|
Good on ya mate!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: February 01, 2006 09:08
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about
free speech thingy
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 2/1/2006 3:09:49 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about
free speech thingy
You make some good points, DH.
What do you know fo James White's presentations --
respectful ?
cd: The guy went to the Mormon Temple-stood there a couple of
hours-only handing out tracks that nobody took from him-left to get
coffee-and left for the day.Wrote on his site that he stood there all day
long and handed out thousands of tracks( I went to his site and
spoke on this as he told me himself that he handed out thousands-I told
him "I was right behind you and I didn't see him hand out one track"-He
asked me which one I was and I said "I am the one who told you
that you are standing in the place of a preacher so get too preaching"-and
White told me not to contact to him again).He quit going too the
temple-and blamed that on us also, but does still take money from
people pretending to go to the Temple. White and Hinn
have a lot in common.Concerning the waving the underwear-If someone states
that their special underware helps them get to heaven-I will hold them up
and declare that this is not a way to righteousness but Jesus Christ is
.If& nbsp;one makes that wrong that is between them and
God.
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 the 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 others 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 invited 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.
|
