Posted on 07/23/2014 11:09:55 AM PDT by Faith Presses On
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- An evangelical Christian group plans to try to convert children as young as 5 at Portland apartment pools, public parks and dozens of other gathering spots this summer -- a campaign that's got some residents upset.
They've banded together in recent weeks to warn parents about the Child Evangelism Fellowship's Good News Club, buying a full-page ad in the local alternative weekly to highlight the group's tactics.
"They pretend to be a mainstream Christian Bible study when in fact they're a very old school fundamentalist sect," said Kaye Schmitt, an organizer with Protect Portland Children, which takes issue with the group's message and the way it's delivering it.
CEF says Protect Portland Children is a shadow group run by atheists who seek to dismantle Christian outreach. The group said its methods are above reproach.
"Children are easy to manipulate, we all know that," said CEF's vice president Moises Esteves. "We don't use any of the schemes and high-pressure tactics that we're accused of. Nothing could be further from the truth."
Esteves' group decided to hold its annual summer mission program in Portland because of the area's irreligious leanings.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
This is not a laughing matter. My comment was not erroneous and it was not "spew." In a free society, another citizen has the right to impinge on your sphere of privacy. And you have the right to inflict your idea of a penalty on him/her for exercising that right. You do not get the point about the difference between rights and manners. I already figured that out, long ago. Where are yours?
But the topic at hand is a time-honored and approved evangelism outreach to children, in which CEF's approach has been misrepresented and misinterpreted, as you have misrepresented my defense of it, and of the First Amendment to the Constitution as refined by the Courts.
Too late. Have A Nice Day!
I wasn’t laughing at the matter. I was laughing at you.
I do, but you miss the difference between having the right to do so, and the permission or privilege to do so. CEF does not disregard propriety, as the writer of the article (and various commenters here on it) attempt to intimate.
You'll stop laughing when Obama and his cronies block you from exercising your rights. Like the ability to criticize Satanists, Sodomites, transgenders, abortionists, Moslems, and alien residents without immigration papers.
yes
SURE it does...
...while missing the attitude.
Oh??
The State may object to some of these personal penalties being dealt out.
State it.
And your attitude in this is . . . ? ? ?
Of course. That’s the point.
I love that passage too, but must you be so self-loathing?
I get it now.
You think I'm "weird" and that you're a "fool."
And yet it's funny how somehow that still = you can't hold up your side of an argument.
One wonders whether you ever finally read the article....
FReegards!
I read the original article and it appears you are in that fundamentalist group. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/22/portland-parents-fight-christian-extremist-club-trying-to-harvest-kids-at-public-parks/
100% agree. There seems to be this notion not to teach kids morals and the Gospel message and “let them figure it out” when they are adults. But as you pointed out a huge move to indoctrinate young children on the gay definition of tolerance which amounts to forced acceptance with consequences for not towing the propaganda line.
Good post. As Christians we answer to Christ Jesus and He will be interested in how we treated and instructed His little ones in the ways of righteousness.
Some in this choir sing off key...
Indeed. Ad comments here: http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_26195253/christian-evangelists-seek-out-children-at-portland-playgrounds
I will stop laughing (at you) then. But what on earth has that got to do with what we were talking about??? It’s like we’re doing math and you suddenly bring up History and accuse me of not paying attention. Weird.
Apparently you were not giving full attention to what was being said, or implied. You were busy "laughing." Here's the thread, with a statement of what the First Amendment says, as mentioned by Oliviaforever in Post 12:
=========
From Wikipedia:
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th and 21st-century court decisions which protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections.
*****
Your thesis was:
The First Amendment protects us against speech control BY THE GOVERNMENT.
******
My correction to that was as follows:
114 by imardmd1
To: Shimmer1
It’s not their Constitutional right to approach strangers’ children.
It is. And it is your Constitutional right to resist it, as well as to advance your own position to your children, even if it is criminally immoral and arm-bending. As it often is, nowadays. Amendment I has no stipulations regarding the age of the audience. Neither do billboards.
148 by Shimmer1
To: imardmd1
Really. And where is that in the Constitution? The First Amendment protects us against speech control BY THE GOVERNMENT. We do NOT have the unlimited right to approach a stranger’s child. Besides, if someone did this to my child, and I am a Christian and my children are Christians, I’d be suspicious and offended.
If we have the "right" to do this, then Satanists and witches have the right to do this. NO.
154 by imardmd1
To: Shimmer1
The First Amendment protects us against speech control BY THE GOVERNMENT.
The first authority to keep you from trying to control his speech is the speaker. And you can go as far in suppressing him as your ingenuity and politics carries you. In a free society, that is, Satanism, witches, Muslims, educators, or whatever. They are all here, and they are active.
What is your point?
============
Here is the thread of posts you are referring to, and which any interested party can check:
12 to 1
58 to 12 (In which you tried to assert that CEF had no Constitutional right to approach the playing children)
114 to 58 (In which I corrected you)
148 to 114 (In which you resisted correction)
154 to 148 (In which further examples of clear rights answered your resistance to common sense)
158 to 154 (In which you referred to my comments as "spew")
161 to 158
163 to 161
165 to 163
179 to 165 (your last response/challenge)
===============
Here are the facts:
Freedom of speech is freedom, and has no hindrance.
Freedom of religion is freedom, and has no hindrance.
The First Amendment of the Constitution proclaims that.
Under the 1st Amendment, not only the government, but no one can prevent you from freely speaking your mind toward anyone whom you wish, nor of exercising your religion in any way not unlawful that you wish.
Under that provision, it is not unlawful to approach your children, speak to them, give them literature or other gifts, or communicate to them in any way lawful. It is their Constitutional right to do so. The Constitution does not grant "rights" -- it only affirms those rights that already exist and are recognized .
There is no such legal mechanism as "prior restraint" to exercise of the First Amendment, as you implicitly maintain.
But you say otherwise, and you are lacking in your understanding.
Now, on the other hand, if and when you decide to rebuff the advances of someone who is exercising theirs, by defending yourself and those in your care, by telling the offenders that their speech, literature, and religious tactics are unwelcome, unwanted, and to be taken to a non-threatening distance, you have exercised your Constitutional right to your own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
When you think that any of those rights (including rejecting God) do not exist, or wish to deny them to others (whose conduct may be offending to you, but lawful for them), you will place yourself on the side of those who will rob you of God-given rights, when they label your objections as "hate crimes" and put you in jail for verbally, religiously, and physically resisting.
That will be Obama's cronies whether religiously, politically, or sexually motivated.
I hope this gets through the murk of false assumptions and conclusions, and laughing at things you say you don't understand.
*********
You also ought to take into account that "Child Evangelism Fellowship" isn't just about adults approaching children with the Gospel. It is also about making effective child evangelists out of saved, believing children who go out into the playgrounds and swimming pools and, while enjoying the fun, tell other friends about Jesus and invite other young pals to come with them to their "Good News" Clubs, or to come with their adult escorts to an outdoor Gospel presentation nearby to the recreation area.
You may also want to recognize that your under the First Amendment the Satanist, or Muslim, or atheistic, or homophyllic groups do have the same right to exercise similar tactics for their beliefs, eh?
Laugh at that.
Laugh at me all you want, if it helps you ignore the facts of what real freedom in a society means, and how education in morality can alleviate some of the everpresent freedom to be wicked in it.
Or is it that you don't want a really Constitutiionally free society, which can take a clearly sinful path if desired by the majority?
Read some Thomas Jefferson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.