Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Campus preachers push limits

Published: Thursday, November 8, 2007

Updated: Thursday, September 4, 2008 11:09

If an atheist witnessed any displays of "Christianity" portrayed by the campus evangelists, he or she would be pushed even further away from believing in a god.

According to Wednesday's Oracle, a 22-year-old junior sociology major claims that on Oct. 12 she was harassed by a street preacher, John M. Kranert, who often voices his faith on the Cooper Hall lawn. The student, who declined to release her name, has since filed an assault complaint against Kranert. On the day of the incident, she said Kranert charged at her, cocked his fist and stopped mere inches from her face before calling her a whore. According to the student, she was fully covered and minding her own business.

She said Kranert demeaned her on prior occasions by saying, "I can tell you've been with every man on campus by the way you stand," and asking if she got her name from Black Entertainment Television because of her caramel complexion. He didn't know her name, nor did he ask, suggesting the question was purely racist at its roots, according to the Oracle.

This situation presents a fight between free speech and insidious speech. In an earlier column, I defended Andrew Morgan from the University of Florida and his right to free speech, because he put no one in physical danger.

This circumstance, however, is different. The campus evangelists - Kranert, Micah Armstrong and others - have the right to free speech like everyone else in this country. These street preachers have the right to say what they want about the Word of God and the students can respond back, contradicting them or supporting them. Yet when a street preacher - or anyone else - crosses the line and charges at someone, calling them unfounded and derogatory names, he has entered insidious speech territory. Insidious speech is intended to harm and is not protected by the First Amendment.

The most common example is that it's illegal to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Instead of crying fire, Kranert called a conservatively dressed woman a whore.

Kranert's alleged actions are a danger to the students he harasses and to himself. He's asking for trouble. It is a natural reaction to protect oneself from harm, and if he came charging at someone's face, he was lucky he wasn't hit or pushed away.

Although this student's horrific experience is documented by University Police, I've personally seen Armstrong in action, insulting others. I've seen him tell a Hindi student that she is going to hell because she worships a fake god. I've seen him tell a woman to cover her cleavage before she tries to talk to him. I've seen him tell a black student that she isn't going to heaven because of the color of her skin. And he's told me, as I was defending the Hindi student, that he won't respect anyone who doesn't believe in his God.

There has been much speculation among students whether these street preachers are intentionally pushing students to the edge so they can get hit and sue. Regardless of whether this can be empirically proven, I believe it's true. I was raised Catholic, but I'm not that religious. I never finished reading the Bible and I haven't been to church in years. The impression that I got from what I do know is that anger and violence will not lead to spiritual unity and it will not make a person a good Christian.

In a handful of places, including Leviticus 19:18, the Bible states: "love thy neighbor."

Kranert isn't showing much love, and he isn't receiving any. It's hard to love your neighbor when that neighbor is calling you rude names and threatening to harm you.

The verdict: Kranert's speech, in combination with his actions and choice of words, is insidious speech and therefore not protected by the First Amendment, nor is it permissible by normal moral standards. Moreover, it is a disgrace to the human race and all practicing Christians who are embarrassed by their display.

If anyone is being un-Christlike, it's Kranert and the other violent street preachers.

Amy Mariani is a sophomore majoring in mass communications.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

7 comments

open preacher
Mon Mar 30 2009 13:50
the truth about accusing street preachers of making comments like
because your skin is black your going to hell,,, can be proven true or false by the video recordings they are making! if news reports are untruthful they would be as harmful as the bending of free speech in attempt to injure someone!
the street preachers are always video taping with several cameras for
legal protection and are most offend posting what they are doing on utube
Micah Armstrong associates with black and spanish Christians in street ministry
it could hardly be true He said skin color sends people to hell!

openairpreacher utube
http://www.youtube.com/user/openairpreacher

nic
Wed Mar 25 2009 18:04
wondering if this guy still comes on campus?!! if so, has this coverage has affected his actions in any way.
pk
Wed Mar 25 2009 13:55
These preacher freaks must GO.This is NOT freedom of speech-it's an invasion of everyone else's rights to NOT be harassed!!
Karibdes
Wed Feb 4 2009 12:11
Try it on me and I'd risk prison to beat the Hell out of preacher-boy.
Johnny
Tue Feb 3 2009 20:32
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre should not be interpreted as insidious speech. Calling someone a whore certainly can be interpreted as such, however. However, just because insidious speech is not "protected by the First Amendment" doesn't automatically make it illegal, it means that there are no grounds with which to base punishment off of, should people believe it is unlawful.

Still, I say let them get as in the face with the students as they want. Put a man with violent tendencies and a closed mind in the midst of thousands of free-thinkers who often go to the campus gym and are already stressed because of their courses, and the evangelical lunatic will eventually get the beating they are practically begging for.

Brian Rosa
Sat Nov 29 2008 14:06
I don't agree with this article at all, while the "preacher" is annoying and attention seeking. Insidious speech? Come on, really? These kids can't be protected all of their lives, they need to stand up to these people when they come at them, not run in fear and tell the administration. When they get out into the real world, there won't always be someone to run and tell to.
Bob
Sat Sep 13 2008 08:34
I doubt his verbal attacks amounted to insidious speech. Being called a whore by anyone is abhorrent and is uncalled-for and calls this man true faith into question. However, the right not to be offended isn't in the constitution. Ignore him, like students have done for years, and eventually he’ll go away.

However, I do think that anyone up on a soap box on campus trying to incite a response from the students and administration, as seems the case here, probably has some serious mental or emotional issues they're dealing with.

Regardless of their mental state, physical attacks against anyone is completely wrong and, if proven, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. From the article it seems as though this young man has a history of directing his ire toward female students. This should give everyone an uneasy feeling. The students, especially females, should minimize contact with him to the best of their ability, and the administration should do everything within the law to protect students from future harm.







log out