There have been a few interesting legal cases in the past week dealing with issues of anonymous speech on the Internet that I thought my readers might find interesting:Model Identifies Blogger Who Called Her a "Skank"
Model Liskula Cohen recently filed a John Doe lawsuit to find the identity of a blogger who ran a website "Skanks in NYC". Apparently the lawsuit was over defamation, and the courts ordered Google to release the name of the blogger to Cohen.
Once Cohen found out who it was, she personally called the blogger.
"I said, 'I just want you to know that if I've ever done anything to you to actually deserve this, that I'm really very sorry. I'm sincerely apologetic,'" Cohen said.
So far Cohen has refused to release the name of the blogger.
The Wartburg Watch blog has written an interesting article on Cohen's story, comparing how Cohen handled her blogger with how Mac Brunson handled his.
DC Court of Appeals Sets Guidelines for Protecting Anonymous Speech
In a recent defamation and copywright lawsuit (Solers, Inc. v. Doe), the DC Court of Appeals established a stringent standard for lower courts when a plaintiff attempts to unmask anonymous speakers on the Internet. About the case, the court said:
“[this case] presents us with issues of first impression – whether the First Amendment protects the anonymity of someone such as Doe, and, if so, under what circumstances a plaintiff such as Solers may invoke court processes to learn Doe’s identity and have its day in court."
The court emphasized that a plaintiff "must do more than simply plead his case" to unmask an anonymous speaker claimed to have violated the law.
What is the stringent standard established by the court?
1. Ensure that the plaintiff has adequately pleaded the elements of a defamation claim.
2. Require reasonable efforts to notify the anonymous defendant that the complaint has been filed and the subpoena has been served.
3. Delay further action for a reasonable time to allow the defendant an opportunity to file a motion to quash.
4. Require the plaintiff to proffer evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on each element of the claim that is within its control.
5. Determine that the information sought is important to enable the plaintiff to proceed with his/her lawsuit.
The court noted that states vary widely in what is required to unmask an anonymous speaker, but the court noted lax requirements in this regard "...may needlessly strip defendants of anonymity in situations where there is no substantial evidence of wrongdoing, effectively giving little or no First Amendment protection to that anonymity."
Sounds reasonable to me. If an anonymous blogger is thought to be breaking a law, defaming someone, let the plaintiff have the backbone to seek the anonymous blogger's identity through due process: file the lawsuit, demand the person's identity through a subpoena so that legal action can be taken against him/her, and give all the parties (plaintiff, defendant, and Internet parties) an opportunity to argue the subpoena's validity.
Besides, what other legal option is there, other than calling the police in an attempt to open a criminal investigation into the blogger - with the hopes that the investigation might lead to subpoenas being issued by the criminal investigator. If someone can do that, well the due process can be by-passed very easily. But of course success requires the criminal investigator is willing to then release the name of the blogger whether or not there was an actual crime committed.
And it would help, presumably, if the investigator has a personal friendship with the plaintiff - most assuredly the identity will be found and given up.
For further reading on the DC Court of Appeals Case:
Baptist Planet - discusses relevance of the case to the FBC Jax Watchdog case.
Citizen Media Law Project
Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press
52 comments:
OFF TOPIC:
http://www.truthguard.com/Articles/the-leadership-deception-a47.html
Great article about 'leadership' in the church
Too bad Mac didn't follow all the guidelines--but then too bad you didn't put your identity out there in the first place. If you had, you might actually been able to accomplish something rather than being "churched".
What...you can't even call somebody a skank these days without getting "outed". What fun is the internet anymore.
Interesting case here of Solers, Inc. V. Doe.
An anonymous tip to the Software & Information Industry Association’s website, that the company Solers, Inc. might be using illegal software.
The solution in this case, after receiving a letter from the Software & Information Industry is to do a software audit. And then respond with the results of the audit.
I do not understand why Solers, Inc. would think a defamation took place. In the worst case, they might have lost some hours of company time doing a software audit, which needs to be done periodically anyways. An external audit was not even necessary in this case, since the Software & Information Industry Association closed the case after receiving a reply from Solers, Inc.
It appears Solers, Inc. was trying to get even with the anonymous tipster, since most anonymous tipsters normally work for the company being complained against in the first place. If this charge was true, the anonymous tipster would have received a payment up to 1 million dollars. And they would become a whistle blower.
The DC Appeals Court decision only brings more merit and approval to the actions taken by FBC Jax in your case.
The reasons for FBC Jax uncovering your identity were based more on criminal overtones from your blog, rather than defamation misconduct, thus giving the church organization more credit for uncovering your identity.
Example: A person pretending to be a member of the church used a fake email account and a fake name to advocate support for your blog and your ideas by sending an email out to certain church members of FBC Jax.
How is this criminal?
The person who sent out the email did not have permission from the recipients of that email to be contacted via email or to be included in the distribution list of the email. That is a violation of privacy rights.
The fact that the email was sent out by someone using a false name advocating for support of your blog only points to you as the sender of that fake email.
Not to mention, Sean Lyons was also a fake name you used, which points the finger at you even more as the one who would send out an email using a fake email address.
So making yourself look like a victim because of a violation of first amendment privacy rights really does you no good here. It appears that you have committed much more than defamation but rather criminal acts which has in turn revealed your identity.
And I have only given you one example of why the church proceeded to find out who you are.
To Anonymous August 24, 2009 12:05 PM
Thanks for posting the website and article.
Joe
I was reading some of these blogs and posts with a friend this weekend. This friend is not a church goer and will say they are not a 'committed believer'. They are more of a genuine doubter. So, as you can imagine, we have some very interesting, sometimes extrememly serious, but mostly mind opening dialogue. This article about the Model vs. Pastor was priceless. Even the unbelievers know what they are looking for in religious leaders.
Come on, let's just admit why it is so very difficult for pastors to be humble and to be loving to those that disagree with them.
It's called sin. Pure and simple, it's just sin. And the whole world is watching...
"How is this criminal?
The person who sent out the email did not have permission from the recipients of that email to be contacted via email or to be included in the distribution list of the email. That is a violation of privacy rights."
Can you cite a statute or case law, or something supporting your point? I'd sure like to see that.
"It appears that you have committed much more than defamation but rather criminal acts which has in turn revealed your identity."
Please, tell me the criminal activity. What are you talking about? Honestly, do you have any idea, or are you just making this up as you go?
Criminal activity...Tom, it's a wonder you're not in jail. Wait, what? JSO found no evidence of any criminal activity and never pressed any charges against you?
Anonymous, please, give me some sort of clue as to what you're referencing.
And I have only given you one example of why the church proceeded to find out who you are.
August 24, 2009 4:17 PM
___________________________________
Anon 4:17pm
As a member of FBCJ the one question I would like to have answered is WHY THE CHURCH BANNED MRS RICH.
You gave a long dialog that absolutely has "no legs" or makes "no sense" to members who do not know or have any connection to the Rich family.
My firm belief is that all of the body of Christ at FBCJ owes Mrs. Rich a huge apology - she broke no laws!
Your defense however was an interesting read - you certainly write as if you know for sure that the leadership claims are legitimate.
Good try, but didn't work! Now give me one of your "many examples" you claim to have/know as to WHY MRS. RICH WAS BANNED WHEN SHE DID NO WRONG!
Member of FBC, Jacksonville, FL
"How is this criminal?
The person who sent out the email did not have permission from the recipients of that email to be contacted via email or to be included in the distribution list of the email. That is a violation of privacy rights."
Wow, there must be a ton of people I can sue for violating my privacy rights with unsolicited e-mails I nevr gave them persmission to send nor my e-mail addy. Thanks for the tip!
The criminal activity must refer to the stalking and mail theft. Only problem is that there are no records that either were ever reported.
Or they waited until the deadline to destroy the documents that GAVE THE REASON FOR THE SUBPEONA, in order to get his name and serve him trespass papers. Seems the false reports were used for that reason.
Otherwise, they would still be looking for the stalker and the mail thief.
They always try and use the criminal angle to get around I CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 6:1-12 guilt against those they are zeroed in on.
Then they can say see..see what criminal act they have done. We are the innocent ones church and they are the ones out to get us.
I guess this tactic is in the "Pastoring a Church" handbook, Page 101
Those within the Baptist Mafia are always and will always be chasing the Blue light when opposition rises. Always!
Anon 7:48pm,
The church banned no one. A trespass citation is temporary in nature. To ban someone would be to permanently remove Mr. & Mrs. Rich from the membership rolls. The church did not do this until after Mr. & Mrs. Rich voluntarily left the church and moved their membership to a sister church.
You're asking why did the church invoke a trespass warning against Mrs. Rich.
As the wife of Mr. Rich, it is probably understood that Mrs. Rich supported Mr. Rich in his opinions and ideas as expressed on this blog. I would find it hard to believe the contrary.
You also have to consider the church's perspective. Perhaps, when looking at Ephesians 5:23-32, through a biblical perspective, the church sees Mr. & Mrs. Rich as being one, unified through marriage with the understood notion that Mrs. Rich supported, agreed with, and advocated for the same things Mr. Rich expressed through his blog.
Maybe that is why Mrs. Rich was issued a trespass warning.
It also would not surprise me if one of the recipients of that fake email tried to sue Tom Rich for violating first amendment privacy rights, assuming he was the anonymous distributor of that email.
The Honorable Judge Lance M. Day is preciding over the case involving Mr. Rich's lawsuit against Mac Brunson. Follow this lawsuit/case and maybe you can find out why Mr. Rich's wife was issued a trespass warning.
Off Topic:
Humor, courtesy of Lydia.
"Thy Peace, If you want to know what happened to SBC women before and after the CR, watch this":
Women: Know Your Limits! Harry Enfield - BBC comedy.
Also,
"Come on, guys! Give each other a hug and focus!
Well, if you must hug, at the very least do it properly":
How to give the perfect man hug.
Lydia, that was a classic. Thanks.
Thanks again Lydia. :)
The Wartburg Watch > Fbc Jacksonville + Mac Brunson > FBC JACKSONVILLE: SELLING IT AND SELLING OUT
Promotional companies
...
Missions: Mac Style
...
Sermon on the Mound
...
The Mini Missions Conference
...
The Pastor's Money Making Conference
...
This is quite interesting.
I Tim 6:10 in the KJV states that The Love of Money is the root of ALL evil. Strange that in a lot of other versions (most) it is stated "all kinds of evil." In other words the change sort of lessens the meaning of the love for money and that it is "the root of all evil". This sort of lightens the load of this specific sin by suggesting a difference between "all evil" and "all kinds of evil". Spread the guilt around a little, as it were. Take the emphasis off the "love of money" being associated with ALL evil. So many are caught up in the power play for the "love of money". Think of the "Rich Young Ruler in Matt.19:21-22. "Jesus said unto him, "If thou will be perfect, go and see that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." vs. 22 "But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great posessions." Continue reading the rest of the chapter l9.
Makes one wonder why some translators want to change the meanings of Gods word. I'll stick to the oldest and best manuscripts. The love of money is the root of ALL evil. It has brought down Kings, Princes, Politicians, and preachers. Once money has corrupted it ruins everything it touches. Lives, relationships, careers, and on and on. ALL evil. Its progressive by its very nature. Hard to improve on the Word of God.
You're asking why did the church invoke a trespass warning against Mrs. Rich.
As the wife of Mr. Rich, it is probably understood that Mrs. Rich supported Mr. Rich in his opinions and ideas as expressed on this blog. I would find it hard to believe the contrary.
You also have to consider the church's perspective. Perhaps, when looking at Ephesians 5:23-32, through a biblical perspective, the church sees Mr. & Mrs. Rich as being one, unified through marriage with the understood notion that Mrs. Rich supported, agreed with, and advocated for the same things Mr. Rich expressed through his blog.
Maybe that is why Mrs. Rich was issued a trespass warning.
It would not surprise me if this is exactly how FBCJax leadership sees this issue, even though it is an unbiblical view of marriage. It only shows how the patriarchal and authoritarian teachings prevalent in the SBC have twisted the Bible's teachings about marriage into something God never intended. The concepts of indivudual accountability before God and the equality and disctinct personhood of a woman from her husband appear to have been lost.
Quote:
"You're asking why did the church invoke a trespass warning against Mrs. Rich.
As the wife of Mr. Rich, it is probably understood that Mrs. Rich supported Mr. Rich in his opinions and ideas as expressed on this blog. I would find it hard to believe the contrary.
You also have to consider the church's perspective. Perhaps, when looking at Ephesians 5:23-32, through a biblical perspective, the church sees Mr. & Mrs. Rich as being one, unified through marriage with the understood notion that Mrs. Rich supported, agreed with, and advocated for the same things Mr. Rich expressed through his blog.
Maybe that is why Mrs. Rich was issued a trespass warning."
--------------------------------------
So what you are saying is that you at FBCJ consider your womenfolk to be brain-dead, pod-people extensions of the husband. What a convenient excuse. What a load of manure.
It cracks me up to see this antiquated view of women that is projected by the "righteous". You use the bible to justify the fact that your actions are no better than that of a slave owner's. Any time that you consider one segment of humanity to be lesser than you, you exhibit hate and ignorance.
Mrs. Rich, you and your children have my sympathy for all that you have endured at the hands of the "holy". What a deplorable way to treat a human being!
First of all, it doesn't matter what they did to my wife and why they did it at this point. They did it, and they thought that was what Jesus wanted them to do. The lawsuits have nothing to do with that. We will never know, and we don't need to know. They were obeying the Lord Jesus Christ apparently, and Jesus apparently wanted them to first fill out an informal trespass for my wife, and then I can only assume Jesus told these righteous judges to go file one OFFICIALLY with the JSO. They accused my wife of "church misconduct", when she had committed none. And its on file with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.
And one minor detail: in the trespass papers they first sent, they accused me of church misconduct, but for hers the reason was writte as "associating with a member who conducted misconduct". Her sin, according the six "judges" who signed my letter and ascented to the trespass papers, was that she had done exactly what FBC Jax has been teaching women to do for decades: submit to your husband's leadership.
Since people like to come here and put my name on the blog, let's list these men's names again, the ones that trespassed my wife from the church property. Here are the six brave, righteous judges, that after much prayer, Jesus told them to sign a letter with trespass papers for my wife:
Dave Bristowe - Chairman of Deacons
David Kay - Vice Chair of Deacons
Jerry Ward - Discipline Comm Member
Bob Harrison - Discipline Comm Member
Jerrett McConnell - Discipline Committee Member
A. C. Soud, Jr. - Discipline Commitee Member
And the messengers for these six judges that delivered the letter:
Reverend John Blount, III
Reverend Kevin King
Secondly, if they viewed my wife as being "one" with me, and they viewed me as being in sin (and boy did they ever), it would be ridiculous to assume that she also is in sin without first positively finding the answer to whether she was in sin. They don't issue trespass papers to wives of other people who are in sin, like the molesting deacon. He sins, its his fault. They don't assign blame also to the wife for his sin. Or do they?
Thirdly, perhaps another option is they did it as intimidation. As one of FBC Jax's favorite sayings goes "if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy"...hit the guy really hard, trespass his wife, and the coward will cave in and "shut em down" in no time flat...probably they assumed that to be the most likely outcome of their letter and trespass warnings. Boy, were they wrong.
But as I said, it doesn't matter at this point. They did it. But the lame excuse of "according to the Bible you are one"....that is lamest of all explanations.
It is encouraging to see both the public and the judiciary starting to take the reality of the damage caused by Internet libel more seriously.
Too many cases have been flippantly dismissed because it can be safely assumed that the judges by his or her language believe that they are petty cases clogging up the legal system.
In reality, a person who relies on their reputation for their living can be as devastated by malicious Internet smear campaigns as a farmer who has his livestock, buildings and fields burned by vandal. The difference being, the vendor can be jailed for effecting the same result for the farmer as a cowardly anonymous blogger can do to their victim.
I have walked this fiery trial personally, defects are emotionally and potentially debilitating.
Respectfully submitted, Michael Roberts. Internet libel victim's advocate
www.Rexxfield.com
Anon: August 24, 2009 9:18 PM
The FBC DEACON and youth leader that was sent to prison for his "horrible deed" wife was not penalized by the church in any mnner.
Instead, the members were asked to pray for her (at least in my bible class) - some of the various activities actually happened on the grounds of her home.
It is my understanding that one of the young teens still has "scars" from what happened - likewise the parents.
Thanks watchdog for listing the names of the "leadership" involved. I know them all!
Jerry Ward - Discipline Comm Member
A. C. Soud, Jr. - Discipline Commitee Member
===================================
Being the named above individuals are intertwined being they are connected by immediate "family" relationships, I would think they share same feelings and opinions! Sorta like a Mr. & Mrs. marriage!
Tom,
Any chance you can give us the email addresses of those men? I would like to write and congratulate them on a job well done. You and your family needed to be removed from the fellowship--and you were.
I see the Pharisee are standing ready with their stones.....
Anon 8:07
You are right. God works through all things, and He has worked through this by giving us blessings by having us "removed". Kind of like a cancer, or a kidney stone, right?
"Jerry Ward - Discipline Comm Member
Bob Harrison - Discipline Comm Member
Jerrett McConnell - Discipline Committee Member
A. C. Soud, Jr. - Discipline Commitee Member"
Let me get this straight. FBCJax has a discipline committee? How long has this been around?
You are right. God works through all things, and He has worked through this by giving us blessings by having us "removed". Kind of like a cancer, or a kidney stone, right?.
Except the sad fact is they only "removed" or dis-felloswhipped the person asking questions. The cancer or the "problem(s)" are still there infecting The Body. Now the "cancer" can metastasize to more virulent forms.
This is what happens when they throw out people identifying problems, who are mistakenly thought of as the problem. I believe this used to happen in the Dark Ages.
Oh well, welcome to 21st century.
Déjà vu (again) :)
Has anyone else noticed the eerrie similarities between the tactics of FBCJAX and the Obama Administration in trying to silence it's detractors?
There has been a "discipline committee" in the church bylaws for many years.
Prior to the Dec 2007 bylaw changes, it was merely a committee of deacons who were to "maintain order and spiritual decorum during any church function."
But in the Dec 2007 bylaw changes, this committee function was completely re-written - they are charged with the responsibility to "effectuate Scriptural discipline in appropriate curcumstances." And the Discipline process was redefined for this committee.
I wrote extensively about the Dec 2007 bylaw changes, in three posts in January 2009.
One of the criticisms of this committee, is that it by definition excludes the pastor.
Why do I say this? Because the first step of the Discipline Committee process in the bylaws says that the committee must FIRST meet with the pastor to discuss member misconduct to see if it rises to the level of requiring Scriptural discipline. Kind of hard to go to the pastor about HIS misconduct, to ask him if his misconduct rises to the level of scriptural discipline.
Opening this Pandora's box of discipline is exactly the problem with it going awry. First, it depends on WHO you are and do you hold high office in the church, or in the community at large. If both elements are involved then it is more likely discipline would be done in secret, if at all. However, if you are neither then blast away and make a case to discourage others. You, unimportant to the church person, can be publically used to flex the biased muscles of the church heirarchy.
Whenever any group decides to take issue with pointing out sin in another they should first remember the other three fingers always point back to themselves. Jesus pointed this out in the case of the woman caught in adultry. Those men would have stoned her to death if Jesus had not taught them all the lesson that everyone sins. His writing on the ground convicted all of those men did it not?
The only way Peter knew about the sin of Ananias and Sapphira who held back part of the selling price of their land, was that the Holy Spirit revealed it to him.
I find it proper that after we have received our glorified bodies then we can judge properly. But for now Christians will suffer persecution needlessly. I believe the verses in I Cor.2 should apply especially vs 4 "If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are "least esteemed in the church". I think Paul hit the nail on the head perfectly. Funny, what high esteem and misplaced importance will bring on a nation, a state, a city, or even a church!!!
Hey Watchdog,
Did they come to you as brothers first and ask you not to do it. Then bring the elders once more and ask you? Or was it boom here it is and this is the action we are taking.
Also if this is the stance FBC is going to take then it can not play favortism and needs to take similar action with those who are up to no good in the fellowship. If there are buisness people who corrupt, people teaching contrary to the gospel then it needs to be dealt with also. The deal with church discipline is that you can not only administer it when it is personal. It has to be even handed. I thought I was going to have do something with a member at one time. I was not looking forward to it either. THe person has people close to them that had no clue. I did not want to hurt these other people and plus the person would need them when it came time to deal with the issue in their life. After much prayer I notice the person starting to remove themselves from leadership and getting distant from the fellowship. My office door is open for them anytime. As a pastor I am not perfect and do not have all the answers and that is why it is important to turn to God and scripture for answers and pray some more.
Watchdog, I know that you want to see justice. Remember that God is our avenger and eventhough these people signed off on this deal they are still your brothers in Christ. It looks like your have moved forward into another congregation which is good. Do not let this issue control you. Even Ben Cole came to a point in his blog when he said it is time to move to something else. He had his church to attend to and other things. I want to encourage you as a brother in Christ. Also all people on bothsides you have some good discussion points but there is way to many cheap shots. I guess this is the pastor in me. I have to deal with this with some of my members and it is way unhealthy for the spirit.
Have a Blessed Day.
Chris
Hi Chris - as I have documented on this blog, they have not followed Matt 18 church discipline.
They say they have, but I'm not sure how they make that claim.
They found my identity, and the first action they took was a letter listing my 16 sins, with two trespass papers - one filled out with my name, DOB, height, weight, and my offense for which I was trespassed...and another one filled out for my wife.
There was no visit.
There was no phone call.
A letter arrived, carried by Kevin King and John Blount, who both refused my invitation to come in and speak with me, just handed me a letter, told me to read it and call them next week.
That was the beginning of their discipline process.
Its all outlined on the blog.
And I thank you for your words of advice, Chris. Yes, there will be a time when I lay this aside and "move on". Now is not that time.
And I reiterate...there is no "justice" to be sought on the church discipline matters. The fact is they are free as a church to execute their church discipline however they see fit. And I'm free to criticize it on this blog as I see fit. They can trespass whoever they want to trespass. They can pass Deacon's resolutions condemning bloggers and threatening to "agressively confront" criticizers in the church til the cows come home. The legal action has nothing to do whatsoever with church discipline processes that started in November.
To: August 25, 2009 8:54 AM
YEP! Sure have! It's not lost on us thinking people.
FBJ is currently being led and conducted like the neo-Dems - Obama Style!
Why do I say this? Because the first step of the Discipline Committee process in the bylaws says that the committee must FIRST meet with the pastor to discuss member misconduct to see if it rises to the level of requiring Scriptural discipline. Kind of hard to go to the pastor about HIS misconduct, to ask him if his misconduct rises to the level of scriptural discipline.
August 25, 2009 9:03 AM
How convenient. But it is becoming the norm with wolves. They are not stupid. Just diabolical.
"Also all people on bothsides you have some good discussion points but there is way to many cheap shots. I guess this is the pastor in me. I have to deal with this with some of my members and it is way unhealthy for the spirit.
Have a Blessed Day.
Chris
===================================
You are correct about "cheap shots" as Pulpit Pastors and may I kindly say that Bible teachers are just as guilty when it comes to throwing darts.
I've listened to many JABS coming from their mouths naming the person they disagreed with!
As for Mr. Rich putting this blog aside - other members haved asked the very same questions he has and we will proceed to ask even if he shuts down this blog.
The conduct of the Pastor and Mr. Soud with their comments in the Florida Times Union was outrageous - as a Pastor, you are right, it was then and still is a very "unhealthy spirit" for the members of FBCJ and presently a very poor testimony of the lead Pastor to all of the subscribers of this newspaper!
Chris, Ben Cole did a great service to the SBC. He worked very close with Patterson who was his mentor and saw the evil for quite a while.
He made it known. And I am glad he did. Many of us had seen the evil and thought we were alone. It seemed it had become the norm for the SBC. Even applauded as in "That Paige always lands on his feet no matter what he does."
Cole left pastoring in the SBC and went to DC to work in politics. He felt politics in DC was more honest.
At least they are not doing it in the Name of Jesus Christ.
You wrote:
"He had his church to attend to and other things. I want to encourage you as a brother in Christ. Also all people on bothsides you have some good discussion points but there is way to many cheap shots. I guess this is the pastor in me. I have to deal with this with some of my members and it is way unhealthy for the spirit. "
Could you relate to us the how the FBCJAX supporters have some good discussion points? Being a pastor, I can understand why you would think that. After all, you have a position of authority in the church, right? I mean, your income depends on folks following you.
Could you explain how truth is unhealthy for the spirit? Perhaps you think it more healthy to just go along with evil pastors?
Jake
From Michael Roberts of Rexxfield and Mile2's website:
"Reputation" is what others say about you. "Character" is what you really are as evidenced by your actions when no one is observing.
Mac said Tom is a sociopath and served trespass warnings against him and his wife. So, I guess that goes toward Tom's reputation.
Tom is defending himself against having his good reputation tarnished by the local pastor of the largest church in the city. I'd say that goes toward Tom's character.
Stay courageous Tom.
FFBC Insider,
If character is what you really are, evidenced by your actions when no one is observing,
I guess that would mean that Mr. Rich has failed to demonstrate character while he sat behind his computer when no one was looking.
From Michael Roberts of Rexxfield and Mile2's website:
"Reputation" is what others say about you. "Character" is what you really are as evidenced by your actions when no one is observing.
Mac said Tom is a sociopath and served trespass warnings against him and his wife. So, I guess that goes toward Tom's reputation.
Tom is defending himself against having his good reputation tarnished by the local pastor of the largest church in the city. I'd say that goes toward Tom's character.
Stay courageous Tom.
August 25, 2009 11:01 AM
And Mac just used a different form of media.
FFBC Insider,
If character is what you really are, evidenced by your actions when no one is observing,
I guess that would mean that Mr. Rich has failed to demonstrate character while he sat behind his computer when no one was looking.
August 25, 2009 11:13 AM
Pot>kettle>black
As you post your anonymous comment. :o)
Anon: August 25, 2009 11:13 AM,
No, that would be the courageous part, to question the obvious wrong doings by his pastor.
FFBC Insider,
What is so courageous about hiding behind a computer and "raising questions" about the wrongdoings of a pastor in a satirical manner?
Some of the people who changed the course of history for ever did not hide from the public eye when they questioned the wrongdoings of government, church and so on. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not hide because he was afraid of retribution. He publicly voiced his opposition against segregation and crusaded in towns predominantly filled with white people who threatened Mr. Kings life and family. Nor did Rosa Parks give in to the powers that existed during her time. She refused to move out of her seat when her white superior during that time was standing right there in front of her demanding that she sit in the back of the bus.
Martin Luther openly questioned the teachings of the church during the reformation and even went to the church to publicly post his 95 thesis.
Point being, if Mr. Rich had been courageous he would have given himself more credit by going public with his concerns instead of hiding because of a "fear of retribution". He hid because he knew what he was doing was wrong. He knows there's shame in what he has done and it's hard for a person to go public and stand accountable to a shameful lifestyle.
Wow, now that IS the pot calling the kettle black.
Using your logic, then, since you are coming here to post your criticism of me publicly, and you do it anonymously, you also know that what you are doing is wrong? Why anonymously criticize me for anonymously criticizing Brunson?
Don't you know you will have much more credibility in criticizing me if you would put your name on it? Why are you hiding behind your computer screen, taking shots at me and saying I'm living a sinful lifestyle?
Are you a coward?
FBC Jax Watchdog,
I can criticize you anonymously because I'm not trying to push an agenda like you are doing publicly on your blog. Plain and simple.
Am I the coward? No. Because I'm not the one living a shameful lifestyle in the dark trying to push an agenda filled with hate and slander against a pastor.
Thanks for the clarification. Makes perfect sense.
Ben Cole did a great service to the SBC. He worked very close with Patterson who was his mentor and saw the evil for quite a while.
He made it known. And I am glad he did. Many of us had seen the evil and thought we were alone. It seemed it had become the norm for the SBC. Even applauded as in "That Paige always lands on his feet no matter what he does."
Cole left pastoring in the SBC and went to DC to work in politics. He felt politics in DC was more honest.
I agree, to a point. He would have done a much, much greater service if he'd left his blog up for posterity. Instead he erased any trace of it from the internet. Could that have been because he went to work in politics? Or some other reason?
I would encourage Tom once his job is done to leave this blog up for those who come after us.
Some anonymous person wrote, "Martin Luther King, Jr. did not hide because he was afraid of retribution. He publicly voiced his opposition against segregation and crusaded in towns predominantly filled with white people who threatened Mr. Kings life and family."
If memory serves me, that didn't work out so well for Dr. King in the end, did it?
"Some of the people who changed the course of history for ever did not hide from the public eye when they questioned the wrongdoings of government, church and so on. "
You mean like the Federalist papers?
Anonymous said...
FFBC Insider,
"What is so courageous about hiding behind a computer and "raising questions" about the wrongdoings of a pastor in a satirical manner?"
Knowing the pastor in question, knowing that he 'cast out' others of my friends and fellow servants for a lot less than what Tom was questioning, I'd say that Tom took the high road, the road less traveled, as did Rosa Parks.
You really shouldn't chime in with stuff you know nothing about. Are you really within the African American equal rights movement? I sincerely doubt it. You'd have had a lot more to say than you did.
But what a place of honor you've given Tom by placing him there. I can kinda see it. He is really at the back of the bus in all of this. He is taking a stand for what is right here. He is being ridiculed and maligned by 'authority'. And you seem to like that.
Tom wasn't 'hiding', he was an insider, trying to make some wrongs become some rights.
Esther made herself unknown (anonymous) until the timing was right. She was wise enough to know that those in power would squash her if they knew who she was.
"Mr. Rich" as you so acurately call him with reverence, has displayed courage, intelligence and God's timing in his dealings with Mad Mac and Company.
From someone who knows, and from someone who's seen the face of ugliness to a mulitude of people following "God's Man", let me tell you that Mac is a very sad man. Just a man. A man that can cut like a knife if he feels the need to do so.
I truly feel sorry for you TP.
I truly wonder what it will take for you to feel the pain of Mac the Knife.
Some anonymous person wrote, "Martin Luther King, Jr. did not hide because he was afraid of retribution. He publicly voiced his opposition against segregation and crusaded in towns predominantly filled with white people who threatened Mr. Kings life and family."
If memory serves me, that didn't work out so well for Dr. King in the end, did it?
August 25, 2009 1:47 PM
Sort of like...
Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Again...why is questioning some of the brazen charlatan actions of Donald McCall Brunson called "hate" and "slander" by the kool-aid drinkers. Must we "hate" someone to question him? Is it slander to disagree with and question abusive tactics in the local church by a new pastor? Do all of you who question the WD for blogging "hate" him? It sure seems like that is your frame of reference.
The man's actions are indefensible and this blog shines light on them. No hate or slander. Just questions and concerns that are ongoing, right up to the recent letter asking for MORE MONEY!
Defamation is one issue and the Po Po generally don't get involved. Now, if someone or their property is physically harmed or threatened then law enforcement is obligated to investigate. You have to be careful of what you write and you have to be willing to accept responsibility for your words. You need to understand that even if you are not directly involved, then you might become an inadvertent suspect. Your privacy privileges and freedom of speech ends at others expectation of safety and security. After all, there are those that might take life a bit seriously. If your words harm, or cause harm, then you should expect to have to make it right.
You can still reconcile your differences with the church and you should.
Post a Comment