Well well well.
Two years ago – read that again – I attended a youth rally in Baton Rouge sponsored by our local Baptist association. During that youth rally someone came on stage and promoted a Christian rally/youth event which would be held during a school day. He offered an argument for (1) why the event could and should be held during a school day and (2) why public schools have to allow this.
I wrote a post which critiqued the youth rally – and during that post critiqued the rally/youth event that was being promoted. I thought it entirely inappropriate (a) to schedule such an event during a school day and (b) to insist public schools must allow this because “we can call it a religious holiday and the government cannot say what is or is not a religious holiday”. I did not critique the person who heads up the ministry that organizes the event nor did I critique the event itself.
Let me share with you the exchange – with names/details removed.
Dear Rick,
I assume your a great guy that is not into bashing denominations,or against soulwinner’s . However after reviewing a blog about “how not to plan a <removed> rally” i was very concerned about the misinformation that was put out. I also believe that you probably did not know the info is not factual that was put out…I am the founder of <removed> of which is mulicultural and interacts with multiple denominations to host an event in different cities . The event itself is determined by a committee formed in that city.
Every event all citywide ministries are invited to join together for a common cause. Please understand we have never hosted an evening event anywhere. Along with other non – facts this blog is not becoming of a christian whoever wrote it.
I am asking that it be removed . It is unlawful to post inaccurate info.. please respond with your decision.Sincerely ,
Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xx
Xxxx xxx Xxxxx Xxx.
xxx-xxx-xxxx
My reply:
With respect – I suggest you read it again and more carefully. Focus particularly on the second sentence.
What misinformation? Everything in it is eyewitness account. I was not describing a <removed> rally. I was describing the youth rally (Citywide Youth Rally) sponsored by local Baptist association – at which someone appeared and promoted the <removed> rally which would be later in the year.
At no point does it claim <removed> is an evening event. Therefore it does not contain misinformation and is not inaccurate and so I do not see the need to remove it. Do feel free to leave a comment if you wish.
What came back was:
I would suggest as a brother in Christ.The title is using our trade marked name and as a brother in Christ you would recognize the title tries to imply our organizational tie. It is clear its slanted by some denominationalism. One thing you might of overlooked was many attended the through the field trip aspect of which was not accurately
Reported. Call me if you want more info. We are however requesting the removalSent via BlackBerry by AT&T
My final reply was:
This has been an unfortunate exchange and I am struggling to understand what your objections are. I think I have explained myself quite clearly and that the post does not lend itself to the sort of deliberate or accidental misunderstandings you suggest.
I could be wrong but my best effort to understand what motivates this is:
a) “<removed>” is indeed in the title of the post (even though the post is mostly about something else at which <removed> was mentioned and described and promoted)
b) which means people searching for information might come across this 2 year old post
c) which does indeed offer a critique of the “excused absence” argumentSo here is what I am going to do. I am going to remove the post simple because I do not care to deal with this any further. I have work to do and a congregation to serve and do not need the stress even though I am entirely unpersuaded that your objections are valid. I will not call you. And I request that you do not attempt to call or contact me in any way whatsoever.
One wonders how someone could (legally) express disagreement with some aspect of <removed> (namely the “excused school absence” argument) without being accused of some sort of “inaccurate information” upon which one bases a request for removal.
I have rather strong opinions about this exchange. It is possible that I am not entirely or even mostly in right – that maybe this person has a point somewhere somehow.
What do you think?
I think that it is quite odd. The repeated, implied threats that you engaged in unlawful activity is absurd. Your next reply might begin, “I would suggest as a brother in Christ…” but you aren’t dealing with someone with much intelligence or Christian attitude.
Best wishes.