Taking A Public Position - Getting A Public Response
In a comment to a previous post concerning the destruction of political signs on our church's property, someone said that if we take a public position, we should expect a public response. This was given as justification for destruction of the signs. That's an interesting position to take.
In response to the signs on our church's property we have received emails, phone calls and people who have visited the church to meet with the pastor in protest. These are all legitimate means of public debate and discourse. Other legitimate means would have been letters to the editor or putting up signs expressing the opposing opinion across the street from the church. Since the church parking lot is also a public Park-And-Ride lot, a creative person might have though of putting signs on the sides of a van and parking it in front of the church all day. That would be legitimate.
However, the destruction of someone else's property is not a legitimate means of expressing an opinion. If it were, this would lead to anarchy in public discourse as supporters of opposing views put their efforts into destroying the opposition's means of expressing their point of view. To me this sounds like warfare, not a peaceful, intelligent discussion.
What's happened at our church is not an isolated incident. The destruction of campaign signs throughout the area has been so great that it has received significant coverage in the press. My son, who is a community college student with a pro-marriage bumper sticker on his car's rear window, has had food dumped on his car to obscure the bumper sticker. Fortunately it rains a lot here in Oregon, and the rain has cleaned his car. At his school anti-marriage students have blockaded booths run by pro-marriage students, preventing access to them. This is not a free exchange of ideas. This is one group trying to intimidate and suppress the views of another group. And it's all been one way, pro-homosexual groups trying to silence pro-marriage speech. You can't call this free speech or free political discourse. It is plain and simply an attempt, on the part of some people, at bullying, suppression and intimidation.
In response to the signs on our church's property we have received emails, phone calls and people who have visited the church to meet with the pastor in protest. These are all legitimate means of public debate and discourse. Other legitimate means would have been letters to the editor or putting up signs expressing the opposing opinion across the street from the church. Since the church parking lot is also a public Park-And-Ride lot, a creative person might have though of putting signs on the sides of a van and parking it in front of the church all day. That would be legitimate.
However, the destruction of someone else's property is not a legitimate means of expressing an opinion. If it were, this would lead to anarchy in public discourse as supporters of opposing views put their efforts into destroying the opposition's means of expressing their point of view. To me this sounds like warfare, not a peaceful, intelligent discussion.
What's happened at our church is not an isolated incident. The destruction of campaign signs throughout the area has been so great that it has received significant coverage in the press. My son, who is a community college student with a pro-marriage bumper sticker on his car's rear window, has had food dumped on his car to obscure the bumper sticker. Fortunately it rains a lot here in Oregon, and the rain has cleaned his car. At his school anti-marriage students have blockaded booths run by pro-marriage students, preventing access to them. This is not a free exchange of ideas. This is one group trying to intimidate and suppress the views of another group. And it's all been one way, pro-homosexual groups trying to silence pro-marriage speech. You can't call this free speech or free political discourse. It is plain and simply an attempt, on the part of some people, at bullying, suppression and intimidation.
posted by BrickBalloon
Read This Post In Our: Christianity in America Blog Archive
4 Comments:
Again you've missed the point. You put up signs and, they were torn down. How does this lead to your attribution of guilt to homosexuals as a group?
In spite of your professed love and tolerance, you've judged and found wanting an entire demographic based on the actions of a few. If that wasn't bad enough, you're not ven sure who actu
who actually tore the signs down. So in the absence of the real culprit(s) you've blamed gays everywhere.
You need to get over the emotional attachment you have to your signs. At the moment you're just upset because someone is destroying something you presumably put a lot of effort into.
Where have I attributed that actions of destruction of property to homosexuals as a group? If I did, that was an error in typing on my part. But I can't find anywhere where I said what you are saying I said.
What I said is that I attribute the vandalism and destruction to homosexual activists. That is a very small part of the homosexual community. I know many people with homosexual desires (including as I said before a family member), all condemn what has been happening, and none are activists.
Yes, it is possible that the signs are being vandalised and destroyed up to three times daily by someone who does not like signs. Or maybe it is a sociopath who just likes to destroy signs. But these other possibilities do not seem likely. Non-Measure 36 (the marriage ammendment) political signs in the local area remain untouched. The vandalism and destruction are targeted soley at the Measure 36 signs.
By the way, I did not make the signs nor did I install them. The signs belong to the Defense of Marriage Coalition. They built them. They installed them. I happen to drive by the church on my way to and from work. It takes about two minutes to stop and push the signs upright again, or to prop them against the broken remains of a 2x2. I enjoy fixing things and it's actually kind of fun to figure out a way to get the broken pieces to support a sign once again (I'm an engineer). Although the last time all three signs were totally shredded, so they couldn't be reused. The Defense of Marriage Coalition came by and put up a new sign later that day.
You are making assumptions and accusations again based on a total lack of knowledge.
In this post you said "We're happy to rebuild them as many times as necessary as their repeated destruction shows the true mind and heart of homosexual activists to all those who drive by."Obviously i was mistaken for taking that to indicate that you were involved with the making, installation, fixing etc of the signs - i appreciate your continued patience in dealing with someone who's such a dumb-ass.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home