David Miller wrote: >> free speech has limitations. >> We recognize that.
DAVEH: > Really! Who determines those limitations? > ... those things are determined by law. Yes, and the foundation of law is God, not whatever men decide the law should be. DaveH wrote: > 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. I can't speak for all Street Preachers, but I can say that I am conscious of what others want to hear. The problem is that sometimes God sends me to deliver a message that others don't want to hear. People yell at me all the time, "go home, get out of here, you are not welcome here, we don't want to hear what you have to say, etc. etc." The nature of Satan is to tell God's messengers, "Shut Up!" What we understand is that the sword of God is God's Word. To wield the sword, we must speak it. Therefore, if we shut up, the kingdom of God cannot be advanced. DaveH wrote: > ... 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 actually might be some interpretation of FCC standards that could apply, but we hope that people just have enough maturity and decency to understand that we do not welcome obscene speech. > 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. You were not booted for sexually explicit speech. You were booted for not cooperating with the moderator who was trying to steer the discussion away from the vulgar and profane. You brought his private converation to the list, contrary to guidelines that the moderator made clear. You have even told me many times that you deserved to be booted from the list for doing that. Now you are trying to make out like you suffered for righteousness' sake over free speech. DaveH wrote: > 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. If the Street Preachers were using the "F" word in their speech to your church, I would agree with you that this would be wrong. If they are preaching that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and that your church is idolatrous and causing people not to believe in Jesus Christ, that is a different matter. In regards to buying the street... this is like a legal loophole which preyed on the love of money within men. If it was righteous, the cause could have been made without offering money, arguing that it would be for the public good. What is foul is that the argument would not stand on its own merits. Your church resorted to the love of money to sweeten the pie. This is not much different than bribery. Here, we give you these millions of dollars, and you let us do what we want. DaveH wrote: > 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. I think you are misunderstanding the issue. I do not object to the LDS sending out their own debaters to speak on the public sidewalks where the preachers speak. That is perfectly fine. What I object to is how they attempt to manipulate people with money to make sure that only their view is shared and others who disagree are silenced. If you don't believe in the public forum and the free exchange of ideas and freedom to express dissent, then you do not believe in freedom of speech. David Miller wrote: >> 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! No, it is nothing like that. I do not agree with the idea of people shouting obscenities at Mormons from street corners. People should have a recourse to grievances against those in authority. They should be free to express dissent. This is a form of checks and balances that prevents the corruption of those in authority. David Miller wrote: >> 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? The historical tradition of the synagogue has established these principles of liberty. This is what enabled Jesus to be able to stand up in the synagogue and the Temple and teach. This is what enabled the early church to meet daily in the Temple. The Bible is filled with such tradition. The prophets that were jailed and killed had that done to them based upon the idea that the authority had the right to determine whose speech should be allowed to be heard. 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. I grant you that. I'm sure there is an element of truth here, but there is more to the reasons than this. DaveH wrote: > 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. James White does not understand free speech. He hates street preachers. I tried with another street preacher to get him to help teach the street preachers the proper arguments against Mormonism. He would have had a forum to share his view of the proper way to conduct free speech at the same time. He refused the invitation. I really am not sure of why you take so much offense on waving underwear. I preached on campus Monday and had a very nice crowd within an hour, steadily holding over 100 students in size and constantly getting bigger. A man began passing out badges to people with my picture on it, and it had a red X over my image in the style of a no-smoking sign. Was I offended? No. I laughed and asked if I could have one too. I realize that I represent the Lord, and they are not rejecting me, but they are rejecting the Lord. So I don't take it personal. I understand the spiritual warfare we are in. Why are you offended if someone waves some underwear around and questions your beliefs about underwear? Can't you understand how your beliefs might seem a little strange to them? Why not just explain it? 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) 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.
