By Victoria Colwell
Disclaimer: I repeatedly refer to the street preacher as the “zealot,” not to disrespect his beliefs, but to reflect the intensity with which he conveyed them.
Defining Goals & Biases
As I delve into my journalistic passions, I find my focus drifting toward social and political commentary. While my beliefs and opinions can be described as progressive, I aim for the focus of my work to center on the role of empathy in the pursuit of truth.
In my observation of disagreements and discourse on various issues, a central theme appears to be a distrust of the concept of objective truth. I will admit to my own biases, such as not understanding how someone could hold this apprehension toward science but treat a subjective belief with the same level of allegiance. Additionally, I don’t know how someone can admonish people for believing in scientifically proven facts but expect others to treat their subjective beliefs as such, regardless of how strongly held those beliefs are.
As I continue to write within the lens of advocating for empathy in the pursuit of truth, I’ve been reminded of an anecdote I witnessed several years ago, which reminded me that everyone can be equally capable of hypocrisy.
I stated in my previous piece on abortion rights how it’s important not to legislate according to a personal belief rather than an objectively provable fact. While this situation is different, it is only fair to acknowledge instances in which I have allowed my personal beliefs to cloud my perception of justice.
A Chance Encounter that Escalated to Violence
As a college student, I spent an admittedly excessive amount of time debating and engaging with the various religious zealots who would proselytize for hours on end outside the student union. I refer to them as such to communicate the single-mindedness and insistence with which they tend to communicate their perspectives, rather than to diminish the validity of their beliefs.
The exact time of this incident is unclear to me, although it was before the fall of 2022 on the University of Oregon campus. It may have been spring, considering the unique freshness of the air beneath the bright clouds, their light seeming to bounce off each other throughout the mirror-like sky.
Nonetheless, the man stands clearly in my memory, before a semi-circle-shaped audience, of which I was in the front. His dialogue now exists mainly in fragments: I remember him describing us as “wicked” for some perceived crime, whether it was queerness or our indifference to God. I also remember someone alleging that he had said Jews deserve to die, though I didn’t hear it myself.
I also remember him saying that those who identified as queer were not actually queer because he was referring to the definition of the word that he had grown up with (odd or peculiar). This was a moment of peak irony to me, considering his and his colleague’s collective reluctance to accept how changes in cultural context could affect the literal interpretation of religious texts.
As he was in mid-sentence, a young dude–presumably a student– ran up to him, grabbed his Bible out of his hands, and ran away. The zealot ran after him, during which the crowd and I egged on the student by yelling, “Run Forrest, run!” After pursuing for only a few seconds, the zealot tackled the student, wrenched the Bible from his hands, and returned to his previous post.
At that point, I believe the subject of his sermon may have switched to how hateful people can be in the persecution of his religion, to which I responded that he “assaulted” someone. As the student had a bloody and possibly broken nose, and the consensus was that the zealot was in the wrong, several people—including myself—called 911. When the police arrived, others and I wanted to see the zealot implicated for a crime, and offered to support the student in whatever way we could as witnesses. I remember the collective disappointment when the officers informed us that the zealot had the right to pursue someone who had stolen his property.
While I eventually acknowledged the legal reality of the issue, I began rationalizing the incident as an overreaction on the part of the zealot. And in a way, that might still be valid. But I’ve only grown more aware of the extent to which the collective opinion of the event—and my own—may have been painted by our disdain for the zealot and the disdain he was expressing for us.
And while it’s understandable that we’d feel resentful of the person spewing hateful rhetoric at us through the narrow frame of his worldview, I can’t help but think that this then colored our judgment of how someone deserved to be treated and who was in the wrong in the situation. I wonder if we’d see the tackle as more justified if it were done by someone holding a different holy text, or even just a Christian expressing their beliefs in a more congenial, egalitarian way.
Legal Ethics vs. Moral Beliefs
In my opinion, even if someone expresses hateful beliefs, as long as they’re not threatening, they should still deserve equal protection from theft under the law. However, further examination of the literature on the subject highlights the nuanced nature of the issue.
Under Oregon law, the situation could qualify as necessitating a citizen’s arrest. However, in accordance with the same law, the arresting citizen is required to take the arrested person before law enforcement without unnecessary delay, which the zealot did not do and demonstrably had no intention of doing, considering his immediate return to the spot where he had been preaching.
In what I see as a nebulous stipulation, someone is justified in using force in a citizen’s arrest “when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person.” According to this, one could reasonably justify that the zealot believed it was necessary to tackle the student to subdue him and reclaim his property.
Regardless of justification, citizens’ arrests generally expose the arresting person to significant liability, as the person they arrest can sue them, such as for false imprisonment.
The Politics of Perception
Aside from the legalities of that specific situation, reflecting on it has made me aware of how preconceived notions about others’ values can influence my perceptions.
While my and others’ opinions towards extremist religious views remain intact and valid, it’s essential to acknowledge how biases can influence our views of how the law should be applied and carried out. Even considering differences in people’s acceptance of the truth, no one is infallible or above unconscious biases.
Empathy and self-awareness are essential ingredients for productive discourse that can hopefully advance human rights and reverse the erosion that many have experienced. Similarly to how I argued that we must avoid legislating based on subjective beliefs, this moment reminded me of how personal bias can distort our perception of justice and influence our understanding of specific actions. We must acknowledge our own personal blocks to authentic connection to disarm the instinctual defensiveness that can so easily arise in polarizing conversations.
Sources:
Brown, Jordyn (13 Jul 2020). “Explainer: How Oregon’s citizen’s arrest law works.” The Register-Guard. Explainer: How Oregon’s citizen’s arrest law works
“ORS 133.225Arrest by private person.” OregonLaws. ORS 133.225 – Arrest by private person
“ORS 161.255 Use of physical force by private person making citizen’s arrest.” OregonLaws. ORS 161.255 – Use of physical force by private person making citizen’s arrest