I love this discussion StG
"What you gonna do if we can't; gas us in chambers?"
Do you really need to resort to this level?

I quite stick with my stance that the only political input religious warrants is a referendum majority demanding what is constitutionally acceptable, and never anything else (and of course, ensuring that bull$hit like WYD is never allowed to happen without the public's permission ever again should be a standard law).

Protesting does raise a good point and I will probably re-evaluate it (on the other hand, I generally dislike traffic stoppers anyway- so maybe not, given the context that a theological display would operate under virtually any excuse, grievance or non-grievance).
But like any protest, if a freakish subgroup blocks traffic because it feels it deserves more hegemony (eg Scientologists) I would happily publish online/letters to papers the petty context that said subgroup was brought to stopping decent people going about their business.

For being approached by a stranger I could effortlessly insinuate a charge of harassment (which IS exactly what it is)- of course, my first course of action is to not-very-politely tell the hawker to show some respect and refrain from bothering me- after which if they refuse to respect my wishes to be left alone the harassment charge would then strongly apply.

King,

"I love this discussion StG
"What you gonna do if we can't; gas us in chambers?"
Do you really need to resort to this level?"

Unlike the molesting each other in public because we're all naked? That level, you mean?

"Charge of harassment"? The cops would laugh at you. Just keep walking.

This is going nowhere. Thanks for the chat.

Oh Dear...lol

LEA

Oh and check mate! Pat Condell is more of a man than some Queen-Hazza, and if you check the constitutionals "all" have right to exercise there beliefs, and whats this infatuation with naked people and touching them in public? I dont think your self interests in that type thinking, is warranted or acceptable.

That neutral ground pat speaks of, is looking better by the moment:) Sorry King Hazza about the queen thing, I thought you might of been a member of the gay nudist community since you mentioned naked people out of the blue:) Please except my apologies.

And this is by far the best you have said so far...

"For being approached by a stranger I could effortlessly insinuate a charge of harassment (which IS exactly what it is).....yes again! your quite right...... Mormons, televangelists, religious groups using politics to cheat for what they need, yes, Harassment is a wide open field with many deep-holes, that can bite you back:)

- of course, my first course of action is to not-very-politely tell the hawker to show some respect and refrain from bothering me- after which if they refuse to respect my wishes to be left alone the harassment charge would then strongly apply."

hawker....He means evangelist, and Pat did note the endless harassment.

STG...Dont say the thread is going no-where, Thats what people say when they have lost the debate.

peace:)

LEA

I didn't, I meant the convo with King.

suzi you have the wrong end of the stick. You write

'Hey Runner, I know the part in the bible where Matthew repeated what Jesus apparently said:

"“Be warned: Do not show off your religion in public places, in order to be seen by others. For that there is no reward from your Father in heaven.” Matthew 6: 1-6, 16-21

You sadly confuse the obligation one has to share the good news of the gospel with those displaying acts of kindness and mercy which are not to be done by believers in order to display self righteousness. It has nothing at all to do with keeping one's beliefs to oneself.