Did I steal?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Not when the INTENT is to censor what others read, and said “picking up” is from a place that isn’t yours. You forgot arrogant and meddlesome.

What sin is censorship?

This idea is fascinating to me. And an example of how sometimes our American Western ideas of freedom, and democracy get in the way of our faith. When people get so riled so upset at the idea that someone would dare pick up a heretical pamphlet, I only wish they defended the faith with as much zeal.

But usually they don’t. And they are the same ones who tend to think the Church is some sort of democracy, that the laity can dictate to the hierarchy. Like in the US.

Some things were much simpler in the time of monarchies.

I notice that you are MAD about this. So was Bill. And that is ok! You can feel any way you wish. But I have yet to hear an argument that merits the outrage you seem to have.

Censorship is sometimes warranted.
Pornographic material for example can not be spread in such a way as the OP described
Sometimes political propaganda should be censored. Nazi propganda in Jewish Gettos is a prime example. And in a similar way, religious propaganda can be censored.
While we don’t necessarily have a banned book list anymore in the Church we find other ways to censor as well.

And we should. Because ultimately salvation is more important than knowledge and freedom. Rather than be outraged at the idea someone else decided for you what to read, perhaps we could view it as keeping the devil at bay.

Your outrage at the audacity of the OP or the idea of throwing away a pamphlet. I ask, is it rivaled by outrage about other issues, Holy issues? Do you invite Mormons and JWs in with the same gusto for freedom of information as you express here. Or do you act like nobody is home, or refuse to engage in discussion and apologetic? Do you defend the idea of fraud as something that should not be censored? Because that is what it is. Only it is not with money, but something even more valuable. Souls.

If you really want to know creepy. Take a look at some JW propaganda. If you can…

 

[MacQ]

What sin is censorship?

This idea is fascinating to me. And an example of how sometimes our American Western ideas of freedom, and democracy get in the way of our faith. When people get so riled so upset at the idea that someone would dare pick up a heretical pamphlet, I only wish they defended the faith with as much zeal.

But usually they don’t. And they are the same ones who tend to think the Church is some sort of democracy, that the laity can dictate to the hierarchy. Like in the US.

Some things were much simpler in the time of monarchies.

I notice that you are MAD about this. So was Bill. And that is ok! You can feel any way you wish. But I have yet to hear an argument that merits the outrage you seem to have.

Censorship is sometimes warranted.
Pornographic material for example can not be spread in such a way as the OP described
Sometimes political propaganda should be censored. Nazi propganda in Jewish Gettos is a prime example. And in a similar way, religious propaganda can be censored.
While we don’t necessarily have a banned book list anymore in the Church we find other ways to censor as well.

And we should. Because ultimately salvation is more important than knowledge and freedom. Rather than be outraged at the idea someone else decided for you what to read, perhaps we could view it as keeping the devil at bay.

Your outrage at the audacity of the OP or the idea of throwing away a pamphlet. I ask, is it rivaled by outrage about other issues, Holy issues? Do you invite Mormons and JWs in with the same gusto for freedom of information as you express here. Or do you act like nobody is home, or refuse to engage in discussion and apologetic? Do you defend the idea of fraud as something that should not be censored? Because that is what it is. Only it is not with money, but something even more valuable. Souls.

If you really want to know creepy. Take a look at some JW propaganda. If you can…

Yes, I can see you are quite fascinated.
And yes, outrage is a good description of what I feel when I hear people defending stealing and censoring what other people read, meddling in their lives and disrespecting their property lines.
I think such behavior as you seem to be “fascinated by” would cause most people to think catholics who do so are creepier than the JW’s they’re trying to censor. Might make people more curious about the JW literature (and a tad wary of catholics). If their literature is so creepy, allow people enough respect to see that for themselves, and don’t condescend to act like you think people are idiots who are incapable of discerning for themselves.

 

[JSSD]

I think such behavior as you seem to be “fascinated by” would cause most people to think catholics who do so are creepier than the JW’s they’re trying to censor. Might make people more curious about the JW literature (and a tad wary of catholics). If their literature is so creepy, allow people enough respect to see that for themselves, and don’t condescend to act like you think people are idiots who are incapable of discerning for themselves.

This in spades.

 

[Listener]

Keep in mind that some of us have mailboxes right next to our front door. You have to enter our property and go up the stairs to get to them.

Anyone who removes something from my property without my permission is a thief, in my book. I don’t care what it is or who put it there.

And yes, I think the behavior is creepy.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Keep in mind that some of us have mailboxes right next to our front door. You have to enter our property and go up the stairs to get to them.

Anyone who removes something from my property without my permission is a thief, in my book. I don’t care what it is or who put it there.

And yes, I think the behavior is creepy.

1. What about people that enter your property to PUT stuff there?
2. What do you do with JWs type material? Do you read it, contemplate it and add it to your theological knowledge, or throw it away?

What is creepy to me is the few people on here that have sort of a militant “militia” type attitude about censorship and property rights.

Creepy is right. Right out of Waco or Ruby Ridge if you ask me.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Keep in mind that some of us have mailboxes right next to our front door. You have to enter our property and go up the stairs to get to them.

Anyone who removes something from my property without my permission is a thief, in my book. I don’t care what it is or who put it there.

And yes, I think the behavior is creepy.

Talking about mailboxes near the house and property lines is exaggerating the position of the other side to make it easier to criticize. That is a straw man argument. Since the OP seems to have left town, we can’t get clarification of the situation, but for purposes of this argument, the only action that has been defended by anyone here is taking printed material left on top of a mailbox right along the street - in the public easement. No one is advocating approaching someone’s house to get to the material.

 

[Listener]

The OP stated that he/she went around the neighborhood and gathered 14 books in all. You wouldn’t be walking all over the neighborhood if the books were sitting on a group of mailboxes on public property.

I strongly suspect that he or she took them from mailboxes in a city neighborhood.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The OP stated that he/she went around the neighborhood and gathered 14 books in all. You wouldn’t be walking all over the neighborhood if the books were sitting on a group of mailboxes on public property.

I strongly suspect that he or she took them from mailboxes in a city neighborhood.

They don’t have to be in a group to be in the public easement. Most mailboxes that are not attached to houses are out on the edge of the street.

 

[MacQ]

The OP stated that he/she went around the neighborhood and gathered 14 books in all. You wouldn’t be walking all over the neighborhood if the books were sitting on a group of mailboxes on public property.

I strongly suspect that he or she took them from mailboxes in a city neighborhood.

He said he couldn’t remember which mailboxes he took them from when it occurred to him it was wrong and perhaps he’d return them.
Not that it matters where the dang mailboxes are. It’s still an act that he had the good sense to realize was wrong. Why look so hard for excuses to make it seem right?

 

[robwar]

He said he couldn’t remember which mailboxes he took them from when it occurred to him it was wrong and perhaps he’d return them.
Not that it matters where the dang mailboxes are. It’s still an act that he had the good sense to realize was wrong. Why look so hard for excuses to make it seem right?

We are going around and around over something that probably was started by a troll. the better thing here is to drop it and stop the nonsence. the fact this was Op first and only post, the situation was vaguely put, JW usually go knocking door to door and not dropping of material site unseen is a tip off that this whole thing was bogus to begin with.

 

[zippy2006]

Everything you posted here is a lame attempt to justify taking something from someone else’s property.
YOU say it’s litter. YOU say it’s dog poop. Not everyone thinks so.

The only difference is that I gave reasons and you have not.

What if you put out Gospel messages and some atheist removed them because to HIM they are litter.

Fine with me. The messages would be litter in the sense I’ve used the word in this thread. Your emotional protestations don’t change that.

Your stance is arrogant. Meddlesome. Disrespectful of others (deciding what someone else should read…really?) And frankly, CREEPY.

Grow up. Either present a case or stop with all the name-calling.

 

[BillP]

Whenever I find non-Catholic tracts in the front area of the apartment buildings, I take them and throw them away. There is nothing wrong with preventing others from reading false material which is in effect propaganda for a false religion.

Then you too are taking that which does not belong to you. There is a word for people like that.

What ever happened to Catholics not being allowed to do evil even if “good” results from it?

 

[BillP]

I notice that you are MAD about this. So was Bill. And that is ok! You can feel any way you wish. But I have yet to hear an argument that merits the outrage you seem to have.

You seem to mistaking your importance in the world. I do not NEED your permission to be mad about anything.

You cannot possibly be so presumptuous and arrogant as to believe that I OWE you an explanation for the level of outrage you perceive in me. I would make a more explicit comment to you here about my suggestions for your future activities, but I think i would run afoul of the moderators and the Terms of Service agreement. I think you can figure it out.

The fact is that my anger and outrage (such as it is, I"m actually more outraged by the recent performance of the Braves) is driven mainly by your monumental lack of respect for anyone who disagrees with you and your seemingly profound inability to understand why you (and people like you) not entitled to be the final arbiter of what other people get to see or read.

I am merely amused by the fact that folks hereabouts are engaging in a breathtaking level of legalistic, hairsplitting, intellectually dishonest mental gymnastics to avoid labeling what is clearly theft as theft because they have so little respect for their neighbors that they don’t feel that those neighbors should have access to religious materials that aren’t aligned with Catholicism.

An added level of amusement is provided by the fact that these same people a) are labeling other people “moral relativists” while b) themselves engaging in such egregious “moral relativism” (theft is okay as long as I’m stealing anti-Catholic literature).

I wonder whether you don’t actually know what “moral relativism” is beyond a handy label to plaster on someone who agrees with you or if you do know and are cynically just hoping that no who also knows calls you on it.

Either way, you’ve demonstrated that you’re not a person to be taken seriously.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You seem to mistaking your importance in the world. I do not NEED your permission to be mad about anything.

You cannot possibly be so presumptuous and arrogant as to believe that I OWE you an explanation for the level of outrage you perceive in me. I would make a more explicit comment to you here about my suggestions for your future activities, but I think i would run afoul of the moderators and the Terms of Service agreement. I think you can figure it out.

The fact is that my anger and outrage (such as it is, I"m actually more outraged by the recent performance of the Braves) is driven mainly by your monumental lack of respect for anyone who disagrees with you and your seemingly profound inability to understand why you (and people like you) not entitled to be the final arbiter of what other people get to see or read.

I am merely amused by the fact that folks hereabouts are engaging in a breathtaking level of legalistic, hairsplitting, intellectually dishonest mental gymnastics to avoid labeling what is clearly theft as theft because they have so little respect for their neighbors that they don’t feel that those neighbors should have access to religious materials that aren’t aligned with Catholicism.

An added level of amusement is provided by the fact that these same people a) are labeling other people “moral relativists” while b) themselves engaging in such egregious “moral relativism” (theft is okay as long as I’m stealing anti-Catholic literature).

I wonder whether you don’t actually know what “moral relativism” is beyond a handy label to plaster on someone who agrees with you or if you do know and are cynically just hoping that no who also knows calls you on it.

Either way, you’ve demonstrated that you’re not a person to be taken seriously.

Thank you for your admonishment. I will take it under advisement.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Since this is a hypothetical and the OP has left town, let’s flip this around a little:

Say it was a Catholic DVD of the Passion of the Christ, would the same action be acceptable? Why or Why not?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Since this is a hypothetical and the OP has left town, let’s flip this around a little:

Say it was a Catholic DVD of the Passion of the Christ, would the same action be acceptable? Why or Why not?

The OP is gone. This has been hashed out for quite a while. I am confident that I have expressed myself competently.
At this time, I see no reason to keep on keeping on with this.

 

[MacQ]

The only difference is that I gave reasons and you have not.

Fine with me. The messages would be litter in the sense I’ve used the word in this thread. Your emotional protestations don’t change that.

Grow up. Either present a case or stop with all the name-calling.

Reasons?
How about trespassing. meddling. stealing.
GOD gave us free will. He didn’t intend for us to go around taking it away from others, censoring what they read, judging what they think is litter.
I just suggest with any due respect that people mind their own business.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Reasons?
How about trespassing. meddling. stealing.
GOD gave us free will. He didn’t intend for us to go around taking it away from others, censoring what they read, judging what they think is litter.
I just suggest with any due respect that people mind their own business.

None of these objections apply to the scenario being discussed. Picking up material left on top of a mailbox is not limiting the free will of the recipient. If he has a will to read JW material he can easily get some himself and read it. It is not hard to come by. Meddling is an ill-defined term that is more emotional than meaningful, so I won’t waste any time with it. Stealing is not what is happening since the material in question does not at that time belong to anyone. Trespassing is not at issue, since the only case where such action is defensible is when the mailbox is located along the public road and accessible without stepping on any private property. And censoring is not the issue either. The action of removing the material from the top of the mailbox is based only on the illegal means of distribution, not on the content of the material. Censorship has to do with content. In this case content does not matter.

 

[MacQ]

None of these objections apply to the scenario being discussed. Picking up material left on top of a mailbox is not limiting the free will of the recipient. If he has a will to read JW material he can easily get some himself and read it. It is not hard to come by. Meddling is an ill-defined term that is more emotional than meaningful, so I won’t waste any time with it. Stealing is not what is happening since the material in question does not at that time belong to anyone. Trespassing is not at issue, since the only case where such action is defensible is when the mailbox is located along the public road and accessible without stepping on any private property. And censoring is not the issue either. The action of removing the material from the top of the mailbox is based only on the illegal means of distribution, not on the content of the material. Censorship has to do with content. In this case content does not matter.

I notice you came up with an excuse for everything except “minding one’s own business”.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I notice you came up with an excuse for everything except “minding one’s own business”.

And which commandment is that exactly?

MYOB is societal polite but theologically useless.