Protestantism

» Migisi - Or Public Safety?

In response to Or Public Safety? posted by redback:
.
so being told to 'move on' when you don't want to and believe you have a RIGHT to stay...should lead to what?
.
A tricky call, to be sure. The question is - does one have the ~right~ to expose himself to harm? Should people who ignore evacuation orders issued due to life-threatening conditions be forcibly removed for their own safety? IMHO, an unreserved YES.
.
From my personal experience, the problem arises ~after~ that person exercises his ~right~ to stay, but then expects public servants to rescue him from the risk he knowingly and intentionally took. This exposes those public servants to harm needlessly - which is NOT his ~right~ to do.
.
The case in question here, as I understand it, is that the area was officially closed because of the potential for serious injury or loss of life. Under those circumstances, did he have a ~right~ to stay, and encourage others to stay by his preaching, thus exposing them to possible harm too? Some would say, yes, it was their choice to risk personal harm. Then I would say it should be the public servant's choice whether to rescue them, or tend to their resulting injuries (i.e. "they made their bed, now let them lay in it'). But they, or their family, would be first in line to sue if a civil servant made that choice. As a past public servant, I resented (and was angered by) the unnecessary harm I was exposed to because of the stupidity of others. Just my POV - from that other side of the coin.
.
Do you think most claims of religious persecution are 6 metres tall?
.
Some can be, but in this instance, I'd say it falls flat.
.
That might be a sight at the surf in Hawaii but...climate change prospects aside...on Queensland beaches...while you watch...and preach???
.
Makes me wonder... if they avoided preaching on the beach 'even on a fine day', why go to the 'beach front near Cavil Ave' (Surfers Paradise?) during a gale storm? (Google Satellite is awesome!)

-- posted by Migisi