What do you know fo James White's presentations -- respectful ?
DAVEH: I really don't know anything about him. Wish I could have
heard his comments in real time to get the context and mood of what he
said. I suspect he did show some respect though. Had he not, there is
no way he would have been given the pulpit. I'll have to do some web
browsing to see if he has a web site. Right now....I'm too tired and
going to hit the pillow. Catch you tomorrow.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You make some good points, DH.
What do you know fo James White's presentations --
respectful ?
He is one busy hombre, that's for sure.
jd
--------------
Original message --------------
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
free speech has limitations. We recognize that.
DAVEH: Really! Who determines those limitations? In a theater,
governmental law determines whether one can yell fire or not. Same with
going into one's house. And...the same can apply to standing outside
someone's house and disrupting the peaceful sanctuary of what goes on
in that house. There are many circumstances (such as the time of day,
as well as the content AND the context) that determines what is lawful,
and what is not. The point is, that those things are determined by law.
On the other hand, it seems that some SPers have little regard for what
others want to hear, and hence feel within the law to preach however
they want, disregarding others' ears and what they want or not want to
be heard. However, when th e shoe is on the other foot, it seems like
the SPers want to forget the free speech protections, and only
consider what THEY want to hear.
For instance, is it illegal for an obscenity to be posted on TT? So
far, nobody has made that claim. There seems to be no rule beyond the
ad-hom rule that applies....other than what the moderator makes up at
his whim. Sexual content would seem likewise applicable to the free
speech edict, but not when a moderator wants to make his own rules,
or a SP complains that he is offended. At that time.......the free
speech must stop, or one gets booted from TT.
But....when others don't want to hear the SPers preaching, and do
something lawful to prevent such happening (such as buying a street to
provide a buffer), then the SPers cry foul and claim their freedom of
speech is being impinged. Seems to me that if you want the right to
bombastically assault others' ears, then one shouldn't complain when
others do likewise.
However, when one respects the rights of oth ers to hear what they want
(or not want to hear something particular), then one might expect to
receive the same treatment....whether legalities are observed or not. I
don't see that many SPers feel that way, though.
They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as
well as inside.
DAVEH: That's the way I see it, and don't have any problem with it
being that way. Kinda like you not wanting obscenities on TT, eh DavidM!
buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express
their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have
to say?
DAVEH: That's kinda how I perceive heaven. Those who want to exercise free
speech there to say whatever they want in an effort to offend
others, may find themselves removed. Isn't that the way it works in TT?
The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue
DAVEH: Who says??? Why do you conclude that, DavidM? Do you have
Biblical support for that theory?
I understand you guys i nvited James White. Why not the Street
Preachers too?
DAVEH: I'm not privy to what happened behind the scenes with JW, but I
suspect one determining factor is the respect he gives, and receives
like in return. IOW....I don't think JW waved underwear in the faces of
those he expects to listen to him. My guess is that JW understands the
real nature of free speech, based on his experience speaking to
an LDS audience from within the Tabernacle, while some SPers prefer to
demonstrate their right to free speech by waving underwear on
the sidewalk.
David Miller wrote:
Dave, free speech has limitations. We recognize
that. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no
fire, and one cannot go into someone's house, turn off his TV, and
start preaching to him. Obscenity also is not considered acceptable
when we talk about free speech.
The idea of free speech is that people are free to speak and
gather assemblies together in public places. I think I do understand
why your religious organization wants to spend millions of dollars to
privatize what would otherwise be a public area. Nevertheless, such is
very telling on your organization and the people who run it. They
want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as
inside. What will they do next, buy all the property in the
world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their
own assembly to hear what they have to say?
The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue,
not only allowing it outside their buildings, but inviting those
outside to come in and talk with them. If I had homosexuals or others
gathering outside and protesting, I would invite them in and give them
a platform. I'd say, "let's hear what you have to say." Then I would
discuss it with them. I would ask if anybody else there wanted to
address what was said. The truth has no fear of being challenged. Only
people who embrace falsehood are afraid of the truth.
If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best
debaters out there and engage the preachers, not spend millions of
dollars buying up land hoping to create a bigger buffer between them
and the church. Do you realize how much less money it would have cost
if you guys had just offered to pay their expenses to come out and have
a forum in one of your buildings, and debated them in a public forum? I
understand you guys invited James White. Why not the Street Preachers
too?
David Miller.
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Monday, January 30, 2006 12:01 AM
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
DAVEH: Why are street preachers such proponents of free
speech when it benefits them......
You don't really believe in free speech, do you.
......yet are so opposed to it.......
please do not forward posts to us that use the F
word.
........ when it offends them?
When LDS folks take offense at SPers' antics in SLC during Conference
time, the SPers do not seem to understand why LDS folks do not
appreciate their offending tactics. Then SPers cry foul when they
perceive their rights to free speech
being restricted when the LDS Church buys a city street.
David Miller wrote:
Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use
the F word.
David Miller
I have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law. Speech is
meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as
theft, battery, discrimination, or murder. You don't really believe in free
speech, do you.
David Miller.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
|
