Religious singing in Red Square

This was not removed -- you posted it in the thread about the cross in red square

I actually agree with you for once (kind of).

First, the part that I agree with you on:
JESUS WAS TOTALLY NOT ANGLO-SAXON!! I have never understood why half the world thinks He was White. Yes, He should totally have brown skin and curly, dark hair in every picture (but I guess people just like to think He looked as they do)! As Jesus was a man at some point, he had a race. He is not always portrayed as White, though. In Africa, Jesus is thought of as Black, in the Middle East, he is thought of as Middle Eastern. God was never a man (unless you're one of those people who say that Jesus is God; and that's something I don't really want to get into), so he does not have a race.

He also did not have sex with Mary--that's why she is called The Blessed Virgin. The conception was through the Holy Ghost. And He didn't disrupt any marriages (=P lololol).

Some people believe that God (Jesus, Mary, the Saints...) reveals Himself through answering prayers as well as through the Word. And yes, there are many interepretations (and translations) of the Bible and I think that the Bible should always be taken with a grain of salt.

Ha, well that clears some things up. Damn forums...don't know why I even try.

What's the Word? Sounds like an ebonics thing... you know, like "word".

Actually, if you reserach the historical accuracy of the Bible, it's pretty damn accurate (and by accurate I'm specifically talking about it's faithfulness from when it was written to the version we have today regardless of what you believe about it).

Old Testament: The Jews were serious about their copying.  They knew how many lines, words, syllables were in each page of their Scriptures.  They believes making a mistake in copying was deserving of hell- they had a bit of motivation to get it right (I know in more "modern" times if a misake was made, the page was thrown away and I believe if God's name was copied incorrectly, the entire thing was started over.  And by "modern" I mean they were still doing it by hand).  Regardless of how careful you are, yeah, you'd expect mistakes to creep in.  So when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 we got a pleasant surprise: the copies we had today, 1000 years later, were pretty much exactly the same.  A few minor errors, but nothing that changed meaning. 

The New Testament:  How many times have you doubted the writings of Caeser?  Or Plato?  Thucydides?  Hell, even Homer?  Yet we have ten or less copies of Caeser, Plato, and Thucydides and the earliest ones date about 1,000 years after they were written (Homer's a bit better, only 500 years and we have just over 600).  I bet those are super accurate.  Yet the copies of the New Testament that we have are within 25-50 years after they were supposedly written and we have about 24,000.  In different languages.  And they can be compared to each other and found to be extremely similar and the mistakes that exist to be nonessential things (i.e. grammer, spelling, things that don't change meaning).  It's also nearly possible to construct a complete New Tesatment based on the writings of Early Church Fathers.  

So what's your beef with the accuracy of the Bible again? 

And yeah, Jesus was probably half black (according to one book I read, but he most definitely wasn't the white bread depiction you seem to know).  Culture's protray him as they perceive him because of the overriding message that he came for THEM.  So we have white boy Jesus and other cultures have other depictions of Jesus.  When I was in Europe and went through Cathedrals, etc, I was really interested in photo cateloging the different depictions of Christ.  Maybe it's just your narrow view and perception of Jesus because I don't thing most of the world thinks he's white. 

To quote Avenue Q:
Princeton: Oh, Christ do I feel good.
Gary Coleman: Now there was a fine upstanding black man!
Princeton: Who?
Gary Coleman: Jesus Christ.
Kate Monster: But, Gary, Jesus was white.
Gary Coleman: No, Jesus was black.
Kate Monster: No, Jesus was white.
Gary Coleman: No, I'm pretty sure that Jesus was black-
Princeton: Guys, guys...Jesus was Jewish!
*and everyone erupts into laughter*

p.s. this is from the song "everyone is a little bit racist" and I have yet to find someone who it seriously offends.  Listen to the whole thing, it plays with the idea that everyone has stereotypes and makes fun of others.

First. I have no beef with the bible. It is a book. Probably a good one, but not to be taken literally. 

Second. Can you cite some of your resources that support your theory about the historical accuracy of the bible? It has been like 2000 years, you can't just waltz in and say "it's ok, they did a good job, better then xerox". I believe you, but can you just back it up a little? I mean, you might have just heard this in your church knitting group and assumed it was true. 

You may be right, but we are still playing telephone. Also, I have read a little bit about the teams of people that got together and decided how and why to translate the bible. Maybe they did a great job and maybe they didn't, but what I recall is that people have fought furiously about not only the words of the bible, but also their meaning. So, maybe every word was copied very precisely, but their meaning has been hotly debated and those debates have most certainly been involved in how the text is taught, and therefore how it is learned. Since the author is not here, we may never know.

Also, you sound like a relatively learned scholar. So, it is likely that you yourself have actually looked through several translations and said wow, these are surprisingly accurate. But has everyone else? Does everyone know how to read hebrew/latin etc. Of course not. So, they have to rely on english translations. Again, telephone game except over thousands of years and across social and linguistic barriers. 

So let's get Specific. I am pretty sure that the writings of the apostles are part of the bible, so... What in blue blazes did Paul mean when he said "LET WOMEN KEEP SILENT"? If you were a man and it was in your best interest that the women in your church never spoke out against you don't you think you would be very happy with a translation that was pretty literal?

I have never even read ceaser, but i am sure that I would be skeptical about his work, especially if teams of old men were responsible for translating it, uh oh... the prolly were. 

I am also very skeptical about Dr Sleemans lectures, but that does not mean I have beef with him. Nor do I have beef with the bible. I just don't think that the bible that they put into hotel dresser drawers is the "word of god". It is the word of someone who maybe sat next to god on an airplane on a trip to dallas... I think it is a book. I think people should be skeptical about what they read.

Also, there is a big difference between scriptural text and philosophical text. You can't just say, hey you can't be skeptical about the bible without being skeptical about choose your own adventure novels.

Look, people can and should have a belief system that they are comfortable with, but a lot of us feel like the whole christianity thing has a lot of oppression of women built into it. Take from that what you will. Call me when the pope is a girl. 

 Here is what a church in Arizona thinks about "let women keep silence"

In the marriage relationship, as well as in the church, God has ordained male leadership and female followship. Men have the responsibility to lead and females have the responsibility to submit. God the Father is over Christ, Christ is over man, and man is over woman (1 Cor. 11:3ff). A woman is not to usurp authority over or teach over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-12). Priscilla, in conjunction with her husband Aquila, helped to teach Apollos (Acts 18:26). A woman teaches when she sings, but she is not teaching "over" a man. A woman may make a comment in a Bible class, but she is not to speak beyond subjection to the male teacher (i.e. dominate or control the class).

Women may take the lead in teaching classes of children or other women (cf. Titus 2:3-4). Women have much God-glorifying work to do in their sphere designated by God. The silence Paul enjoins on women in 1 Cor. 14:34f is when women attempt to disrupt God's delegation of authority and male leadership by taking the lead in the assembly.

more here:

http://iwhome.com/spiritualquest/articles/hpblsilt.htm

So, yeah... I have beef with this, but this is not the bible this is a translation/interpretation (sorry I get the two words mixed up sometimes, to me they are one and the same). 

Is this a serious question?

I'll answer anyway, THE WORD OF GOD (the Bible).

which one? 

Cause it does not sound like the word of god to me, it sounds like the word of old british guys. 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_different_versions_are_there_of_the_B...

or just read on:

How many different versions are there of the Bible?
In: The Bible 

Answer
There are dozens of different English translations of the Bible. Each one chooses different translations of various words to express what the translation's authors felt were most important or most accurate, based on the documents they had at the time.
See the Related Links for more information.

Answer
Originally there were about 11 of them. In England, circa 1800 there was mainly one source of blblical information availabe to the general public. Whenever questions would arise regarding biblical prophecy the people needed to go to the church elders who in turn would refer to their ' Book of Scriptures ' for answers. These inquisitions became somewhat burdensome to the church. In an effort to alleviate the many inquries, King James wanted the people to have their own copy of the scriptures. He then commisioned scholars, scribes and elders to translate the scriptures in to different languages to accomodate the masses from which the King James Version, ' The Holy Bible ' was derived.

[comment deleted at request of author]

Hey Pete, this is sort of off the top of my head, but I hope it helps-

Ok, so first off, I believe that this was a specific instruction for a specific church.  Corinth at the time was in the middle of sort of an extremist social push in which women were overpowering men in the social structure of the city.  The church in Corinth reflected this also and the average service would go ridiculously long with people (especially women due to the city) interrupting the pastor.  That is why if you look at the verse 'let women be silent' in context,  it's in the middle of a long passage about a call to orderly worship. (1 Corinthians 14 26-40).  In the same passage it is also talking about not having so many people speaking in tongues and prophesying in a row, and this was simply to make sure that the focus was on God, and not the individual speaking.  (we can discuss some of the things like speaking in tongues later if you want)

Furthermore, the Church in Corinth was plagued by women gossiping throughout about everyone.  Paul visited, saw this, saw that there was no love in what they were doing, and called them out on it.  To me, this is a specific instruction for one church and should not be taken to be the way for every church.

Anyways, hope that helps, and I don't think i said anything too inflammatory there :)

i think the idea of the idea of how true to fact the bible was is an interesting topic, on one hand those who really believe won't care whether it's been perfectly copied down, because to them it's not necessarily the historical significance that's so interesting about it.

on the other hand, it's really interesting to see exactly what was in the original translation and what has been added. one way this is done is through finding friggen old manuscripst of the Bible, (Dead Sea Scrolls anyone?) and comparing them to modern translations. another way that we talked about in one of my honors classes is through the linguistic differences you can get out of the stories of the Bible, for instance, if you read the story of the flood in Genesis or the loaves and fishes in Matthew carefully you'll find it repeats inself almost constantly, while changing slight details sucha as numbers of fishes or the way they refer to God. Most people believe this is probably because there were two renditions of the story at the time, and both were somehow significant to the church, so they were uncerimoniously mashed together and stuck in as one story.
also, in the book of Job, and most of Genesis, if you split the story where it refers to God as the Lord, Yaweh, or...i forget the third one, but you can tell parts have been added, and can sometimes even figure out what the original story was. The original story of Job was incredibly depressing and confusing, because it didn't have the parts at the beginning and end where God talks to Satan and Job to tell you what God was thinking, he just gets terrible things happening to him, and noone knows why, which is probly why the later parts were added for clarification.

eh, i'm gonna stop myself there, i find this sort of stuff incredibly interesting, but i'll spare you having to read a bunch more.

Also! on the "Word of God"
most people use this in reference to the Bible itself, but in Genesis it says, "God created the Word, and it was a part of Him, was "begotten not made", and was there before the world was created"...or something like that, i'm kinda fuzzy on the details, but i think "the Word of God" actually is another one of the incredibly long list of names for Jesus (who was totally not white), which can sort of get confusing, as people will refer to both the Bible and Jesus as the "Word of God"  

Honestly, this isn't as accurate a statement as you might think.

Really it comes down to your intent with the book.  If you intend to use the book as allegory, history, a general guide with the some moral lessons, its accuracy isn't necessarily of primary importance.

If you intend to read any parts of the Bible as literal truth and literal word of God, then accuracy is of supreme (no pun intended) importance.

There are some bits of the bible that are accurate, or at least, as close to accurate as can be measured.  There are other parts that are inaccurate, contradictory, or downright abhorrent when viewed through a modern social lens.

There are several issues at hand.  First, is the accuracy of the preserved text.  This is the one of most immediate concern, because it serves as the foundation.  While the original old testament texts were in Hebrew and Aramaic they were also re-arranged with interpretations and emphasis modifications.  Even the Masoretes added vowel points in going from the original text to the Masoretic texts.  Even so, variants existed, like the Dead Sea Scrolls.Also, intepreting text to a different language can result in unintentional changes of meaning or intent.  The word Almah, for example (the one that was has been translated to 'virgin' in the Isaiah 7:14), is not specifically used to describe a virgin (there are other more contextually appropriate words), but it doesn't necessarily mean that the person was not a virgin.  It means, in most contexts, a young unmarried woman of age.

Second is the accuracy of the events and/or stories.  Much of what is in the bible (including the Old Testament) is passed down from oral traditions, a method which is, on it's face, unreliable in the preservation of facts and events.  The Torah itself has an oral tradition that is part interpretation.  The story of Noah has parallels in the epic of Gilgamesh, and may have even descended from a proven historical event, such as a massive flood of the Euphrates.  Add to that that the writings in the new testament occurred many years after Jesus, which, at the very least, should lead one to be skeptical of their accuracy.

Many of the ideas in modern Christianity, the Devil (Satan, 'Lucifer'), Hell, the Trinity aren't necessarily what people think they are. Interpretation, translation, and passing of the 'Word' (whether written or spoken) is done by imperfect beings, and is subject to the mistakes we make.

The accuracy of this is questionable, since Jews don't believe in Hell.  It doesn't exist in the Torah, and eternal punishment would be considered making God cruel.  The word 'Hell' is usually a mistranslation of the word "Sheol" which doesn't mean what it is intepreted as in the Bible.  I cannot help but be skeptical of your assertions with this kind of inaccuracy.

Homer is definitely in question.  While there may be some accuracy in his works, it isn't viewed as 100% accurate.  There are anachronisms in his work, and many of his original sources are probably oral in nature.  In this regard, it is very much like the Bible.

If the writings of a single individuals works preserved over the centuries can be proven as fallable, why is it the writings of many people over a longer period of time is somehow less susceptible to the same problems.

You might also want to consider looking into the Council of Nicaea with regards to the effects it had on modern day beliefs.

The ultimate point is essentially not that the Bible is inaccurate, it's how it's used.  If you assert it as the literal word of God, you must allow it to be scrutinized as such, with all it's contradictions, questionable ethics, and fantastic happenings.  As a guide, scrutiny will merely reveal that it is the imperfect work of human authors, scribes, translators.  This concern becomes secondary to a 'meta' belief that isn't in any specific word or passage.  The abstraction is what's important.  Though if you do that, it then becomes inherently difficult to use any specific passage as justification.

Half black?  I didn't know there were only two options.

Honestly, assuming he existed - he was Jewish in a region of the world known where the people are largely darker skinned.  Likely falling somewhere between Cacasoid and African in the darkness of his skin tone.  The real question is, why does it matter?  Anyone who wants to proclaim it one way or the other has other issues going on.

I don't think that the issue in my mind is that it should be proclaimed one way or the other, but the idea that the image of jesus christ is crafted to fit the comfort zone of the people that are being targeted for conversion raises suspicion. It brings up questions like, what else has been altered to make this easier for me to swallow? Why is it important for me to feel an ethnic/racial bond with my savior?

Thanks davd, you are always great to hear from. 

No, of course nothing you said was inflammatory. It is comforting to hear that people are not taking this literally, but in general I am not convinced that the christian movement has embraced your views. Maybe I am totally wrong. I am not out doing surveys or anything.

You are really fun to have around. Keep up the great posts. I think they are fantastic.

Epic post~

Maybe I'll set up some Buddhist Mantras nearby next time I see them. Get my player and some speakers... set it on continuous play and see how they like it...

I know this topic has drifted away from the origin, so I just thought I'd share my feelings on the original subject: I dislike it. I don't want to see it, hear it, or experience it. Take it to an appropriate place where you can't offend others. Regardless of your intent, I find it really ethnocentric and uncouth to think that the world needs to hear your message so darn bad. If I want info, I'll go to a church. Leave it up to me to decide my level of involvement; this isn't the middle ages...

Your two statements kind of contradict each other. I realize you may have been just making a point with the first one, but still, if we tell the Christian singers that they can't sing their songs in Red Square because they're offending someone, regardless of intent, like you said, we have to tell a hell of a lot of people that they can't be in Red Square anymore.

I was just making a point. Two actually. 1) Why do only the christians think that everyone should suffer their faith? (and thereby force the rest of us to endure it in public settings) and 2) How would they like to be subjected to another religion whether they like it or not?

Tolerance is a two way street. If christians want tolerance, then they shouldn't push their luck.

you really think that they are pushing their luck by singing? Dude, red square is supposed to be bustling with diverse opinions and people, and it is rrrrrreally big. You could totally set up your Buddhist stuff and it would be fine Let them sing. 

Am I the only one that thinks its a little bit bold to think that god comes anytime a few people are preaching? My point being that back when there were only TWO people (adam and eve) he wasn't even paying attention enough to make sure they weren't misled. Now you might say "That's the point of freedom." I would ask in turn if you feel it is good parenting or neglect that leads a mother or father to leave their child around a hot stove with no supervision.

I don't really mind the singing, I bought headphones for a reason, I'm more annoyed by the wall of chainsmokers that seem to get out of their classes a minute before I get out of mine so that my walk from Bond to the new Instructional Building can be as carcinogenic as possible.

If all I ever had to deal with in a given day was a dozen off key people singing gospels I think life wouldn't be that bad. Considering that I'm stuck with thousands of dollars of debt, terrible joint health, and a broken heart (I mean that in the medical sense not emotional), I'd much rather have the former than the latter. Plus given that I'm white and American I'm not even allowed to complain about this stuff because I'm reminded that anyone who isn't white has it worse and that there are people dying or being tortured all over.

I've learned that unless you have the worst problems in the world you aren't allowed to be bothered by them, to me that seems pretty childish and subjective but that's the apparent view of enough noisy people (heck look at the first page of this thread someone ranted about how people are watching their kids get beaten). I like to see people being invalidated merely because their problems aren't 'good enough'.

To clarify my top point feel free to read my reasoning: http://www.islesofscion.net/2009/03/10/adam-and-eve-god-was-a-terrible-p...

I want to be clear: I don't think people should be refused the right to express themselves, but I do think they should consider the effect they are having. Case in point, the abortion display that made everyone upset last year. The program was well within its rights, but they chose a poor medium. The singers could instead hold a concert in a concert hall, set up a table and talk to those that stop by with interest, or even have a SILENT vigil... Their choice of indiscriminate broadcasting is simply inconsiderate to a multicultural audiance of different beliefs and tolerance levels.

FOR EXAMPLE:, if my grandfather was a card carrying Nazi who won medals, saved a busload of burning nuns from a Giant T-Rex, and I felt his memory needed to be honored and publicly recognized... would you tolerate a bunch of guys standing around with NSDAP regalia on, waving appropriate flags and singing party specific tunes? I doubt it. However, if I set up a table with his photo in large print, and then proceeded to share his life story with anyone who asked... it would be fine. However, If I huddled with other people who only felt like singing NSDAP songs in red square, would it still be ok as well?

FOR AN EXAMPLE of how this could be altered to be culturally relevant to you, and to continue beating societies scapegoat, I think you will find that if you replace names such as Jesus with names like Hitler, God with 'The Fatherland', and pray with 'Heil", the same things they chant could be offensive to a wider crowd.

I'M NOT DRAWING DIRECT CONNECTIONS TO RELIGION AND NAZIS.

I'm just saying that just because the subject you choose is culturaly tolerable to you, dosent mean it is to others.

It's that inconsidertness that bugs me.

oh, and I'm also craby this morning, but I think my point has be reiterated and firmly stated enough for me to move on. Regardless of any spelling errors...

Damn, I still have yet to se these cultists, do they still come out to RS and perform their rituals, or have they retreated to their compound~

Did you just compare Christians and Nazis?

Well, there are many strong connections.  If you haven't already, do a bit of reading up on the connections between Hitler and Pope Pius, and the role of the Catholic Church in anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany.  In particular, read Mein Kampf and Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII (although the subject is well-documented in a wide variety of sources).

Yup.  We don't like to talk about it, but the Holocaust was primarily a Christian agenda.  It's going to upset some people to read this, but it won't take but a few hours of fact checking to find out it is true.

Essentially, the Nazis were to Catholicism in Germany what the Taliban were to Islam in Afghanistan.

To the point of the thread, I consider organized Christianity a hostile group.  I have no problem with individuals - particularly those who actually try to practice what Jesus was talking about, not just what they want to believe the Bible is saying in accordance witht their own (frequently hateful) sensibilities.  However, groups of Christians make me nervous.  The larger the group, the more reinforced the arrogance, and the less likely they are to behave rationally.

I absolutely defend people's right to worship or not worship in whatever way they see fit.  However, by deliberately doing so in a public venue, they are not worshipping, they are marketing.  The message, though often (but not always) unspoken, is that "we are right, and if you disagree, you are wrong - we are here to show you the errors of your ignorance."  This, to me, is a hostile act of arrogance.

What makes it unsettling is that it is based on a belief system, not on rational analysis of empirical evidence.  This makes the assertions impossible to refute, so no dialog is possible.  This make the very assertion necessarily divisive - you either believe it or you don't - you're for us or against us.  This is a concerning ideology.  We saw this gaining some traction during the Bush years.  It is marked by a contempt for facts, a death of reason, and an increase in hostility against "others."

So, a few kids hanging out and singing in the Square - not a big deal.  I was never aware that any of them were singing religious songs anyway.  I just think, "Hmm, there are some kids trying to appear artistic or folksy."  If they want to sing about their religion, that's fine.  It doesn't serve the purpose they might think it does though.  It's just like when Bible Jim comes to campus - it just reinforces people's negative stereotypes.

What evangelicals don't realize is that the best spokespeople for Christianity are those that are just good people and aren't out to persuade others of anything.  The louder one shouts about Christianity, the more non-Christians are driven away.

-Brent

...and the fact that these people are able to sing and worship publicly with neither government punishment nor endorsement is just one reason why America rocks.
I'm a Christian, so I'm not personally offended by the message of their music
but I would think it was just as awesome if there were Muslims, Wiccans, N'Sync fans or anyone else expressing themselves out in Red Square.
Just the same way I get excited about seeing protesters or petitioners out picketting, whether I support their viewpoint or not.
People expressing themselves freely in a public arena is so encouraging to me. It tells me that, despite so much else failing, there is still some level on which the ideology by which this America was founded is WORKING!

Umm ... not N'Sync.  You have to draw the line somewhere.

-B

 The American Nation is largely (a majority) a Christian nation.  It's easy to say this country is working and there is no censorship or impingments on 1st amendment rights when you're viewpoint is that of the majority.  I think this topic is on the singing of religious hymns in public places.  Does this serve the christian agenda well or not?  At least that is all I take from it.  And after being baptized in 4 different faiths, I think the best thing that "believers" can do is put a doubter in my shoes as a young child and show them the "truth of religion."  That is, that there is only as much truth in faith as you can conjure up in storybooks and tales.

Its weird. I came from pretty much the exact same background and perspective as Willow. When I think about the singers i can't rationally say they are doing anything wrong. I mean they arent approaching you, they are pretty much keeping to themselves and expressing themselves in a decently unharmful fashion. Yet, for some reason if find myself mildly resenting them. Its really hard to pinpoint why I would feel this way, since they arent doing anything at least overtly that is offensive or innappropriate, unlike the abortion posters and people holding signs saying that non-believing jews, power hungry women, weak men, blasphemous gays, and sports fanatics will all burn in hell.

After thinking about it for a while, this is what I've been able to determine:

I think what makes this particular group stand out to me, and possibly others is not necessarily what they are doing, but where they are doing it. Red square is notorious for having people present something. People are in red square for two reasons. Either they are on their way to class/waiting for class, or they are trying to present or publicise something to the many people going through red square. This means that any organized group in red square is immediately viewed as having an agenda by all those who see them. This is why the singing group is so troublesome. They are an organized group, who are all in red square for a common reason, however they have no specific agenda with which the community can identify. All you can really deduct is that they are singing and they are christian. So where does that leave us? Either we assume they are promoting something in regards to christianity based upon our own dispositions toward the subject, or they just like giving excessively frequent and poorly orchestrated singing concerts.

One idea that has been frequently provided thus far is that they are doing this for personal reasons and that they are essentially just hanging out. At first glance this seems like a possibility but when you look closer it starts to not make as much sense.
     First of all they are organized, as I have mentioned above. Maybe its just me, but hanging out doesnt involve regular meetings doing the exact same thing each and every time. That would be boring. I have friends that I watch movies with most of the time, and we have specified movie nights, but we dont do it anywhere near that often. Furthermore, we do other things on movie nights than just watch movies the entire time with no breaks. We socialize a bit, maybe throw in a dinner etc. Not JUST watch movies and leave without talking to one another.
     Secondly is the location. As I've said, red square is for presenting. If they were hanging out why would it be there as opposed to someones house? I mean, I generally don't just hang out with my friends in a broadcasting room for a TV network with the cameras rolling. Red square is essentially the same. If you dont have something to show, dont be there.

So to conclude, I dont approve of them being in red square. Either they need to take their singing somewhere else that doesn't become a part of the public's lives, or they need to actually publicize their goals so the public can identify what their purpose is. Until one of those things happens, they are just a just a group showcasing the fact that they are participating in something which only a select group of individuals can partake in. In other words, its a clique. A clique which is making others feel uncomfortable or left out.

Well, there isn't any reason to interpret it as hostile.  Saying I'm right and you're wrong isn't hostile.  None of the 'unspoken' things you interpreted as hostile are intended as such.  There might be more than a little hubris in their attitude towards people who don't believe, but that is probably an inevitability given what they believe they know.  This is, at least, a mild overreaction based more upon your own interpretation of their behavior than a true reflection of their actions. 

In short, interpreting their actions as hostile is a bit like Jimbo (South Park) screaming "They're coming right for us!" in order to justify going on the attack.

I agree with some of what you say, though I would say it is BOTH worshipping and marketing, rather than just one or the other.

Well, to be clear, only Article 6 of the original constitution - "No religious Test shal ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." and the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Other than that there aren't really any protections as to when/where.  You might imply that 'free exercise thereof' means you can worship how and where you like but you'd probably be wrong.  I couldn't practice the handling of snakes in public if it were part of my religion.  I couldn't throw a baby off a building (a practice found in a small group of Indian Muslims) in Red Square. I probably couldn't even go nude if I were a Jainist holy man.  I probably couldn't go on a public sidewalk and sing out in the street at 2 AM in worship either, or sacrifice a chicken/goat.

Allowing the freedom to practice it does not guarantee any practice of that religion/belief system in any form at any time in any place.  Since there are at least implied limits, it's just a matter of guaging where the line is drawn.

As a Christian, you might not see the harm in it, but there are many anti-theists who might disagree.  I also, in a repeat from a post previously, state that you might not be so understanding if you found the particular ritual being practiced in public objectionable to you.  Many people, including myself, find much to object about in many organized religion and some of their practices.

Ultimately, though, these practices should not be prevented.  However, I do believe that it benefits everyone for the individuals participating to be aware of what they are doing and to be honest about why they are doing it.  They must also be aware that to profess a belief publicly necessarily invites and must allow for both scrutiny and criticism of said belief.

That's really what it comes down to.  Choosing a conspicuously pedestrian (which means those travelling through will have no choice but to hear, since they aren't isolated like in a car), high traffic (which ensures that many people will hear and/or see the activity), public (which means you have the implied right to be there) location at an agreed upon (?) time (which shows it isn't just a chance gathering) creates a virtually undefendable position on the matter.

You cannot say it's just a group of people who happen to be worshipping, who happen to believe in the same thing, who happen to converge on the same location.  Whether you are looking to gather more people who believe the same thing and you want more fellowship or you are trying to witness to those who don't believe (my guess would be both), you must realize that it is intentional, it is specific.  This is precisly the deduction that any reasonably intelligent person who doesn't share your faith will make.  Whether they realize it or not, it will probably result in a negative reaction.  Evidence of this reaction is fairly apparent in this thread.

I would not want external forces to put a stop to it, I believe everyone has the right to believe and practice as you will.  What I, personally, desire is for the individuals participating in this action to come to terms with the repercussions of an overt and public display such as this and make the change of their own accord.

Nothing stops the group from organizing a gathering in a less conspicuous area. If the true intent is to gather to worship and bond with fellow Christians, then wouldn't this be acceptable as well, so long as the location is accessible to those who wish to participate?

I don't see a problem with it.

As someone who despises organized religion, I find the public singing conflicting, but definitely leaning toward one side.

I'm Agnostic. I'm not going to go into why or how; that is just how it is with me.

I find the singing in Red Square, one of the most densely populated areas on the Western Campus, not only like they are shoving their religious views in my face, but irritating. I have also been singing all my life and have a sensitive ear to pitch and rhythm. It can be bothersome for me to hear someone singing off key/fat/sharp or out of rhythm. They are not professional singers and they are clearly singing about something that is very controversial and very sensitive for some.

The solution? Go sing somewhere else. It's not that hard. I promise.

The large grass fields out by Fairhaven are a great place to meet so you can sing as loud and out of key about your religion as you please. While I know small groups of people sometimes like to go play soccer or frisbee, there you will offend less people by a large number.

If you want to share and talk about your religion, do it in a less intrusive way please. Thanks!