Blaine wrote:� > I disagree that it is because "men like to control > others and local government ALWAYS seeks to eliminate > free speech,"� although that may be what happens in� > some instances. Rather, I think it is to protect the > rights of the populace--which is the right not to have > to listen to themselves being insulted,�provoked, verbally > abused, and thereby preventing them from pursuing life, > liberty and happiness, all considered fundamental natural > rights.� As I said, your right to throw a punch ends > where my chin begins.
You have convinced me that you do not believe in free speech. Maybe you now need to convince yourself. I could respect what you are saying here much more if you just came right out and said that you do not believe in free speech. If people need to be protected from the public speech of others, then this is a clear statement that you do not believe in FREE speech. You believe in CENSURED speech. You want only that speech which is palatable and edifying for everyone. You believe like Dean apparently does, that whoever says anything that is not edifying ought to be silenced after a few rebukes and they still do not listen. Blaine wrote: > If what the person is saying is known to him as > being an insult to the other person,�he are > definitely crossing the line, even if by�his > own definition the word may mean something else.� Hold on there. You just crossed a big line in my book. :-) I know that the homosexuals want to be called "gay." They are offended to be called a homosexual. However, I am offended that they have hijacked the English language and call themselves gay. I refuse to use the word gay in reference to them, and I rebuke those who call them gay. In my opinion, they are playing into the deceptive game of Satan. Homosexuals are not gay, so we all ought to stop calling them gay! Now here you come along and say that if I know that the term homosexual offends them, then I am crossing the line if I refer to them as homosexual. Or, suppose I use the Biblical word "sodomite." Now I know they don't like the word "sodomite," so are you saying that when I read Deut. 23:17 in the KJV, that I need to edit the words "whore" and "sodomite" out of it before I read it, just because I know that some people will feel insulted? David Miller wrote: >> Blaine, do you think it should be illegal to use words >> like "whore" in public?� Do you think that words like >> "queer" or "faggot" or "homo" or "homosexual" also >> should be made illegal?� What about the word >> "fornication"?� I had a student this week tell me that >> he thinks this word (fornication) should not be used >> by preachers.� I asked him what alternative word he >> would suggest we use, but he couldn't think of one. >> I was not surprised.� :-) � Blaine wrote: > Using these terms per se, is often done, even in church > services and church scriptural classes.� On the other hand, > accusing people of being such is and has been held to be > basically illegal.� I am surprised the street preachers > who did this were not sued.� LOL. What planet do you live on? If a college student tells me that he or she has sexual intercourse on the weekends with different partners, you can bet that I will refer to that student as a "fornicator" to the other students. It is NOT illegal to do so, and I have never been sued over it. I remember a girl coming up to me crying one night because the preacher I was with called her a fornicator. She said he had no right to call her that. As I talked with her, I learned that she had slept with three different men that last year and had an abortion too. She was about to go on a missions trip as a missionary the very next week! Well, God brought conviction upon her and I assured her that she WAS a fornicator and that she needed to repent. The preacher was not her problem. Her problem was that she was deceiving herself because she did not see herself as God saw her, which was as she really was: a fornicator. Other Christians had deceived her into thinking that she was a good person. Blaine wrote: > Regarding the yelling, waving underwear, etc, I am > not speaking from my personal experience.� I am > speaking of what I read about later in reliable > reports.�� According to reports from various sources > --sister missionaries assigned to stand on the streets > with the street preachers, media reports, and even > reports from members of Protestant denominations-- > there was yelling of obscenities, waving underwear, > even donning some of these garments.� Has it ever occurred to you that you have been lied to? Can you imagine what the news reports were when Paul came into town? You Mormons are treating street preachers the same way the Jews treated the apostle Paul. I suggest you go down yourself and see what is going on. Don't base your opinion on glorified gossip. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
