I'm sorry it went over your head, but I don't think I can dumb it down much more.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Idiot thrown out of city meeting..
- Thread starter pinoybaptist
- Start date
Let's see, you said the mayor was
"committing battery under color of authority, kidnapping under color of authority, and violating the open meeting law, under color of authority."
Was that your argument? I'm sorry I missed it. That's when I thought you were trying out for drama queen.
I've got good news for you. You win the prize for the most overly dramatic post on this thread. Congratulations.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
Since when is showing due respect to an office "kowtowing"?
Usually it is only and issue for someone who has a problem with authority.
In a free society, respect is something freely given, not something demanded.
We are a nation that is based on the proposition that "all men are created equal." We are a nation based on the legal principle that all enjoy "equal justice under the law."
When someone must demand respect, it is obvious he has not earned it.
When a person is forced, against his will, to offer obeisance, we are no longer a free country.
As a former officer I did not demand respect. I earned respect. And once earned it never again has to be demanded.
As to the OP. The man obviously no longer had a great deal of respect for the country which the flag and pledge stand for. I disagree with him, but I will also defend his right to express his opinion. That is what freedom is all about.
If you can demand he think like you and act like you and believe like you, then neither you nor he is actually free. Both are in bondage.
That is not what we, as a nation, are all about.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
What you're missing is that requiring that someone stand as a judge enters is not demanding respect for that man. It is demanding respect for an office.In a free society, respect is something freely given, not something demanded.
We are a nation that is based on the proposition that "all men are created equal." We are a nation based on the legal principle that all enjoy "equal justice under the law."
When someone must demand respect, it is obvious he has not earned it.
When a person is forced, against his will, to offer obeisance, we are no longer a free country.
As a former officer I did not demand respect. I earned respect. And once earned it never again has to be demanded.
As to the OP. The man obviously no longer had a great deal of respect for the country which the flag and pledge stand for. I disagree with him, but I will also defend his right to express his opinion. That is what freedom is all about.
If you can demand he think like you and act like you and believe like you, then neither you nor he is actually free. Both are in bondage.
That is not what we, as a nation, are all about.
All men are created equal. And demanding respect for an office doesn't change that.
Do I respect this county - well, the USA accepts abortion. Does that mean I do not pledge allegiance? We should be thankful and RESPECTFUL , we live in a country where we can make our voice known.
I like what I have heard a lot of RCC's do with the pledge. Instead of refusing to stand for respect, at the end of the pledge, they add the phrase "both the born and unborn"
I like what I have heard a lot of RCC's do with the pledge. Instead of refusing to stand for respect, at the end of the pledge, they add the phrase "both the born and unborn"
Not at this time. Maybe some day in the future, we will return to our founding principles.
No, Woody, I think it might be you who is missing the point. Any office of government is one appointed by the people for the benefit of the people. Their office is not higher than our office of law abiding citizen. In fact the opposite is true. Their office is subordinate to we, the people.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
Respecting an office is not saying that the person in that office is higher, or better than you. It is showing that you understand the significance of that office, and the justice/leadership/etc that it represents.No, Woody, I think it might be you who is missing the point. Any office of government is one appointed by the people for the benefit of the people. Their office is not higher than our office of law abiding citizen. In fact the opposite is true. Their office is subordinate to we, the people.
Woody, I think you would agree with me that there were some officers that we did not respect - but we still saluted them - as we respected the office they held. (even if it was a 3rd Lt salute :smilewinkgrin
You still don't understand, Woody. They are public SERVANTS. There office is an office of SERVICE to us, we the people.
The obeisance is a hold over from when there were commoners and gentry. King Alfred (9th century) instituted a new level of government called the "shire" and appoint a "reeve" to represent the King, and insure the King's commands were obeyed by the commoners. (This is where we get our word "Sheriff" - he who makes sure the government's laws are obeyed.)
The Shire reeve was the police, the magistrate, the judge, and even the tax collector. He held, literally, the power of life and death over the commoners (see Robin Hood for an example of a Shire reeve.) A commoner was forbidden to sit in his presence without his permission under penalty of whipping because he was the personal representative of the King.
Today, in our society, the judge does not represent the king. He represents the people.
You still don't understand, Woody. They are public SERVANTS. There office is an office of SERVICE to us, we the people.
The obeisance is a hold over from when there were commoners and gentry. King Alfred (9th century) instituted a new level of government called the "shire" and appoint a "reeve" to represent the King, and insure the King's commands were obeyed by the commoners. (This is where we get our word "Sheriff" - he who makes sure the government's laws are obeyed.)
The Shire reeve was the police, the magistrate, the judge, and even the tax collector. He held, literally, the power of life and death over the commoners (see Robin Hood for an example of a Shire reeve.) A commoner was forbidden to sit in his presence without his permission under penalty of whipping because he was the personal representative of the King.
Today, in our society, the judge does not represent the king. He represents the people.
So we stand in All Due Respect for the "Peoples Government " and what has been done to maintain it.:thumbs:
If, in fact, that government has acted in a respectful way toward we, the people.
If, in fact, that government has acted in a respectful way toward we, the people.
We the people get the government We deserve. Case in point ' BO ' by two terms.:BangHead:
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
I understand perfectly. I've known about shires and have taught others on the etymology of "Sheriff". What's different is "we the people" elected these officials, and "we the people" decided it was proper to respect the offices by standing, and "we the people" decided it was disrespectful to not stand.You still don't understand, Woody. They are public SERVANTS. There office is an office of SERVICE to us, we the people.
The obeisance is a hold over from when there were commoners and gentry. King Alfred (9th century) instituted a new level of government called the "shire" and appoint a "reeve" to represent the King, and insure the King's commands were obeyed by the commoners. (This is where we get our word "Sheriff" - he who makes sure the government's laws are obeyed.)
The Shire reeve was the police, the magistrate, the judge, and even the tax collector. He held, literally, the power of life and death over the commoners (see Robin Hood for an example of a Shire reeve.) A commoner was forbidden to sit in his presence without his permission under penalty of whipping because he was the personal representative of the King.
Today, in our society, the judge does not represent the king. He represents the people.
Yes, because this goes along with everything that Jesus taught about treating others how they've already treated you.
Sapper,
I think you bring up a good point. Our responsibility as a Christian in a secular society. Paul said submit to governing authorities, a reflection of the passage you mentioned of Jesus to treat others as you would want to treated. I don't agree with him not standing, but in our society, he has been guaranteed that right. I hope if he is a believer his conscience is clear.
The mayor was out of bounds. What if instead he had gone ahead with the pledge and then noted the person sitting with a comment like "I note that not everyone stood for the pledge, I'm thankful we live in a country where that is possible. I hope in the future you take the time to thank the service men and women who bravely and sacrificaly ensure you can continue to excercise your freedom."
I think you bring up a good point. Our responsibility as a Christian in a secular society. Paul said submit to governing authorities, a reflection of the passage you mentioned of Jesus to treat others as you would want to treated. I don't agree with him not standing, but in our society, he has been guaranteed that right. I hope if he is a believer his conscience is clear.
The mayor was out of bounds. What if instead he had gone ahead with the pledge and then noted the person sitting with a comment like "I note that not everyone stood for the pledge, I'm thankful we live in a country where that is possible. I hope in the future you take the time to thank the service men and women who bravely and sacrificaly ensure you can continue to excercise your freedom."
Would the same hold true if he was talking (possibly loudly) on his cell phone during the pledge?