PHILADELPHIA people are jailed for speaking?
I decided to post the link to a video clip about the Philadelphia 11 Scott mentioned in his post earlier - [Windows Media]
Here’s the WorldNetDaily link in case you missed it. Eight charges were filed, including three felonies and five misdemeanors. The charges were criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and obstructing highways. Call me biased - but it looks like they did everything they were told to. They were even calm - and respectful - when others were being very intimidating.
January 9th, 2005 at 9:14 pm
But as Stanley Fish says, “There’s no such thing as ‘free speech’ and its a good thing, too!”
I suppose people (on either side of political divides) love to invoke “free speech” when it suits their purposes. So, I think that the notion of “free speech” (and people’s worship of it) has more to do with being an American than anything that’s historic Christianity.
January 9th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
This is not a political issue. This effects all Christians that have an interest in doing what Christ commissioned us to do. If sharing the Gospel of Jesus with others amounts to: (in this case) criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and obstructing highways - then that is very troubling to say the least. People of all political persuasions (Christian or not) should be outraged at this. If they are not, then it’s time to pray that their eyes will be opened.
January 10th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
Roger, you raise an important point. If it is about “sharing the Gospel” then, yes, Christians might have something at stake. But it is arguable that the “gospel sharing” (as you put it) involved at this rally for gays and lesbians is probably less about saving souls and more about protesting another group of people’s moral commitments. Sharing the Gospel is one thing, disagreement about homosexuality is a different issue.
January 11th, 2005 at 8:27 am
The bigger issue to me is were these people guaranteed the same access as the people in the ‘parade’ OR were they charged with these crimes simply because of the content of their message? I don’t care what side of the aisle you’re on - charges like this should concern you.
January 11th, 2005 at 11:02 am
>Sharing the Gospel is one thing, disagreement about homosexuality is a different issue.
We know from God’s Word that the Gospel in and of itself is an offense to our sinful nature. So as Shannon has pointed out, were they charged simply because the message offended or did this group break the law?
January 11th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
Want to know the reasoning behind some of the charges?
Here’s an update from AFA online:
They are charged with eight crimes, including three felonies: possession of instruments of crime (a bullhorn), ethnic intimidation (saying that homosexuality is a sin), and inciting a riot (reading from the Bible some passages relating to homosexuality) despite the fact that no riot occurred.
January 11th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Vaughn… I have a question for you. Which part of the Gospel teaching is actually the “Gospel” to you? Because the real Gospel is the message of Jesus and his sacrifice as well as the teachings of the Apostles that proclaim that message and encourage us to change our lives for the glory of the Saviour we claim. One can’t exist without the other. That’s not legalism or prejudice… it’s what the Bible says.
If you’re foolish enough to quietly watch believers go to jail for sharing one part of the Gospel. God help you when you’re put in jail for sharing the other part.
January 11th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
Vaughn, I have a question for you… Which part of the Gospel defined in New Testament teaching is the “Gospel” to you? Because the Gospel is both the message and sacrifice of Christ for salvation but also the life-changing teaching of the Apostles for the glory of our God and Saviour. You can’t have one part without the other. Without the life changing message of the New Testament, your “gospel” itself is hollow.
If you’re foolish enough to quietly stand by and watch fellow believers be punished for sharing one part of the gospel (the part that requires accountability and responsibility) - God help you when it becomes illegal to share the other part. Or worse… when you have watered down Christ’s message to vain words and human emotion.
January 15th, 2005 at 1:26 am
Roger: Your description of the parade sounds (to me) like these Christians were involved in protesting a group of people that they opposed. It wouldn’t matter if the event was Gay Pride or Women’s-reproductive-rights-fest. One can argue all day that abortion or homosexuality [or insert favorite “vice” here] is wrong (that’s not the point). What strikes me as absurd is that these folks (and those sympathetic with them) are claiming “persecution” because they got arrested for reading the Bible over a bull-horn at an event that they weren’t invited to. I think I would have them arrested too. This sort of behavior, my friends, is NOT a living witness to the Good News which is Jesus Christ. There is an appropriate time and place for all things and it is arguable that this performance was not particularly appropriate (or Christ like). Perhaps there is a more effective (and loving and peaceful) way to communicate one’s convictions about said morality in the context of a friendship with someone with whom you disagree? Given that Christians are to be a people of reconciliation (as God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things…by making peace through the blood of his cross- Col. 1.20) is there a more loving and conciliatory way to communicate truth than protesting with a bull horn at an event they weren’t invited to?
Shannon: In light of my comments above, I’m might only add that the “content of the message” (even if it is truth) will never be heard if the messenger is acting inappropriately. Truthful words need a truthful life to match.
Scott: Is this a “question” or a “comment”? You sure make a lot of assumptions about me based on a couple of comments about free speech.
All I can say is “Ouch”!
**And as a word to all of you (so that we might all be more reconciling and Christ-like), gays and lesbians (as part of the human family) do not see their sexuality as an isolated “activity” (and neither should we). Rather, human sexuality is a part of our human make-up. So when a group of “Christians” starts reading scripture over a bull-horn “at” persons with a homosexual orientation - denouncing their activities as “sin” (even if this is true), it is difficult for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to understand that these well meaning “Christians” really do love the “sinner”, they just hate the sin.
January 15th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
Vaughn,
Did they break the law? If so, they must face the consequences. If they merely did something that others disagree with or offended by, did that warrant 3 felonies and 5 misdeanors? Once again, the people that claim ‘tolerance’ as their creed, are not subscribers to it themselves. And they will not be tolerant of it when Pastors preach from the pulpit the Gospel that ‘offends’ them either. After all, following their logic, that sounds like they are inciting a riot. Imagine, having a few hundred in a Sunday service - a captive audience - as a Pastor preaches what they consider to be hate-speech. Let’s not forget that this is a spiritual battle and it’s not a battle about evangelism methods - but rather a battle for truth and what is best for us - as a sinful people - who think we know what’s best for ourselves outside of God’s will.
January 18th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Vaughn: It was a question and a comment. I’m making my assumptions based on what I’ve read of your website and what is implied by your own statements. From the two, I drew a conclusion. That’s the way logic works
Here’s another question, followed by a comment. Are the assumptions true? The Gospel is a two-fold message of grace and responsibility. The two cannot be separated. I think those who make statements like yours which imply that the grace portion of the gospel should be spoken while the morality and responsibility portion should not - thereby implicitly justifying the persecution of fellow believers standing up for God’s Word - are partially responsible for the end result for all believers including themselves. I don’t have a problem being confrontative about that.
February 13th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Inventing persecution
Not to sound like a “mutual-admiration-bloggers-society”, but I was appreciative of Dale’s comments about my comments on evangelism. He makes an important contribution to this discussion on his blog:”I saw an episode of ER this week where Carrie We…