Pickle Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 If the court decides that what happened was legal, I'll be delighted to recant my comments and apologise. Will you do the same if the court upholds the charge? I haven't made any claims, to my knowledge, other than that I couldn't find in the statute where an unintentional recording was illegal, or that the use of such a recording is illegal. But it seems rather insulting to say that folks who post on the internet can't read and comprehend a statute, and must wait until a court renders a verdict. If that be the case, no one can possibly keep the law anyway, since no one can understand the law until a court tells us what the law says. We're all doomed to be criminals. Now if no one can find anywhere in any statute where that recording was illegal, and it can be shown that it was brought to your attention, and that you refused to correct it until a court rendered a verdict, could you be held liable for defamation? I don't know, but why take the chance? Quote Pickle Pickle Publishing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olger Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Incidentally, I was offered a high profile position at an SDA university this week and reluctantly turned it down because I don't feel able to support doctrine in all respects. I have some sympathy for the view that those who work for the organisation ought to be able to. Kudos from olger for the aforementioned integrity. You come to Ohio, I will buy you a Gatorade. Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted July 31, 2011 Author Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2011 The situation is an unusual one that doesn't neatly fit the statues. As you've noted, it doesn't fit one because the recording was unintentional and it doesn't really fit the other because it wasn't a wiretap. In such a situation it's not suddenly 'open slather' to do what someone likes. As one example, say you accidentally left your phone on while making love to your partner. Nothing illegal, immoral or fattening (except in the pregnancy sense), but if that recording ended up in someone else's hands, would you be happy for it to be disseminated to the world? Or would you want some legal protection. There may also be Federal statute that is relevant as well as state... I just don't know enough to make a strong statement. And (here's the key point): neither do you. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 They weren't fired of course, they chose to resign in lieu of an investigation. They recorded themselves and turned in the tape themselves. Those who heard the tape would be totally "absence of malice" in regards to the content. Once they heard the tape, it's impossible to "forget" the contents, the information is out there and cannot be retrieved. If you give a tape recording to a police officer and that tape contains damaging evidence of a crime, the police WILL act on that information. If the police officer is invited into your house and see's illegal drugs, he is going to arresst you for it. The knowledge cannot be retreived, nor was it gained through illegal circumstances. YOU invited him in! YOU gave him the tape! At the very least an investigation will follow. In this case, LSU, stopped that investigation by accepting their resignation. I don't see that as "forced", they could have demanded an investigation, stood up for their "rights". Which of course would have been ridiculous, based on the evidence they themselves provided! They did the right thing all right, step down, resign. You could argue "illegal search and siezure" of those drugs the officer saw on your coffee table, but I gaurentee you would loose on that basis. Same thing with this tape, those who heard did nothing wrong, they were TOLD by the "perps" themselves to listen to it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 ...if someone can't support doctrine of the church, it sure leaves me wondering why you would even bother to attend. I'm not seeing the "integrity" thing here at all, quite the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted July 31, 2011 Author Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2011 What makes you think I attend? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 ...if someone can't support doctrine of the church, it sure leaves me wondering why you would even bother to attend. I'm not seeing the "integrity" thing here at all, quite the opposite. Everyone is welcome to attend the Adventist church regardless what beliefs or doubts they may have. If they feel strongly against some Adventist beliefs, it would be unethical for them to come and try to stir up disagreement. However if they are looking for a place where they can come, sing hymns, pray, worship the Lord and even take part in communion, they are certainly welcome to come to the Adventist church. There are many people that are convinced that Saturday is the Sabbath but are not sold on other Adventist doctrines. While they shouldn't come and make themselves troublemakers, they are certainly welcome to worship with us. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pickle Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 There may also be Federal statute that is relevant as well as state... I just don't know enough to make a strong statement. And (here's the key point): neither do you. If you didn't know enough, it would have been much better never to have made the strong statement that the recording was "illegal." Quote Pickle Pickle Publishing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Impossible under ANY staute of law for that recording to be illegal. What becomes of the recording, who has ownership, to what use may it be put too, those are the questions. There is no intent to deceive, no intent to violate a civil or criminal law, there is complete absence of malice on the part of the person who made the recording itself AND provided it to others. The same applies to those who first heard it, as they were instructed to do. So what is the issue? To what USE can the recording be put too! Can it be used as evidence in an investigation that may result in termination? Can it be used for "intimidation" or "threat", directly or indirectly, of an investigation that could lead to termination? Can it be disseminated to other people, journalists, a web page, or does it remain private, protected property? Property owned by whom? Transfer of ownership when it was "given" to someone else? It's complicated and not clear cut. I think "God ruled" in the first place by bringing this to light. I think God will rule again on the outcome of this law suit, to wit, they haven't got a prayer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted August 1, 2011 Author Moderators Share Posted August 1, 2011 Not really ducking and dodging, but the 'illegal means' described in my opening post were the holding over the heads of the gentlemen of the recording as a threat and requiring them to resign. I may have mis-spoken later in the thread about the recording itself being illegal, but remember that we were all posting as the story was breaking, and the facts about how the recording was made and disseminated came out *after* many of the early posts in this thread. I'm very happy to stipulate that the *recording* process was not illegal. ClubV12 has above basically stated that the law on the rest of it is not clear. That's my point: that's what the courts are for. I'm saying that *in my view* the uses to which the tape were put were illegal. That is an empirical question, and one for the courts to decide. No matter what Internet lawyers think of their own legal expertise, our legal system is set up as it is *because it (largely) works*. My question wasn't answered: if the trial shows that my view is wrong, I will publicly recant it. Will you do the same? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 1, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 1, 2011 I'm very happy to stipulate that the *recording* process was not illegal. I didn't think they would be. I couldn't imagine their using illegal means. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Bravus makes an excellent point worth reiterating, it's easy to "mistype" what we mean to say! Early on we learned the recording was accidental, thus not illegal. But as the conversation continued in discussing what aspect of this event MIGHT be illegal, to often it was "mistyped" as the recording itself being illegal. And then people like me jump all over that! Sometimes I make similiar mistakes, mistype what I really meant to say and it comes out meaning the exact opposite of what I believe! Whew, one has to be so careful.... I think the possible illegal USE of the tape is SO fuzzy I won't take a position either way. Use of the tape by presenting it to those recorded and offering them the option of resignation I think will be OK, it's legal, it's moral, it's ethical. As to dissemination to others, like the press, that could be a civil rights issue, but not likely "illegal" from a criminal stand point. I would be very surprised if in the end anyone is found guilty of committing a "criminally illegal" act, but some may be guilty of a civil violation of some kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gerr Posted August 1, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 1, 2011 ...if someone can't support doctrine of the church, it sure leaves me wondering why you would even bother to attend. I'm not seeing the "integrity" thing here at all, quite the opposite. I am somewhat perturbed by this kind of attitude. There is a wide spectrum of SDA Church attenders. Not every attender can endorse all the 28 fundamentals, but have enough commonality with SDAs and too much of a gulf with other denominations that they feel more kinship with SDAs than with others. As long as they do not cause divisions in the Church, they should be welcomed with open arms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Did someone miss this sentence from his letter of resignation? Quote: If you are among those who find this transition upsetting, I ask that you not turn it into a war. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I assume we are NOT talking about a visitor or a new person here Gerry. We have many such folks in our church, they are certainly welcome. But they won't be holding an office in the church, teaching a sabbath school lesson or teaching at our schools. If your offered a "high level" position to teach at one of our denomination schools I would expect certain miminum standards as it regards the church. To wit, belief in and acceptance of the 28 fundamental beliefs and a member in good standing with the church. If you DON'T accept those minimum standards, are a member in good standing of the SDA church, you should seriously consider having your membership removed. Your still welcome to church, but don't expect to hold any office, don't expect to be employed by the church. I have a MAJOR problem with those employed as teachers at our schools who are not members in good standing AND accept the fundamental beliefs. I am somewhat perturbed when this is allowed to happen, like it did at LSU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 they won't be holding an office in the church, teaching a sabbath school lesson or teaching at our schools. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 My original statement was: "...if someone can't support doctrine of the church, it sure leaves me wondering why you would even bother to attend." A visitor or someone searching for truth would not likely be offered a position with the church or at one of our schools. Therefore, I have to assume were talking about a member in good standing who no longer supports the fundamental beliefs of the SDA church. It leaves me wondering why they would even bother to attend church, at some point, if that is the way they feel. Why would they bother? Move on with your life, the SDA church is not working out for you. I would that thou were hot or cold. Seriously, WHY, would they bother, if they don't agree with the doctrine? Companionship? Business connections? Friends? Intellectual stimulation? Love to argue? Fear of being "lost"? Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 As it concerns the LSU folks: The "why" maybe that they had a good job, paid well, nice enviroment, why would they want to leave that behind? Why shouldn't they leave all that behind if they don't support the goals and ideals of the church? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted August 1, 2011 Administrators Share Posted August 1, 2011 I might ask you the same thing. Why do you keep hanging out here where there apparently are so many that you disagree with? Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 My original statement was:"...if someone can't support doctrine of the church, it sure leaves me wondering why you would even bother to attend." A visitor or someone searching for truth would not likely be offered a position with the church or at one of our schools. Therefore, I have to assume were talking about a member in good standing who no longer supports the fundamental beliefs of the SDA church. It leaves me wondering why they would even bother to attend church, at some point, if that is the way they feel. Why would they bother? Move on with your life, the SDA church is not working out for you. I would that thou were hot or cold.Seriously, WHY, would they bother, if they don't agree with the doctrine? Companionship? Business connections? Friends? Intellectual stimulation? Love to argue? Fear of being "lost"? Why? Why does anyone come to God? Are they not seeking to learn? The focus needs to be away from 'why attend church' to 'glad you are still here and continue your search'! We are not exclusive, member or non member...thankfully! Many people reach points in their lives where the questions far outweigh the answers and they need the continued encouragemt of a church family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pickle Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 My question wasn't answered: if the trial shows that my view is wrong, I will publicly recant it. Will you do the same? What view of mine are you referring to? What view did I state? Quote Pickle Pickle Publishing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 CoAspen, the issue is church membership, holding office, working for an SDA organization. Not, "glad your attending church", it's obvious all are welcome. UNLESS your disrupting the service and causing serious problems. In which case you may be asked to leave. I've seen that happen and support it. Tom, why do you hang here on this web site if you have a problem with SDA beliefs and/or doctrine? Perhaps your time would be better spent somewhere else, you know, as long were making suggestions as to who should or shouldn't be here. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Quote: Tom, why do you hang here on this web site if you have a problem with SDA beliefs and/or doctrine? Perhaps your time would be better spent somewhere else, you know, as long were making suggestions as to who should or shouldn't be here. Don't know who you are talking too....perhaps you might enlighten us and your assumptions about the beliefs of this person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Any long time SDA church member holding an office in the church or working directly for the church. One example would be the LSU folks that resigned. IF they don't support the fundamental beliefs of the SDA church, WHY are they working for the church? Why should they even be allowed to work for the church? Why shouldn't they be fired, for that reason alone? Why should they be allowed to hold a position of responsibility within the church? WHY are they even attending church? What benefits does one gain from being associated with a group they are fundamentally opposed to? Some questions I've been wondering about, largely brought up as a result of the LSU situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 It leaves me wondering why they would even bother to attend church, at some point, if that is the way they feel. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.