Street preachers arrested (disturbing video)

[radhead]

...Imagine they conducted themselves the way the folks in the video did. Would you find similar treatment of them disturbing?

You don't even know how they conducted themselves before they were arrested. To me it looks like were holding signs.

 

[radhead]

Hrm. Maybe I should have asked this first..

Do you think the law should apply equally to everyone?

You are making a biased assumption that they were not being peaceful before the clip started. To me it appears that they were in fact peaceful.

 

[radhead]

Look at it this way: If Muslims had been there carrying signs proclaiming their faith, no one would have cared. But with Christianity it is *always* different. There is truth in the proclamations, and everyone knows it deep inside, whether they admit it or not. The truth is what bothers them. That's why they treat Christians differently.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

You don't even know how they conducted themselves before they were arrested. To me it looks like were holding signs.

I saw no arrest in the video. I saw a guy getting his hands put behind his back. Like I said earlier--this could have been a temporary detainment just as easily as an arrest. Detaining a person temporarily until the situation is settled is fairly common, and prolonged refusal of an officer's instructions is an easy way to make that happen.

The behavior I'm talking about is coming onto private property, shouting at people in line ("no megaphone--no megaphone"), and extended refusal to comply to police requests to go to a public space. The officer had to put his hands on the men's backs to guide them out of the gate because they seemed to prefer arguing to compliance. That is just what is on the video itself. It is quite possible they didn't know it was private property before the event, though--that's fine, but they still should have left when asked.

If atheists protested in your church parking lot (private property) and the police got involved to have them removed, the protesters fussed with the officers, the officer had to place his hands on the backs of the protesters to direct them to a public space because they preferred to stand and argue, and you caught an atheist being asked to put his hands behind is back, would you be saying the treatment of said atheist is disturbing?

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

You are making a biased assumption that they were not being peaceful before the clip started. To me it appears that they were in fact peaceful.

I did not. I dealt only with the facts made clear in video.

 

[radhead]

I saw no arrest in the video. I saw a guy getting his hands put behind his back. Like I said earlier--this could have been a temporary detainment just as easily as an arrest. Detaining a person temporarily until the situation is settled is fairly common, and prolonged refusal of an officer's instructions is an easy way to make that happen.

The behavior I'm talking about is coming onto private property, shouting at people in line ("no megaphone--no megaphone"), and extended refusal to comply to police requests to go to a public space. The officer had to put his hands on the men's backs to guide them out of the gate because they seemed to prefer arguing to compliance. That is just what is on the video itself. It is quite possible they didn't know it was private property before the event, though--that's fine, but they still should have left when asked.

If atheists protested in your church parking lot (private property) and the police got involved to have them removed, the protesters fussed with the officers, the officer had to place his hands on the backs of the protesters to direct them to a public space because they preferred to stand and argue, and you caught an atheist being asked to put his hands behind is back, would you be saying the treatment of said atheist is disturbing?

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. But I still don't think you can apply it to a different hypothetical situation. These guys in the clip are trying to spread the gospel (message of truth) to people they were concerned about. Even if they are young and immature in their methods, they are still doing a good thing. Plus, I think there is some question as to some of the legalities of the event.

 

[Isambard]

YouTube - Deputy Calls Christian Protester A "Gay Homosexual" And Says That He Doesn't Believe In God!

What a bunch of annoying douchebags.

Being Christians doesn't make you immune to the law.

 

[ProAntiRevolution]

Private property is private property, and YES it is ILLEGAL to protest on private property without the consent of the owner of that property. It's also illegal to protest disruptively; you cannot block an entrance to private property or disrupt the rights of others to enjoy a public space.
I'm all for free speech, and if these guys wanted to get on the public side walk and protest then have after it. As long as they aren't on private property, or impeding a concert goers ability to get to the venue, they're within their rights. The often quoted principal: your right to swing your fist in the air stops at the other person's nose.

Though I think the root of this thinking lies in the fact that a subset of Ev.Prot's desperately want to believe we're living in the "end time." That really doesn't make sense if Christians aren't being persecuted on a level that would work within the descriptions provided by Revelation. Thus every little thing has to become some massive persecution to make that belief plausible to them.

Though in fairness I do think the Armenian genocide is an event that happened to Christians every bit on par with the holocaust. It's a shame that such a thing is a peripheral historical event in the west. However, that doesn't give a group of American fundamentalists a right to be @**hats to some concert goers.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

Look at it this way: If Muslims had been there carrying signs proclaiming their faith, no one would have cared. But with Christianity it is *always* different. There is truth in the proclamations, and everyone knows it deep inside, whether they admit it or not. The truth is what bothers them. That's why they treat Christians differently.

Wow. I once saw a guy at my local Wal-Mart muscle his way through a line because he wasn't going to stand next to an "Allah-loving terrorist towel head". You really think people would be welcoming of a Muslim display?

You really don't think comparable signs like "Prepare to meet Allah" would be met with opposition, especially if presented in a comparable manner? What planet are you on?

 

[explodingboy]

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. But I still don't think you can apply it to a different hypothetical situation. These guys in the clip are trying to spread the gospel (message of truth) to people they were concerned about. Even if they are young and immature in their methods, they are still doing a good thing. Plus, I think there is some question as to some of the legalities of the event.

and bingo, there we have the real answer.

Your the ones that is biased and think Christians can do no wrong.

Reality on the other hand doesn't see that as an excuse to break the law.

 

[ProAntiRevolution]

Let's look at how these guys could have conducted themselves:

First you have what they did: namely brought over the top signs about going to hell onto private property. When asked to leave repeatedly they refused, forcing the police to make them leave. No one took anything away from that other than "wow these people are freaking idiots."

Now imagine what would have happened if instead of idiotic signs and rude behavior they brought out a few hundred bottles of water and handed them out, maybe with a "Jesus loves you," to concert goers standing in the sun. The cops would never have been brought into it, even if they disagreed religiously no one would have thought them bad people, and who knows how many would have come away thinking about that little act of service.

Even if their intentions were good, and I sorta doubt that, their methods were decidedly not. How the message is delivered is as important as the message itself.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. But I still don't think you can apply it to a different hypothetical situation. These guys in the clip are trying to spread the gospel (message of truth) to people they were concerned about. Even if they are young and immature in their methods, they are still doing a good thing. Plus, I think there is some question as to some of the legalities of the event.

I'm not expressing an opinion. I described the video in factual terms. We are entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. If I was wrong in my facts, you can correct me on them. Should be easy enough.

My goal is asking you two questions in response to your own opinions on the matter:
1) Does the law not apply to everyone?
2) Would you find the same treatment of any non-pet group disturbing?

Does it make a difference if I change my hypothetical to include that the atheists genuinely believe they are correct (spreading the message of truth), care a lot about the people they witness to, are young and immature, but still doing a good thing?

 

[Rhye]

Though in fairness I do think the Armenian genocide is an event that happened to Christians every bit on par with the holocaust. It's a shame that such a thing is a peripheral historical event in the west. However, that doesn't give a group of American fundamentalists a right to be @**hats to some concert goers.

For simply political reasons. Nothing humane about it.

 

[Lostwords]

I'm slightly confused as to how police having to escort these people off of private property because they refused to leave qualifies as persicusion.


Either way, these people were genuinly showing the everlasting love of Christ. They were truly doing the Lord's work.

This is exactly what Jesus had in mind.

 

[kingoffools13]

lol that video is a joke. those guys were out of line and made it worse by fighting with the cops. Thank you for the bad name you give other people who have legit protests.

K
O
f

 

[radhead]

Now imagine what would have happened if instead of idiotic signs and rude behavior they brought out a few hundred bottles of water and handed them out, maybe with a "Jesus loves you," to concert goers standing in the sun. The cops would never have been brought into it, even if they disagreed religiously no one would have thought them bad people, and who knows how many would have come away thinking about that little act of service.

That message is no more valid than the ones they were promoting. Their message might actually get to people who have already heard that one.

Besides (directed at no one in particular), it's very easy to say that evangelists are annoying/wrong/etc. That's a good excuse for why we don't have to partake of the activity ourselves. We can sit at home and watch TV instead.

Wrong.

 

[radhead]

I'm not expressing an opinion. I described the video in factual terms. We are entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. If I was wrong in my facts, you can correct me on them. Should be easy enough.

My goal is asking you two questions in response to your own opinions on the matter:
1) Does the law not apply to everyone?
2) Would you find the same treatment of any non-pet group disturbing?

Does it make a difference if I change my hypothetical to include that the atheists genuinely believe they are correct (spreading the message of truth), care a lot about the people they witness to, are young and immature, but still doing a good thing?

I don't believe in hypothetical questions. When I was younger, I though they were valid, but I don't anymore. I need to see a real example to make a decision.

 

[radhead]

I'm slightly confused as to how police having to escort these people off of private property because they refused to leave qualifies as persicusion.

Either way, these people were genuinly showing the everlasting love of Christ. They were truly doing the Lord's work.

This is exactly what Jesus had in mind.

I agree. And it bothers me when a professed Christian can call them "annoying" or things like that.

 

[penNpaper]

Both parties were wrong to be honest.

Yes people have the "right to express their own opinions" but you got to follow the "law of the land" as well. If you been asked to leave and go to another area that isn't private property, shut up, and do it.

The cops were out of line in some respects...in taunting the "Believers" and so on...keep it professional it is your job to bring peace than more fire...

It is sad to see the video to be honest...

God Bless,
Drew

 

[Tamara224]

it's not kool-aid i'm drinking from. it's Father's Book. (aka: the bread of life)

Jesus is the Bread of Life, Trent, not the Bible. Please don't fall into the bibliolatry trap.

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. But I still don't think you can apply it to a different hypothetical situation. These guys in the clip are trying to spread the gospel (message of truth) to people they were concerned about. Even if they are young and immature in their methods, they are still doing a good thing. Plus, I think there is some question as to some of the legalities of the event.

Rad, I have to disagree with you here. Those people weren't preaching the Gospel. They were being self-righteous, antagonistic and unruly. They were not demonstrating the love of God, they were not demonstrating humility, they were not demonstrating peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness or self-control. In short, they were not acting like Christians. They gave us all a bad name by acting like that.

Frankly, I have no qualms about saying that I do not believe those men were motivated by the Spirit of God or by love, but by the Enemy and their own pride.

The very fact that they appeared to be "protesters" rather than evangelists is proof enough that they were in the wrong.

The Gospel is a stumbling block for some, a cause of offense. But the people in that line weren't offended by the Gospel, because they never heard the Gospel. They were offended by offensive, self-righteous and hypocritical behavior.


The one thing that really stuck out to me was when the bald officer was proclaiming that he was an unbeliever. What impression was left with him? What difference did he see in the people supposedly proclaiming the Good News and the criminals he deals with on a daily basis? And wouldn't it have been a much better demonstration to him for them to have peacefully submitted to his requests and then, perhaps, gotten to share a kind word with him and tell him Jesus loves him? All they did was confirm in that man's mind that Christians are wackos and troublemakers.