Toronto neighbourhood confronts religious harrassment

Timebandit wrote:

I think that, in a legal sense, you can't force them to leave because they are on public property - however, there are usually bylaws about noise and general disturbance.  Perhaps those could be put to use?

Really? The courts are always issuing injunctions against protestors from other community organizations to prevent them from inconveniencing the general public -- for example, picket lines.

Cueball wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

I think that, in a legal sense, you can't force them to leave because they are on public property - however, there are usually bylaws about noise and general disturbance.  Perhaps those could be put to use?

Really? The courts are always issuing injunctions against protestors from other community organizations to prevent them from inconveniencing the general public -- for example, picket lines.

I'm sure they do on occasion.  However, I've participated in a picket line on public property over a period of several weeks and we were not prevented from doing so.  But this is off topic - I was thinking about what recourse the people who live on that street might have.

rent a PA from the local music store and blast heavy metal at them till either they leave or the cops show up.

milo204 wrote:

rent a PA from the local music store and blast heavy metal at them till either they leave or the cops show up.

They're churchies, not Manuel Noriega.

Finally... I found some background on what the heck is going on with this story. It took quite a while going through the comments on the posted video, but I did find this linked story from something called 680News. It would have been useful had the individual who originally posted the video on youtube to have put in some sort of explanation in their originating comments - instead all they wrote was this:

Quote:

This is a group from a church at the end of my street. Apparently they have been grouping in front of a couple's house and reading their bible loudly for the past 7 years. They may have also driven another couple from the area as well by doing the same thing. Tonight most of our neighbours came out and were successful in getting them to leave. The people who go to that church don't even live in our area! Police came by shortly thereafter.

Further down in the comments, someone claiming to be the homeowner observed:

Quote:

We appreciate the action of our neighbours .THX. Although we were not present at the time we feel the need to clear up a possible misunderstanding. We have lived on the street for 13 years. Though we don't align with the outdoor sermon it has never been directly targeted towards us. They have conducted these sermons on our street numerous years prior to us moving here. We just want to ensure the focus of this is public church sermons (not targeting a gay couple) .

While I am not suggesting that this is an inappropriate forum for this thread, I am beginning to think that the real issue here is one of religious groups confusing their actual rights with the arrogant assumption they have the prerogative to monopolize any and all public spaces at any time they choose... I am glad to see the people residing on the street challenge this assumption.

I think it is a worthwhile to discuss the limits of religious freedoms... especially in light of all the anecdotal evidence about how such groups think that their "religious" nature grants them license to act however they damn please, without going through the regulatory process that governs use of public space.

Are they "shouting bible verses up and down the street," Timebandit? I didn't get that impression from the limited information offered.

I suppose I wonder why this needed to be YouTubed at all, why it is lauded as heroic action, and why it was picked up on fb pages, twitter feeds and here on babble. Jehovahs Witnesses, who are generally white, usually earn the disdain of folk preferring to be left alone, but I haven't seen any YouTube videos mentioned in new thread topics around here. And I haven't heard of any neighbourhoods banding together and throwing them out (not that it doesn't happen, but it doesn't get circulated like this story did, all puffed up and, apparently, patently false).

ETA. Wow, I don't see why you need to get your back up about this, Timebandit.

Why not just exercise some more free speech.

Gather right beside them and loudly discuss the merits of fucking.  Fist fucking, ass fucking, toy fucking, fucking in the shower, fucking on the kitchen floor, fucking while watching television.  Men fucking men, women fucking women.  Men fucking women fucking men.  Just some good old fucking.

I'm betting they instantly understand the merits in having good boundaries.

edited to add:  I'd bet my next fuck that it would work just fine on white churchies too.

Did I call anyone racist? Where did you conjure up these spectres from?

Actually, it's not clear from the video or the information offered that these people have been doing this for "seven" years--he seems to say "seventy" years, to which a neighbour responds "well let's hope it's not seventy-one." Ha ha. Anyway, I can't tell what they are in fact doing, but I don't have a problem with a neighbourhood getting together and letting them know they are not welcome. I was questioning the presentation of this "story" as some sort of act of heroism on the part of the brook-no-nonsense neighbours who were "standing up" to, what, exactly? We don't know, but probably just some form of nuisance. Yet this act of banality circulates on liberal discussion boards and facebook pages as an example to activists everywhere. I simply think there's more at play than that. But perhaps I'm just ruining your fun.

ETA. It's really an extension of Cueball's point, which is that so-called "public" space is not public at all. Some spaces are more public than others.

I live across the street from this church and they are a pain in the neck.  I don't know if they target same sex couples but I know they're obnoxious.  I asked them not to post a sign right outside my front window and they insulted me about not caring about children because I objected to the biblical quotation on the sign. ( I can't remember which one it was now, but it was unfriendly.)  I support my neighbours asking these people to not harass us by preaching on the street.

Catchfire wrote:

ETA. Wow, I don't see why you need to get your back up about this, Timebandit.

Perhaps because, in point of fact, had I been in the shoes of the residents, I would have been more hesitant to approach this group for the very differences you point out for fear of the very implication you made - and I feel that the implication of racism and the derision you have for the residents is abundantly clear.

Quote:

 I asked them not to post a sign right outside my front window and they insulted me about not caring about children because I objected to the biblical quotation on the sign. ( I can't remember which one it was now, but it was unfriendly.) 

Was it "Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ ripvanwinkle

Force? Surely not.

But there is no reason why we don't have an equal right to get in their faces and let them know that they are not welcome.

I agree 100%. Quoting from my favourite babbler: "Of course, the neighbours have a right to stand next to the preachers and tell them that they aren't welcome . . . As Snert pointed out, the neighbours can even start their own preaching if they wish."

Timebandit wrote:

....and I feel that the implication of racism and the derision you have for the residents is abundantly clear.

There exists more than enough knowledge of 'not in my neighborhood' campaigns targeting the disenfranchised.  In this instance, there is no harm in asking why this particular action is occurring at this time, and nothing wrong that I can see at least in presenting opinions based on reasonable suspicion of well worn trends that may or may not arise whenever individuals, primarily from the dominant society, decide to cooperate in the interests of mutual protection.  But yes, sadly the questions still need to be asked.

while it's possible that race might have played into this, it's just as likely that it didn't.

my feeling is that if this was my street and a bunch of people decided they wanted to camp out there and sing and basically disturb the people who live there, they have every right to ask them to leave.  

noone is teling them they can't sing and whatever, but there are obviously better places to do that than a residential street.  try a public park, a church, a community hall, their own backyard.  

but as much as there is a history of persecuting minorities, there is a history of religious wackos ramming their fairy tales down everyone's throats in public displays of god worship.   

Do you have room for irony in your fortress of self-righteousness, Timebandit? Or is everything as simple as racist/not-racist, evangelical/atheist? If not, back to your regular scheduled program: Ha ha. Stupid fundamentalists. They got theirs.

You don't take his point at all. The issue raised very clearly by Catchfire had nothing to do with whether to act or not. It has to do with the *traction* this action has. This *counterpoint* is the red herring.

Catchfire wrote:

Do you have room for irony in your fortress of self-righteousness, Timebandit? Or is everything as simple as racist/not-racist, evangelical/atheist? If not, back to your regular scheduled program: Ha ha. Stupid fundamentalists. They got theirs.

Sorry?

You're baiting and putting words in my mouth.  Of course nothing is that simple, nor have I implied that it was.  But I think the self-righteousness here is more yours than mine.  You seem pretty unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt or to explain much about where your assumption that these people = "hipsters" or that their motivations are anything other than irritation at the nuisance of having the gospel shouted at them.

You don't have to be atheist for that sort of thing to grate - not that I suggested anyone was atheist or not.  Spectre of your own creation, perhaps?

I have two thoughts:

1. The posters in this thread, who are all on the same side of our struggle for justice and equality, should take a deep breath and apologize to each other.

2. Organized religion - [b]and I mean every fucking single one of them[/b] (whew, sorry for shouting) - gives its adherents the crackpot delusion that they have a right and duty to bother other people - ignore other people - humiliate other people - dehumanize other people - butcher and rape and slaughter other people. Those in the ascendancy of political power just sometimes act a little more polite than others.

And no, religion is not the origin of the problem. Oppression and exploitation of people by people is. But my goodness, the fucking evil vicious "gods" people invent certainly come in handy when it comes to perpetuating that oppression.

Thanks for providing me with a forum where I can vent and tell the Truth.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ writer

Please explain what you mean, 'cause I'm not sure I understand (the friendly part)

and don't presume to tell me what I think. (the slightly offended part)

Sorry, not meaning to offend. I'm just surprised. You indicate that you "take [his] point" — a point I feel Catchfire himself made very clearly. You then seem to indicate that his point (which you seem to have missed entirely) "in terms of whether to act or not, I think it is a red herring." Well, you've missed the main point. Catchfire's main point has nothing to do with whether to act or not, though it raises questions about the dynamics at play in the act.

I think it best to let Catchfire explain:

- [W]hy [did] this need.. to be YouTubed at all?

- [W]hy [is it] lauded as heroic action[?]

- [W]hy [was it] picked up on fb pages, twitter feeds and here on babble?

- Jehovahs Witnesses, who are generally white, usually earn the disdain of folk preferring to be left alone, but I haven't seen any YouTube videos mentioned in new thread topics around here.

- I haven't heard of any neighbourhoods banding together and throwing them out (not that it doesn't happen, but [b]it doesn't get circulated like this story did, all puffed up[/b] and, apparently, patently false).

... Again, what I see as his main point is that it is the *traction* of the action that Catchfire is flagging. Not the action itself. He writes:

I was questioning the presentation of this "story" as some sort of act of heroism on the part of the brook-no-nonsense neighbours who were "standing up" to, what, exactly? We don't know, but probably just some form of nuisance. Yet this act of banality circulates on liberal discussion boards and facebook pages as an example to activists everywhere. I simply think there's more at play than that.

He then writes, directly to you:

Did you videotape it, put it up on YouTube and distribute it to all your fb friends so they could admire your courage? Or did you just get on with your day?

Still though, I'd probably fall back on my tried and true method of resolving situations such as this, as outlined at post #10 above.  Of course, I'd have to consult with the neighbors beforehand.

Unionist wrote:

I have two thoughts:

1. The posters in this thread, who are all on the same side of our struggle for justice and equality, should take a deep breath and apologize to each other.

2. Organized religion - [b]and I mean every fucking single one of them[/b] (whew, sorry for shouting) - gives its adherents the crackpot delusion that they have a right and duty to bother other people - ignore other people - humiliate other people - dehumanize other people - butcher and rape and slaughter other people. Those in the ascendancy of political power just sometimes act a little more polite than others.

And no, religion is not the origin of the problem. Oppression and exploitation of people by people is. But my goodness, the fucking evil vicious "gods" people invent certainly come in handy when it comes to perpetuating that oppression.

Thanks for providing me with a forum where I can vent and tell the Truth.

 

Like non-religious people are not homophobic, never deride gay people, use the word "faggot" or "gay" as a pejorative in casual conversation, or engage in gay bashing or oppose same sex marriage. Fidel Castro once desfribed gayness as being a "bourgeois perversion". The reality is that people have a remarkable ability to find justifications for their prejudice and intollerance, even "sceince", so they can fulfill their desire to "humiliate other people - dehumanize other people - butcher and rape and slaughter other people".

Trying to pretend to yourself that this facility for justifying intollerance is peculiar to religious people is to delude yourself.

Really? Is that so? Indeed, I think that any openly gay person simply has to go to public school to be regularly derided by his peers regardless of their religious belief, on a daily basis. They merely have to sit in a coffee shop, and hear the term "faggot" and "gay" used in the pejorative negative on a regular basis.

I find, one of the most interesting things about being a white straight male, is how often all kinds of people will openly confess their bigotry against non-white, non-straight people.

I agree 100 percent with unionist. I abhor religion of all kinds.