English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

For example house calling, preaching on the streets, distribution of flyers/leaflets ext. If people wish to follow religion then its up to them but why should people who are not interested constantly get harrassed. This cut drastically cut that down.

2006-09-25 06:34:30 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

12 answers

I understand what you mean, but we can't just infringe on peoples rights to go where they please, simply because it bothers us. As a Witch, I am usually a prime target if they notice the pentacle, and it does get on my nerves, but I am usually polite and say no thank you.

2006-09-25 06:51:15 · answer #1 · answered by Seph7 4 · 3 1

Ideally, I'd say yes, but it could never be put into law, for it would be unconstitutional. It would be restricting freedom of religion, and the free exercise thereof, as Christians are told to "promote the Good News." No religion should be superior, or inferior, to any other; we are a secular nation, with the freedom to believe what we want.

2006-09-25 13:42:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

I find the house calling to be tedious, However the lord called all to evangelize and confess with their tongues the mighty and everlasting Lord. I figure if I do not want the housecalls I just don't answer the door. If I do not want the leaflets I smile and say no thanks. I just ignore the man yelling in the streets.

2006-09-25 13:41:06 · answer #3 · answered by mortgagegirl101 6 · 2 2

As long as the promoters are not being violent, I don't think there should be restrictions on them. That would be challenging their right to practice religion as they wish. Sometimes it is a nuisance, but the government can't stop them just because they're annoying.

2006-09-25 13:38:20 · answer #4 · answered by N 6 · 3 2

If we are unable to promote religion by traditional methods, then I insist that movies are also unable to be promoted by traditional methods.

That is, no movie commercials on TV, no promo's during a movie I wish to see, no banner ads. If people wanna go see a movie, it's their choice, but I don't want to be bombarded with the spammage on the net and TV, especially of movies I find offensive.

You might find it offensive that we preach God's word, and speak out, "Thou shalt not kill", but how much more offensive do you think it is to us that we are bombarded with ads for movies that are all about serial killing? You take offense at our "Thou shalt not steal", yet no one gives a damn about us taking offense at movies that promote jewelry heists. You take offense at us saying, "Thou shalt not lust", but how much more are we to be unwillingly bombarded with images of 'Daisy Duke' trying to fix the 'General Lee'?

At least we're trying to promote the well-being of society. You wanna start somewhere, go start with the media. Get them to stop bombarding people's minds with sin, and maybe we won't have to talk about it quite so much.

2006-09-25 13:47:03 · answer #5 · answered by seraphim_pwns_u 5 · 2 2

Except in order to abide by that Law Christians would have to disobey the commands of God. For he said go into the highways and byways and compel them to come in.

2006-09-25 13:40:01 · answer #6 · answered by wisdom 4 · 2 2

it does say in Bible not to go door to door so Mormons need to take a look at that...Chruches can run ads but alot of it is by word of mouth from friends who might ask where is a good church...
ive never seen anyone preaching in the street....noone forces you to come here or go to church

2006-09-25 13:38:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

So don't listen, duh? I hear people all the time speaking about this or that as to religion and I listen. But I do not go to church although I am a Christian. Whether you believe or not, one should live by one thought and one thought only: Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

2006-09-25 13:45:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Yes - freedom of speech should be the restriction

2006-09-25 13:41:47 · answer #9 · answered by WhatIf 4 · 2 2

No, because people can always say "No thank-you. I'm not interested."

2006-09-25 13:39:20 · answer #10 · answered by Dhara 6 · 5 0

fedest.com, questions and answers