Threats against Mass. Church for Anti-Gay Marriage Sign

[Dale_M]

Not relevant to the issue.

That depends upon the issue you are referring to. CMatt25 was responding to the statement: “It is more ok to be Gay then to be Christian.” The two identities are not necessarily opposed to one another.

 

[CMatt25]

That depends upon the issue you are referring to. CMatt25 was responding to the statement: “It is more ok to be Gay then to be Christian.” The two identities are not necessarily opposed to one another.

Thanks Dale

 

[Farsight001]

That depends upon the issue you are referring to. CMatt25 was responding to the statement: “It is more ok to be Gay then to be Christian.” The two identities are not necessarily opposed to one another.

He didn’t say they were opposed to one another. That is a different topic. Hence it was completely irrelevant.

 

[John1956]

Hokomai,

Which of the following is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?

a) a church peacefully expressing its belief

or

b) a threat of violence against that church for said expression?

John

 

[Hokomai]

Hokomai,

Which of the following is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?

a) a church peacefully expressing its belief

or

b) a threat of violence against that church for said expression?

John

If you think this has some relevance to something I think, then you have not read my posts.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well I live in Massachusetts and back when the court ordered that the state had to allow and recognize gay marriages, a group began a petition for a constitutional amendment, defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

They got well over 75,000 signatures, which mandated that the legislature take up the initiative, but the senate president, refused to bring the petition to the floor for a vote. He’s now serving time in jail on a separate issue.

Anyway, because the petition is public record, a gay group got hold of it and published everyone’s name and address who signed it on a website titled, “Know Thy Neighbor.”

Some people had their homes vandalized and there were even nasty exchanges between people, even at their own parishes.

One group makes a habit of showing up at ordinations in Boston. The first year they threw used condoms at the men as they were in procession into the Cathedral, led by the Bishop.

Now the cops show up to keep the protestors back far enough away.

Jim

 

[John1956]

If you think this has some relevance to something I think, then you have not read my posts.

On the contrary, I asked you this question because I *did *read your posts. And you’re attempting to divert again, as you attempted with Farsight001 on Friday who asked you a similar question. Now, how 'bout answering my question, re-posted here for your convenience:

Which of the following is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?

a) a church peacefully expressing its belief

or

b) a threat of violence against that church for said expression?

John

 

[Hokomai]

On the contrary, I asked you this question because I *did *read your posts. And you’re attempting to divert again, as you attempted with Farsight001 on Friday who asked you a similar question. Now, how 'bout answering my question, re-posted here for your convenience:

Which of the following is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?

a) a church peacefully expressing its belief

or

b) a threat of violence against that church for said expression?

John

And which of my posts suggested that I was unaware of the right to free speech in the US and the right to be free from violent coercion, or that I did not support either on?

 

[Farsight001]

And which of my posts suggested that I was unaware of the right to free speech in the US and the right to be free from violent coercion, or that I did not support either on?

You’re saying that the violent threat was to be expected as though it was justified, and you have done little more than take issue with the placement of the sign in the first place, insinuating repeatedly that the church brought it on themselves. Especially through arguing with the people posting saying that such a reaction was abhorrent do you suggest quite clearly that you didn’t support such things.

 

[Hokomai]

Well I live in Massachusetts and back when the court ordered that the state had to allow and recognize gay marriages, a group began a petition for a constitutional amendment, defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

They got well over 75,000 signatures, which mandated that the legislature take up the initiative, but the senate president, refused to bring the petition to the floor for a vote. He’s now serving time in jail on a separate issue.

Anyway, because the petition is public record, a gay group got hold of it and published everyone’s name and address who signed it on a website titled, “Know Thy Neighbor.”

Some people had their homes vandalized and there were even nasty exchanges between people, even at their own parishes.

One group makes a habit of showing up at ordinations in Boston. The first year they threw used condoms at the men as they were in procession into the Cathedral, led by the Bishop.

Now the cops show up to keep the protestors back far enough away.

Jim

I think the publication of the names of those who take part in a public process to limit or restrict by law the activities of others is reasonable. It is also reasonable that those who have their names published be protected from physical attack or undue influence. I do not think you can object to a demonstration at a public procession but it is reasonable for the police to keep the two groups apart in a way that allows each to freely express their views. Throwing objects at another is not expressing a view.

 

[John1956]

Hokomai,

Farsight001 has corroborated the rationale for my question. Now, how 'bout that answer?

John

 

[Hokomai]

Hokomai,

Farsight001 has corroborated the rationale for my question. Now, how 'bout that answer?

John

Sorry, I have not understood. I am happy to give the obvious answer to your obvious question, but don’t see why I should go down that line until you have explained why it is that you are asking it, based on what I have actually said.

 

[John1956]

Hokomai,

Here are your quotes, trying to cover the threats of violence as “politics” or a result of “provocation” when all the church was doing was exercising its right to free speech and religious expression.

“Of course people will respond to provocation of this type. Of course they will get angry. It’s called politics.”

“It chose to put up a sign singling out a highly-specific moral position on an emotionally-charged debate using informal language designed to provoke.”

“…political signs erected in the midst of a political argument…”

“I think from reports the response is not as intense as you suggest.”

Now do you understand why I am asking you the question?

How 'bout that answer?

John

 

[Hokomai]

Hokomai,

Here are your quotes, trying to cover the threats of violence as “politics” or a result of “provocation” when all the church was doing was exercising its right to free speech and religious expression.

Now do you understand why I am asking you the question?

How 'bout that answer?

John

For clarity, yes, I am saying that the response was predictable. I am also saying it was not as great as has been suggested (you are doing it again with your false pluralization of the single threat) and that elements of the response deserve condemnation, as the church is indeed entitled to free speech. But it is not entitled in logic to express surprise when its provocative messaging provokes. You seem to want me to say it is ok to attack people or burn buildings because you disagree with them. This is the opposite of my position, and I will not be drawn into debating as if it were.

 

[Farsight001]

I think the publication of the names of those who take part in a public process to limit or restrict by law the activities of others is reasonable.

So when anonymous hacked the police servers in Arizona and released the private phone numbers, addresses, and other personal information to the public, it was “reasonable”? It was the publication of the names of those who take part in a public process limiting by law the activities of others. According to your criteria, it’s a reasonable thing to do.

 

[Hokomai]

So when anonymous hacked the police servers in Arizona and released the private phone numbers, addresses, and other personal information to the public, it was “reasonable”? It was the publication of the names of those who take part in a public process limiting by law the activities of others. According to your criteria, it’s a reasonable thing to do.

No, the example you cite was not a public process. By ‘public process’ I mean one properly accessible to the public. I assume that the content of public petitions is properly accessible to the public. I don’t know anything about hacking.

 

[MidnightSun12]

Freedom of speech does not translate into a freedom from a response to that speech. Controversial responses are to be expected when making public statements on controversial issues.

A free society would attack the message, not the messenger.

Just because formal laws aren’t curently imposed on the church for posting messages like this doesn’t mean that the environment for the free expression of thought isn’t already being stifled…

 

[Farsight001]

No, the example you cite was not a public process. By ‘public process’ I mean one properly accessible to the public. I assume that the content of public petitions is properly accessible to the public. I don’t know anything about hacking.

Hacking is part of the response in my situation. In the other situation, you used accessibility to the public in reference not to the response, but to the initial action - posting of the sign. Therefore, the proper comparison is to the police’s behavior, not to the hacking. and the police’s behavior is quite public. Hence the analogy stands.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think the publication of the names of those who take part in a public process to limit or restrict by law the activities of others is reasonable. It is also reasonable that those who have their names published be protected from physical attack or undue influence. I do not think you can object to a demonstration at a public procession but it is reasonable for the police to keep the two groups apart in a way that allows each to freely express their views. Throwing objects at another is not expressing a view.

The law wasn’t from the people, but an activist court, by one vote.

Second, the people weren’t throwing objects at each other, but it was the gay activists throwing used condoms at the seminarians as they proceed from the chancery to the Cathedral.

In all, the voice of the people was ignored by the court and the corrupt senate president, who is now a convicted felon.

I support freedom of speech for everyone, but infringement of freedom of speech by anyone, as the gay activists did, I oppose. It also shows the venom that they are able to spew against those who don’t agree with them.

Jim

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Drastic? The only action commanded by Jesus when it comes to those who hate us is to love them…

Loving them also includes knotting up a fist full of cords and driving them from the temple mount. Telling people they are wrong in plain language is the essence of love.