One Way to Respond to Street Preachers: Preach Right Back at Them

OK, I’m a Christian and found that pretty entertaining.

But let me say that where did the whole free speech go? I mean, I wouldn’t mind if you preached an ‘atheist gospel’ on the street. As long as I was allowed to preach my gospel too. (Not that I do street preaching by the way). 

http://deanroberts.net

Was that preacher saying anything the passers by hadn’t heard a thousand times before? He’s just polluting the environment with his noise purely for his own sense of self aggrandisement.

Free speech – in a legal rather than a more general or moral sense – means that the government doesn’t arrest you simply for having a particular opinion. They can still limit the way you make that opinion known if it infringes on other people’s rights – as long as they don’t shut you down entirely. Free speech also doesn’t mean immunity from criticism or counter protests

And I agree with that, but this is just making a mountain out of a molehill. There’s no point in stopping people from preaching. I never would. Because I think that in a free country you should be allowed to openly have an audience and share your views. Just because you don’t like what this guy is preaching, it doesn’t mean he should be limited or stopped.

Because I can only assume, but if you listened to an atheist evangelist on the street, I bet you’d all love it. I mean, I can’t say that for definite, but I bet you’d have less qualms about it than someone of a different faith, religion or belief. So I think we all need to calm down about the whole thing, really.

http://deanroberts.net

You can preach in your church and at closed events your church holds. If your message is so great, people will come. Or more likely, you have nothing to say that people don’t already know

You can’t just go out on the street and harass random people. These two were especially obnoxious because they used a sound system. In some places there are laws against that kind of stuff. Or people are required to get a permit. When I’m just walking around, I don’t like being approached by people selling stuff or speaking for political causes either.
But as usual religious people want to be exempt from following the law.

A solution to balance people’s rights are free speech corners. Again, it’s perfectly permissible to limit the place and time where people can speak publicly.

Hoverfrog, I have to agree, even being a Christian 🙂

I do love to watch heckling. Though even that produces very little fruit on both sides.

http://deanroberts.net

This video is funny to me because everyone in that video is being a total dick.

It’s less funny to me when we get a Christian in the comments here who has a sense of humour and can hold an intelligent conversation and people are still being dicks.

My thing is this- I have no beef with anyone shilling anything on the sidewalks. I don’t care if you’re selling Jesus, atheism, or a George Foreman grill. But if your product is lacking or your sales pitch is weak, expect to be called out by someone.

That being said, I think there’s a difference between a street preacher and someone like Westboro Baptist who DEMANDS counter-protest.

I don’t think any meaningful dialogue happens when two people use PAs to shout at each other, and if atheists want to be included and accepted in society it behooves us not to stoop to the level of those whose actions we object to.

I find it interesting that people like this just keep on talking away, even when there’s no way anyone’s going to hear what they’re saying. It’s almost like the act of preaching is more important than the message itself…

Well I enjoyed that.

I found the guy without a microphone even more annoying than the one that did. The kind of preacher that doesn’t even care if he can’t be heard. He was trying to talk over Mike who was using a bullhorn? Seriously? I’ve met one of those kinds of preachers on Xbox Live of all places. Wouldn’t shut up for even a second. Wouldn’t let anyone else’s opinion be heard. If anything, that just proves how afraid they truly are of other opinions. Good for mike for pulling out a bullhorn in that guy’s face. Absolutely deserved.

Free speech means just that, free speech. I don’t believe in censorship, even when I’m hearing something that I don’t like.  To stop anyone from their right to spout whatever stupid nonsense they like is wrong, whether it’s a fundie religious preacher or a militant atheist or anything in between. 

It should be up to the local authorities to specify what can be used in the way of amplification, where speeches etc. can be made and all parties should be required to comply with any regulations specified. 

@twitter-24143444:disqus ;
You are studying theology at Uni. Have you been given a special task for your course or are you practising for when you qualify? I ask because I’ve never seen you on any blogs before yet today you appear to be everywhere, it’s scary!!! -lol-

No, he wasn’t. He was simply pointing out the obvious to two very delusional people.

I have to say I’m not entirely comfortable with what he did.  He basically bullied them into silence, which is less cool than them standing there preaching.  Yeah, the dude preaching with his little PA was annoying, and I wouldn’t have mind if Mike stood near them with his bullhorn and disagreed with them, or simply read from his book, but he didn’t do those things.  He got in their faces and was rude and belligerent  until they left–which was apparently his goal.   He claimed to speak for everyone there, even, which is extremely unlikely.  I’m sure most of the shoppers didn’t care one way or the other, and there were probably people who approved of the preacher.

Bit of an unnecessary jab, don’t you think?

They didn’t really “approach” or “harass” anybody. They just stood there and said what they wanted to say, and anyone that wanted to stood there and listened. It’s not like they impeded people of the option to keep walking. I disagree with what they have to say, and in all likelihood if I had the time I would stay for a while to voice my disagreement, but the way this guy handled it was dickish.

Also, nobody seemed to be in favor of free speech corners when they were installed at the Republican National Convention or on government property. When you move the places where it’s legal to practice free speech to small corners with little to no foot traffic, it has more or less the same effect as barring it.

Dean Roberts hasn’t exactly been very cordial in previous discussions. The tone is friendly, but he’s rather obtuse when simple things are explained to him. He says he wants to learn things, but doesn’t act like it

Amplified preaching in a public place is just rude.   It’s not like anything they’re saying is news.  Every media outlet and the internet is saturated with Christianity; it’s not like someone is going to walk by and say “Oh, gosh, I never heard that Jesus died for me!”  The preachers think they’re going to get brownie points in heaven for intruding into the lives of others, and yet they’ll tell you that non-Christians in some far-flung undeveloped corner of the world are damned because, theoretically, they are able to find out about Jesus, but didn’t convert.

Thanks for that link. I just watched the talk and think Plait is absolutely right.

There was someone at the college I went too who would stand with his little microphone and preach at folks walking by.  One of the guys in the electronics department made a little doodad, and whenever the preacher would start up, horrible feedback came through his microphone setup.

Frankly, I think street corners should come equipped with such doodads.

You have a right to speak.  You do not have a right to be provided with either forum or audience.

I have to say you’re wrong. He was coherent and logical if a bit over the top. 

“Otherwise they are infringing on my right to be at peace and away from messages of intolerance.”

That’s not really a right. As atheists are fond of saying, you don’t have a right to not be offended.

Now, is whoever owned the storefront this guy was yelling from decided that he didn’t want him there, it IS their right to make him leave.

Ah, so the way to combat someone acting like an asshole is to pre-emptively act like an asshole. It’s the Bush Doctrine of Assholishness.

As for the flaming, you’re right that nobody explicitly flamed him, but someone replied “You keep saying you’re a Christian. I hope you realize that doesn’t give your message any credibility.” It’s, at the least, not exactly respectful or friendly dialogue. The fact that a comment like that has 10 likes bothers me even more.

I wonder, is it possible to challenge the religious without having a bunch of people go “You’re a dick! What about free speech? You’re a dick” over and over?

The point of it wasn’t about limiting free speech, it was about showing the preachers a small sliver of how they make other people feel. 

The hope would then be that they would think of the advice:

“Treat people as they would wish to be treated.”

(Or, if you prefer, the similar piece of advice that Jesus was reputed to have given later – the ‘golden rule’. (Although I’m not keen on that, because what if  a person is a masochist?))

And if those preachers had then gained some insight from that exercise in empathy, then the world would maybe be a slightly better place! 😉

I didn’t say he was stopping anyone from preaching. 

As you say, they could have stayed and argued their point, that’s their right. All I’m doing is making a case that everyone should have the right to free speech and that the local authorities should be the only ones with the power to regulate what amplification should be allowed. 

That means that anyone, even those coming out with nonsense, as most religious preachers do, even if it is offensive, have the right to have their say (how many times have we atheists said to the religious, ” you do not have the right NOT to be offended “). 

The other point is that, whatever regulations are in place, they apply to all, no special privileges just for religion. One law for all is my motto, even though it means that I sometimes have to hear crap. 

He got in their faces and was rude and belligerent  until they left(…)

Actually, that’s completely false. At the end of the video he says (well, types) that one of them left, the other didn’t, but neither haven’t been back there since.

His self appointed task was to show them how they came across to other people for about a minute, and then leave (whether they stayed or not).

Ah, Mike Lee. You’ve completely won me over since the library video.

Well done!

“It’s the Bush Doctrine of Assholishness.”

Except for the fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait first and we were still in a state of war with him, a ceasefire, the terms of which he kept violating.   … or in the case of Afghanistan where the Taliban was harboring a terrorist that had attacked us.

What would you call Obama’s doctrine on Libya.  He didn’t even bother going to the UN or Congress before dropping bombs there.

Perhaps you should start calling it the …ClintonBushObama doctrine because they pretty much all do what you are finding offensive.  

This is not a matter of offense. By using an amplifier, he is extending the reach of his words to the houses and stores nearby, who may not choose to want to listen to what he’s selling, be it Jesus or Amway. he has gone beyond expressing a point of view to becoming a nuisance.

Yep. I am pretty sure that it is called “Disturbing the Peace”. 

This was obnoxious and does nothing to help attack the things the Christian was preaching. Anyone with sense should be able to realize the garbage he’s saying by simply letting his own argument try and stand up to informed criticism; quoting Dawkins only adds fuel to the  absurd Christian apologetic attacks on atheism.

Quoting Dawkins wasn’t a criticism of on the grounds of substance, either. Essentially, if you’re going to argue with an idiot using the same tactics as the idiot, there is no winner to anyone watching from the outside. It is a matter of being able to provide cogent, well-reasoned criticism without appealing to similar arguments.

Rather than open the book and read out the first line, a dialogue with the Christian would have been more effective at rooting out how weak his case is. Unless, of course, you see vigilantes getting into shouting matches with street preachers is something you consider relevant to the open criticism of religious claims.

Meh, fair enough, but if there’s not a law against it where he is he’s not really doing anything wrong, either.

Demonstrating the problems of a technique by copying it is a good way to highlight the problems with it. I think the point was well made that Mike knew the tactics he was using are obnoxious and that was the point of copying them, to show them.

As for engaging the preachers in debate, that is a lost effort. There is a time and a place for religious debate and discussing with a guy with an amplifier on the street is not it.

He may not be doing anything illegal, whether it was wrong may be debatable.
I can’t think of any valid justification of the preacher’s actions that doesn’t also allow for Mike Lee’s response, which is, all other things equal, most justified as it is a response to a provocation.

That said, while I support this video being made, I don’t think such a bombastic approach is beneficial as a standard response. The point was made, no need to hammer it home.

It’s a shame that you don’t value common courtesy.

I value common courtesy, but I don’t accept it being used as a hammer to squash dissent, which is often the case in discussions of gods. Often it is enough to suggest that atheists are capable of living happy, moral lives without god belief to be branded offensive. I find that absurd. In this context, Plait making his speech so vague without actually citing what he was talking about is not helpful.

Well, I agree that sometimes people take offense to simple statements, and that when that happens you’re not “being a dick.” But I don’t agree that Plait was all that vague. He makes it pretty clear that he’s talking about shouting people down, or calling them stupid for their beliefs, or insinuating that only an idiot would believe the things they do rather than engaging in a calm discussion with them. I honestly don’t see where so many of you are getting this idea that it was a vague speech – I thought it was pretty clear, myself.

No – you don’t get the point of the video then. Stop making crap up, and thus acting like a dick. (Although if your ‘dickish’ behaviour is intentional, then I’ll give you props for the intentional irony, even if you are still on the wrong side of the argument.)

The point of the video was that doing what the preachers were doing:

– telling people that they are sinners/going to hell/immoral/generally just being offensive/etc. etc. hooked up to a sound system so that they can’t be ignored –

is not very nice. RA went up and spoke to them telling them this, and asking if they would stop – but they didn’t want to hear it. He then – for only about a minute, mind – gave them a taste of how it feels to be on the other side. He then stopped, and left, point made.

You see how literally nothing you said fits in to what actually happened?

Because I can only assume, but if you listened to an atheist evangelist on the street, I bet you’d all love it. 

Proof that you’re a dishonest theist (but then, I repeat myself).

You are massively projecting your stupidity and delusions on us.

You know what I, an atheist, want when I’m in public? To be able to get to and from where I’m going in peace and quiet. To be able to go about my business without some lunatic shouting–about anything, or handing me crap that’s a waste of paper and ink.

So, no, you have no idea at all what an atheist would want or expect.

Congratulations on being the typical smug, arrogant, hateful Christard.

Cool story, bro.

Still wanting to act like a dick, I see. That’s fine, it doesn’t bother me.

If you still disagree with what I said, then please tell me, though – I like being corrected. If you can’t do that, at least be decent enough to admit it. 

And if you truly meant the phrase to signify that you couldn’t be bothered to read a reply to something you wrote, then just remember how hypocritical you are whenever you call someone a dick and try to post that ‘don’t be a dick’ talk.

Hmm… Wonder what the cost-per-component would be.

If someone could whip these up on the cheap we could probably sell them online.

Sorry, but I don’t agree with this at all. Had he stood across the road reading TGD until they came over and complained about how oppressed they are then it would have been fine. Simply saying “I don’t agree with you and so I’m going to shout you down” smacks of intolerance, which is apparently what he’s trying to defeat. Total atheist fail.

Right idea, wrong execution. This guy does NOT speak on my behalf.

OK, fine. We’ll agree to disagree. Are you happy now?

I’m not saying that I don’t care about what you have to say. I’m saying that I don’t particularly care about this specific conversation. If you feel I’ve been a dick, I apologize. You probably have lots of things to say on other topics that would interest me. This isn’t one of them.

There. Are we done now?

you pair of dicks

Im from the UK.

I did a similar thing with a street peacher while on a
visit to LA. An hour long back and forth in front of a big crowd. Was
fun, we just don’t get the same caliber over crazy over here!,

It really
felt like it was worthwhile. Some of the crowd clearly had not been
exposed to the counter points I made.  I don’t get why more people don’t challenge these guys on the street?

I have no idea what anyone is trying to say at this level of indentation.