Can Bill Whatcott and James Spaith be Facebook friends?

News and discussion on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, marriage, divorce, animal rights, etc.



Can Bill Whatcott and James Spaith be Facebook friends?

Postby Bill Whatcott » Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:38 pm

Image
James Spaith with his homosexual partner Carlos (picture left). Bill Whatcott and his wife Joni (picture right).
These on again off again Facebook friends are complete opposites on every level. Bill believes in God, believes
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, believes the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and Bill looks at life through
the lense of a conservative Christian worldview. James is a "proud" homosexual, a pro-Obama Democrat, and a
vocal atheist. Can these two really be friends?


Dear Friends,

James Spaith sent me a "friend" request two years ago after he heard about my successful missionary endeavour to the Vancouver Homosexual Shame Parade in August 2014.

To read how I successfully handed out 2500 "Gospel Condoms" at the Vancouver Homosexual Shame parade and how with the help of a number of supporters, four courageous Christian friends, and by the grace of God, turned an otherwise bad scene into something positive go here: viewtopic.php?t=10188

Of course I accepted..... pray1

Anyways, over the years James seems to have followed my ministry with some interest. He often argues on my threads, taking the homosexual activist and pro-death position on moral and social issues,whether it is homosexual marriage, abortion or euthanasia. James claims to be libertarian and pro-free speech, but he is not always consistent in expressing those values. James argued in favour of having Kim Davis removed from her position as a Kentucky Court Clerk and incarcerated when she upheld her state constitution and duty as a Christian citizen by refusing to issue homosexual marriage license. James also supported the state of Oregon and its imposition of a whopping $135,000 fine on the Christian bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein, after they declined to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, citing their belief that it would be a sin for them to serve such an event.

While James is generally polite and is even capable of being gentlemanly when debating controversial topics, on a couple of occasions he and his friends have reported my posts and have gotten them censored. Usually my posts containing graphic medical pictures of STIs contracted through homosexual sex are the ones that really offend James and his friends and those are the posts that seem to provoke their demands for censorship. As one can see while James is better than most homosexuals when it comes to having a libertarian attitude towards those whom he disagrees with, his commitment to personal liberty definitely has its limits if those values conflict with his homosexual identity politics.

At any rate James had an illiberal moment a few weeks back when he reported my accurate picture of anal cancer. To see the accurate medical picture that James reported; an affliction that is 30 times more prevalent amongst homosexual men than the general population go here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10505

I was very unhappy with James reporting my post so I unfriended him. In my view he knows my views and my posting habits, and he has been free to disagree with me on my page with very few restrictions, beyond the restrictions of anyone else who visits my space, and then he chooses to visit my page and report my pics that he dislikes???!!!! angry4 vomit21 vomit21

Anyways, after unfriending him, I did feel kind of bad and sort of missed James as he was mostly respectful, articulate, and friendly and generally not into censorship on my page. After a couple weeks I sent him a message to see if he would promise to no longer report my posts then we could be friends again.... :happy:

I thought he promised not to report my pics anymore, but I guess his answer was a little more ambiguous than I realized. When I realized he still wanted to exercise his right to report my posts, I exercised my right to unfriend him again.

Image

At any rate after I unfriended James he sent me a message beseeching me to be more tolerant and not unfriend him. I explained to James it wasn't his views, or even the fact that he is sinning against God by embracing the homosexual lifestyle, but rather I don't want to be his friend if he is going to report my posts. To that end James promised to not report my posts anymore. Here it is:

Image

So with this agreement between us, James is my Facebook friend again...... respect001

"John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children."
Matthew 11:18, 19
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Can Bill Whatcott and James Spaith be Facebook friends?

Postby Bill Whatcott » Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:59 pm

Further reflections that came to me as a result of my friendship and debates with James:

For those who follow my life they know I am pretty consistent in my dislike of censorship of political and religious views. Indeed, I have not only fought left wing censorship with multiple court battles and even have a Supreme Court of Canada judgment with my name on it, I've also lost some Christian friends and even a few financial supporters over the years too. A number of years ago (I think around 2008) a clique of social conservatives who became regular posters on my website http://www.freenorthamerica.ca demanded that I censor social liberals who were posting on my forum. One social conservative even mailed me a donation in the hopes of influencing me towards showing preference to social conservative posters and discriminating against the social liberals on my site. Anyways, I destroyed the cheque, even though I could have used it, and I instructed my wife that we would continue to moderate our board and enforce our rules impartially.

The response of that particular clique of social conservatives (who turned out to not be very good friends) was ugly and in the end my wife and I had to ban most of the group after they attempted to destroy our message board in retaliation for my refusal to ban people who I disagreed with. Upholding the principle of not censoring viewpoints cost me that year financially and in terms of a few friendships. Not surprisingly, I did not get any accolades from the left for my principled stand in defense of their freedom to speak.

At this point I should note, not everything that the left calls "freedom of speech" is actually freedom of speech as the concept has historically been understood. Freedom of speech is an unlimited license to express ideas and opinion, but it is not an unlimited license to engage in lewdness, irreverence and vulgarity. While one could make almost any argument on my site, I did and still do ban vulgar language, porn and blasphemy of a type that appears simply disrespectful and is absent of any moral or theological argument. When America's constitution was created, no right to pornography existed. While the ACLU tries to liken viewing pornography as being on the same level as protesting with a sign denouncing abortion or someone delivering a speech in defense of communism, the three are not the same. Producing or viewing pornography is simply a behaviour that is devoid of any argument or contribution to political discourse. Porn is simply about lust and masturbation. The United States and Canada were more robust in terms of actual democratic freedoms and freedom of speech back in the days when porn was illegal. Likewise the extreme that is assaulting our airwaves and popular culture. Until the west rejects the trash coming out of Hollywood and develops the moral fortitude to reject arguments that producers have a free speech right to corrupt young people with 24/7 vulgarity, sexual debauchery and senseless violence, we will actually see our freedom continue to decline. In terms of one's quality of life and safety, Canadians were more free from harm when porn, vulgarity and gratuitous violence was not allowed on our airwaves, as children and women didn't have to worry as much about sex addicted perverts as they do now.

On the other hand even if one doesn't like it, a sign denouncing abortion conveys an idea and delivers a message that is of concern to at least some people. Citizens are harmed and freedom is negatively affected when governments try to enact laws limiting the right of people like myself to protest against abortion.

Likewise, even though I see communism as being antithetical to democracy and in fact the ideology is a threat to freedom, it seems for me a healthy democracy should allow private citizens to put forward arguments in favour of communism. It is the duty of freedom loving citizens to defeat the ideology through arguments and education rather than through violence or coercion. On the other hand it is a painful realty when communists take over whether it is education or entertainment the filth gets promoted in the name of freedom of speech and real freedom of speech for the people of God comes to an end......
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB


Return to Moral Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron