Another episode of "Bus Drivers Gone Wild".

[10010011]

Allow me to repeat myself... does it really bother you that much?

No people's beliefs do not bother me that much. What does bother me is people that think just because they are annoying people with religious talk it should be allowed.

When the same rules that would be applied to anyone else bothering the driver or other passengers on a bus is applied to them it is "yet another prime example of liberal policy to shut God out of every aspect of modern life".

 

[10010011]

Congratulations. You've just shown a trait similar to the leaders of Germany in the early 20th century.

Congratulations you jut invoked Goodwin's Law.

:Godwin's Law: /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once
this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis
has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's
Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on
thread length in those groups.

Mods, time to close this thread.

 

[markw]

Yeah, youi're a whiner.

No people's beliefs do not bother me that much. What does bother me is people that think just because they are annoying people with religious talk it should be allowed.

When the same rules that would be applied to anyone else bothering the driver or other passengers on a bus is applied to them it is "yet another prime example of liberal policy to shut God out of every aspect of modern life".

I would assume that if someone is loud and/or annoying, it's the bus company's policy to ask them to keep it down before ejecting them, right?

It would seem that this lady was simply told to "shut up" in so many words. Not a request to tone it down like a civilized person would try before having them ejected.

Why would that be?

http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,2641703407.aspx

Yeah, if she was simply told to stop reading the Bible, they DO have an issue to deal with.

I assume that the "bus company lady" in the interview is not the bus driver but some PR type who wasn't there during the initial skirmish and now has to deal with this ugly mess, wouldn't you?

 

[markw]

Can't take the heat?

Congratulations you jut invoked Goodwin's Law.

:Godwin's Law: /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once
this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis
has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's
Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on
thread length in those groups.

Mods, time to close this thread.

Get out of the kitchen. I simply just drew a parallel between your acceptance of certain actions and those of a historical figure. Your willingness to castigate her with no evidence and draw up straw men simply proves it.

 

[10010011]

Get out of the kitchen. I simply just drew a parallel between your acceptance of certain actions and those of a historical figure. Your willingness to castigate her with no evidence and draw up straw men simply proves it.

Just trying to toss in a little humor in to a rather dull argument.

Why would that be?

It's going to come down to her words against the bus driver if this does go to court. But I am betting the lady's religion is so strong that she will accept the large monetary settlement the city will offer her and not go to court.

 

[Johnd]

But I am betting the lady's religion is so strong that she will accept the large monetary settlement the city will offer her and not go to court.

An assumption. Let's wait it and see. You apparently can't believe that this woman thought someone was impinging on her right to free speech (w/o disturbing others...excessively loud) and her right to freedom of religion.

 

[markw]

It's going to come down to her words against the bus driver if this does go to court.

Yes, her word against the bus drivers. Where's the multitudes of disturbed riders?

But I am betting the lady's religion is so strong that she will accept the large monetary settlement the city will offer her and not go to court.

I believe she said that all she wants is an apology.

Had they done initially, that a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo could have been avoided. But, now that lawyers had to be invoked...

 

[Johnd]

This story is about someone being kicked off a bus for disturbing the driver (maybe other passengers complained, we don't know).

I often disturb people by the manner in which I look at them. That is not enough to order me to stop (constitutionally).

They were asked to stop, refused, and got kicked off the bus, end of story.

No, it is apparently not.

What they were doing to create the disturbance should not be the issue here.

That's two assumptions. That it was a "valid" disturbance, and that the cause is not an issue. Babies cry every second of every day. Some people are disturbed by that crying. It generally does not rise to the level of an eviction, or a police call. The point here is was she in fact disturbing anyone? If so, does it rise to the level of eviction? And, if so, does that eviction possibly impinge on her rights?

I'm sick and tired of the "Christians are being persecuted" talk.

Then I suggest you tune out. That's all. It's called freedom of speech. There are a number of places for people to go that get sick and tired of discussing our liberties, our rights, and if and when those rights and liberties get violated. This Is AMERICA!!!

 

[10010011]

An assumption. Let's wait it and see. You apparently can't believe that this woman thought someone was impinging on her right to free speech (w/o disturbing others...excessively loud) and her right to freedom of religion.

Free speech does have it's limits. Like the classic "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" or the more recent "Bong hits for Jesus" cases.

This is not about freedom of religion, as them getting a ride to Church from the supervisor pretty much proves that. I think if they had some beef against the religion they would have left them standing on the curb. I am sure if it was some teenagers being loud on their way to the mall, they would not have been offered a ride the rest of the way by the supervisor.

Many of the post seem to think they were singled out just because they were reading the Bible and scream for the rules to be applied evenly. She said they sat at the back of the bus. Yet the driver obviously could hear them over all the other noise on the bus, so it's not like she was reading quietly. So the driver applied the same rules that would be applied to anyone being loud enough to hear from the back of the bus, but because they were reading the Bible loudly they don't think the same rules should apply and its relegous persecution to do so.

These are the people that want selective enforcement of the law.

 

[Johnd]

Well, not necessarily...at all.

This is nothing like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Many people could be hurt in a circumstance such as that. Please extrapolate on the instant case and your analogy of shouting "fire."

It remains to be seen if it was not about religion, or freedom of expression, or freedom of speech...that is the whole point.

 

[10010011]

Well, not necessarily...at all.

This is nothing like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Many people could be hurt in a circumstance such as that. Please extrapolate on the instant case and your analogy of shouting "fire."

It is merely a classic example of limits on freedom of speech, that's all.

It remains to be seen if it was not about religion, or freedom of expression, or freedom of speech...that is the whole point.

Indeed, we shall see, personally I am willing to wait and see, not get a big unruly mob together and call for the bus drivers blood.

I am willing to bet this lady is seeing $$$dollar signs$$$ in here future now, and will play the poor persecuted Christian for the news cameras, Opra, and the talk show circuit, pray for a book deal, and maybe even a made for TV movie.

This woman is no Rosa Parks and I bet it will never make it to court.

So we will never know.

 

[Halon451]

It is merely a classic example of limits on freedom of speech, that's all.

No, it is most certainly not - shouting "fire" in a theater is a willful act of public disturbance, and intended to cause mass confusion, which could ulitmately lead to injury and/or property damage. You try invoke the 1st Amendment rights of an American, then in the same breath argue against their right to use it. I'm confused bits, which is it?

Indeed, we shall see, personally I am willing to wait and see, not get a big unruly mob together and call for the bus drivers blood.

No, it is highly unlikely that it will come to such a thing - you've been watching too many movies.

I am willing to bet this lady is seeing $$$dollar signs$$$ in here future now, and will play the poor persecuted Christian for the news cameras, Opra, and the talk show circuit, pray for a book deal, and maybe even a made for TV movie.

This woman is no Rosa Parks and I bet it will never make it to court.

So we will never know.

What was that you said? Oh, I got it...



That is all...

 

[masak_aer]

I can see 10010011's point but I have to agree with MarkW & Halon on this one. The real problem is that we don't know for sure if the lady was simply reading out loud for her children that caused disturbance to others or if it was the content of what she read that disturbed the bus driver. These two things make a whole lots of different in how we will see the incident. I personally hate it when in the name of "freedom of speech", a person is exercising his rights without tolerance. Tolerance is something many Americans need to learn as well.

You may blow your nose loudly, it is your right but if someone is eating in front of you and you still blow your nose loudly. That is intolerance! You may be Christian/Moslem/Hindus/whatever...but please, if you want to pray, try to be tolerant and tone yourself down a bit. It is intolerant to pray loudly in the bus when some people might be trying to catch some sleep too. It may not be praying (some people may be offended)but simply talking loudly among friends in a bus, that is what i say intolerance.
It is not illegal to voice yourself or engage in a conversation loudly but be tolerant to others. With it I think this whole mess might not have happened in the first place.

Just my .02.

 

[Johnd]

I can see 10010011's point but I have to agree with MarkW & Halon on this one. The real problem is that we don't know for sure if the lady was simply reading out loud for her children that caused disturbance to others or if it was the content of what she read that disturbed the bus driver. These two things make a whole lots of different in how we will see the incident. I personally hate it when in the name of "freedom of speech", a person is exercising his rights without tolerance. Tolerance is something many Americans need to learn as well.

You may blow your nose loudly, it is your right but if someone is eating in front of you and you still blow your nose loudly. That is intolerance! You may be Christian/Moslem/Hindus/whatever...but please, if you want to pray, try to be tolerant and tone yourself down a bit. It is intolerant to pray loudly in the bus when some people might be trying to catch some sleep too. It may not be praying (some people may be offended)but simply talking loudly among friends in a bus, that is what i say intolerance.
It is not illegal to voice yourself or engage in a conversation loudly but be tolerant to others. With it I think this whole mess might not have happened in the first place.

Just my .02.

Well, you just have it backwards.

It may be inconsiderate to speak the testament on the bus, but it is their right by way of freedom of speech/expression/religion. It is intolerant to not be able to hear that without being offended, and without complaining. Welcome to America! JFYI, there are a number of places in the world where it is forbidden (by law) to express religion and freedoms. I would never want to see that here...would you?

 

[10010011]

No, it is most certainly not - shouting "fire" in a theater is a willful act of public disturbance, and intended to cause mass confusion, which could ulitmately lead to injury and/or property damage. You try invoke the 1st Amendment rights of an American, then in the same breath argue against their right to use it. I'm confused bits, which is it?

Wow, ok... One more time.

Free speech does have it's limits. Like the classic "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" or the more recent "Bong hits for Jesus" cases.

Schenck v. United States

Morse v. Frederick

It is merely a classic example of limits on freedom of speech, that's all.

No, it is highly unlikely that it will come to such a thing - you've been watching too many movies.

Toss a few torches and pitch forks into this thread and see what happens.


I am a persecuted Christian.

 

[masak_aer]

Well, you just have it backwards.

It may be inconsiderate to speak the testament on the bus, but it is their right by way of freedom of speech/expression/religion. It is intolerant to not be able to hear that without being offended, and without complaining.

I don't know whether you have sarcarsm between the lines or it is what you think is right....The intolerant and inconsiderate words can be used the other way around, can't they?

Welcome to America! JFYI, there are a number of places in the world where it is forbidden (by law) to express religion and freedoms. I would never want to see that here...would you?

Well, I have been to a place where you may only hear one group of religion waking everybody's up for 30 continuous day at 4:00 in the freaking morning by playing loud music, singing and ocassional prayers between the loud music coming from 2x20" loudspeaker and an amp as big as your laserjet printer. And when they hear a church bell rings, they'll stone the church for public nuisance. And no, i'd hate that. It doesn't mean anything in this discussion though, is there?

 

[Johnd]

I don't know whether you have sarcarsm between the lines or it is what you think is right....The intolerant and inconsiderate words can be used the other way around, can't they?

No, not at all. I was simply clarifying the difference between intolerance and inconsiderateness.

It would be inconsiderate to speak too loudly, and intolerant to disallow people's right(s). To say it is intolerant to speak too loudly is not using the term correctly...that's all.

 

[Halon451]

Disturbing other passengers or the driver is the same thing no matter if it's loud bible reading or loud rap music playing.

What they were doing to create the disturbance should not be the issue here.

What does bother me is people that think just because they are annoying people with religious talk it should be allowed.

It is merely a classic example of limits on freedom of speech, that's all.

This is not about freedom of religion

Make your point bits, and stick with it. I'm getting dizzy from this roller coaster ride of yours. Are you just one of those argumentative types? Always have to be the voice of opposition or in this case, un-reason?

I've really got better things to do with my time than lock horns with you on this topic, but I keep coming back to it because you're amusing the hell out of me.

NOTE: The above reference to "hell" was in no way meant to be construed either in present or past tense, and religious connotations, either hereto, or in assumption of any religious preferences of the author of this post, and should not in any way be viewed as disclosure of his beliefs, henceforth.

 

[masak_aer]

No, not at all. I was simply clarifying the difference between intolerance and inconsiderateness.

It would be inconsiderate to speak too loudly, and intolerant to disallow people's right(s). To say it is intolerant to speak too loudly is not using the term correctly...that's all.

Got it.. Thanks for the clarification. So intolerance can be prosecuted in this context since it means disallowing an individual's right(s)?

 

[10010011]

I've really got better things to do with my time than lock horns with you on this topic, but I keep coming back to it because you're amusing the hell out of me.

LOL, me too

Glad to see there are no hard feelings.