I just read the article: Christian group barred from sidewalk handouts at Arab festival at OneNewsNever.
A christian group in Michigan is crying persecution because the city of Dearborn won't let them hand out pamphlets at a muslim festival.
Claims such as this attract my attention because I feel that anybody has a right to hand out leaflets or speak at public events. It's part of our freedom of speech. As I read the article, I realized that they are not being told they can't hand out literature. They're being told that if they want to hand out propaganda, they'll have to do it by the rules. They were offered a place to set up a booth and table, but they refused and insist that they be allowed to hand out literature on the sidewalks.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy that they're being persecuted. They're calling foul because they don't want to play by the rules.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Christians love to cry persecution.
No one does it better, rules, law,
common decency do not equate to fairness when their dogma is being pushed. Censureship, intimination, lieing, hate profiling are just a few of their tools of warfare. They do not want a table inside like everyone else, not when you can be out on the sidewalks and create a disturbance, confront people and hopefully create a media circus. Domination, theocracy is their only goal.
ibex
"City officials say anyone is free to have conversations — but not leaflet — on sidewalks within the festival's barricades.
...
This is a case where your right, my right and anybody's right to walk down the street and express their views is being disrupted by a police action."
Expressing views and handing out tracts are two different things, IMO.
Honestly, I really don't see a problem with them handing out tracts on the sidewalk. However, it sounds to me that they were given a good deal and refused to play by the rules.
I was there, one of the people handing out leaflets. The police knew we were obeying the rules and THANKED us. We obeyed the rules but saw MANY other groups handing out literature without impunity. So some in our group decided to do the same. Their were "Security" personal other than the pollice. I can only & honestly describe them as street thugs. One had "Hezballah" tatooed on his forearm. They singled out Christians trying to start fights. Even when just talking they harrassed us & strongarmed a few, then went to the police. Trust me, this is a foretatse of what will happen when Islam gains power in the USA. They disregad free speech and all constitutional ammendments. Do not be blind and please do not assist these jihadists by mocking what is true.
Really, unless you were there in Dearborn, as I was, you could not publish this article of yours.
Abu Nuah
"Really, unless you were there in Dearborn, as I was, you could not publish this article of yours."
True, I don't know all the circumstances. However, it's the persecution complex that I was writing about. Just because you can't hand out pamphlets doesn't mean that you're being persecuted.
More than likely, the city officials just don't want any trouble. You get the two most heavy prosyletizing religions together, there's bound to be trouble.
"Do not be blind and please do not assist these jihadists by mocking what is true."
Assisting jihadists is certainly not my goal. I'm not singling out christians, either. Both Islam and Christianity are false religions, in my opinion, because there is no true religions.
To be honest with you though, I don't care if you hand out leaflets or not. Knock yourself out.
"Trust me, this is a foretatse of what will happen when Islam gains power in the USA. They disregad free speech and all constitutional ammendments."
Actually, it would be a "foretaste" of what would happen were any fundamentalist group to gain enough power, including Xians.
Couldn't agree more, GCT!
GCT: What exactly would constitute "enough power?" And if gaining this power is so important then who should be entrusted with it? Only those who are anti-fundamentalists? Are they not also human and thus capable of committing mistakes?
Mr. Robert Madewell: " However, it's the persecution complex that I was writing about. Just because you can't hand out pamphlets doesn't mean that you're being persecuted."
I agree that there are individuals who like to think of themselves as Christians and they enjoy being in the spotlight and making a big fuss about... everything really. So I understand what you mean by being fed-up with persecution complexes.
But people who practice true Christianity, not the cheap, plastic kind you find on TV, prefer to not create undue attention. What would be the point?
There is a lot of confusion these days about what a Christian really is. Should one go to one of those mega churches to get the right perspective? Should one believe what the media says or what the movies portray? What is true Christianity? I tell you the truth when I say, if you ever meet one... you will never forget because every real Christian I have met is too busy helping people and actually living what they believe.
Sincerity,
"GCT: What exactly would constitute "enough power?""
The ability to outlaw free speech or enshrine their religion as the state religion both come to mind.
"And if gaining this power is so important then who should be entrusted with it?"
No one should be granted power to intrude on the freedom of others in this manner.
"Only those who are anti-fundamentalists? Are they not also human and thus capable of committing mistakes?"
No one is saying this.
"But people who practice true Christianity, not the cheap, plastic kind you find on TV, prefer to not create undue attention."
No True Scotsman fallacy alert.
"There is a lot of confusion these days about what a Christian really is."
Apparently you are confused about it too.
"I tell you the truth when I say, if you ever meet one... you will never forget because every real Christian I have met is too busy helping people and actually living what they believe."
Painting bulls-eyes around the target, counting the hits and ignoring the misses, and no-true scotsman fallacies all wrapped into one.
true Christianity
Oh, give me a break. I'm so tired of hearing this logical fallacy (ad-hoc redefinition, also known as "No True Scotsman"). Oh, TRUE Christianity. I see.
There is a lot of confusion these days about what a Christian really is.
There is no confusion here, whether you agree with it or not. Someone is a christian if they believe in the teachings of jesus (as seen in the gospels) and that he died to absolve humanity of its sins.
Evangelicals, Mormons, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Eastern Orthodox, and many, many others are christians. There is no confusion and there is no one "true" denomination.
Don't redefine a pre-existing term just for when "unsavory" types identify themselves by it. That is a logical fallacy, and a self-sealing argument, an argument that cannot be refuted -- and just because an argument can't be refuted doesn't make it true. It makes it somewhat dishonest.
Ah, GCT ya bugger. You beat me to it!
"But people who practice true Christianity, not the cheap, plastic kind you find on TV, prefer to not create undue attention. What would be the point?"
When I was growing up, I was told that our particular brand of Christianity was the true Christianity.
Later, I went to a pentacostal church and guess what they said. Yep, True Christians™.
Then even later, I went to an SDA church. Would you believe it? I know! True Christians™! Imagine my suprise.
I also let a few Jehovah's Witness do thier bible study with me. Guess what they said? You get three guesses and the first two don't count.
Seems that everyone these days are self-proclaimed True Christians™.
"I tell you the truth when I say, if you ever meet one... you will never forget because every real Christian I have met is too busy helping people and actually living what they believe."
I have actually met a lot of people who (like you describe) are too busy helping people and living what they believe. Some are christian, but not all. There's a few atheists in there too. Here's a great place to meet some of them.
See, you don't have to be a dogmatic theist to believe in doing good.
"Ah, GCT ya bugger. You beat me to it!"
What can I say? I type fast.
Who says a "true Christian" has to go to a particular church building? The Bible speaks of those who cry "Lord, Lord, didn't we?" What does He say? "Away from me I never knew you."
Mormons, Catholics, 7th Day Adventists are not Christians. They are the "good people" you are talking about. How much good must one do to be "good?" Can you define that for me and by what authority you define it?
When your in the spotlight, persecution comes.
Don't matter even if you have a religion.
I want you to know Robert, Athiesm is a religion. Perhaps a religion of rationality and scientific skepticism. But your beliefs come from rational thinking.
Which honestly we do need more rational thinking in this world.
"I want you to know Robert, Athiesm is a religion."
And I suppose that bald is a hair color and not collecting stamps is a hobby? Please.
And I suppose that bald is a hair color and not collecting stamps is a hobby? Please.
Just reposting the same thing again? Come on man. Be original
"Just reposting the same thing again? Come on man. Be original"
It's my stock answer to the very unoriginal claim that atheism is just another religion. When theists start using original arguments I won't be able to simply use the same responses. Until then, I see no reason to continue to come up with new rebuttals to old stuff that's already been rebutted. So, if you want to complain about old stuff being recycled, why don't you complain to your theist friends about their lame assertion that atheism is a religion?
"Mormons, Catholics, 7th Day Adventists are not Christians."
How do you know that one of them aren't the True Christians™? How do you know that you haven't been deceived? Because you read The Bible? Well, all three of the above read The Bible and they've come to different conclusions than you. So, how do you know they're not right and you are?
"How much good must one do to be "good?"
Well, people are not "black and white." Sometimes we are good (when we are doing good) and sometimes we are bad (when we are not). I try to be good most of the time, because I am most comfortable and happy when I am doing good.
"Can you define that for me and by what authority you define it?"
Nope. Because I don't consider any holy book authorative. Good is good, I think I do pretty well deciding what is good on my own. I do make mistakes, but that's all they are. Only mistakes. I don't have to feel like I'm going to burn forever because I screwed up a little.
Also, society has some authority over what's good or not. Not harming others is a good start.
I'm an atheist and I'm annoyed that the Christians were blocked like this. If they are allowed to be shoved into some booth somewhere, then so are we.
Anyone should be able to hand out any kind of leaflet on any public sidewalk, be it Christains, Muslims, atheists, or even the KKK. Just because some authoritative bureaucrat made up some stupid rules doesn't mean we should give up our rights and follow them. It's a slippery slope.
"Free speech" zones are a danger to free speech itself.
Post a Comment