2006-09-13 04:16:55 · 36 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No. If you are going to stop one person from bullshitting people, you have to stop them all. No more politics, no more TV, no more chicks being nice to lame guys in bars.
It is free speech to preach to the masses. However, the use of the money they receive should be closely compared to how they claim that money will be used. It IS illegal to defraud someone.
2006-09-13 04:24:28 · answer #1 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My knee-jerk reaction was to say, "Oh my god, YES! Save me from those annoying preachy people!" But then I gave a thought to the fact that a law like this would violate the right of freedom of speech. I can't support that. So no, I would not want a law forbidding evangelism. I'll just keep turing the hose on those people!
2006-09-13 04:20:08 · answer #2 · answered by grisgris0905 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I hate evangelism. I wish it would go away. I'm tired of people who say the Bible is the word of God even though there is no evidence for divine inspiration (and much evidence against it) telling me that I must belive in the Bible or go to hell.
That being said, I would not support such a law because it violates Freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I am a Deist and practice little to no "evangelism" (depending upon how you define the term) but do not think we should curb other's rights.
2006-09-13 04:34:05 · answer #3 · answered by Byron A 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it would violate the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
2006-09-13 04:19:46 · answer #4 · answered by Suzanne: YPA 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As much as I'd love to see evangelism disappear, I can't say I'd support that law with the US being the way it is.
2006-09-13 04:23:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
LOL at the 34 carnal yea and nay answers so far. For law is not the solution, rather law is the source of all problems, whether it be any sort of dis-ease or dis-comfort, any sort of divison or war, and especially if it's fear(hath torment) based on worry about a dead end followed by hell, the hell of endless law law going to and fro the earth to see who it may deceive and thereby devour, being accuser of the brethren: Jn 5:45, a ministration of condemnation: 2Cor 3:9 and a ministration of death: 2Cor 3:7. In short "law worketh wrath", which God hath NOT appt'd us unto, is destructive, not constructive.
Bible says "forbid(law) them not": Mt 19:14; Mk 10:14; Lk 18:16; being both "allegory" and "mystery" as flat out told therein. As for plural "scritpures", we are also flat out told they are about "contrary" things, spiritual things to compare not mix, contrary spirits to try(test) not believe. And when it comes to what is inspired of God, it's not plural and contrary scriptures, but the singular script-u-are of twain is an oxyMORON with a BAD ending, like such highmindead and doublemindead grace + law ends as badly as life + death; For law imputed sin, when "it is finished", brings forth "death", not life: James 1:15.
Bible says "we are delivered from the law"(Rom 7:6), in response to Our Father, "deliver us from evil"(Mt 6:13), the "evil concupiscence" of law imputed sin consciousness which more law can never purge the consicience of; Because law is both the source of sin (Rom 4:15; 5:13) and the strength of sin's death sting (1Cor 15:56) to all if any go there (Col 2: 20-22), to such law law where it's "law worketh wrath"(which God hath not appt'd us unto) whether left or right of such a blame game that inducts all players (both scape-goats & dumb-sheep) into a hall of shame. Hence the higher exhoration is "from such ("unholy" highmindeadness) turn away": 2Tim 3, and let what's "ready to vanish"(law): Heb 8:13, "vanish" as prophetically written it "shall vanish": 1Cor 13:8. Then it's poof goes the dragon(law).
Truth is always open to scrutiny, but never open to mutiny.
Evangelist: "make full proof of thy ministry": 2Timothy 4:5
The "grace" of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.
2006-09-13 13:35:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I would support a law requiring only individuals being allowed to lobby the government, and a law taxing all religious organizations. In that law would be luxury taxes on evangelism.
That's a much better way to handle it.
2006-09-13 04:19:10 · answer #7 · answered by nora22000 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
that is fairly incredible which you propose we examine this paper out, on condition that it highlights Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons as examples! It says that a cult "valuable properties popularity in accordance with 2 factors: lively very own ministry or extremism. case in point, a cult that announces decrease than fifty contributors can not gain a huge group, except they start by ability of achieving out to their community, or commit fairly enthusiast deeds (Martin, 1997). ...Likewise, the Jehovah's Witnesses cult is infamous for the two characteristics. Jehovah's Witnesses boast an lively door-to-door ministry, and attain some tens of millions of homes each year in individual, by ability of telephone, or by ability of forsaking pamphlets at lodges and public centers (Martin, p. ninety 3-ninety six). besides to this, many are conscious of their extremist perspectives against blood transfusion (whether it ability the loss of life of the affected person) and against such practices as status for a countrywide anthem or saluting a flag (Martin, p.124-a hundred twenty five). ...greater advantageous, greater standard cults have considered a pointy boost in adherents. Jehovah's Witnesses have considered an boost in adherents over the final 2 many years..." (nevertheless it fails to function that merely approximately as many contributors are lost to the JWs each and each year as are recruited!) The denomination i'm in is lively in sharing the gospel (which isn't the comparable as 'recruiting'), nevertheless club is fairly static. almost all contributors freely use a great form of evangelistic outreach strategies yet we don't "sheep scouse borrow". the only 'extremism' we could be accused of is proscribing our worship songs to Psalms, and not making use of instrumental accompanyment! that's orthodoxly Christian. We understand from the Bible (a million John chap 2) that cults that for the period of good shape the invoice of antichrists upward push up from interior of orthodox Christianity. formerly each and everything those adult males seem to be Christians, associating with the Church (physique) of Christ, yet they herald detrimental heresies and at last circulate away. In each and every century, the Church has had to do non secular conflict with a huge determination of heresies, right down to the cutting-edge century. You do understand, do not you, that JWs perpetuate the heresy of Arius of the 4th century? you in addition to might understand that the JW founder, Charles Russell, initially belonged to orthodox Christianity, extra in 'sparkling' concepts, and at last denied orthodox coaching to alter into self sustaining from? What does this say to you?
2016-10-14 23:13:24 · answer #8 · answered by mctaggart 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. As a Humanist who supports freedom of religion and freedom of speech/press, I would fight against such a law. Let's keep the marketplace of ideas open and trust people to make up their own minds.
2006-09-13 04:18:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
To support such a law would be spitting on the life and blood of the men and women who died to give us that freedom.
2006-09-13 05:12:39 · answer #10 · answered by James C 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋