17 thoughts on “Acts 17 Responds to the Dearborn Mayor’s Letter”
1 Peter 2:12
"Be careful to live properly among your unbelieving neighbors. Then even if they accuse you of doing wrong, they will see your honorable behavior, and they will give honor to God when he judges the world."
You're angry, they pushed and shoved you around a bit – but you walked upto them with cameras and asked them tricky questions.
From an onlookers perspective, you look argumentative and angry. Is that a good witness?
Anonymous:
When did Nabeel say he way angry in his response? How is it that answering the mayor's accusations make him angry, according to you?
If you were an onlooker at the festival you would have seen them diffusing angry language.
If you are an internet onlooker then I think it is important to remember that many times our own biases interpret the situation the way we want it to be. It is very difficult to make an accurate judgment without all the details of the story and without knowing the gentlemen personally. So, as far as internet judgments go, I would err on the side of the benefit of the doubt.
And having said that, I’m going to now be a bit skeptical about your question: “Is that a good witness?” I think the question is too cut and dry. It simplifies the situation too much. And it also relies on a faulty premise, which is that the guys were angry and argumentative. According to their testimonies, they were not. Have you thought that it could be that the crowd was angry and argumentative and not the Acts 17 men? This is a possibility. That is why we need to see the video, which the guys now have in their possession.
Also remember that the followers of Christ went into towns and stayed in towns that were hostile to their message. A couple quick examples: The city of Ephesus mobbed around and shouted down Gaius, Aristarchus, and Alexander, the traveling companions of Paul, before they could even speak about Jesus in their town. (Acts 19). James and other followers of Christ stayed in Jerusalem where they were greatly persecuted for their message after the stoning of Stephen. Many followers fled and dispersed to other cities for safety. (Acts 6-8) Another aspect to consider is that people in these towns drummed up false accusations against the disciples in order to remove them or punish them. This even happened with the Lord Jesus at his trial. I see false accusations also being drummed up against the men of Acts 17 Apologetics in order to place the blame on them; even by the mayor.
Cameras: These guys post their materials online to provide access to a greater number of people than can be done face-to-face. They are impacting people from all over the world. Part of that ministry is to video their activities, including debates, to post for people to watch. I do not take issue with this aspect. What I believe is important is to keep in mind the motive and intent of both the people with the camera and the people being filmed. Both parties are responsible for their actions.
Look at what you are saying, “you showed up with cameras and asked them tricky questions.” The way this reads is: If people ask other people tricky questions on camera then it is okay to hit their cameras, intimidate them, use vulgar language with them, mob them, and violate civil law. You don’t really mean that, right? But that’s how you are coming across on your post. Please clarify.
Finally, we must be careful how we represent others’ ministries. I don’t think David and Nabeel reach all the people that other ministries reach; that makes sense. However, I also believe that David and Nabeel reach people other ministries do not because of their way of doing things. I know I am not able to relate to all people at all times; not even the Lord Jesus was able to get everyone with whom he spoke to believe in him (Luke 18). Of course, with me, I am only human…with the Lord…well, he’s dealing with humans like me.
Thanks, MJ
Correction: You said, "You walked up to them with cameras and asked them tricky questions." Not "showed up with cameras."
It was the tone and feel of the video, posted here. I saw that I'm not alone in thinking that the rhetoric needs to be dialled down a bit. This video feels angry. Why? Is it my bias? Unlikely, actually it's more likely that your invested bias in Acts 17 makes it harder to spot the exact point at issue. I'll try to give an example, that set the tone for the whole video. When it starts he hasn't started making his case/reply/argument and he's already talking about his cameras have taken, and not given back. I don't dispute that this is factual. But why does he mention it at that exact point? He's got an understandable grudge. I know you love logic, so look up 'poisoning the well'. It could be a good example right there.
When I asked, 'Is that a good witness?' I was asking a serious question. You're own reply, within a few hours, picking apart my few lines, feels quite defensive. I think you have a case, and I think that you were wronged, but you're missing the wood for the trees. You're still defending yesterday. I'm asking about today.
This whole subject should be dropped immediately. It's a complete distraction from your important work and ministry. I think you've had your chance to reply and engage, and you're done. It isn't serving any useful purpose to keep the torch burning brighter.
My Seminary profs always told me that if I were to take a stand on important issues, I should do so with my full name, position, current town, contact info, etc. In other words, take ownership of my statements and positions.
I see many, many people nowadays posting anonymously.
Anonymous – Who are you? For all we know, you are a Muslim posing as a Christian to sound like a concerned Christian. In fact, most Christians I converse with on a daily basis do not make statements like:
"This whole subject should be dropped immediately. It's a complete distraction from your important work and ministry. I think you've had your chance to reply and engage, and you're done. It isn't serving any useful purpose to keep the torch burning brighter."
This simply is not how Christians work through issues. We are taught that if we honesty hold the truth, we should work through that one argument/disagreement until it is exhausted. To simply 'drop the subject immediately' makes no sense whatsoever to someone honestly seeking truth.
If I have made an error in judgment about you, please let me know. Of course, you will have to divulge your identity to do so since others find it necessary to hide behind 'anonymous' labels in public forums.
Roger Sharp
My identity is not relevant. I'm a Christian. Please deal with the ideas, not me at a personal level.
You're all making a public stand on this issue. And I think I would like you to respect my choice not to do so. I would be happy to email you and tell you my identity, but I don't want it publicly revealed. If you can respect that – not that I am sure that it is in any way relevant to the conversation – then I'd be happy to consider it – if it made you happier about talking.
Christians need to act with shrewdness and wisdom, as well as honestly seeking the truth. Don't just simply major on truth telling with this, and find yourselves leaving shrewdness and wisdom outside the door. This isn't a choice between 'not telling the truth' on one side, and 'telling the truth on the other'. It's actually between wisdom and naivety.
I'm actually fan of confrontational Muslim apologetics. I get it. I've been to support it in the past. But EVEN SO from an onlookers/outsiders perspective it just does look provocative to put cameras in people's faces and ask them difficult questions. The question is: does it matter more that you continue to publicise something THAT doesn't look very good to an outsider, or that you exercise "truth telling"?
I say, pull back for now, and find a case that is much more clear cut (showing the Muslim intolerance) on which to take your stand on this important issue.
I wish you guys well for the future whatever you decide.
Why are you posting the times that you check your email here? I find that a slightly strange thing to do! I did say that I would consider sending you a message to reveal my id (see above). And I have been doing so. And I think that on reflection – and looking at this, an email conversation wouldn't necessarily be productive. Are we really listening to each other? You guys are in 'war' mode. And I think I'm asking some questions that you don't want to hear.
You might say that I am sniping from the dark, that this is a character issue for me, or that it is unfair. E.G. That by not revealing my id, I am not 'owning' my opinions (moral problem). You quoted what your old profs used to say didn't you? That's fine – sticks and stones…
Truth isn't defined on the altar of popularity. I've told you what I think. You've replied. And I wonder if you haven't actually made my case stronger?
Anonymous –
Roger is attempting to hold you accountable. This is similar to what you are doing by posting; attempting to hold a believer accountable.
However, we do not usually find that fellow Christians (nor atheists or agnostics) use this sort of admonishment or argumentation when reasoning through a subject with us…that is the demand or command of us to do something, such as: "This whole subject should be dropped immediately…and you're done. It isn't serving any useful purpose to keep the torch burning brighter." Actually, I don't recall any other person, other than a person using Islamic philosophical ideology, using this sort of reasoning. I have experience reasoning with people of different types of philosophies and have gained some feel for how different interactions normally proceed. Your reasoning here–and the fact that you are telling us what to do–is what we have experienced with Muslim reasoning and ideology (obviously, a generalization…but that is our experience).
The reason I bring this up is because we have also unfortunately experienced Muslims who will take anonymous and other identities (even pose as Christians) and then try to argue against what Christians are doing. The goal appears to be to make the body of Christ look divided on that person or subject. However, those people don't usually argue from the Scriptures and if they do, it is bad exegesis (beyond average Christian mistakes or allowance for Christians interpretations). I do not say this from a spirit of condemnation, but I want to be thoughtful concerning who I am addressing. We want our readers to know whether or not you are being upfront, and you've left it up to our deduction, other than your assertion of Christianity.
At this point, again only from my experience, Christians would normally be taken aback that they have been misconstrued as a non-believer. They would offer something that exemplifies their own personal Christian faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as well as offering an acknowledgment of body of Christ as united in the Spirit of the Living God. That is just common amongst those who have the love of the Lord; not required, but common. And although I know there are reasons for why this doesn't always happen, it still seems odd that a Christian is willing to publicly denounce the activity and attitude of fellow believers without divulging their own identity (even in a private email). I don't see support for this in the N.T. texts.
Generally, Christians understand according to the lifestyle of Paul, the apostle, and Jesus, the Lord, that arguing about issues and pointing out false doctrines is not a sin. Falsehood is antithetical to the Gospel message. It is wrong motives (such as financial gain: Simon, the sorcerer in Acts 8), spreading a false gospel (2 Cor 11, Gal 1), and hard hearts that are rebuked and condemned in the New Testament.
As you see in the first post, Christians argue from the Scriptures and from reason, not from our own biased feelings about the situation (again, generally). If you truly are a brother or sister in Christ, first of all, please accept my apologies for being wrong about you; especially if my words have offended you as a fellow believer in Christ. But then please address the Scriptures I utilized for reasoning and post your reasoning, in accordance with the authoritative Word of God for why we are wrong. Also, please interact with my arguments as to giving people the benefit of the doubt, false premises, reaching different kinds of people with different actions for the same goal. It would be good, too, to interact with this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0relDfMQ4xQ.
More…
Continued..
You suggested that Nabeel shouldn't have brought up the seizure of the cameras, etc, at the point he did. But that is a major part of the constitutionality problem with the incident. It is not a minor issue, but a major point, along with the arrests. I don't how a major argument is 'poisoning the well.' As I will say below, I think your injection of certain "charged" words, which I left out of my response, is the real poisoning of the well.
//You are in 'war' mode…You're angry…feels quite defensive…I am not alone.//
This is what I am talking about. Here is ad hominem, false assumptions, some band-wagoning, and, as you mentioned, "poisoning the well." Notice in my first response, I asked some valid questions for you to answer and you did not. I want to know why you think Nabeel is angry when he is standing up for truth against slander concerning himself. Truth is from God; so standing up for the truth is not a bad thing. You called it "angry." I think that is a subtle poisoning of the well. People will be distracted from the truth by comments like this, because this argument is based on how it makes a person feel rather than what is true.
Also, you need to support your stance from the Word of God. Then I can receive your Christian admonishment as a means of growing in my knowledge of the Lord, which according to Ephesians 4 will mature and unify the body of Christ.
Thank you for your suggestions as to our proceedings with this case. I hope that you can respect that there are many different ways to go about spreading the good news. And even we Christians will not all agree with how to do so.
But the issue at hand is that the First Amendment was violated by the Dearborn Police and then the mayor told untruths to cover it. That's what's problematic here and it should definitely matter to Christians, as children of the Truth and as recipients of freedom in Christ Jesus.
If either of us have made your case stronger, then truth, and the oneness of the fellowship of believers, have taken a back seat in the Christian faith. This should not be so. Jesus said that our oneness in fellowship is a testimony to the world that he is God’s Son: John 17:21-24.
Thanks, MJ
Hi my name is Francesca and I am a Buddist, and I understand that you want more people to convert to your religion. But I think that one of the most beautiful things about this world is that there are many different religions and cultures. So I know it is in your constitutional right to pass out religious materials at an arab festival but I ask you why? I have had christians try and convert me but they don't understand when I say no. Its the same reason you would say no if I tried to convert you. I think that many religions is a good thing, and I understand that you feel a need to make everyone realize that your relgion is the only true one but keep in mind thats how most everyone from other religions feel. Thanks
MJ and Roger,
My name isn't Francesca. I wanted you to know that I haven't posted on any other threads on your site. I'm the earlier anon from this discussion thread. I'm from a legal background, so I hope you find my challenge helpful. I'm sorry for putting the line "drop it you're done" that wasn't the tone that I wanted to communicate. I didn't mean it as a command. It was more an expression of frustration. Like when you say, "You're done buddy." I can see how it read like a command. I retract it, with a sincere apology.
Remember. I agree fundamentally with your case. Confrontational Muslim evangelism is a good thing, Christians should not just be doing friendship evangelism. Josh McDowell was doing something very subversive – I think that shows how locked down the whole situation in Dearborn is.
I just want to know your answers to a couple of aspects of what happened. I was questioning things because it looked to me like Acts 17 had a clear idea of what would happen to you. I didn't see any evidence that Acts 17 had explored a more diplomatic and less confrontational challenge to the 'no preaching' rule at the festival. Was this attempted? Without being able to prove that it had been it makes Acts 17 look like they were out to confront and upset people, in order to get their point made.
By the way, did Acts 17 figure that it was okay to agree to abide by the rules of the festival (tacit consent by entering the festival), because you wanted to raise the legal/constitutional challenge in as strong a way as possible?
I had also understood that preaching was allowed in a certain area at the festival? Is this correct?
So then, what would you say then to the person who says that a constitutional right to speak freely isn't available all the time, in all places anyway? For example in court you can be charged with contempt of court if you "exercise your right to speak at the wrong time", or if you are a teacher you can get into trouble for pushing students towards your own political bias.
Surely free speech is conditional upon circumstances? Were the rules of the festival not enough to give circumstances, so that your free speech needed to happen in the designated preaching area?
Again. I'm not a wolf in sheep's clothing. Jesus is God in the flesh and he died for my sins. I would have no hope without his cross and bodily resurrection. Mohammed doesn't come close to JC.
I just want to know your answers to a couple of aspects of what happened. I was questioning things because it looked to me like Acts 17 had a clear idea of what would happen to you. I didn't see any evidence that Acts 17 had explored a more diplomatic and less confrontational challenge to the 'no preaching' rule at the festival. Was this attempted? Without being able to prove that it had been it makes Acts 17 look like they were out to confront and upset people, in order to get their point made.
By the way, did Acts 17 figure that it was okay to agree to abide by the rules of the festival (tacit consent by entering the festival), because you wanted to raise the legal/constitutional challenge in as strong a way as possible?
I had also understood that preaching was allowed in a certain area at the festival? Is this correct?
So then, what would you say then to the person who says that a constitutional right to speak freely isn't available all the time, in all places anyway? For example in court you can be charged with contempt of court if you "exercise your right to speak at the wrong time", or if you are a teacher you can get into trouble for pushing students towards your own political bias.
Surely free speech is conditional upon circumstances? Were the rules of the festival not enough to give circumstances, so that your free speech needed to happen in the designated preaching area?
Again. I'm not a wolf in sheep's clothing. Jesus is God in the flesh and he died for my sins. I would have no hope without his cross and bodily resurrection. Mohammed doesn't come close to JC.
1 Peter 2:12
"Be careful to live properly among your unbelieving neighbors. Then even if they accuse you of doing wrong, they will see your honorable behavior, and they will give honor to God when he judges the world."
Roger, Australia
http://www.faithinterface.com.au/
Please read the article of CLOSE TO GOD writen by Pastor Rudyanto Lay at http://www.worldsaltandlight.co.cc/2010/07/close-to-god.html
You're angry, they pushed and shoved you around a bit – but you walked upto them with cameras and asked them tricky questions.
From an onlookers perspective, you look argumentative and angry. Is that a good witness?
Anonymous:
When did Nabeel say he way angry in his response? How is it that answering the mayor's accusations make him angry, according to you?
If you were an onlooker at the festival you would have seen them diffusing angry language.
If you are an internet onlooker then I think it is important to remember that many times our own biases interpret the situation the way we want it to be. It is very difficult to make an accurate judgment without all the details of the story and without knowing the gentlemen personally. So, as far as internet judgments go, I would err on the side of the benefit of the doubt.
And having said that, I’m going to now be a bit skeptical about your question: “Is that a good witness?” I think the question is too cut and dry. It simplifies the situation too much. And it also relies on a faulty premise, which is that the guys were angry and argumentative. According to their testimonies, they were not. Have you thought that it could be that the crowd was angry and argumentative and not the Acts 17 men? This is a possibility. That is why we need to see the video, which the guys now have in their possession.
Also remember that the followers of Christ went into towns and stayed in towns that were hostile to their message. A couple quick examples: The city of Ephesus mobbed around and shouted down Gaius, Aristarchus, and Alexander, the traveling companions of Paul, before they could even speak about Jesus in their town. (Acts 19). James and other followers of Christ stayed in Jerusalem where they were greatly persecuted for their message after the stoning of Stephen. Many followers fled and dispersed to other cities for safety. (Acts 6-8) Another aspect to consider is that people in these towns drummed up false accusations against the disciples in order to remove them or punish them. This even happened with the Lord Jesus at his trial. I see false accusations also being drummed up against the men of Acts 17 Apologetics in order to place the blame on them; even by the mayor.
Cameras: These guys post their materials online to provide access to a greater number of people than can be done face-to-face. They are impacting people from all over the world. Part of that ministry is to video their activities, including debates, to post for people to watch. I do not take issue with this aspect. What I believe is important is to keep in mind the motive and intent of both the people with the camera and the people being filmed. Both parties are responsible for their actions.
Look at what you are saying, “you showed up with cameras and asked them tricky questions.” The way this reads is: If people ask other people tricky questions on camera then it is okay to hit their cameras, intimidate them, use vulgar language with them, mob them, and violate civil law. You don’t really mean that, right? But that’s how you are coming across on your post. Please clarify.
Finally, we must be careful how we represent others’ ministries. I don’t think David and Nabeel reach all the people that other ministries reach; that makes sense. However, I also believe that David and Nabeel reach people other ministries do not because of their way of doing things. I know I am not able to relate to all people at all times; not even the Lord Jesus was able to get everyone with whom he spoke to believe in him (Luke 18). Of course, with me, I am only human…with the Lord…well, he’s dealing with humans like me.
Thanks,
MJ
Correction: You said, "You walked up to them with cameras and asked them tricky questions." Not "showed up with cameras."
It was the tone and feel of the video, posted here. I saw that I'm not alone in thinking that the rhetoric needs to be dialled down a bit. This video feels angry. Why? Is it my bias? Unlikely, actually it's more likely that your invested bias in Acts 17 makes it harder to spot the exact point at issue. I'll try to give an example, that set the tone for the whole video. When it starts he hasn't started making his case/reply/argument and he's already talking about his cameras have taken, and not given back. I don't dispute that this is factual. But why does he mention it at that exact point? He's got an understandable grudge. I know you love logic, so look up 'poisoning the well'. It could be a good example right there.
When I asked, 'Is that a good witness?' I was asking a serious question. You're own reply, within a few hours, picking apart my few lines, feels quite defensive. I think you have a case, and I think that you were wronged, but you're missing the wood for the trees. You're still defending yesterday. I'm asking about today.
This whole subject should be dropped immediately. It's a complete distraction from your important work and ministry. I think you've had your chance to reply and engage, and you're done. It isn't serving any useful purpose to keep the torch burning brighter.
My Seminary profs always told me that if I were to take a stand on important issues, I should do so with my full name, position, current town, contact info, etc. In other words, take ownership of my statements and positions.
I see many, many people nowadays posting anonymously.
Anonymous – Who are you? For all we know, you are a Muslim posing as a Christian to sound like a concerned Christian. In fact, most Christians I converse with on a daily basis do not make statements like:
"This whole subject should be dropped immediately. It's a complete distraction from your important work and ministry. I think you've had your chance to reply and engage, and you're done. It isn't serving any useful purpose to keep the torch burning brighter."
This simply is not how Christians work through issues. We are taught that if we honesty hold the truth, we should work through that one argument/disagreement until it is exhausted. To simply 'drop the subject immediately' makes no sense whatsoever to someone honestly seeking truth.
If I have made an error in judgment about you, please let me know. Of course, you will have to divulge your identity to do so since others find it necessary to hide behind 'anonymous' labels in public forums.
Roger Sharp
My identity is not relevant. I'm a Christian. Please deal with the ideas, not me at a personal level.
You're all making a public stand on this issue. And I think I would like you to respect my choice not to do so. I would be happy to email you and tell you my identity, but I don't want it publicly revealed. If you can respect that – not that I am sure that it is in any way relevant to the conversation – then I'd be happy to consider it – if it made you happier about talking.
Christians need to act with shrewdness and wisdom, as well as honestly seeking the truth. Don't just simply major on truth telling with this, and find yourselves leaving shrewdness and wisdom outside the door. This isn't a choice between 'not telling the truth' on one side, and 'telling the truth on the other'. It's actually between wisdom and naivety.
I'm actually fan of confrontational Muslim apologetics. I get it. I've been to support it in the past. But EVEN SO from an onlookers/outsiders perspective it just does look provocative to put cameras in people's faces and ask them difficult questions. The question is: does it matter more that you continue to publicise something THAT doesn't look very good to an outsider, or that you exercise "truth telling"?
I say, pull back for now, and find a case that is much more clear cut (showing the Muslim intolerance) on which to take your stand on this important issue.
I wish you guys well for the future whatever you decide.
Anonymous,
Please send your email to:
asharpfamily@aol.com
Thanks,
Roger Sharp
Anonymous,
It's 11:30 PM and I have not received your email. I have been waiting throughout the day and have also checked my spam folder.
asharpfamily@aol.com
Roger Sharp
Anonymous,
It's 4:25 PM on Saturday and I have not received your email. I have been waiting throughout yesterday and today and have also checked my spam folder.
asharpfamily@aol.com
Roger Sharp
Hi Roger,
Why are you posting the times that you check your email here? I find that a slightly strange thing to do! I did say that I would consider sending you a message to reveal my id (see above). And I have been doing so. And I think that on reflection – and looking at this, an email conversation wouldn't necessarily be productive. Are we really listening to each other? You guys are in 'war' mode. And I think I'm asking some questions that you don't want to hear.
You might say that I am sniping from the dark, that this is a character issue for me, or that it is unfair. E.G. That by not revealing my id, I am not 'owning' my opinions (moral problem). You quoted what your old profs used to say didn't you? That's fine – sticks and stones…
Truth isn't defined on the altar of popularity. I've told you what I think. You've replied. And I wonder if you haven't actually made my case stronger?
Anonymous –
Roger is attempting to hold you accountable. This is similar to what you are doing by posting; attempting to hold a believer accountable.
However, we do not usually find that fellow Christians (nor atheists or agnostics) use this sort of admonishment or argumentation when reasoning through a subject with us…that is the demand or command of us to do something, such as: "This whole subject should be dropped immediately…and you're done. It isn't serving any useful purpose to keep the torch burning brighter." Actually, I don't recall any other person, other than a person using Islamic philosophical ideology, using this sort of reasoning. I have experience reasoning with people of different types of philosophies and have gained some feel for how different interactions normally proceed. Your reasoning here–and the fact that you are telling us what to do–is what we have experienced with Muslim reasoning and ideology (obviously, a generalization…but that is our experience).
The reason I bring this up is because we have also unfortunately experienced Muslims who will take anonymous and other identities (even pose as Christians) and then try to argue against what Christians are doing. The goal appears to be to make the body of Christ look divided on that person or subject. However, those people don't usually argue from the Scriptures and if they do, it is bad exegesis (beyond average Christian mistakes or allowance for Christians interpretations). I do not say this from a spirit of condemnation, but I want to be thoughtful concerning who I am addressing. We want our readers to know whether or not you are being upfront, and you've left it up to our deduction, other than your assertion of Christianity.
At this point, again only from my experience, Christians would normally be taken aback that they have been misconstrued as a non-believer. They would offer something that exemplifies their own personal Christian faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as well as offering an acknowledgment of body of Christ as united in the Spirit of the Living God. That is just common amongst those who have the love of the Lord; not required, but common. And although I know there are reasons for why this doesn't always happen, it still seems odd that a Christian is willing to publicly denounce the activity and attitude of fellow believers without divulging their own identity (even in a private email). I don't see support for this in the N.T. texts.
Generally, Christians understand according to the lifestyle of Paul, the apostle, and Jesus, the Lord, that arguing about issues and pointing out false doctrines is not a sin. Falsehood is antithetical to the Gospel message. It is wrong motives (such as financial gain: Simon, the sorcerer in Acts 8), spreading a false gospel (2 Cor 11, Gal 1), and hard hearts that are rebuked and condemned in the New Testament.
As you see in the first post, Christians argue from the Scriptures and from reason, not from our own biased feelings about the situation (again, generally). If you truly are a brother or sister in Christ, first of all, please accept my apologies for being wrong about you; especially if my words have offended you as a fellow believer in Christ. But then please address the Scriptures I utilized for reasoning and post your reasoning, in accordance with the authoritative Word of God for why we are wrong. Also, please interact with my arguments as to giving people the benefit of the doubt, false premises, reaching different kinds of people with different actions for the same goal. It would be good, too, to interact with this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0relDfMQ4xQ.
More…
Continued..
You suggested that Nabeel shouldn't have brought up the seizure of the cameras, etc, at the point he did. But that is a major part of the constitutionality problem with the incident. It is not a minor issue, but a major point, along with the arrests. I don't how a major argument is 'poisoning the well.' As I will say below, I think your injection of certain "charged" words, which I left out of my response, is the real poisoning of the well.
//You are in 'war' mode…You're angry…feels quite defensive…I am not alone.//
This is what I am talking about. Here is ad hominem, false assumptions, some band-wagoning, and, as you mentioned, "poisoning the well." Notice in my first response, I asked some valid questions for you to answer and you did not. I want to know why you think Nabeel is angry when he is standing up for truth against slander concerning himself. Truth is from God; so standing up for the truth is not a bad thing. You called it "angry." I think that is a subtle poisoning of the well. People will be distracted from the truth by comments like this, because this argument is based on how it makes a person feel rather than what is true.
Also, you need to support your stance from the Word of God. Then I can receive your Christian admonishment as a means of growing in my knowledge of the Lord, which according to Ephesians 4 will mature and unify the body of Christ.
Thank you for your suggestions as to our proceedings with this case. I hope that you can respect that there are many different ways to go about spreading the good news. And even we Christians will not all agree with how to do so.
But the issue at hand is that the First Amendment was violated by the Dearborn Police and then the mayor told untruths to cover it. That's what's problematic here and it should definitely matter to Christians, as children of the Truth and as recipients of freedom in Christ Jesus.
If either of us have made your case stronger, then truth, and the oneness of the fellowship of believers, have taken a back seat in the Christian faith. This should not be so. Jesus said that our oneness in fellowship is a testimony to the world that he is God’s Son: John 17:21-24.
Thanks,
MJ
Hi my name is Francesca and I am a Buddist, and I understand that you want more people to convert to your religion. But I think that one of the most beautiful things about this world is that there are many different religions and cultures. So I know it is in your constitutional right to pass out religious materials at an arab festival but I ask you why? I have had christians try and convert me but they don't understand when I say no. Its the same reason you would say no if I tried to convert you. I think that many religions is a good thing, and I understand that you feel a need to make everyone realize that your relgion is the only true one but keep in mind thats how most everyone from other religions feel. Thanks
MJ and Roger,
My name isn't Francesca. I wanted you to know that I haven't posted on any other threads on your site. I'm the earlier anon from this discussion thread. I'm from a legal background, so I hope you find my challenge helpful. I'm sorry for putting the line "drop it you're done" that wasn't the tone that I wanted to communicate. I didn't mean it as a command. It was more an expression of frustration. Like when you say, "You're done buddy." I can see how it read like a command. I retract it, with a sincere apology.
Remember. I agree fundamentally with your case. Confrontational Muslim evangelism is a good thing, Christians should not just be doing friendship evangelism. Josh McDowell was doing something very subversive – I think that shows how locked down the whole situation in Dearborn is.
I just want to know your answers to a couple of aspects of what happened. I was questioning things because it looked to me like Acts 17 had a clear idea of what would happen to you. I didn't see any evidence that Acts 17 had explored a more diplomatic and less confrontational challenge to the 'no preaching' rule at the festival. Was this attempted? Without being able to prove that it had been it makes Acts 17 look like they were out to confront and upset people, in order to get their point made.
By the way, did Acts 17 figure that it was okay to agree to abide by the rules of the festival (tacit consent by entering the festival), because you wanted to raise the legal/constitutional challenge in as strong a way as possible?
I had also understood that preaching was allowed in a certain area at the festival? Is this correct?
So then, what would you say then to the person who says that a constitutional right to speak freely isn't available all the time, in all places anyway? For example in court you can be charged with contempt of court if you "exercise your right to speak at the wrong time", or if you are a teacher you can get into trouble for pushing students towards your own political bias.
Surely free speech is conditional upon circumstances? Were the rules of the festival not enough to give circumstances, so that your free speech needed to happen in the designated preaching area?
Again. I'm not a wolf in sheep's clothing. Jesus is God in the flesh and he died for my sins. I would have no hope without his cross and bodily resurrection. Mohammed doesn't come close to JC.
I just want to know your answers to a couple of aspects of what happened. I was questioning things because it looked to me like Acts 17 had a clear idea of what would happen to you. I didn't see any evidence that Acts 17 had explored a more diplomatic and less confrontational challenge to the 'no preaching' rule at the festival. Was this attempted? Without being able to prove that it had been it makes Acts 17 look like they were out to confront and upset people, in order to get their point made.
By the way, did Acts 17 figure that it was okay to agree to abide by the rules of the festival (tacit consent by entering the festival), because you wanted to raise the legal/constitutional challenge in as strong a way as possible?
I had also understood that preaching was allowed in a certain area at the festival? Is this correct?
So then, what would you say then to the person who says that a constitutional right to speak freely isn't available all the time, in all places anyway? For example in court you can be charged with contempt of court if you "exercise your right to speak at the wrong time", or if you are a teacher you can get into trouble for pushing students towards your own political bias.
Surely free speech is conditional upon circumstances? Were the rules of the festival not enough to give circumstances, so that your free speech needed to happen in the designated preaching area?
Again. I'm not a wolf in sheep's clothing. Jesus is God in the flesh and he died for my sins. I would have no hope without his cross and bodily resurrection. Mohammed doesn't come close to JC.