Fucking Cowards Leave Tracts on Yom Kippur

[moonbeam59]

Religious tolerance?

I don't see anything particularly tolerant about leaving tracts deliberately targeting another religious group at their place of worship on their holiest day.

Agreed 100%. I understand that religious folks (especially those blinded by the privilege so eloquently discussed above) can have a hard time seeing any fault in attempts to "save" others... but targeting people coming together their holy day takes it to a whole new level of inappropriate and inconsiderate.

[OkToBeTakei]

OKTBT,

Houses of worship are not considered places of public accommodation in the US, like a supermarket or a restaurant are. They definitely have a legal right to eject trespassers from their property. Our church parking lot even has a permanent warning sign to keep off people who would leave flyers for something as innocuous as a garage sale on the cars while they are parked for services. And yes, there have been instances where people have been caught in the act and warned off with the threat of the police.

Ah ok, that makes more sense.

I can't stand the whole proselytising thing anyway. It's just plain arrogant and ignorant in my view.

If it is though illegal to enter private property with that purpose then they broke the law. It's a pity the same cannot be done for those picketing abortion clinics.

IF I was though unaware of said law and wanted somewhere to convert folks then lets for argument say I am a proselytising Catholic, I'd probably hit up every Mosque, Synagogue, Baptist Church or any other building that I knew for sure was a concentration of those ripe for the picking per se. Stupid I know, who said those who do this are bright or particularly respectful anyway. Anybody who hands out daft religious tracts to random strangers in the street is definitely neither.

I would also pick the times when they were busiest.

Could that have been the case? Sheer ignorance? I like the fact that GeoBqn is wanting to be part of inviting other houses of worship to her synagogue and it's wise to be ready for those who may aggressively question. THAT is religious tolerance, also education which is important.

IF though their purpose was some anti-semitic antagonistic gesture, then by the reaction here they have succeeded. Whilst totally understanding and supportive of how personal peoples beliefs and feelings are. Don't let them win. Metaphorically screw up the stupid tract. I just find the answer to hate is not to hate back. Religion is a bugger for that as history and wars teach us :(

Most of our churches are so old they have no car-parks the Synagogue is in a highly residential area and only has reserved parking for disabled.

[2xx1xy1JD]

There is no automatic right to enter private property, including a private parking lot.

Leaving tracts on cars parked on a public street in front of a place of worship is still obnoxious, as is standing on the sidewalk and handing out tracks, but it's not illegal. You can yell at someone who does that or rip up the tract, but you can't physically stop or remove them because they have the right to freedom of speech in a public area.

To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a specific law that says "no proselytizing in places of worship". Instead, there's just the general law that private property is private property, and the owners have the right to remove you if they wish. Laws on trespass vary from place to place - I believe that here, if you are given a warning and then return, you can be charged with trespassing.

Outreach and education are all well and good, but that's not the primary purpose of houses of worship. My rabbi does do educational talks to non-Jewish school groups (apparently, it's part of the Catholic school curriculum), but not during regular prayer times. Generally speaking, non-Jewish guests of members are welcome at services (which is quite common during Bar/Bat Mitzvah celebrations, for example), and most of the time a non-Jew wouldn't be stopped from entering on their own, but the needs of the members/worshippers take precedence. There's no requirement to tolerate disruptive or disrespectful behavior which bothers members within a private house of worship. As well, if someone can't explain why they are there, they may be shown the door for security reasons, because the safety of worshippers needs to come first.

[nokidsmom]

To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a specific law that says "no proselytizing in places of worship". Instead, there's just the general law that private property is private property, and the owners have the right to remove you if they wish. Laws on trespass vary from place to place - I believe that here, if you are given a warning and then return, you can be charged with trespassing.

Here's what happened in my subdivision. For years, we had JWs frequently making the rounds on a frequent basis and leaving tracts on people's doors but not before rather aggressively knocking on doors (at least at my house, they could probably tell we were home). Our homeowners association finally enacted a "no soliciting" rule in the bylaws because they were so persistent. Of course, this was applied to any soliciting across the board, but I remember from a former neighbor that the change was made largely due to them. They didn't come around for a long time afterwards so I am guessing a neighbor or two may have informed them on their last visit.

I do agree that leaving tracts on cars or trying proselytize a place of worship on major holy days is pretty shitty. I mean, anyone who is really so caught up in the rightness of their own faith/cause that they feel it's ok to sort of "crash" a holy day experience for others (don't know if that's the right way to put it but that's how it seems to me), well, that's the height of arrogance.

[Arete]

IF though their purpose was some anti-semitic antagonistic gesture, then by the reaction here they have succeeded. Whilst totally understanding and supportive of how personal peoples beliefs and feelings are. Don't let them win. Metaphorically screw up the stupid tract. I just find the answer to hate is not to hate back. Religion is a bugger for that as history and wars teach us

I can't say I find ejecting proselytizers from private property as hateful. It is setting boundaries within the law, which is necessary in all human interactions. If they were being shot at or beat up it would definitely be hateful. They are being asked to leave. If they leave, no further action is required. If they don't, the police would be call to remove them and this action is also within the boundaries of the law. I don't believe these people are merely ignorant of social queues and are in parking lots because it gets them the maximum audience for their message. There is definitely a feeling of them being entitled to disturb the religious and cultural lives of others with no fear of violent repercussions. Trust me, if they were being persecuted as much as they think they are, we wouldn't be having a conversation about leaflet bombing parking lots because it wouldn't be happening.

Someone on the thread brought up abortion clinic protests. Anti-abortion protesters understand the law better than anyone. They always stay on public sidewalks or public property to be able to mess with women's heads within the boundaries of the law. Once they land on private property, they can be forced to leave.

[nelliebelle1197]

I can't say I find ejecting proselytizers from private property as hateful. It is setting boundaries within the law, which is necessary in all human interactions. If they were being shot at or beat up it would definitely be hateful. They are being asked to leave. If they leave, no further action is required. If they don't, the police would be call to remove them and this action is also within the boundaries of the law. I don't believe these people are merely ignorant of social queues and are in parking lots because it gets them the maximum audience for their message. There is definitely a feeling of them being entitled to disturb the religious and cultural lives of others with no fear of violent repercussions. Trust me, if they were being persecuted as much as they think they are, we wouldn't be having a conversation about leaflet bombing parking lots because it wouldn't be happening.

Someone on the thread brought up abortion clinic protests. Anti-abortion protesters understand the law better than anyone. They always stay on public sidewalks or public property to be able to mess with women's heads within the boundaries of the law. Once they land on private property, they can be forced to leave.

Boom. You said it, kid.

[OkToBeTakei]

I can't say I find ejecting proselytizers from private property as hateful. It is setting boundaries within the law, which is necessary in all human interactions. If they were being shot at or beat up it would definitely be hateful. They are being asked to leave. If they leave, no further action is required. If they don't, the police would be call to remove them and this action is also within the boundaries of the law. I don't believe these people are merely ignorant of social queues and are in parking lots because it gets them the maximum audience for their message. There is definitely a feeling of them being entitled to disturb the religious and cultural lives of others with no fear of violent repercussions. Trust me, if they were being persecuted as much as they think they are, we wouldn't be having a conversation about leaflet bombing parking lots because it wouldn't be happening.

Someone on the thread brought up abortion clinic protests. Anti-abortion protesters understand the law better than anyone. They always stay on public sidewalks or public property to be able to mess with women's heads within the boundaries of the law. Once they land on private property, they can be forced to leave.

Oh no I totally agree. The hate I meant was that shown by the strong emotion/language on the thread.

[Arete]

Oh, gotcha. I thought you meant the use of the trespass laws, but you were actually addressing the tone of the thread. :doh:

[2xx1xy1JD]

I can't say I find ejecting proselytizers from private property as hateful. It is setting boundaries within the law, which is necessary in all human interactions. If they were being shot at or beat up it would definitely be hateful. They are being asked to leave. If they leave, no further action is required. If they don't, the police would be call to remove them and this action is also within the boundaries of the law. I don't believe these people are merely ignorant of social queues and are in parking lots because it gets them the maximum audience for their message. There is definitely a feeling of them being entitled to disturb the religious and cultural lives of others with no fear of violent repercussions. Trust me, if they were being persecuted as much as they think they are, we wouldn't be having a conversation about leaflet bombing parking lots because it wouldn't be happening.

Someone on the thread brought up abortion clinic protests. Anti-abortion protesters understand the law better than anyone. They always stay on public sidewalks or public property to be able to mess with women's heads within the boundaries of the law. Once they land on private property, they can be forced to leave.

THANK YOU!

This isn't about hating anyone, or doing anything hateful to them.

It's about the disrespect inherent in targeting another group, compounded by the sense of violation when this is done on private property at a place of worship on their holiest day.

[OkToBeTakei]

There is no automatic right to enter private property, including a private parking lot.

Leaving tracts on cars parked on a public street in front of a place of worship is still obnoxious, as is standing on the sidewalk and handing out tracks, but it's not illegal. You can yell at someone who does that or rip up the tract, but you can't physically stop or remove them because they have the right to freedom of speech in a public area.

To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a specific law that says "no proselytizing in places of worship". Instead, there's just the general law that private property is private property, and the owners have the right to remove you if they wish. Laws on trespass vary from place to place - I believe that here, if you are given a warning and then return, you can be charged with trespassing.

Outreach and education are all well and good, but that's not the primary purpose of houses of worship. My rabbi does do educational talks to non-Jewish school groups (apparently, it's part of the Catholic school curriculum), but not during regular prayer times. Generally speaking, non-Jewish guests of members are welcome at services (which is quite common during Bar/Bat Mitzvah celebrations, for example), and most of the time a non-Jew wouldn't be stopped from entering on their own, but the needs of the members/worshippers take precedence. There's no requirement to tolerate disruptive or disrespectful behavior which bothers members within a private house of worship. As well, if someone can't explain why they are there, they may be shown the door for security reasons, because the safety of worshippers needs to come first.

I spent ages answering this last night then my ISP decided to go boom :(

Not to derail from the tract giving numptoids of this world but being unable to bold on my phone, your sentence

'Outreach and education are all well and good, but that's not the purpose of houses of worship.'

Whilst this may be the case for some and most certainly the attitude of many .. It should not be in my view.

Ignorance, prejudice, bigotry and fear are all born from one thing, lack of knowledge.

I may not have known that Yom Kippur was the Jewish most holy day but my 10 year old did thanks to two visits to different synagogues in the past year where she and her classmates were welcomed and had a really positive experience. The same at central Mosque, local Methodist and Church of Scotland among many others. They learn about Diwali and when preparing for first holy communion one of their projects was to research the rituals of other religions.

All this to say really that whilst there will always be ignorance such as the tract givers that if there was less ignorance there might be more tolerance. People 'fear' the Muslim, if asked most would probably be unable cite any part of what the religion is about.

If it is not the place of the houses of worship to educate then whose? Unrealistic to think that individuals will go out of their way to make sure they know every nuance of each religion in order not to offend.

If history and even the present day teaches us anything it is that tolerance is something which has to be taught and I do think each religion could be better at this rather than perpetuate the differences. One man's holy day is another man's religion calling him to spread the word. Is one more right than the other? No but never the twain shall meet until that is understood and mutual respect is established.

Maybe the next generation will be better at it? We can hope.

I am ever the hopeful optimist.

[OkToBeTakei]

There is no automatic right to enter private property, including a private parking lot.

Leaving tracts on cars parked on a public street in front of a place of worship is still obnoxious, as is standing on the sidewalk and handing out tracks, but it's not illegal. You can yell at someone who does that or rip up the tract, but you can't physically stop or remove them because they have the right to freedom of speech in a public area.

To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a specific law that says "no proselytizing in places of worship". Instead, there's just the general law that private property is private property, and the owners have the right to remove you if they wish. Laws on trespass vary from place to place - I believe that here, if you are given a warning and then return, you can be charged with trespassing.

Outreach and education are all well and good, but that's not the primary purpose of houses of worship. My rabbi does do educational talks to non-Jewish school groups (apparently, it's part of the Catholic school curriculum), but not during regular prayer times. Generally speaking, non-Jewish guests of members are welcome at services (which is quite common during Bar/Bat Mitzvah celebrations, for example), and most of the time a non-Jew wouldn't be stopped from entering on their own, but the needs of the members/worshippers take precedence. There's no requirement to tolerate disruptive or disrespectful behavior which bothers members within a private house of worship. As well, if someone can't explain why they are there, they may be shown the door for security reasons, because the safety of worshippers needs to come first.

I spent ages answering this last night then my ISP decided to go boom :(

Not to derail from the tract giving numptoids of this world but being unable to bold on my phone, your sentence

'Outreach and education are all well and good, but that's not the purpose of houses of worship.'

Whilst this may be the case for some and most certainly the attitude of many .. It should not be in my view.

Ignorance, prejudice, bigotry and fear are all born from one thing, lack of knowledge.

I may not have known that Yom Kippur was the Jewish most holy day but my 10 year old did thanks to two visits to different synagogues in the past year where she and her classmates were welcomed and had a really positive experience. The same at central Mosque, local Methodist and Church of Scotland among many others. They learn about Diwali and when preparing for first holy communion one of their projects was to research the rituals of other religions.

All this to say really that whilst there will always be ignorance such as the tract givers that if there was less ignorance there might be more tolerance. People 'fear' the Muslim, if asked most would probably be unable cite any part of what the religion is about.

If it is not the place of the houses of worship to educate then whose? Unrealistic to think that individuals will go out of their way to make sure they know every nuance of each religion in order not to offend.

If history and even the present day teaches us anything it is that tolerance is something which has to be taught and I do think each religion could be better at this rather than perpetuate the differences. One man's holy day is another man's religion calling him to spread the word. Is one more right than the other? No but never the twain shall meet until that is understood and mutual respect is established.

Maybe the next generation will be better at it? We can hope.

I am ever the hopeful optimist.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I do agree with you about the importance of education about various religions (as opposed to indoctrination). Hey, it's one of the reasons that I post here! My past and current rabbi have actually been very involved community education and outreach. My current rabbi dresses in a way that is distinct, and he'll often be stopped by folks who want to ask a question of a rabbi.

Here's an example, produced by a guy I know who became a religious television host and had a series on a local station (station was largely Christian, but the terms of their license required some programming from other faiths). If you ever wanted to know why my family will be eating in a leaky hut for the next week, here's you answer:

http://koshertube.com/videos/index.php? ... ink&id=668

One of the things that I loved about our time living in downtown Toronto was that we did get to really know people from all different faiths - one friend would tell us all about his trip to the Baha'i Temple in Haifa, another invited us to his wedding in a Sikh gurdwara and explained the rules and customs ahead of time, we knew when our neighbors were fasting for Ramadan and then celebrating Eid, I had a Hindu colleague explain his Brahmin diet to me, a Jain friend explained his family's rather extreme version of vegetarianism, we attended a friend's Buddhist wedding, went to a Chinese New Year dinner with the hospital staff (they gave us vegetarian dishes), and my husband even learned about native spirituality while on a reserve in Northern Ontario and going to a sweat lodge.

My point was more about time and place and respect.

My rabbi will give classes and speak on the radio and even film television clips - but not at the same time that he's leading a service.

Questions and debate would be fine during a class or call-in show - but not in the middle of a sermon.

When I attended a historic synagogue in downtown Toronto, they allowed visitors in during the Doors Open event to celebrate local architecture - but asked that they not take pictures (esp. with flash) during the Sabbath or disturb any services.

The same downtown synagogue opened its doors and offered food and services to homeless people - but didn't appreciate when a fire was set on the second floor.

I have no problem playing Jewish music for friends - but we don't record or listen to actual prayers without altering the Divine Name (Jewish interpretation of the 3rd commandment).

We'll invite non-Jews to certain events or ceremonies - but I wouldn't invite them to actually participate in certain religious rituals.

We like to welcome guests - but when we discovered that one guy who asked for our personal contact information was actually a leader in a Messianic congregation, he was shown the door.

After the Mumbai massacre, when we found one fellow trying to get in who couldn't give a coherent explanation as to why he was there, we had security keep him away.

[sparkles]

Almost all of the synagogues I do work for are involved in interfaith initiatives. Many faiths, including Muslim and several Christian denominations, are involved. They're all very good programs and they start when kids are young. Conspicuous by their absence are any of the Baptist churches and faiths that believe in witnessing to and actively trying to convert others.

The synagogues are also very welcoming to interfaith families, not trying to convert them but to make them feel comfortable, not like outsiders.

[OkToBeTakei]

That's interesting Sparkles. I'm not overly familiar with the many types of Baptist churches except there seem.. Many?

The origins of the baptist religion was Dutch if memory serves please correct me if not so, was witnessing from this origin or is it more recent?

Biblically I suppose and more recently (as in centuries) attempting to bring someone to a religion tends to have died out in the older religions. I wonder if this forms part of the issue today. Not really sure what I'm trying to say but as if now we are globally connected there are few to find to guide to (insert religion) but the newer religions are ignoring the memo and causing a right kerfuffle trying to convert those to the 'true' path in their view and ignoring how genuinely ignorant and offensive that is. There are few if any in a western culture who do not have some knowledge of religion who this is going to appear new to.

[OkToBeTakei]

That's interesting Sparkles. I'm not overly familiar with the many types of Baptist churches except there seem.. Many?

The origins of the baptist religion was Dutch if memory serves please correct me if not so, was witnessing from this origin or is it more recent?

Biblically I suppose and more recently (as in centuries) attempting to bring someone to a religion tends to have died out in the older religions. I wonder if this forms part of the issue today. Not really sure what I'm trying to say but as if now we are globally connected there are few to find to guide to (insert religion) but the newer religions are ignoring the memo and causing a right kerfuffle trying to convert those to the 'true' path in their view and ignoring how genuinely ignorant and offensive that is. There are few if any in a western culture who do not have some knowledge of religion who this is going to appear new to.