quote:I think you have a mistaken view of the American legal system in this regard.
It depends on what you consider "reasonable force." I've already found a few things that indicate that you don't need to speak to someone to expel them from your property once they've ignored both physical barriers and posted signs. You can't set up traps for them, but you can force them off your lot manually in any "reasonable" way after that.
I'm not sure what "reasonable" (seemingly related to force) has to do with this.
You're quote was in response to this:
quote:However, I don't believe it is trespassing to open a gate on the designated path to the front door of a home.
While there are cases that support a barrier + sign = trespassing, there are other cases that don't. This is very state-law dependent.
A no trespassing sign is essentially a legal notice. It does not mean "no one come on this land." It means "no one come on this land who would be trespassing were they to do so."
"Trespassing" is very state specific, so the sign means something different depending on where one is.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: There weren't any times when you felt rather tired and out of sorts, but you decided you needed to be out there doing the missionary work anyway, even if your heart wasn't in it that day? It was a sort of constant "burning in the breast" for you, across the (2?) years of missionary work? (This is foreign to me, but if you say this is true for you, I will certainly take it on faith.)
I don't think you need a constant burning in the chest to feel inspired to knock on the next door anymore then a spouse needs to feel a constant tingling sensation when they look at their significant other in order to claim a burning commitment to their love and that they were inspired to marry him/her.
Mormons get the burning sensation, it testifies to them the truth as they understand it, and then they act on that "truth" until they get another witness that they need to stop or until they fulfill their commitment.
So the answer to your question...
quote: "then you (Mormons) are saying that you only witnessed to people for whom you had a strong prompting?"
...in my opinion is 'yes.' Yes they do.
EDIT: To clarify a sentence
EDIT II:
quote: There weren't any times when you felt rather tired and out of sorts, but you decided you needed to be out there doing the missionary work anyway, even if your heart wasn't in it that day?
I have actually worked with missionaries who were so committed to the message that they NEVER seemed to feel to tired and out of sorts. The message was that strong to them!. Thank goodness I never had one for a companion. We would of drove eachother nuts! Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: There were times when I probably was out of line.
But I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell me so, except myself.
Why do you believe that? Being out of line is not an "internal" thing. Being out of line implies you are affecting others in an improper way and are therefore certainly fair game for scrutiny.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that because I don't believe anyone except for Deity has enough information to know that I was indeed out of line, except myself.
edit: To clarify, the factor that determines whether or not I was out of line is whether or not I felt the proper inspiration.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: I suppose, maybe there were times when I was out of line where not even I have enough information to know that I was actually out of line and I felt that I was doing what I was supposed to be doing.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Tom - if I'm not violating the law, how can you claim that I don't have the right to my own religious persuasion without personal attacks?
If I felt like I received inspiration from God, and that inspiration doesn't lead me to doing something illegal, who are you to tell me that I'm out of line? Or that I'm wrong?
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I felt like I received inspiration from God, and that inspiration doesn't lead me to doing something illegal, who are you to tell me that I'm out of line?
If you feel like you've received inspiration from God, who's the law to tell you that you're out of line?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You really feel no one can call you on being out of line as long as you don't do anything illegal? Wow. I think there are all sorts of things that are legal but inappropriate, and if I was doing one I would sure hope someone would call me on it.
For instance, to go back to BlackBlade's example, I think there's a good chance that woman was out of line going around warning her neighbors about the missionaries coming. I don't think we have enough information to know, one way or the other, but it's certainly a possibility. If I was one of her neighbors, and she came over obviously upset about the missionaries who had rung her doorbell and were on their way over to my place, I would try to calm her down, get her to see she was over-reacting, hopefully laugh about it, and send her back home secure in the knowledge that the rest of the neighbors were perfectly capable of sending the missionaries away themselves, if they wanted to. I'd still be sure she had felt completely justified in what she was doing, and that she probably thought it was the best action at the time she took it. She might have even thought it was her Christian duty. So I should just stay out of it, right?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by gnixing: But Tom - if I'm not violating the law, how can you claim that I don't have the right to my own religious persuasion without personal attacks?
Are you saying that any criticism of your behaviour as a missionary is an attack on your right to your own religious persuasion [added: provided you consider that behaviour to have been divinely inspired]? Or have I got you wrong here?
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You're taking it to ridiculous extremes again.
posted
Yes, it is. She just said before that she respected the laws, and the issue is whether or not someone is answerable to societal expetations. Changing it to a question of whether or not to break the law is another issue entirely, and it stretches and twists the original statement.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In BlackBlade's example, I don't feel justified in saying she was out of line. Maybe she was being spiteful - I don't know. But she certainly wasn't out of line. Nor would you be out of line trying to correct her behaviour.
Somethings are just plain inappropriate, but in the context of a missionary doing what he believes to be the work of God, under His guidance - I don't agree that anything that missionary does is out of line. If you take it outside of that context... then all bets are off.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:She just said before that she respected the laws, and the issue is whether or not someone is answerable to societal expetations.
My question, then, is what about the law makes it more important than both the will of God and societal expectation?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
In any case, Tom's asking a follow up question. gnixing has put forward [two] statements in this part of the discussion:
(1) I respect the law to the best of my knowledge;
(2) I follow divine inspiration.
Tom's question is this: what do you do if the two conflict? That isn't a question gnixing has answered. You're saying [if I'm reading you correctly] that the notion that divine inspiration and the law might conflict is ridiculous; I definitely don't think that's the case.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Tom is playing Religious Gotcha again. If someone places the will of God before, then they are dangerous lawbreaker. If they place the law before, then they are a bad servant of God.
*shrug* Maybe I'll be surprised.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by gnixing: Somethings are just plain inappropriate, but in the context of a missionary doing what he believes to be the work of God, under His guidance - I don't agree that anything that missionary does is out of line. If you take it outside of that context... then all bets are off.
That kind of thinking is what makes even religious people afraid (and rightly so) of religious people. It terrifies me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:in the context of a missionary doing what he believes to be the work of God, under His guidance - I don't agree that anything that missionary does is out of line
quote:I think Tom is playing Religious Gotcha again.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Tom's question is this: what do you do if the two conflict?
I believe that God has commanded us to obey the law. Meaning that if I feel that a law is contrary to one of God's commandments, I would obey the law to the extent that I am required by law and work to get the law changed to match God's will.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can assure you that I am not playing religious "gotcha". That kind of thinking is exactly what justifies stuff that is a lot more horrifying than disurbing someone at home. It is exactly the same kind of thinking that, for example, allows people to justify protesting at funerals - and that is a mild example.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if you felt a powerful, presumably God-given compulsion to preach to everyone inside an apartment building in a state that had defined "trespassing" to include unauthorized entry of buildings with physically restricted entryways, you would either wait outside for them to leave the building or call local lawmakers in an effort to have the law changed to permit your solicitation efforts?
------
As a side note, if we accept Kate's argument that "Religious Gotcha" is never played when someone is concerned about the ramifications of "God told me to do X," that's a game I've never played, either. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You play Religious Gotcha all the time. You have to deal with the suspicions that you may be doing it yet again.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: Yes. In the highly unlikely event that both of the requirements you stated are true. Being that a) I felt the powerful compulsion to communicate with everyone in the building and b) the law states that it would be trespassing for me to enter the building. If both of those requirements are true, I would very possibly wait for them to leave the building.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a side note, if we accept Kate's argument that "Religious Gotcha" is never played when someone is concerned about the ramifications of "God told me to do X," that's a game I've never played, either.
Again, I'll let you decide. I have absolutely no power over the ignorance of other people, save my own ability to speak.
--------
quote:If both of those requirements are true, I would very possibly wait for them to leave the building.
And what if the feeling continued? What if, for example, when trying to figure out why you still had the powerful urge to preach to everyone in the building, you discovered that there was an elderly lady on the fifth floor who had her groceries delivered and never left or answered her doorbell, being afraid of strangers and too feeble to walk far?
Keeping in mind that this is a thought experiment -- so that we're always ultimately going to grant the possibility of an "out" in some way, like writing your message on a rock and hurling it through her window or something -- how would you reconcile your inability to reach someone you had to reach with the law that prevented you from doing so?
And does your high level of respect for the letter of the law in these situations stem from the specific command of your God to obey the letter of the law, whereas He has presumably not commanded you to respect other people's wishes when not backed by law?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was your post a response to my statement? Perhaps "response" would be a better term than "answer".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Tom's question is this: what do you do if the two conflict?
I believe that God has commanded us to obey the law. Meaning that if I feel that a law is contrary to one of God's commandments, I would obey the law to the extent that I am required by law and work to get the law changed to match God's will.
Okay. Thanks for answering.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by gnixing: In BlackBlade's example, I don't feel justified in saying she was out of line. Maybe she was being spiteful - I don't know. But she certainly wasn't out of line. Nor would you be out of line trying to correct her behaviour.
Somethings are just plain inappropriate, but in the context of a missionary doing what he believes to be the work of God, under His guidance - I don't agree that anything that missionary does is out of line. If you take it outside of that context... then all bets are off.
I think, then, that we're perhaps working under different definitions of both "out of line" and "calling" someone on being so. Thanks for your answers.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: I don't feel like a having discussion revolving around the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. I feel there is a difference, and the spirit of the law holds precedence.
However, if I was forbidden by law to enter the building to help the old lady with her groceries - I would try and get one of her neighbors to assist her.
As for your claim about not respecting someone's wishes at God's command: There are times when God knows better than the missionary looking at a sign as to whether a person is ready to hear His message.
kmbboots: My statement was an observation about how many people that post frequently on Hatrack have a knack for jumping to conclusions with a negative curve. Some do it quite frequently, and on purpose.
As you can tell by my registration date - I am not a stranger here. I just don't generally like to post. This thread has been somewhat of interest to me, however - and I felt that I had something to contribute that hadn't already been said.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's an important distinction between jumping to a conclusion and making a logical extension of a given premise.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: in the context of a missionary doing what he believes to be the work of God, under His guidance - I don't agree that anything that missionary does is out of line
is a dangerous statement.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Do you think a diagnosis of sociopathy is a necessary consequence of preferring the direct commands of God to human law in those situations where they disagree? I don't.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I think there's an important distinction between jumping to a conclusion and making a logical extension of a given premise.
And Hatrackers often jump to conclusions, and often make illogical extensions of a given premise.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the premise is, as you stated, "in the context of a missionary doing what he believes to be the work of God, under His guidance - I don't agree that anything that missionary does is out of line," I submit that none of the extensions listed here are illogical.
Perhaps you didn't mean to put the words "what he believes to be" or "anything" in there. Perhaps you did. Not my call.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Thinking that
quote: in the context of a missionary doing what he believes to be the work of God, under His guidance - I don't agree that anything that missionary does is out of line
is a dangerous statement.
I suppose if the missionary is someone that believes that God would guide them do do something evil - and that is okay, then this could be a dangerous statement. Outside of that premise - I don't see the connection.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I put the words "what he believes to be" together with "the work of God," I expect you to take it for granted that there is no evil at play.
If you believe that "the work of God" could be evil or dangerous - then really, I have no reason to discuss this with you further because we will never see eye to eye.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind that, having never experienced the will of God working in me, I don't know how to distinguish between God and conscience. Do they feel different?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Pearce's point -- and I may be wrong, here -- was that not all behavior which someone believes to be the Will of God is in fact "okay."
My point -- which I haven't explicitly stated yet, I realize, so I'll do it here -- is that most religious people are ALREADY aware of this, which is why they tolerate and even endorse limits to their behavior based on a non-Godly standard (like, say, "law.")
The implication is that the Will of God is either occasionally wrong or easily misinterpreted, and that those other arbitrary standards -- like law or "conscience" -- provide checks on those interpretations.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
