Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

[Lance Muir]

Title: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

----- Original Message ----- From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? It’s not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, I’m in no rush to characterize it that way. But he’s surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. They’d argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think that’s been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, it’s to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offence—free speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free speech isn’t intended to protect people’s right to conduct public attacks on the private moral choices of others. At least that’s how we see it in Canada. Of course, it’s no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes an “attack” and what constitutes a “private moral choice”. And if you're not allowed to do certain things on someone's private property, you can also argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the limits of that property. Even if the message itself is not offensive, there’s still the manner of delivery, and that's not just a matter of pickiness. There are “rules” about the circumstances under which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like the grammar of a language: people often can’t express the rule, they just know when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation. There may be nothing offensive about a message like “Jesus can heal you”, for example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of signage. It’s also no surprise that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the line on offensiveness and breaking the rules. I wonder if maybe there’s a little more homogeneity in Canadian society on these things, inoffensiveness being such a core value of ours—for better or for worse. You and I are influenced by our culture, obviously. What I don’t think is appropriate is to get too morally stuck-up about either position. I hate it when my inlaws tout as morally superior per se a custom that is obviously pure cultural convention from their European background. On the other hand, I shouldn’t be taken aback if I get roundly told off for not observing it among them!  But in any case David's other post suggests that he and others engaging in such activity glory in their persecutions. If so, what’s the argument? I thought they were expressing chagrin at the persecution? (What ever happened to the shake-the-dust-off-your-sandals principle?) That's likely already more words than this issue is worth, Lance, so I’ll stop blathering! D   -----Original Message----- From: Lance Muir [HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:17 AM To: Debbie Sawczak Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: January 29, 2006 01:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? > Judy wrote: >> What is wrong with the following scenario >> apart from telling ppl to go to hell which I >> seriously doubt they say > > Rest assured, Judy, that we do not tell people to go to hell.  I tell them > that I am on no better ground than they are.  The testimony of Jesus > Christ > is what we bring. > > People come under conviction and hear whatever they want to hear.  A few > weeks ago, a girl kept complaining that I had no right to bring my banner > to > her school.  I let her vent, but about the fifth time she started > describing > my banner as condemning and horrible, I stopped her and said, "wait a > minute, look at what the banner says... it says, 'JESUS WILL HEAL YOU'. > What is so condemning about that?"  She was speechless then.  She saw what > she wanted to see through the bigoted stereotype of what she has been > trained to believe that public preachers are all about.  People believe > the > lie so much that they can't see the truth when it is staring them in the > face.  I can understand how some of my banners might be misconstrued, but > this one is a message of hope.  Jesus will heal you.  Yet, even that > message > is characterized as condemning and an infringement upon their liberty. > They > should not have to look upon it with their eyes.  The same people who talk > about tolerance talk this way.  Amazing. > > David Miller. > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) > HYPERLINK http://www.InnGlory.org 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. > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006   -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006