will burn in hell, she gets offended and a shouting match starts, both will probably be guilty of the same crimes once the expletives and pejoratives begin flying.

If someone is preaching their particular brand of the gospel and happens to be using curse words or saying untrue things about an individual, there is probably a legal recourse the local jurisdiction and individuals have against that person. However, simply by preaching their views in a park or at a public university's student union, these evangelists are simply exercising the same constitutional rights that you and I enjoy.

[fable]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
If someone is preaching their particular brand of the gospel and happens to be using curse words or saying untrue things about an individual, there is probably a legal recourse the local jurisdiction and individuals have against that person. However, simply by preaching their views in a park or at a public university's student union, these evangelists are simply exercising the same constitutional rights that you and I enjoy.

As a lawyer, can you tell me: do those include the right to continue about my business in a peacable fashion? What about "disturbing the peace"?

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by fable
As a lawyer, can you tell me: do those include the right to continue about my business in a peacable fashion? What about "disturbing the peace"?

You can continue about your business in the park just as an evangelist is continuing about his business. So what if spreading the word of God is his business? What's the difference between that and someone who plays his saxophone for tips near Strawberry Fields? One may be aesthetically pleasing to you and the other is annoying, but they're both making noise.

You'd probably have to check out local ordinances to see what exactly constitutes "disturbing the peace" as to what kind of activity can and cannot go on in public areas before it breaks the law. I was the director of a youth conference in a small town in North Carolina and we were going to have a local musician come and play a concert for our conferees, and we were going to use a public area to do it.

When I checked with the police chief, he told me that the band could use their guitar amplifiers and microphones until 10:30 pm, but after that, no amplified sound was permitted on public property between the hours of 10:30 pm and 8:00 am. Furthermore, none of the amplified noise could exceed a certain level at any time (there was no noise regulation on unamplified noise). It didn't matter to him if we had Ozzy Osbourne in concert on the green or if we were performing MacBeth; as long as the noise stayed under what was deemed acceptable by the city council, we had free reign of the space.

In fact, we ended up staying up late and having an "unplugged" concert and sing-a-long until about 3:00 am and I'm sure it annoyed several of the locals, but there was nothing they could do about it because we weren't in violation of any laws.

The First Amendment of the Constitution exists so that unpopular people may espouse unpopular views and not fear repercussion and it guarantees that the government will protect everyone regardless of their message. This is why there is heavy police protection for KKK members at their rallies. The Constitution requires that they be allowed to believe that they want and express themselves in a lawful manner regardless of how repugnant the majority of people find their views; remember that only 50 years ago, the idea of blacks and white eating the the same restaurant or using the same facilities was an unpopular viewpoint.

You may not like what a street preacher has to say, and you may not like the way he chooses to say it, but that does not mean that he doesn't have the right to be there expressing himself in a lawful manner.

[fable]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
You can continue about your business in the park just as an evangelist is continuing about his business. So what if spreading the word of God is his business? What's the difference between that and someone who plays his saxophone for tips near Strawberry Fields? One may be aesthetically pleasing to you and the other is annoying, but they're both making noise.

I'm afraid you read more into my question than was there. Obviously, I never intended to ask whether a preacher, in a public park, was "disturbing the peace."

I was concerned about the situation Weasel faced, when stopped at a red light and having evangelists shouting at him, and presumably at other passers by.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by fable
I was concerned about the situation Weasel faced, when stopped at a red light and having evangelists shouting at him, and presumably at other passers by.

Is he shouting at someone in particular or anyone who will listen? If you tell him that you're not interested in anything he has to say, does he continue to accost you? Does he make any physical contact with you? Are you just as free to ignore him as he is to run his mouth?

I was walking down the main strip in downtown Myrtle Beach a couple of weeks ago and there are all sorts of touristy shops lining the street. If business is slow, the proprietors will stand at the doors to their shop and try and get people's attention so they will peruse the shop's wares. What's the difference between someone trying to get you to buy into a time share or get a henna tattoo or have a beer in their bar and someone who's trying to convert you to their God? What about the mimes that line the sidewalks in Central Park? How about the Bush Man in San Francisco who hides behind his shrubbery and jumps out scaring people in hopes of rustling up some tips?

As long as you are in a public place, to my knowledge there is no law or limitation on people that prohibits them from trying to get your attention, provided that they are not causing a "disturbance" or otherwise breaking the law.

[fable]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I was walking down the main strip in downtown Myrtle Beach a couple of weeks ago and there are all sorts of touristy shops lining the street. If business is slow, the proprietors will stand at the doors to their shop and try and get people's attention so they will peruse the shop's wares. What's the difference between someone trying to get you to buy into a time share or get a henna tattoo or have a beer in their bar and someone who's trying to convert you to their God?

When's the last time you were forced to stop on a sidewalk and were approached by shop owners yelling in your face that your ideas are all wrong and that you're going to hell?

Weasel was speaking about being stopped at a red light while driving, and approached at those intersections as a personally addressed, captive audience. I've seen it happen to others. So, I repeat, from before--What about "disturbing the peace"?

[HighLordDave]

Is he disturbing the peace or disturbing your peace?

Someone can only get under your skin using words if you let them. If he is obeying the law and not impeding your way, he must be allowed to say whatever he wants in a public venue. To constrain him in any way is to take away the most basic freedom we have in a free society.

The right to say anything and believe anything is the foundation of enlightened democratic societies. Other people's beliefs are often unpopular and annoying, but if you expect to be free to believe and say whatever it is you want, others must be allowed the same, whether you like what they have to say or not, and whether you like the way they say it or not.

If someone approaches you at a red light, you must obey the law and stop. However, you are under no obligation to pay that individual any attention or listen to what he or she has to say. You are just as free to turn up your stereo so that not only are you unable to hear him, but his words are drowned out entirely. You are equally free to roll up the window and ignore that person. Chances are that he's getting a rise out of you anyway.

If the light turns green, you go about your way. If that person fails to yeild the right of way because they are in the middle of the sermon, he has ceased to be expressing himself and has become an obstruction. At that point, you should have him arrested. If he jumps out in front of your car, run him over and say you saw him too late (pick a story and stick to it).

As Weasel said, many street preachers are not aggressive to the point of breaking the law; many wear placards or pass out literature but they are still entitled to express themselves up to the point where they become a danger to themselves or those around them.

[fable]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Is he disturbing the peace or disturbing your peace?

Someone can only get under your skin using words if you let them.

This statement has a very final air about it. I had you figured for a supporter anti-defamation laws; but it appears from the above that you not only oppose such laws, but slander laws, as well. If you're willing to admit that slander and racial slurs provide exceptions (and I don't know that you do), I would in turn suggest that there are other exceptions that might apply. Such as the ones I've been discussing, which you don't care for.

If he is obeying the law and not impeding your way, he must be allowed to say whatever he wants in a public venue. To constrain him in any way is to take away the most basic freedom we have in a free society.

You state that "if he is obeying the law and not impeding your way"--but aren't laws written by human beings? If so, then the law is changeable; therefore, the man who approaches a car stopped at a red light and screams in your window can be legally disturbing the peace or not, depending upon the local laws. Therefore, whether he's disturbing my peace or not isn't the question; the question is whether he's respecting the local laws. And as I mentioned before, Giuliani in NYC saw to it that street preachers went in the parks to do their thing, or spent time in lockup; because it was against the law.

I appealed to a lawyer for information about the law, but I have a feeling that you're simply stating personal preference.

[HighLordDave]

If you want a real lawyer's opinion on this, you should ask McBane or Astafas to drop by and give their legal opinions; to the best of my knowledge, they're SYM's only legal counsels.

As to how slander and defamation figure into this, they are indeed crimes but not usually invoked by street preachers.

Slander is wilfully making a false statement that injurious to someone's reputation. Defamation is the act of slandering someone or "maliciously injuring the good name of another".

I do indeed have a problem with slander, but most corner evangelists don't engage in the practise. Furthermore, for someone to be guilty of slander, their accusor must fulfill the burden of proof and show that the defendant 1) knew that what they were saying about the other person was false, and 2) they must show that the defendant caused grevious harm or injury to their reputation. So they not only have to prove damage, but intent as well, which is a hard thing for someone offended by a street preacher to do.

For example, I believe that one of the people I work for is a complete waste of human flesh. I think that he has no principles, is morally corrupt and that if given the opportunity, he would sell his mother into slavery if it would turn a profit. It is my right to believe this and tell anyone who will listen that he is a bad person and that I don't think they should do business with him at any level, personally or professionally. However, I do not have the right to tell you that he cheats on his taxes, beats his children or poisons the neighbours pets with beef tips laced with anti-freeze, because I know that those last statements are false and that if I spread those untruths, he will suffer grevious harm to his reputation and would be the object of unfair financial and criminal investigations.

Similarly, I support the rights of people to say and believe anything they want under any lawful conditions. I support the rights of white supremecists to believe whatever the hell they want to believe. I support their right to think that black people should live in separate communities from white people. I support their right to believe that everyone else in the world is racially inferior to people of "true Aryan blood." It's the "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will die for your right to say it" principle.

What I do not support is people saying things that are untrue (ie-a Jewish conspiracy is behind the US's policy in Israel to keep Arabs under the thumb of the west) or taking actions that lead to the imminent harm of other people. There is a fine line between the regulation of thoughts and the regulation of actions.

You use racial slurs as an example; at what point do words like "[removed]", "spic", "wop", "kike" et al become harmful? I don't know, and right now it seems that the courts don't either. On one level, they're just words ("Sticks and stones . . ."), but on another, words convey power. When a black person uses the word "[removed]" it means something completely different than when a white person uses it.

I am not sure that I am against making racial slurs illegal because I'm not sure where it would stop. For instance, if a black person is entitled to have someone arrested because he gets called a [removed], what's to stop someone with glasses from having someone else arrested because they get called "four-eyes"? Is that example trivialising racial epithets? Yes, but it's the logical extreme of where a law like that would lead.

If it sounds like I'm sticking up for the annoying fire and brimstone preachers, I am. However, I am also sticking up for you because I believe that everyone who has been the object of their ire has the exact same rights as they do. I believe in personal empowerment and that individuals can make a difference. As you say, people can change the law. If you are offended by loudmouths proselytising on street corners, then you can have the laws changed so that it becomes less convenient for them (through the due process, of course).

I am still interested to see if Guiliani's removal of evangelists on corners will hold up in court because it seems to me that outright removal of people from public places in a clear violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, although if the city of New York's legal counsel wrote the law well, it may very well stand up to a challenge in court. Or it may be that no one has sued them yet.

In my opinion, the freedom of speech must be absolute. People must be free (by law) to say and believe anything they want, no matter how distasteful or extreme. If one person can be stopped from saying something, then we all can. And that is a road I have no desire to start down.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Slightly off-topic, but better to ask Astafas (if indeed either of you two were going to) than McBane.
McBane's an accountant IRL.

[fable]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
As to how slander and defamation figure into this, they are indeed crimes but not usually invoked by street preachers.

I think we both know that the subsequent material you posted about slander and defamation is somewhat beside the point, and that I was using the terms to show that your blanket statement, "Someone can only get under your skin using words if you let them," isn't advice that you fully believe. It is simply too monolithic a statement to stand the tests of infinite circumstance and law. Replying that "I do indeed have a problem with slander, but most corner evangelists don't engage in the practise" is disingenuous, since the problem I've outlined wasn't one of slander. Rather, it involved defining the limits that a given culture puts upon the personal space of its members, and these boundaries extend into other senses beyond the visual.

If it sounds like I'm sticking up for the annoying fire and brimstone preachers, I am. However, I am also sticking up for you because I believe that everyone who has been the object of their ire has the exact same rights as they do. I believe in personal empowerment and that individuals can make a difference.

Taking a more "aerial view" of our discussion, I'd suggest that we're approaching the issue from different perspectives. You see it as a matter of freedom. I see it as primarily a matter of responsibility. The person who comes up to your car at a red light and yells in your window that you're damned to hell; the group that surrounds a womens' clinic shouting at a lady who enters that she's a murderer; the person who gets on a public vehicle filled with people and turns on a boombox to an ear-splitting level--if I understand you correctly, these people should have the freedom to do what they do. Looking at these (admittedly vague) examples, I would suggest they have the responsibility to act otherwise, and that it is up to the law to determine specific instances and exact means that should be used to restrain their conduct without removing their right to self-expression.

I am still interested to see if Guiliani's removal of evangelists on corners will hold up in court because it seems to me that outright removal of people from public places in a clear violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, although if the city of New York's legal counsel wrote the law well, it may very well stand up to a challenge in court.

There were many statements about suing the city made when Giuliani began his series of sweeping changes, and they involved everybody from the ACLU (whom I greatly respect) to Al Sharpton (whom I don't). I don't know how much if any of this actually went to court, but I suspect very little did, simply because Giuliani was an extremely savvy DA before he ran for mayor. But I'll see what I can find out, and post here about it. You and I may be the only people up here who are interested, however.

In my opinion, the freedom of speech must be absolute. People must be free (by law) to say and believe anything they want, no matter how distasteful or extreme.

Are you sure? Because this brings us right back to the conditions I stated in my last post. A culture that supported complete freedom of speech would also have no slander or (by extension, since writing is also subject to freedom of speech) libel laws. It would permit advertisers to make the most outrageous, unchecked claims for their products. It would be, in effect, informational laissez faire, and like the economic kind, the lack of regulation would result in a havoc caused by the zeaulous, the unscrupulous, and the unhinged.

My own belief on this is that freedom of speech is always limited by any given culture, and it is up to the law to define the boundaries of what's "free," and what's "protection." Given our differences on this, I don't see us arriving at any sense of agreement, though I find your viewpoint refreshing in a profession that is too often lambasted for cynicism.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
McBane's an accountant IRL.

Hmmm . . . I thought he was a lawyer, too; it's not the first time I've been mistaken and won't be the last.

Regarding fable's distinction between freedom and responsibility, the former is, in my opinion, a right which carries no connotation of responsibility. Responsibility is something that exists outside of the law and can only be willfully taken by individuals.

For instance, I believe that everyone has the right to say what they want to say, believe what they want to believe and worship the god of their choice, provided that they do not infringe upon the rights of others as they pursue their lives. I do not believe that people have the right to drive a car; that carries with it responsibility which can and should be regulated.

So where does someone's right to say something cross with their responsibility to ensure that what they're saying is truthful and not dangerous? I don't know where that line is.

For instance, a couple of weeks ago, a guy named William Pierce died on his property near Beckley, West Virginia. Pierce was the charasmatic leader of the National Alliance, a white-supremecist group and the author of The Turner Diaries, the book which allegedly inspired Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. At what point does Pierce have the right to publish anything he wants and at what point should he be held responsible for the results of his writings?

Questions like these are for people who devote their lives to government and the pursuit of justice and the law, not yokels like me who sit around a computer message board and discuss popular views of the law, but fable is right that I see this issue of street preachers as matters of freedom, although he is also right to say that it's not just about their freedom, but the freedom of those around them, too.

Someone go get Astafas or a civil rights lawyer and let's see how they weigh in on this.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Someone go get Astafas or a civil rights lawyer and let's see how they weigh in on this.

I haven't read through all of this yet, but I have PM'd him since I know him. He is of course a Swedish lawyer, but I am sure he can add valuable perspectives to this debate.

[Astafas]

I haven't got the time to read through all this now but will give your questions a try during next week. I'm not sure to come up with a satifactory answer, though...

[Mr Sleep]

I am busy picking my brother up Friday night, he's at a Christian conference, it's my job to commute him back. Fair enough i wasn't doing anything anyway so i may aswell. It's a favour to my brother as well.

So i am helping out taking down stuff and he is talking to some guy, i make a few jokes as is my calling Anyway this person my bro is talking to ends up being told that i am unsaved Here we go.

So an hour's worth of conversation...how very interesting *yawn* Why is it pray tell that i must be pestered by this person who has no idea about my life and yet can speak so well on what kind of person i am.

Every opinion he had on why i should become a Christian was based on the issue of Faith, well i am sorry the word Faith is just a cop out for non explanation, it's far to abstract a term for me to accept, so i told him fair and square, i don't believe in God, i am different from you and this conversation is going no where fast.

He has the audacity to assume i don't think about these things, i mentioned five minutes into the conversation that i have lived in a Christian house hold all my life, so he is going to bring something new to the table....no.

I don't mind having rational debates about Christianity, in fact i quite enjoy it, but not when someone is quite so judgemental and doesn't actually listen to the words that are coming out of my mouth...

I think this person illustrated surprisingly well a lot of the conversion by zeal arguements, i will go into detail about our conversation if anyone is interested.

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

I think this person illustrated surprisingly well a lot of the conversion by zeal arguements, i will go into detail about our conversation if anyone is interested.

I'm interested. There is a right way and a wrong way to convert someone. Evidently, this particular person's zeal wasn't tempered by wisdom or bolstered by knowledge. (BTW, Faith is not a cop out for a non-explanation. If it were, I wouldn't have any). You can PM me if you wish.

[Mr Sleep]

I must apologise to fable for venting in his thread, whether or not it was on topic this isn't my place to be so vitriolic, i am going to blame it on a lack of sleep

Originally posted by EMINEM
I'm interested. There is a right way and a wrong way to convert someone. Evidently, this particular person's zeal wasn't tempered by wisdom or bolstered by knowledge. (BTW, Faith is not a cop out for a non-explanation. If it were, I wouldn't have any). You can PM me if you wish.

To be fair to the guy he wasn't entirely wrong in his interpretations of what he is supposed to do as a minister, he was just applying it to the wrong person. The conversation (i use the term loosely) mostly flowed along the same lines as every other conversation i have had regarding the intricacies of Christianity, personally i am slightly at odds towards the way you state "convert" it makes it sound a little to much like indoctrination to me, correct me if i am wrong but doesn't the Holy Spirit convert someone not the preacher?

Preacher, that is a good word to use to describe the man i conversed with, he preached. There was no conversation, it wasn't an expression of ideas or philosophy it was a bombardment of the "I am right and you are wrong" dictum that always becomes tiring fast.

As i said to him, I am an intellectual being, relying on a (to me) abstract concept such as faith doesn't work, he merely said "But God made you an intellectual being" for some reason that just doesn't cut it

It's interesting that the "Can logic lead to religion" thread is created around the same time as my internal (and now external) dialogue, you see it is not logical to me, so just telling me over an over again to accept something that isn't logical just doesn't work, that is where the "zeal" part in others lies for me.

Well that is enough for now, if fable or anyone else is tired of this i am happy to take it to PM, i think it is mostly on topic but i am happy to move over to PM's.

On the subject of Faith, i will PM you in a bit.

[fable]

Well that is enough for now, if fable or anyone else is tired of this i am happy to take it to PM, i think it is mostly on topic but i am happy to move over to PM's.

The issues you discuss seem perfectly on target in this thread to me.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Originally posted by HighLordDave


Hmmm . . . I thought he was a lawyer, too; it's not the first time I've been mistaken and won't be the last.

To be fair, he prefers people to think he's a lawyer IRL and attempts to convey that, so it's not that you were being unobservant or anything.

@Sleepo-I too was interested, it seems to me that having examples of the topic at hand can enrich the conversation, and certainly do it no harm.
Also, I believe that faith can be a cop-out for non-explanation, but is not necessarily always used as such either.