They are not affiliated with ANY baptist group, and nothing they do is in any way, shape, or form, like a real Baptist
It's no concern of mine whether they are affiliated to other baptist groups or not, I view all religions as cults, and I do not vary that perception.
They themselves believe they are baptists, and on that issue, I will treat them as baptists, allbeit, an extreme fundamentalist form. The umbrage you
take by them adopting the term baptist is duly noted. Is it possible for you to note, I am not to blame for them doing so?
I think those people are vile, and despicable, but they still have a right to practice religion...
Just as long as it doesn't use the name of baptist, is that it. You don't want to curtail their form of worship, just their particular brand name
for it. Do you know how to spell hypocrisy?
Placing some arbitrary "limit" on a freedom means it isn't a freedom at all.
I believe you do not understand or comprehend that when living within a society, freedom itself is necessarily limited. For you or I, or anyone else
for that matter, to enjoy a sense of freedom our liberty affords us, we require - as they from us - a consensus from our co-society inhabitants to
function and behave similarily as we do. We limit freedom in order that social order is preserved and holds longevity. Are you free to kill without
consequence? Are you free to steal from some other without consequence? Are you free to offend without consequence? The answers to these questions is
'no', you are not free from consequence.
Freedom is not absolute, no society could survive it if it were. All our actions, all our thoughts and thinkings and perceptions impact upon others,
more often in ways we do not readily or immediately perceive. It is an understanding of these precepts that afford society (over time) a wisdom to
develop rights, laws, and rules for codifying the limits of behavioural freedoms, of curtailing them in the most prudent ways to maintain social
order. Perhaps now, you comprehend and understand?
So you don't agree with freedom of speech?
Yes, I most certainly do, but not without an eye towards consequence. You would not walk down Harlem in New York wearing a placard with the writing
"I hate Ni**ers!" no matter how much you believed in free speech. It is an extreme example I use from 'Die Hard 3' to illustrate the prudence of
ethical censorship, it often saves us from ourselves.
I think them doing what they do is horrible, but they still have a right to speak as they choose.
It may seem very noble of you to uphold their right to offend, but it is a misguided sensibility. If they went to picket and protest for whatever at
Newtown, declaring that it is God's judgement upon the children, I would have no hesitation in curtailing their speech. if I was one of the parents,
there would be no way I would allow them to desecrate the memory of my child. If hate, leading to incitement, is the theme of your speech, you do not
have a right to publicly annouce it...it is excluded from the 1st amendment which protects against unconstitutional censorship.
Many thanks for your comments. Peace.