proselytizing and free speech?

[Guest rubilynne4]

just wondering what some people think. i see that many people are annoyed/irritated with people who proselytize. i do agree that i should not shove my beliefs down someone's throat, and especially if i'm in their private space (i.e. home, their blog, fb page, etc.). in those places if i shared my beliefs and they weren't welcome i would stop, but what about in public. isn't it the nature of freedom of speech to allow free discourse of ideas, even if those ideas may sometimes irritate, or even offend us. i don't believe in many things that others speak publicly about, and some beliefs of others may even be offensive to me, but i would never want to ban their speech. is freedom of speech only for politically correct speech?

Edited July 2, 2010 by rubilynne4

[Skadi]

If you want to know whether someone truly values freedom of speech, ask them about "hate speech." People won't be as likely to show their true colors when it comes to oh-I-would-never-oppress-anybody religious talk, but when it comes to ideas that are almost universally reviled in our society (such as racism), they'll throw freedom of speech out the window faster than you can say "unonstitutional."

[Peela]

I am not sure what triggered your post, but I would suggest that there is a wide space between not wanting someone's religious views shoved down your throat at any time, and not wanting those people to have the freedom to have those beliefs and share them in appropriate venues.

What those appropriate venues might be, might be a better topic for debate, because I don't think anyone is thinking free speech is a bad thing.

It doesnt bother me if someone stands on a soap box in a public square and preaches their truth. Thats pretty public, and I am fine with it. It does bother me if they do it loudly and publically in a restaurant I frequent however I will jsut ot come back. If they do it in my personal space such as my website, FB account or whatever it is not free speech , it is an invasion of my personal space. I am sure a proseletyzing Christian would not appreciate a proseletyzing Jew, Buddhist or Muslim doing the same to them.

It is the righteousness of it that is so annoying. Please, do it in appropriate places, by all means, but do not infringe upon the rights of others to have their own personal space unimpinged.

[asta]

just wondering what some people think. i see that many people are annoyed/irritated with people who proselytize. i do agree that i should not shove my beliefs down someone's throat, and especially if i'm in their private space (i.e. home, their blog, fb page, etc.). in those places if i shared my beliefs and they weren't welcome i would stop, but what about in public. isn't it the nature of freedom of speech to allow free discourse of ideas, even if those ideas may sometimes irritate, or even offend us. i don't believe in many things that others speak publicly about, and some beliefs of others may even be offensive to me, but i would never want to ban their speech. is freedom of speech only for politically correct speech?

 

I can't answer that, but I get rather amused when Americans travel to other countries and assume that their Bill of Rights follows them.

 

Should all people have freedom of speech? Sure, why not. Do they? Nope.

 

 

asta

[Gooblink]

As I understand it, our constitutional guarantee to public free speech is to protect us against retaliation from the government. It doesn't mean we have the right to invade, uninvited, another person's peace or private space with our prosyletizing. If someone is getting in your (universal "your") space then you should request, beseech, demand they cease and desist. There are laws that protect us from harassment, slander and libel.

[NanceXToo]

As a secular/not particularly religious Jew I don't really mind if people try to talk to me about their beliefs. I don't get mad when Jehovah's witnesses knock on my door like some people I know do. Although I do tell them that I'm not interested in having a religious conversation with them. I would hope that most people would be respectful if someone else said they would rather not discuss it, that they wouldn't keep trying to forcefeed people their beliefs.

 

What I do have a problem with, is when they try to involve my children. Like last year we went to this "Family Fun Day"- it's an annual event here (non-religious) held on county fairgrounds. Different organizations can participate by setting up stands which would consist of fun activities for the kids, and then if they want they can leave brochures and stuff available for the parents to take as they move from activity to activity. Some of those organizations are religious, most aren't.

 

So we stopped because my daughter saw a bean bag toss game that she wanted to try, as did her same-age friend who was walking around with us (they were 8) and we adults stood off to the side a bit chatting while they played. At one point I glanced over and saw that the man running the stand was standing very close to the girls talking quietly to them, and I wandered closer and heard him talking to them about God.

 

For some reason, that really irked me. I called to my daughter and we moved away. I told her that that man should not have been talking to her about God or his religious beliefs, that that was her parent's place, not some strangers. In fact, it irked me so much that I found a contact email for the organizers of that event and emailed them about it. They never bothered answering though. :P

[....]

And I told myself I would not read any more religious threads!! :glare:

 

I completely understand that some denominations take the "command from the Bible to witness" very, very seriously. And I get people witnessing to me all the time (which is really funny, because our family is very religious :lol:). So, it actually doesn't bother me. I get the knocks on my door from Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons (a lotta Mormons lately) and I'm usually very polite to them. When I tell them that we're Lutheran, they usually smile, wave and walk away. I don't feel like they're hurting anyone and I think they feel like they're doing what God told them to do... Do I agree with their theology? No, but I'm still not going to argue with them or be rude... As long as they're not being rude to me...it doesn't annoy me one bit.

 

If people are rude or pushy, then we've gotta problem.

 

As far as witnessing at work or school? I don't think we should be doing that at all...

 

To friends? I dunno. Case by case basis. I've never done this.

 

I think the best way to witness right now - in this day and age - is by charity, kindness, giving, etc. I think everything else falls into place after that. Although, it might be best to talk to your pastor about this.

 

:confused: I am in no way, shape or form an expert on this subject. I also have to provide the disclaimer that I became Lutheran after spending some time as an atheist after spending a childhood in a very, strange, scary church (OK, you can't even call it a church) that my dad dragged us to.

 

I was offended one time when a group of women came to our house to "tell us about Jesus" because they heard a "Buddhist family" lived down the street. (looking around for Buddhist family) :confused: They only thing I can think of is...because my kids are Korean, they assumed we were Buddhist. Which is funny because (shhh-don't tell anyone) a lot of Korean people are Presbyterian. :lol:

 

Oh well. Good luck with your question. Like I said, a pastor would probably have a much better perspective on this question...(than someone who has religious baggage) :D

[....]

Hey, look! 1,000 posts! he he he :hurray:

[chiguirre]

just wondering what some people think. i see that many people are annoyed/irritated with people who proselytize. i do agree that i should not shove my beliefs down someone's throat, and especially if i'm in their private space (i.e. home, their blog, fb page, etc.). in those places if i shared my beliefs and they weren't welcome i would stop, but what about in public. isn't it the nature of freedom of speech to allow free discourse of ideas, even if those ideas may sometimes irritate, or even offend us. i don't believe in many things that others speak publicly about, and some beliefs of others may even be offensive to me, but i would never want to ban their speech. is freedom of speech only for politically correct speech?

 

You are most welcome to stand on a street corner handing out pamphlets or waving a sign or singing or yelling about the end of the world, but most people will assume you're mentally unstable and give you a wide berth. That may or may not accord with your proselytizing objectives, you'll have to make that call.

[*********]

You are most welcome to stand on a street corner handing out pamphlets or waving a sign or singing or yelling about the end of the world, but most people will assume you're mentally unstable and give you a wide berth. That may or may not accord with your proselytizing objectives, you'll have to make that call.

 

Actually, my dh and I, along with many others we know, do the bolded part frequently. My dh goes a lot without me, because I stay home with the littles. But he open-air preaches, passes out tracts, and witnesses one-on-one. While certainly there are those who 'give us a wide berth', and avoid, I'm not sure it's fair to say that 'most people' assume we're 'mentally unstable'. But even if that's so, it would not deter us.

 

We feel it is our duty, given by scripture, to proclaim the gospel. We also fully expect it to offend people; scripture tells us it will. Jesus offended so many, he was put to death.

 

Just my two cents.

[....]

We feel it is our duty, given by scripture, to proclaim the gospel. We also fully expect it to offend people; scripture tells us it will. Jesus offended so many, he was put to death.

 

 

You explained it better than I did. :tongue_smilie:

[Tea Time]

just wondering what some people think. i see that many people are annoyed/irritated with people who proselytize. i do agree that i should not shove my beliefs down someone's throat, and especially if i'm in their private space (i.e. home, their blog, fb page, etc.). in those places if i shared my beliefs and they weren't welcome i would stop, but what about in public. isn't it the nature of freedom of speech to allow free discourse of ideas, even if those ideas may sometimes irritate, or even offend us. i don't believe in many things that others speak publicly about, and some beliefs of others may even be offensive to me, but i would never want to ban their speech. is freedom of speech only for politically correct speech?

 

Last week we were in Virginia Beach. We noticed a man reading from the Bible on a street corner. The next day there was a protest (about off shore drilling) and the leader of that protest had a megaphone. Some people joined hands and spread out along the beach.

 

Both were pretty much ignored as far as I could see. Lol! Maybe it is like car alarms when you hear certain messages too much you learn to tune them out. I will say that I preferred the one that did NOT have a megaphone!

 

I guess that these are things that we live with when we support free speech, and they are much better things to live with than the alternative. Overall I thought it was great to see free speech alive and well.

[WishboneDawn]

I think having a freedom means something in relation to the government. I don't think having that freedom means I personally have to listen, be polite, refrain from giving my own opinion or not tell someone to simply "shut up" and then walk away.

[ourjourneys]

I would have moved away too. I do not want anyone pushing their beliefs on my children, in particular the fear that religions tend to push. What ever happened to the christian thought of 'God speaking to the hearts of men'? I think people who feel the need to witness should wear a t-shirt that says, "Ask me if you want to know Jesus" and leave everyone alone. Let everyone deal with their own conscious because confrontation will lead to a wall being put up. Just my opinion from the perspective of one raised to be a missionary but ran away quickly...

[Joanne]

just wondering what some people think. i see that many people are annoyed/irritated with people who proselytize. i do agree that i should not shove my beliefs down someone's throat, and especially if i'm in their private space (i.e. home, their blog, fb page, etc.). in those places if i shared my beliefs and they weren't welcome i would stop, but what about in public. isn't it the nature of freedom of speech to allow free discourse of ideas, even if those ideas may sometimes irritate, or even offend us. i don't believe in many things that others speak publicly about, and some beliefs of others may even be offensive to me, but i would never want to ban their speech. is freedom of speech only for politically correct speech?

 

Free speech refers to the structure of the government allowing for the expression rather than dictation of ideas, principles and opinions.

 

Free speech, applied to individual settings or persons, is a misnomer.

 

You are using the term incorrectly.

[Heather in Neverland]

I can't answer that, but I get rather amused when Americans travel to other countries and assume that their Bill of Rights follows them.

 

asta

 

Isn't THAT the truth.

[Gooblink]

When I called myself an atheist, I could not stand it when Christians would try to "save" me. I didn't mind at all having religious discussions, but when it came around to someone telling me how to "get to Heaven" I shut down and got downright nasty, truth be told. In fact, I started studying the Bible so I could counter Chrisian attacks. :)

 

So...I think that t-shirt idea mentioned above is brilliant. I'll share my faith and how I arrived there with anyone who wants to hear it. However, I've never been comfortable with un-solicited gospel sharing...even for that 3.5 years I went door-to-door with Jehovah's Witnesses...but that's another story. LOL

[Parrothead]

As I understand it, our constitutional guarantee to public free speech is to protect us against retaliation from the government. It doesn't mean we have the right to invade, uninvited, another person's peace or private space with our prosyletizing. If someone is getting in your (universal "your") space then you should request, beseech, demand they cease and desist. There are laws that protect us from harassment, slander and libel.

Yes, this!

 

Ordinarily, the First Amendment only applies to prohibit direct government censorship. For a Wiki article this actually gives a good quick overview of the First Amendment. IMHO the First Ammendment is often misunderstood, especially the Free Speech and Establishment clauses.

 

Keep in mind that while one is proselytizing, the one you are proselytizing to has the right to sing Jingle Bells at the top of his lungs. It works both ways.

[weaver_67579]

I do value free speech. We are lucky to have it in this beautiful country. I do not have to agree with it. As others have pointed out-it is about the government not squelching it. Freedom of speech does not give one the ability to say whatever they want wherever they want.

 

I do not have to allow someone to come onto my property and try and preach to me. I will ask you to leave. If you don't, I could call the cops. I have never had to do this-but I would. If I say I am not interested-I mean it. In a public place-you had better keep your hands off of me and my family when trying to get me to take your stuff or talk to me. I will likely yell bloody murder and push my car alarm. My bubble of personal space is large. I would also have a problem if you tried to block my way and would proceed as stated above. If someone does approach me-I also have the right to tell them to get lost and leave me alone.

 

People just standing in a public place blabbing don't bother me too much-I ignore them and avoid the area until they are gone. It is when they try and get in our faces, approach my children or enter my personal property that I have a problem.

[Parrothead]

 

I was offended one time when a group of women came to our house to "tell us about Jesus" because they heard a "Buddhist family" lived down the street. (looking around for Buddhist family) :confused: They only thing I can think of is...because my kids are Korean, they assumed we were Buddhist. Which is funny because (shhh-don't tell anyone) a lot of Korean people are Presbyterian. :lol:

 

 

Oh, my goodness! I have to wonder if these women really think in this day and age that the Buddhists don't know about Jesus already.

 

 

We feel it is our duty, given by scripture, to proclaim the gospel. We also fully expect it to offend people; scripture tells us it will. Jesus offended so many, he was put to death.

 

 

Do you think there is a time and place for this? How exactly does this work? How and when do you proclaim the Gospel? Not being snarky, just trying to understand. To whom are you proclaiming the Gospel?

[stephanier.1765]

As long as I'm free to leave, then I'm okay with people using their First Amendment rights. I have had to hang up on friends when they would not stop proselytizing even when I asked them several times. It has also since ended those friendships because they just wouldn't leave well enough alone.

[WarriorMama]

Keep in mind that while one is proselytizing, the one you are proselytizing to has the right to sing Jingle Bells at the top of his lungs. It works both ways.

 

:lol:

 

That sounds like a counter-strategy that might just work!

[Charles Wallace]

just wondering what some people think. i see that many people are annoyed/irritated with people who proselytize. i do agree that i should not shove my beliefs down someone's throat, and especially if i'm in their private space (i.e. home, their blog, fb page, etc.). in those places if i shared my beliefs and they weren't welcome i would stop, but what about in public. isn't it the nature of freedom of speech to allow free discourse of ideas, even if those ideas may sometimes irritate, or even offend us. i don't believe in many things that others speak publicly about, and some beliefs of others may even be offensive to me, but i would never want to ban their speech. is freedom of speech only for politically correct speech?

 

Rubilynne, freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by the government. I may have misread your post, but are your rights being abridged by any official government agency?

 

I'm not sure this is an issue of free speech as much as it is an issue of etiquette, consideration, and natural consequences. I haven't, of course, heard your share your beliefs in public, so giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure that you've been considerate of the beliefs of others, of the circumstances and the time, and of your audience.

 

If someone else (not you) carelessly or casually disregards those considerations, then (to quote Spider-Man), "with freedom comes responsibility." Freedom (of speech) comes with responsibility (for speech), and hey -- they have to take the consequences for it.

 

If I were a child care worker and of a particular religion, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to say, "Allah is the greatest god EVER" to the children I'm watching, or feel it was appropriate for me to talk to them about my beliefs, for example. Abridgement of free speech? Not at all. I'm "free" to speak about my beliefs, and my boss is "free" to fire me. Parents of children in my charge are "free" to inform me of their displeasure, and so on. You brought up "in public," and the workplace can certainly be considered that, but even on a public streetcorner or the middle of Albertson's, if I were to decide to say to every random passerby, "God is really a woman...God is really a woman," or what you will, I would be free to do so, the management would be free to eject me, and customers would be free to agree or disagree.

 

Perhaps I misread your intent, and please do correct me if I am wrong, but freedom of speech doesn't mean "no one gets to disagree."

Edited July 2, 2010 by Charles Wallace

[stripe]

I find it annoying when someone only wants to tell me about their beliefs but wouldn't listen if I told them about mine or accept my pamphlets. I find it even more annoying when someone makes snarky comments or chases me around the grocery store in order to track me down. Target someone else.

[WarriorMama]

just wondering what some people think. i see that many people are annoyed/irritated with people who proselytize. i do agree that i should not shove my beliefs down someone's throat, and especially if i'm in their private space (i.e. home, their blog, fb page, etc.). in those places if i shared my beliefs and they weren't welcome i would stop, but what about in public. isn't it the nature of freedom of speech to allow free discourse of ideas, even if those ideas may sometimes irritate, or even offend us. i don't believe in many things that others speak publicly about, and some beliefs of others may even be offensive to me, but i would never want to ban their speech. is freedom of speech only for politically correct speech?

 

To answer the original question...people (here at least) have a political right to free speech, including religious topics. But in a lot of cases I don't think it comes down to politics as much as it does to...well, manners. In social situations with friends or acquaintances where you're gathered to have a good time, I would find it very rude for someone to ask intrusive questions about my personal beliefs and share their own without being asked or encouraged.

 

Street-corner preaching, pamphlets, posting on your own Facebook, blog or what have you...go crazy! To each their own. But I was always taught that in a social situation it was unwise and at least borderline rude to discuss religion, politics, or any other hot button type issue that might offend or make uncomfortable the other people present.

[mcconnellboys]

No, it must remain free for all or it is valueless. If there's a constraint here and another there, then over time the constraints begin to outweigh the freedoms. First thing you know, something you've said in all innocence is somehow "offensive" to someone and there goes your freedom, too.....

 

I'm quite frankly at my wit's end over the number of times a month I hear shouts of "racism" lately, for things said that have nothing remotely to do with race. In fact, we're becoming such a homogenized society that I feel we're pretty well beyond the subject of "race" at this point in our history - at least here in America. I've grown to feel that it's just a catch word people use mindlessly, like the "socialization" word they throw around in front of homeschoolers.

 

You have every tool you need to control hateful speech. You can talk over it. You can attempt reasoning with it. You can ignore it. You can remove yourself from it. You can carry big ol' ear muffs in your car and grab them to cover your ears when it's occurring, thus underscoring your point (or little ones that you can insert unobtrusively). You have an entire arsenal of weapons at your ready disposal. But eliminating it through prohibiting it is not one of those. Allowed it must be.....

[Charles Wallace]

No, it must remain free for all or it is valueless. If there's a constraint here and another there, then over time the constraints begin to outweigh the freedoms. First thing you know, something you've said in all innocence is somehow "offensive" to someone and there goes your freedom, too.....

 

Pardon me if I have misread your post, Mcconnellboys, but I'm guessing perhaps it would be helpful (for me, you, anyone) to re-familiarize all of ourselves with what "free speech" means in this country, which is why I'm grateful to the previous poster for posting the link to the wiki about the First Amendment and what it means.

 

Free speech does not mean "I can say anything I want to, anywhere I want to, anytime I want to, without repercussion." Perhaps I misread your post, but this appears to be what you're saying by making the statement "...If there's a constraint here and another there, then over time the constraints begin to outweigh the freedoms."

 

I'm sure you're aware that this fallacy -- the "slippery slope" fallacy, for anyone who likes to label stuff -- is just that: a fallacy. The "all or nothing" argument sounds really appealing, and it sure does appeal to some people because it's pretty simple...maybe even simplistic. It appeals to some people to say, "It's all or nothing!" It's just that it's not, particularly in the case of free speech, true.

 

Wisely, the Founding Fathers understood that there did need to be reasonable and logical restraints on free speech, and that the "slippery slope" fallacy (being a fallacy) meant that they believed people were responsible enough to practice free speech within logical limits.

 

For example, free speech does not include libel and slander. I cannot, for example, seriously say, "[insert name here] cheated on his or her spouse with Miley Cyrus, Tiger Woods, and the cast of Glee!" without being subject to laws of libel or slander.

 

For another famous example, I cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

I'm quite frankly at my wit's end over the number of times a month I hear shouts of "racism" lately, for things said that have nothing remotely to do with race. In fact, we're becoming such a homogenized society that I feel we're pretty well beyond the subject of "race" at this point in our history - at least here in America. I've grown to feel that it's just a catch word people use mindlessly, like the "socialization" word they throw around in front of homeschoolers.

 

Well, maybe it's because I haven't had my coffee yet -- or enough of it -- but I fail to see how yelling "racism" constitutes an infringement of your free speech -- or anyone else's. Certainly it does not constitute an infringement of your free speech by a governmental agency, which is what the Constitution guarantees in the First Amendment. As many others have said, free speech does not mean other people have to automatically agree with you.

 

If you have said something another person perceives as racist, and the other person says, "You're a racist," or "This is a racist statement," this is not an infringment of your free speech: it is someone reacting, correctly or incorrectly, to something you said. This is a consequence of free speech, not an infringement upon it.

 

Hope that helps,

 

CW

Edited July 2, 2010 by Charles Wallace

[Guest rubilynne4]

wow! thanks everyone for your replies. i really had no objective than i really wanted to know how different people felt about it. i do admit, it was keptwoman's thread that led to the question i asked, but it was not with intention to start a war. i wanted to know how people on both sides of the spectrum from theists to atheist felt. i forgot that this forum includes people from places other than the U.S. (yes, i know that makes me a little U.S. centric, that's okay, i love my country, and my freedom of speech), so thanks for chiming in, and reminding me that not everyone is afforded that liberty. i am glad to see that while most people might not necessarily like all the speech that takes place they allow for it. i do agree that we should not invade people's private space if they don't want it, but i personally would not be offended by someone bringing up a belief i didn't agree with in my home, or other private space, but if i didn't think it was a productive conversation, or it was getting nasty, then i would stop it (i think this may have been keptwoman's situation, i'm not sure). my sister, who is an atheist, and ultra liberal, and i have very great discussions in my christian, ultra conservative home all the time, and well into the night. it's actually kind of fun, and the conversation (i know this is different than speech) often gets heated when it's between her and my husband ( i am a calmer person, so don't usually get heated), but i think overall we respect and allow for one another's differences. sometimes i have conceded that she is right, and other times she can see my point of view (i guess that would be called being open minded enough to know that no one person is always right, and hey we can learn from each other if we allow for discourse without fear on either side). as far as children go, i definitely respect that a parent has the ultimate say/respnsibility to bring their child up as they feel is right. i think the poster who had the experience with the person talking to their child had a right to feel irked. seems strange that the person had them off to the side talking quietly. i don't mind my children being exposed to different beliefs, but i want to know what it is, and be able to explain any differences to them. as far as hate speech goes (whatever that may mean) even though i might not agree with the speech, i definitely don't want it banned. i am not willing to give up my freedom of speech, and i think when we start limiting speech (in public, not private), we are in danger of losing that freedom. thanks for chiming in everyone. i hope we can continue to have such open discourse on this forum, i think it's cool. :D

[AngieW in Texas]

I find proselytizers annoying. I am actually okay with the JW and LDS people who come to my door and hand me a pamphlet. I politely tell them that I'm busying hsing and they give me their little pamphlets and go away. The fact that they go away after just a minute or two is the important point here. If they tried to keep me at the door or kept ringing my bell repeatedly, I'd start to get very upset with them.

 

I took serious issue with a piano teacher who couldn't stop proselytizing during the lesson. I have no idea how Jesus had anything to do with my dd learning to play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, but she couldn't seem to hold a single lesson without mentioning how Jesus could save us. I told her that we wanted to just have piano lessons without any mention of religion whatsoever (should be pretty easy to do) and if she couldn't do that, then we'd have to quit. She said that she couldn't separate religion out of any part of her life and that our family needed to be saved. We quit.

[Guest rubilynne4]

restraint yes, but we must be very careful in those restraints. of course, it would be wrong to go into a public place (a movie theater), and shout fire. but that's not the kind of speech i think we're talking about. i think it's more the free discourse of differing beliefs. and yes if i share my beliefs, i do fully expect, and i'm okay with the fact that there will be repercussions (i.e. someone singing "jingle bells" perhaps :D, or maybe even yelling shut up, or getting mad, or maybe telling me what they believe, or even calling me names), but i think sometimes the repercussions can go to far. for example, sometimes people have been fired from their jobs for holding certain unpopular beliefs and talking about them publicly (and not on their jobs, but their own private time). how do you feel about this? should i be able to have beliefs, and voice those beliefs without fear of being fired from a job. i can understand if my boss says, "not on the clock," that's his time he's paying me for, but what i believe or talk about publicly on my own time should be my business. and then what if someone believes something very unpopular, and speak publicly about it, say like (i don't believe this, it's just for the sake of arguement, and i'm trying to keep it non offensive, so i'm not bringing in real political/religious beliefs people may hold), people who have purple hair are sinful. is that hate speech, and should it be banned. i personally don't think it should be banned even though it may be viewed as hateful. even if i don't agree, or happen to be the one with the purple hair, i would still want the person to have the right their free speech. since i am a christian, i'll use myself as an example. let's say someone doesn't like my brand of christianity, and says i should go to hell for the way i believe. it wouldn't bother me, and i wouldn't want that person speech to be curbed, let them speech on. i'm not that thin skinned, i can handle it. now speech, and action are different, so if they actually tried to literally send me to hell (i.e. brutality), then of course arrest them. but if they're spouting off then let them go for it. i know i'm rambling, but i am wordy, and it takes me a while sometime to get to my point with clarity. what say you hive?

Edited July 2, 2010 by rubilynne4

[I talk to the trees]

 

Keep in mind that while one is proselytizing, the one you are proselytizing to has the right to sing Jingle Bells at the top of his lungs. It works both ways.

 

Oh! :lol: Forget proselytizing! I'm sitting here (admittedly under the influence of a large amount of allergy meds) thinking of all of the wonderful applications of this method of defense. Salesman at the door? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!" Spouse refuses to see your side of a disagreement? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!" Nosy relative can't seem to stop making disparaging remarks about homeschooling? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!"

 

ETA: I meant absolutely no disrespect for the OP's question, nor did I intend to hijack the thread. Parrothead's post and 50 mg of Benadryl combined to give me a serious case of the giggles!

Edited July 2, 2010 by flutistmom

[Parrothead]

Oh! :lol: Forget proselytizing! I'm sitting here (admittedly under the influence of a large amount of allergy meds) thinking of all of the wonderful applications of this method of defense. Salesman at the door? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!" Spouse refuses to see your side of a disagreement? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!" Nosy relative can't seem to stop making disparaging remarks about homeschooling? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!"

Better watch those allergy meds. I get myself in a lot of trouble when I post while under their influence. :lol: With my cold urticaria I take a grand cocktail of meds. Oh, and if you ever run into one of my Ambien posts you'll be :smilielol5:

[Rivka]

My position is that freedom of speech, as others have said, is only a guarantee against governmental restraint. I've run into far too many people who seem to think that their "right to free speech" means that no one should criticize what they say - or that the right to free speech guarantees the right to an audience. Nope.

 

I used to take the bus to work, and there was one particular man who rode around town on the buses preaching VERY LOUDLY. It used to make me sick to my stomach to get on the bus and realize that he was already on there, and that my entire ride home I would have to listen to a diatribe against gay people.

 

Did he have the right to hold those beliefs? Yes. Did he have the right to express those beliefs? Yes. Did he have the right to hold an entire busload of people as a captive audience, preaching so loudly that even with headphones you couldn't shut out his voice unless you were prepared to damage your hearing? No. He simply did not.

[mommaduck]

Keep in mind that while one is proselytizing, the one you are proselytizing to has the right to sing Jingle Bells at the top of his lungs. It works both ways.

Goodness! I'm sorry, I'm laughing so much right now! Especially given the "Jingle Bells" part (I'm certain you know why your choice of songs is cracking me up...a bit of self-deprecating humor right now...)

Edited July 2, 2010 by mommaduck

[elegantlion]

Oh! :lol: Forget proselytizing! I'm sitting here (admittedly under the influence of a large amount of allergy meds) thinking of all of the wonderful applications of this method of defense. Salesman at the door? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!" Spouse refuses to see your side of a disagreement? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!" Nosy relative can't seem to stop making disparaging remarks about homeschooling? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!"

 

ETA: I meant absolutely no disrespect for the OP's question, nor did I intend to hijack the thread. Parrothead's post and 50 mg of Benadryl combined to give me a serious case of the giggles!

 

Also posting under the influence of Benadryl. Now I have another version of Jingle Bells going through my head, one involving my favorite super hero. :auto: (picture the car in black):lol::lol:

 

Does hijacking a thread fall under rights of free speech? :lol:

[mommaduck]

Also posting under the influence of Benadryl. Now I have another version of Jingle Bells going through my head, one involving my favorite super hero. :auto: (picture the car in black):lol::lol:

 

Does hijacking a thread fall under rights of free speech? :lol:

Shoot...I need a white russian right now so I can join the fun!

[Parrothead]

Goodness! I'm sorry, I'm laughing so much right now! Especially given the "Jingle Bells" part (I'm certain you know why your choice of songs is cracking me up...a bit of self-deprecating humor right now...)

And I wrote that one while I was sober. :lol: Yes, I know what Jingle Bells means to you. ;)

[ChristusG]

 

We feel it is our duty, given by scripture, to proclaim the gospel. We also fully expect it to offend people; scripture tells us it will. Jesus offended so many, he was put to death.

 

QUOTE]

 

Exactly. You worded it perfectly.

 

Christians who believe ever word the Bible says are instructed to witness. How can we not when we are instructed to do so?

 

Think of it like this......You (general "you", not anyone in particular) are standing in the middle of the road. I walk up to you and tell you that there is a car coming quickly and you need to move out of the road. I don't want you to get hit. You don't believe me because you don't see the car - there's a pole blocking your line of sight. I see it coming and I desperately want you to move, I don't want you hurt. You start to get angry because I'm frantically telling you that there is a car coming and that you ARE going to get hit, but since you don't see the car, you think I'm either crazy or lying.

 

Should I just give up and stand back and watch you get hit? Or should I step up my game and continue to try to get you to understand?

 

That's what Christians grapple with. We don't want to see anyone "get hit." However, there are tactful ways to approach people on the subject. "Hitting them over the head" with the Bible is not the way to do it.

[Mrs Mungo]

My position is that freedom of speech, as others have said, is only a guarantee against governmental restraint. I've run into far too many people who seem to think that their "right to free speech" means that no one should criticize what they say - or that the right to free speech guarantees the right to an audience. Nope.

 

:iagree: eta: and this extends to all sorts of people (I'm looking at you, Tim Robbins!!!!!).

Edited July 2, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Slartibartfast]

Free Speech does not extend to private property. Facebook and this site, for instance are privately owned. They are not public property.

 

My home is not public property. I do have a say in what goes on in my home.

 

I do think hate groups have a right to exist, because I believe in Free Speech but I don't have to listen to them nor do I have to give them my attention.

 

I am never rude to those who are proselytizing, even if they are on my porch I just let them know I am already a Christian, not interested in being a JW but I might offer them lemonaid.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Sis

[Guest rubilynne4]

My position is that freedom of speech, as others have said, is only a guarantee against governmental restraint. I've run into far too many people who seem to think that their "right to free speech" means that no one should criticize what they say - or that the right to free speech guarantees the right to an audience. Nope.

 

I used to take the bus to work, and there was one particular man who rode around town on the buses preaching VERY LOUDLY. It used to make me sick to my stomach to get on the bus and realize that he was already on there, and that my entire ride home I would have to listen to a diatribe against gay people.

 

Did he have the right to hold those beliefs? Yes. Did he have the right to express those beliefs? Yes. Did he have the right to hold an entire busload of people as a captive audience, preaching so loudly that even with headphones you couldn't shut out his voice unless you were prepared to damage your hearing? No. He simply did not.

hmmm if you didn't have the right to criticize what i say, then that wouldn't be free speech imho. i personally have no problem w/you criticizing my speech. as far as the guy on the bus goes i don't have a problem with his speech per se (regardless of whether i agreed with it, or not), but there are laws, i think, about noise level, etc. personally i think it is rather obnoxious, and this is the type of stuff that gives certain beliefs a bad name. i'm personally thinking more of an open type forum, like this one, or a public rally, or assembly hall, etc. when it comes to private space, then ultimately the person owning that private space has the right to allow or disallow. i think, but i could be wrong, we are actually on the same page. have your beliefs, speak openly if you want, i'll do the same, try to be respectful (i.e. don't blow my eardrums out, or follow me down the street, that would be like stalkin, i think :D), etc.

[Guest rubilynne4]

Also posting under the influence of Benadryl. Now I have another version of Jingle Bells going through my head, one involving my favorite super hero. :auto: (picture the car in black):lol::lol:

 

Does hijacking a thread fall under rights of free speech? :lol:

hijack away! i like the dialogue be it serious, humorous, different from my beliefs, or the same.

[Guest rubilynne4]

Oh! :lol: Forget proselytizing! I'm sitting here (admittedly under the influence of a large amount of allergy meds) thinking of all of the wonderful applications of this method of defense. Salesman at the door? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!" Spouse refuses to see your side of a disagreement? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!" Nosy relative can't seem to stop making disparaging remarks about homeschooling? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!"

 

ETA: I meant absolutely no disrespect for the OP's question, nor did I intend to hijack the thread. Parrothead's post and 50 mg of Benadryl combined to give me a serious case of the giggles!

i like the spouse arguement. i think i might try that. :D

[HRAAB]

I think proselytizing has more to do with manners and when/where is religious speech appropriate. Definitely not appropriate on private property, and that is why I have little patience with door to door missionaries. At that point, they have invaded my private space. Also, it is totally inappropriate, imo, to approach my children. We have occasionally found tracts on our windshields after coming out of church; we attend the Catholic church and these tracts are from some evangelical group. Not only is that inappropriate, it is bad manners.

 

Personally, someone standing on a street corner preaching doesn't bother me too much; I simply walk away. I do have doubts about how much they accomplish, though.

[mommaduck]

I think proselytizing has more to do with manners and when/where is religious speech appropriate. Definitely not appropriate on private property, and that is why I have little patience with door to door missionaries. At that point, they have invaded my private space. Also, it is totally inappropriate, imo, to approach my children. We have occasionally found tracts on our windshields after coming out of church; we attend the Catholic church and these tracts are from some evangelical group. Not only is that inappropriate, it is bad manners.

 

Personally, someone standing on a street corner preaching doesn't bother me too much; I simply walk away. I do have doubts about how much they accomplish, though.

Or they might be from some immature teenagers from a baptist or some other church, thinking they are doing a good thing (sorry, I remember having friends do similar things in highschool...really, it's a maturity and learning boundaries issue).

[Guest rubilynne4]

Free Speech does not extend to private property. Facebook and this site, for instance are privately owned. They are not public property.

 

My home is not public property. I do have a say in what goes on in my home.

 

I do think hate groups have a right to exist, because I believe in Free Speech but I don't have to listen to them nor do I have to give them my attention.

 

I am never rude to those who are proselytizing, even if they are on my porch I just let them know I am already a Christian, not interested in being a JW but I might offer them lemonaid.

:iagree: although i forgot that this forum is not public property. glad that we can discuss though. thanks for allowing it WTMF.

[jewellsmommy]

Or they might be from some immature teenagers from a baptist or some other church, thinking they are doing a good thing (sorry, I remember having friends do similar things in highschool...really, it's a maturity and learning boundaries issue).

 

This is so true. I think every group has those that don't represent the others well. I can handle the ones that mean well and then there are the others...

 

I was driving our church van a few yrs back and a male youth leaned his head out the window and started barking at people! :eek: I was horrified and reminded him that we were in a van with our name, phone # and denomination plastered on the side of it! Way to represent :glare:. I think he was hopped up on Mt. Dew.

[chiguirre]

:lol: I think barking requires something stronger than Mountain Dew!

[Charles Wallace]

. for example, sometimes people have been fired from their jobs for holding certain unpopular beliefs and talking about them publicly (and not on their jobs, but their own private time). how do you feel about this?

 

 

 

It depends upon the job and the policies of the workplace. For example, recently a teacher in a city posted on Facebook that he was single and looking for another man to date. He worked as a teacher for a Christian school, and as a condition of his employment, had signed what was in essence a morality clause stating that his behavior, whether in school or not, would conform to the dictates of that branch of Christianity. This branch was not accepting of homosexuality and the teacher was fired.

 

Personally, though I am accepting of homosexuality, the teacher was right to be fired -- not because he was gay, but because he had violated his contract. It was within the rights of his employers to do so, and they did. Was it his right to exercise his free speech on Facebook? Surely. It was also the school's right to enforce the contract he had signed his name to.

 

should i be able to have beliefs, and voice those beliefs without fear of being fired from a job. i can understand if my boss says, "not on the clock," that's his time he's paying me for, but what i believe or talk about publicly on my own time should be my business. and then what if someone believes something very unpopular, and speak publicly about it, say like (i don't believe this, it's just for the sake of arguement, and i'm trying to keep it non offensive, so i'm not bringing in real political/religious beliefs people may hold), people who have purple hair are sinful. is that hate speech, and should it be banned.

 

 

 

Again, it depends upon the conditions of your employment contract.

Many people believe their right to free speech on the sidewalk extends to free speech at the workplace. It doesn't. See this link for more information:http://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Freedom.of.Speech/Freedom.html

Ironically, because the First Amendment provides citizens protection against our government abridging free speech rights, the employees who have the most liberty to enjoy free speech at work are federal employees. This should be particularly intriguing, I think, to those who regard federal law as intrusive -- or at least, seem within the last few years to have found the federal government and its laws particularly offensive to them.

 

Actually, as it turns out, employers don't even have to allow you to speak at work at all. After all, you're there to work.

 

 

i personally don't think it should be banned even though it may be viewed as hateful. even if i don't agree, or happen to be the one with the purple hair, i would still want the pers

 

on to have the right their free speech. since i am a christian, i'll use myself as an example. let's say someone doesn't like my brand of christianity, and says i should go to hell for the way i believe. it wouldn't bother me, and i wouldn't want that person speech to be curbed, let them speech on.

 

 

There is a limit to speech, however. "I hate purplehairs" is acceptable. "Kill all purplehairs now" is not. The first is an expression of dislike; the second could legally constitute assault or (possibly) incitement to riot.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Charles Wallace

[Ester Maria]

I do not appreciate when people attempt to "save" me and I nip it in the bud, but it definitely crosses the line if it's going on on my private property and if it includes my (clearly underage) children, even in an "indirect" way - those two really, really bother me.

It also crosses the line of polite communication in the public sphere when it turns into yelling, threatening, dramatic loud preaching, insisting that people take the material you offer and insisting on any kind of communication after you were clearly told that the person is not interested. I often wonder what do those people think they are going to accomplish this way, as I doubt the target population is going to take them seriously - they might be "amused" at best, and violent (and not that there isn't an element of self-defense there sometimes!) at worst, so really, what's the point?

 

Being a Jew - albeit not a practicing one - I also don't begin to understand why would any religion want to multiply its membership at all costs. By "us", not only you have to come to "us" if you want to join (definitely not the other way round - proselytizing is forbidden), but saying that you'd like to join is also not enough. As in, you actually have to learn some things (and that may take a while...), live that way for a little ("a little" = in any serious Orthodox community at the very least a year), the community makes several attempts to talk you out of it and at the end of the process, you face three rabbis whose purpose is also to try to tell you that you don't need any of that anyway and who try to talk you out of it, and THEN, IF you have been persistent enough, you get to convert.

Now, THAT is a way that might not ensure the quantity, but it certainly ensures the quality - we accept into the tribe (:D) only those who REALLY want it and who REALLY confirm, practically, and repeatedly, that they want it so much that they're willing to wait for so long, and face with being turned down a few times.

 

I never got why some religions and sects seem to care so much about the quantity, and so little about the quality of their would-be members. It might be one of those things in which I, as an eternal Jew (albeit an atheist :D) will never understand about the non-Jewish world, but it totally escapes me why would anyone proselytize. We were raised to consider it almost inherently impolite, in addition to it being counter-productive (because those that truly want to convert will come to you first anyway).

 

I don't like people shoving their beliefs down my throat, basically. If they ask kindly (and NOT if they see me walking down the street in a HURRY, or if I'm with obviously underage children, or if the situation is in any other way "inconvenient") and retreat after my no, I have no issues with them.

 

Only my .02.