Religious preaching and rap on grafton street.

Stercus Accidit

So yesterday was good Friday, and the young atheist that I am, went for a wander in town for dvds, college supplies and general supplies of a studenty nature.

On Grafton street, there was a guy dressed as Jesus, with a cross and a hell of a loud sound system, blaring his gospel preachings about jesus down the street.
Now he was saying we have failed god, he even said sickness is caused by sin, and will kill you, tell that to the mother of a baby with a terminal birth defect, please.

They also had a christian rapper, basically, it was offensive, it was extremely loud, and typical of indoctrination through fear, guilt(celtic tiger was god, recession was god too because we were too posh), and shouting.


Lads, is this a typical thing on good Friday? Every year? And who can I write a formal complaint to?

Thanks A&A!

Dades

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

They also had a christian rapper, basically, it was offensive...

I find any type of rap offensive - but Christian rap must be the Vogon poetry of the music world.

Doctor DooM

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

So yesterday was good Friday, and the young atheist that I am, went for a wander in town for dvds, college supplies and general supplies of a studenty nature.

On Grafton street, there was a guy dressed as Jesus, with a cross and a hell of a loud sound system, blaring his gospel preachings about jesus down the street.
Now he was saying we have failed god, he even said sickness is caused by sin, and will kill you, tell that to the mother of a baby with a terminal birth defect, please.

They also had a christian rapper, basically, it was offensive, it was extremely loud, and typical of indoctrination through fear, guilt(celtic tiger was god, recession was god too because we were too posh), and shouting.


Lads, is this a typical thing on good Friday? Every year? And who can I write a formal complaint to?

Thanks A&A!

personally I can think of several atheisty friends who'd do this as a joke... You sure it was serious?


I mean, actually dressed up as big daddy j.c and rapping like father cool?

Stercus Accidit

There were flyers, and christian messages being flung out willy nilly, it was for real.

Ok, the guy dressed as jesus was really giving it socks, the rapper was a philipino, and they had a few lads handing out propaganda.

It was sadly legit.

I want to complain though, I will simply state that the man was very loud, and his religious views were extreme, and did not sit well with my own beliefs. I'd rather a more sedate preacher I can ignore in future

Our bodies aren't designed to be sick by the way, we are meant to be healthy, except sin causes illness. Such tripe, I was nearly angry only it was such obvious waffle.

philologos

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I want to complain though, I will simply state that the man was very loud, and his religious views were extreme, and did not sit well with my own beliefs. I'd rather a more sedate preacher I can ignore in future

I'd be interested to hear about the legality of evangelism though, I thought if you got permission to do it it was within your rights to freedom of speech as long as it is isn't considered hate speech.

Does anyone here know about the legality of organised evangelism?

Stercus Accidit

I was told I was a sinner, a failure and other such things, this was offensive, and as it was on grafton street, he would have had to get permission.

In future, I'd rather not have the head blared off me with pseudo science, guilt and outright lies, there are plenty of ways that has been done less imposingly.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I was told I was a sinner, a failure and other such things, this was offensive, and as it was on grafton street, he would have had to get permission.

In future, I'd rather not have the head blared off me with pseudo science, guilt and outright lies, there are plenty of ways that has been done less imposingly.

Call the gardai and get him done;)

Stercus Accidit

Sean_K wrote: »

Call the gardai and get him done;)

The problem is, he would have had permission.

philologos

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I was told I was a sinner, a failure and other such things, this was offensive, and as it was on grafton street, he would have had to get permission.

I don't think that's hateful though, we have all fallen short of the glory of God according to the Bible, and we all fail to reach to this standard on a daily basis. I do think that Christians have to be careful, to make sure that when they are talking about Jesus, that they are talking about what Christ can do for other people. I don't think that God for me is a can't do God. I also don't think that it's helpful to tell people that they are going to hell. I don't see how that is going to be effective to get anyone to accept Christianity.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

In future, I'd rather not have the head blared off me with pseudo science, guilt and outright lies, there are plenty of ways that has been done less imposingly.

Go into some of the pseudo-science they were speaking about?

I don't think you can call people who genuinely believe what they do liars. They think what they are advocating is the truth.

Doctor DooM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think that's hateful though, we have all fallen short of the glory of God according to the Bible, and we all fail to reach to this standard on a daily basis. I do think that Christians have to be careful, to make sure that when they are talking about Jesus, that they are talking about what Christ can do for other people. I don't think that God for me is a can't do God. I also don't think that it's helpful to tell people that they are going to hell. I don't see how that is going to be effective to get anyone to accept Christianity.



Go into some of the pseudo-science they were speaking about?

I don't think you can call people who genuinely believe what they do liars. They think what they are advocating is the truth.

It doesn't matter if it is not hateful to you, no offence Jakkass, it is offensive to people who don't believe in Godianity like yours, and tbh Christianity should be able to thrive secularly or not at all.

While I am no where near as militant about the whole thing as the OP- the above simply sounds like a bunch of fools to me, tbh- he has a point.

philologos

SDooM wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it is not hateful to you, no offence Jakkass, it is offensive to people who don't believe in Godianity like yours, and tbh Christianity should be able to thrive secularly or not at all.

This makes no sense though SDooM.

You know that secular refers to the profane and not the sacred. How can one witness Christianity through evangelism in a world that restricts it? Christians are required to evangelise in some shape or form in their lives according to the Gospel. So how best do you think Christians can evangelise "secularly" when secularism removes the sacred from the profane? It doesn't make any sense.

You can't force Christians not to have their Christian identity in public. It's the main issue I have with "keeping religion private". This objection is merely because, if you are a Christian, it defines who you are. I for one don't see any reason to deny who I am before others.

PDN

SDooM wrote: »

tbh Christianity should be able to thrive secularly or not at all.

Sorry, what does that mean - to thrive secularly?

Gambler

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, what does that mean - to thrive secularly?

I would assume he meant that a belief system should be able to thrive in a secular society

philologos

Yes, but how does one inform people about a belief system if they shouldn't evangelise? Just a touch ridiculous isn't it?

I personally welcome the fact that we are free to promote whatever religious beliefs we have or the lack thereof as long as it doesn't violate laws of hate speech.

Zamboni

Lots of religious things annoy me but not this one.
I'd fight for the guys right to spout his religious crap on Grafton Street to be honest. Free speech and all that.

mardybumbum

A wee bit off topic but Im curious.
If I replace my busking setlist with songs of praise can I tell the guards to fupp off when they try to shift me?
Free speech and all that jazz.

Doctor DooM

Gambler wrote: »

I would assume he meant that a belief system should be able to thrive in a secular society

Exactly, bad phrasing on my part.

philologos

SDooM wrote: »

Exactly, bad phrasing on my part.

SDooM, that still leaves a lot of ambiguity. What do you mean that religion should be able to thrive in a secular society, and what are you suggesting is wrong with the situation as described by the OP. Is it the fact they are evangelising themselves, or is it how they are evangelising?

Doctor DooM

Jakkass wrote: »

This makes no sense though SDooM.

You know that secular refers to the profane and not the sacred. How can one witness Christianity through evangelism in a world that restricts it? Christians are required to evangelise in some shape or form in their lives according to the Gospel. So how best do you think Christians can evangelise "secularly" when secularism removes the sacred from the profane? It doesn't make any sense.

You can't force Christians not to have their Christian identity in public. It's the main issue I have with "keeping religion private". This objection is merely because, if you are a Christian, it defines who you are. I for one don't see any reason to deny who I am before others.

If someone asks you about religion, then as far as I am concerned you should give them the full whammy.

If you wish to have some public display of your affiliations, such as crosses or whatever, that is also fine. no beef with that either.


If some random person is walking down the street whos father/mother/brother/sister/son/daughter has just died from cancer hears some guy dressed up as Jesus saying that people who die from disease do so because they are sinners, I consider that wrong.

Actually, as I said, if I saw it personally I would consider it quite amusing, but I am just saying I can see the OPs point.

Doctor DooM

Jakkass wrote: »

SDooM, that still leaves a lot of ambiguity. What do you mean that religion should be able to thrive in a secular society, and what are you suggesting is wrong with the situation as described by the OP. Is it the fact they are evangelising themselves, or is it how they are evangelising?

If a religion represented a true god of some kind who spoke to people in their heads, especially one who is all about the love (and I realise the bibley god is not always all about the love), why is such militant evangalism necessary?

Shouldn't people be finding their own way to you?

(Thats a genuine q by the way, I'm interested.)

PDN

Gambler wrote: »

I would assume he meant that a belief system should be able to thrive in a secular society

That's what I would have thought. But I don't see the relevance to this thread. If a belief system is thriving in a secular society then it has the right to go on the street and advertise itself, just like vegetarians, socialists, anti-fur protestors, republicans etc.

FWIW, I don't like what the guys on Grafton Street are doing - because I don't think it actually works. But they have as much as a right to do it as does anyone else.

I could personally find vegetarian activists to be offensive with their holier-than-thou "meat is murder" crap and silly anthromorphisms. But they have a right to proclaim their views.

One solution would be to ban any kind of busker, chugger, speaker etc from Grafton Street. That would include evangelists, Romanian beggars and Sinn Fein.

Another solution would be to ban any kind of artificial amplification, but it should be applied equally to all groups. That is secularism.

philologos

SDooM wrote: »

If a religion represented a true god of some kind who spoke to people in their heads, especially one who is all about the love (and I realise the bibley god is not always all about the love), why is such militant evangalism necessary?

Does evangelism have to be militant though? I've seen people handing out bible tracts, and people who are there just to have a chat with about their beliefs (the first seemed to be an evangelical in a town not in Dublin, and the second were the Legion of Mary in Temple Bar) during the summer. I did have another strange incident with a member of the Hare Krishnas on Grafton St as well who called me a "monster" for eating meat and was telling me I was violating the Ten Commandments for doing so. I was a bit flustered at that but I went on with my day.

I do think that one can be reasonable and tell people about what Jesus taught, and I think that people can be quite civil when they are putting forward their beliefs. Where I do draw the line is is when people are causing unneccessary conflict in discussion, I think people whould be peaceable wherever possible in discourse.

SDooM wrote: »

Shouldn't people be finding their own way to you?

This is the way it happens to me normally. I try to live a Christian life as much as possible, all my friends know that I believe in Christ, and a few have come to ask me questions about my faith, and I answer them. I don't think I am letting people know as much as I could about Christianity, and that's one of my failings in the walk. I would prefer to discuss with people rather than just putting my views forward. I think asking a question such as "What do you think of Jesus?" is better than spouting out an opinion to fall on deaf ears. I think Christians have to care what other people think about them, even if they aren't motivated by what people think about them, but rather what God thinks about them.

Stercus Accidit

In response to jakkass, his pseudo scientific statements would be that disease is caused by sin, and that the human body is not designed to be sick. I wonder if god gave Adam and Eve an immune system, in case they sinned of course.

The loudspeakers are what I had a problem with, this was inescapable, and is the first time I have been subjected to such aggressive preaching. Being told I am a bad person, regardless of how you wrap it up in your own nonsense, is offensive, if I were to say you were a failure, etc. you'd be offended, just because this man is clearly deluded doesn't make it less annoying, well, maybe a bit, as his opinion would be worth a lot less in my eyes.

I'd rather not see a trend occur where he who shouts the loudest wins the devotees, because the streets would become a noisy hell. Now personally, I advocate his right to spout his ludicrous nonsense, but the method employed was quite irritating, I didn't want him hauled off! I didn't enjoy this particular brand of street entertainment, a bit like a dose of Dave McSavage, and as it was approved by some authority, I'll be expressing that view.

I posed a few questions in the OP, is this a regular good Friday thing was one of them, I'd like to know if it is.

MrPudding

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

The problem is, he would have had permission.

I had a similar problem a few years ago in Portstewart. I worked late in a club and every morning there were a bunch of them singing outside my window. I went down the noise polution route. Called the council and they sent out a guy with a dB meter. I was chuffed, they got sent packing. never to return.

If your buddy christ bloke is a regular perhaps you could try that?

MrP

Borneo Fnctn

mardybumbum wrote: »

A wee bit off topic but Im curious.
If I replace my busking setlist with songs of praise can I tell the guards to fupp off when they try to shift me?
Free speech and all that jazz.

In a word; no. Songs of praise have no more protection than any other songs. You can say/sing whatever you want but you can't do it on Grafton Street without permission.

Stercus Accidit

MrPudding wrote: »

If your buddy christ bloke is a regular perhaps you could try that?

MrP

First time I've seen him, I'm more curious as to whether its a new trend or not, rather than having him removed, but of course, if it happens again I might see about the noise levels route.

Black Swan

PDN wrote: »

Another solution would be to ban any kind of artificial amplification, but it should be applied equally to all groups.

A ban for all indeed, especially on Grafton where I enjoy shopping when home, not being forced to have my ear drums busted listening to someone's amplified rhetoric, no matter their message.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Another solution would be to ban any kind of artificial amplification, but it should be applied equally to all groups. That is secularism.

I would be very much in favour of this.

Bottle_of_Smoke

OP, relax, were you really offended or did you decide to be offended?

I think these type guys are pretty entertaining. Do they actually convert anyone or do people just laugh? I suspect the latter

Hate this culture of being offended. Let them have their evangorapping

Zillah

I saw this. Didn't hang around to hear all the grisly details (or rap...), regarded it with more amused disdain than offense. I firmly believe he should be allowed to say whatever he likes, Grafton Street or not. However, I would contend that the manner in which he did it was too much, he had a massive speaker system which dominated the whole area. Voicing your beliefs and exercising free speech is one thing, highjacking our busiest shopping street with obnoxiously loud rhetoric is another.

tl;dr: He should be allowed to say what he likes but not so loudly.

Stercus Accidit

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

OP, relax, were you really offended or did you decide to be offended?

I think these type guys are pretty entertaining. Do they actually convert anyone or do people just laugh? I suspect the latter

Hate this culture of being offended. Let them have their evangorapping

I'm far too cynical to allow myself to be offended for the sake of it.

The whole thing was loud and annoying, the message that every human being is rubbish is offensive. I didn't cry a river, I posted about the experience on a relevant forum, as I was interested to hear the views of others on the matter, and pretty much everyone seems to have a similar opinion to me.
Mildly bemused, also annoyed, and just generally baffled!