Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Big Brother is Watching

Jan 25, 2004 4:31AM PST
Texas Church Cards People Who Patronize Adult Stores.
It's 2:30 on a Thursday afternoon, and inside a windowless adult video store in Kennedale Texas, a dozen people are perusing XXX-rated movie titles. Pastor Jim Norwood surmises this because he has photographed the customers' cars in the parking lot, carefully adjusting his digital camera so that each license plate is in focus. Each car owner will soon get a postcard in the mail from Norwood's Oakcrest Family Church. On the front will be a color photo of their vehicle in the video store parking lot. On the back will be a note: "Observed you in the neighborhood. Didn't know if you were aware there is a church in the area ? please stop by next time. We'd love to have you visit." <<

Obviously a Republican, as he doesn;t believe in a right to privacy!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
I thought Big Brother referred to the government?
Jan 25, 2004 4:46AM PST

That church's tactics aren't likely to win much support from the folks they are targeting, but it's hardly the same as 'Big Brother' in the sense commonly used.

As to the privacy issue, I don't see much difference between the logic of that project and the logic of a 'Neighborhood Watch'. The point to both approaches is to let people know that their peers are watching them.

I also fail to see that there is any difference in spirit between those tactics and those of some radicals who 'out' people who are 'in the closet' on whatever issue is of interest.

The only privacy issue I see is that the church apparently is able to get the addresses of the drivers from the state DMV. I object to the practice, but as I understand it the DMV records are treated as more-or-less public records in many states.

- Collapse -
Re: I thought Big Brother referred to the government?
Jan 25, 2004 5:49AM PST

Hi, Dr.Bill.

yes, in 1984 "Big Brother" was the government, but it's often used of any groop watching what they shouldn't be. There's a big difference (IMCO) between this activity and the neighborhood watch -- the latter is intended to prevent damage or even injury to the members of the neighborhood. The activity in this report is simply being a busybody, or trying to impose one's own values on others.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
While I don't particularly endorse his methods
Jan 25, 2004 6:08AM PST

Can't see big brother.

First, it's a public parking lot at a public business, you really can't expect privacy at such, as recognized several times by the courts.

Second, I have to agree that with Bill that I don't particularly approve of name, address, etc associated with a license tag being public information. Great for stalkers to find their targets home isn't it? (just one serious problem with it, many smaller ones).

Third, the pastor sent the postcard to their house, not posted on a bulletin board somewhere, so any claim of public embarrassment is moot. As far as any who may have seen someone they know while making and mailing the postcards, that's no more than people gossiping around the watercooler about where they saw who with whom last Saturday night.

Regarding the neighborhood watch comparison, I wouldn't see it the same. But I recognize that to some, so called adult businesses in their neighborhood is just as wrong as the guy selling dope in the alley. And in their opinion just as wrong.




roger

- Collapse -
Re:While I don't particularly endorse his methods
Jan 25, 2004 11:19AM PST

That last one is beaten here. In my city, and most now, all adult stores have to be licensed by the local authority, and they are rigorously checked with both notified inspections and undercover visits by trading standards officers.

You forgot one thing however. Whatever you wrote, he still does not have a right to send those postcards. if he did that here, the recipient would be entitled under the law to notify him to cease and desist.

He is sending unsolicited junk mail marketing his business/services, and here at least, he could be stopped under the Data Protection Act. There are many ways to skin a cat, especially one which sticks its nose in where it doesn't belong.

Just remember, even GOD himself would never do this - he said that a person had to welcome him first. That fanatic is way out of line.

- Collapse -
Maybe he read Ephesians 5.
Jan 25, 2004 11:43AM PST

1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. 7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them. 8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: 9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truthWink 10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is ashame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. 13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

- Collapse -
Re-read the words you have quoted.
Jan 26, 2004 3:48PM PST

"Reprove them": tell them off in the car park.

In no place in your quotation does it say: embarass them with their wife, husband, parent, child or partner by issuing public statements.

Note, it is not a closed letter that is sent, it is a postcard, viewable by every hand through which it passes and every member of the recipient address.

Ian

- Collapse -
Re:Re-read the words you have quoted.
Jan 27, 2004 2:30AM PST
"Note, it is not a closed letter that is sent, it is a postcard, viewable by every hand through which it passes and every member of the recipient address."

Note Ian - so too were their cars and plates.
- Collapse -
Not familair with details of your privacy and antispam, but junk mail here is different
Jan 26, 2004 5:09AM PST

"You forgot one thing however. Whatever you wrote, he still does not have a right to send those postcards. if he did that here, the recipient would be entitled under the law to notify him to cease and desist."

Hmmm well he could send the first one then? until notified? if I understand you correctly.

Junk mail here is very common. You can notify a company not to call you on the phone and they'll be liable for criminal penalities if they do. I'm not sure what legal rights if any we have to stop advertising in the mail. After all, some is just addressed postal patron in some town. It goes in every mailbox in that postoffice district.

"...even GOD himself would never do this - he said that a person had to welcome him first."

Well if I understand correctly, God won't force you to accept Jesus Christ as a savior. Supposely he has punished people for unappropriate behavior many times in the past. And Jesus replaced the atonement by sacrifice etc. As far as I know, there was no promise not to punish anyone in the future.

I don't agree with his tactics. I'm sure he considers it witnessing to them that they're behaving badly. The final decision will have to wait for the afterlife.

roger

- Collapse -
Re:Not familair with details of your privacy and antispam, but junk mail here is different
Jan 27, 2004 3:07AM PST

Genreral mailshots to "occupant" is allowed and cannot be stopped. But targetted junk to named recipients is covered by the Mailing Preference Service and the Data Protection Act. The law considers that to know your details for unsolicited mail the sender must be using a mailing list, and under the DPA you can require them to remove your details immediately and keep them off.

The Mailing Preference Service is like your Do Not Call list, but for mail, and we have had it for decades, even longer than our Telephone Preference Services. Basically we have all bases covered for targetted junk contact, whether by post, phone, fax or electronic means.

Nice one you may wish your congressman to push for which we have re. junk phone calls - it is an offence to use random diallers (auto dialers) to call up a phone number, unless and until the account holder for the number called has given written permission for you to contact them in this way. IOW there must be an existing business relationship between the two parties.

- Collapse -
Huh?
Jan 26, 2004 9:32AM PST

'Just remember, even GOD himself would never do this - he said that a person had to welcome him first'

Are you saying someone must welcome God before God will rebuke him? That sounds a little theologically confused.

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Jan 27, 2004 12:14AM PST
- Collapse -
One brief comment
Jan 26, 2004 12:13AM PST

Mailing the postcards to people's homes may not cause public embarrassment, but it could sure cause some trouble at home. Hardly the ideal way to get people to think well of the church in question. It also smacks of prosletyzing (since the sender of the postcards does not even know whether the recipients are of the same faith) and general "busybodying."

- Collapse -
And proselytizing is wrong because ... why?
Jan 26, 2004 1:53AM PST

I understand that the subject can be a touchy one, but as I understand it our 'freedom of speech' includes freedom of religious speech. There are countries, including many Arab states as well as the nation of Israel, where religious speech is regulated to some extent. We don't live in one of those countries.

It is completely predictable that people who have a certain zeal for their faith will attempt to influence others to join it. There is no coercion here, so why should attempted proselytizing be seen as a problem?

- Collapse -
Re:And proselytizing is wrong because ... why?
Jan 26, 2004 2:01AM PST

I think it's disrespectful of the faith to which the person being prosletyzed to belongs, and that person's commitment (or lack thereof) to that faith. I am proud of what I am; I fully respect what you are and would not try to coax you into converting. I ask the same in return. Religion can be a very personal and private matter and I think it's intrusive. JMO.

- Collapse -
Exactly so
Jan 26, 2004 2:11AM PST

Not only that, but it is deliberately designed to cause trouble within the family, a potential he is not only fully aware of but used as a weapon. His conduct is shameful and a disgrace to the church he claims to represent.

Anyone who thinks any form of humiliation and personal embarrassment whether public or private is acceptable is amoral. He has the same nasty approach to the sick and twisted mormons who harrass people in the street when they aren't welcome, and it is one surefire way to breed hatred of his faith and achieve the opposite effect to what he intended.

- Collapse -
Nonsense ...
Jan 26, 2004 2:26AM PST

And I suppose your gently expressed rebuke is intended to edify rather than humiliate those who disagree with you?

"deliberately designed to cause trouble within the family" - you cannot possibly know whether that statement is accurate.

"Anyone who thinks any form of humiliation and personal embarrassment whether public or private is acceptable is amoral" - That's an awfully strong statement from somebody who has so freely used abusive speech in the past. Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that almost all reproof, no matter how gently given, can be seen as humiliating or embarrassing to some degree. Thus your claim is obviously not correct.

"same nasty approach to the sick and twisted mormons who harrass people in the street" - I can't say that I've ever had a Mormon accost me on the street, and I have yet to meet one I could accurately describe as "sick and twisted". Misinformed regarding the Gospel? Certainly. "sick and twisted" - not so far.

- Collapse -
nt) I expected the worst, I got the best. Well said, Bill. :-)
Jan 26, 2004 3:53PM PST

.

- Collapse -
I promise I'm not trying to pick a fight ...
Jan 26, 2004 2:15AM PST

For better or for worse I'm not an evangelist and I don't come to Speakeasy to preach.

People who attempt to proselytize do not necessarily disrespect religions that are different from their own. In many cases they respectfully disagree with the tenets of the other faith. There are evangelists who do disrespect other faiths but I suspect that they are not the most successful ones.

In any case, that has marginal relevance in this situation. The cards do not comment on the faith of the card's recipient. I doubt that many of the recipients of the cards are following their own beliefs very faithfully when they patronize a pornography shop.

- Collapse -
Don't worry, dem's not fightin' words :-)
Jan 26, 2004 2:39AM PST
I doubt that many of the recipients of the cards are following their own beliefs very faithfully when they patronize a pornography shop.

Freedom of religion also means the freedom not to have one, or not to practice one.

I can only speak for myself. I would find it intrusive and annoying. I don't like Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door and it is not out of disrespect for their faith.
- Collapse -
Those who proselytize believe they have a responsibility to other people.
Jan 26, 2004 9:37AM PST

That is to share the truth and benefits of what they believe with those they seek to convert. To do less would be a failure to love the other person.

- Collapse -
Their belief doesn't make them right.
Jan 26, 2004 4:03PM PST

When Mike was about 12 months old, the standard pair - grandma and young girl - Jehovah's witnesses arrived and told Susie through the security screen that he was born in sin, that he was destined to hell, that he deserved hell because it was Adam's failure to listen to his Lord that caused all people to be DAMNED UNLESS THEY CONFESS THEIR SINS AND WE MUST OFFER HIM AS A SACRIFICE TO THE LORD OUR GOD and COMMIT HIM TO THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS AND THEY WOULD RETURN EVERY DAY UNTIL WE AGREED TO DOI OUR DUTY and that GOD WILL DAMN SUSIE FOREVER BECAUSE SHE HADN'T OPENED THE SECURITY DOOR AND GREETED GOD WITH OPEN ARMS.

A half our later, I arrived home from work, to find Susie on the floor sobbing and cuddling Mike.

Take your belief that a religious belief gives automatic right to expression of an opinion as the only opinion and shove it right up your ***.

Ian

- Collapse -
Well don't hold back Ian. Let me know how you really feel.
Jan 26, 2004 11:48PM PST

That some people try to force their views on others does not condemn all who share their views with others. If it did, we would have no religious or political speech.

Certainly, anyone has the right to refuse to listen to such speech. However, attempting to silence such speech altogether is another example of someone who attempts to force his views on other people.

- Collapse -
Born in sin.
Jan 27, 2004 2:08AM PST
"We are all born in sin."

That means we are born to the consequences of sin, but not born as sinners or sinful. In the OT both in Jeremiah and Ezekial it says that the child doesn't bear the sin of the parents, so it is born sinless. It also states that if a child dies it will be as a person a hundred years of age, but sinless, but a person who lived to a hundred years and was a sinner would be lost(Isaiah ch 65).

Jesus said we must become like children to enter the kingdom of heaven, so obviously he considered children to be the example of what God considered innocence (Matt ch 18 and 19, Mark ch 9-10,Luke 9 & 18,).

Many, probably most Christians recognize and believe that children are sinless, although some do not, but they usually have some religious practice that has been traditionally done which they need to justify, such as christening or baby baptism.
- Collapse -
Ummmmm...not exactly.
Jan 27, 2004 4:12AM PST

I'm not aware of anyone who thinks newborns are sinless. They inherit a sinful nature. That was one of the reasons for the virgin birth. The churches I am familiar with consider newborns to be without responsibility. Therefore, they would not be condemned.

- Collapse -
Nor does yours make them wrong
Jan 27, 2004 2:33AM PST

All she had to do was shut the door and walk away. She could have even gone further and complained to the police of trespass.

- Collapse -
trespass, and posting
Jan 27, 2004 3:45AM PST

Unless posted, anyone has right to enter property to the front door or gate in most places in America. In some places posting a no trespass doesn't do away with access to front gate or door, only allows a trespassing charge to be levied if someone proceeds past that point. Law enforcement, utility easements such as meter readers, and others have a right to enter a property to the front door or to what extent is needful for the easement even if its been posted against trespassers.

- Collapse -
That is right
Jan 27, 2004 5:44AM PST

right up until the resident tells someone to leave and to get of the property.

Refusal to do as demanded (in general) can constitute criminal trespass (even those allowed on the property for easements must retreat to the confines of the easement until escorted onto the property by law enforcement personnel who must have grounds for entry.

YMMV slightly depending on local laws and covenants (not to mention country).

- Collapse -
And, as a good Muslim, you will offer people God, and kill those who do not follow.
Jan 26, 2004 4:08PM PST

.

- Collapse -
I don't think killing people is a very effective evangelistic technique, and
Jan 26, 2004 11:51PM PST

certainly does not reflect love toward those with whom you are attempting to share your views.

- Collapse -
(NT) You really need to learn a bit about Muslims...
Jan 27, 2004 2:41AM PST