{{{{{{{BREAKING NEWS!!!}}}}}} Tulsa Folks may be forced out!!! NO DUAL MEMBERSHIP!!!!

[Jekyll]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Why in the world would you say this violated the bylaws.

No one balked and squeeled when Daniel Alicea was recruiting for NCO earlier this year.

Exactly, Alice doesn't know the definition of two-way street.

IF this is labeled a fellowship and that no one is asking others to leave and IF this is a way to circumvent (not violate) by-laws, what is wrong with this?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Jekyll

Exactly, Alice doesn't know the definition of two-way street.

IF this is labeled a fellowship and that no one is asking others to leave and IF this is a way to circumvent (not violate) by-laws, what is wrong with this?

Jerkyll,

It's Alicea .... Alee-say-uh.

Your premise is faulty .... but what else is new.

Including someone who has no ties to the mothership into this discussion.... hence not tied to by-laws ... is well ....

this demonstrates how clouding koolaid has affected the failing synapses of many in ultra-con utopia.

[Jekyll]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Jerkyll,

It's Alicea .... Alee-say-uh.

Your premise is faulty .... but what else is new.

Including someone who has no ties to the mothership into this discussion.... hence not tied to by-laws ... is well ....

this demonstrates how clouding koolaid has affected the failing synapses of many in ultra-con utopia.

Dan-the-no-answer-man

The premise is not faulty, evidenced by the little word IF

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Jekyll

Dan-the-no-answer-man

The premise is not faulty, evidenced by the little word IF

This depends how you define IF.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Jekyll

Dan-the-no-answer-man

The premise is not faulty, evidenced by the little word IF

This may hurt ... but folks have been asked to leave ....

and that sir, is wrong ... unethical ... lacking modicum .... etc ... etc .... etc....

Add sugar ... candy coat ... dance .... rationalize .... still wrong.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This may hurt ... but folks have been asked to leave ....

and that sir, is wrong ... unethical ... lacking modicum .... etc ... etc .... etc....

Add sugar ... candy coat ... dance .... rationalize .... still wrong.

But why do you care IF you already left yourself?

[bishopnl]

Originally Posted by Jekyll

Can anyone clarify (just for the record) why curcumventing an org.'s bylaws is wrong? Is it not ethical but not wrong? Is it both unethical and wrong? Why?

So circumventing the bylaws is ok....but changing them so there is no question of ethics involved is not?

If multiple churches had found ways to circumvent the bylaws regarding television advertising, would that have been viewed (or was it viewed, since obviously some churches did) by those circumventing the by-laws now as ok?

If so, the pastors in favor of television advertising shouldn't have pushed for a change so they could "legally" advertise on TV. They should've just "circumvented."

The new doctrine of "circumvention." The rule is, by-laws were made to be bent, as long as they aren't broken.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

But why do you care IF you already left yourself?

Cuz I do.

Why do you care that I care????

[SDG]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

So circumventing the bylaws is ok....but changing them so there is no question of ethics involved is not?

If multiple churches had found ways to circumvent the bylaws regarding television advertising, would that have been viewed (or was it viewed, since obviously some churches did) by those circumventing the by-laws now as ok?

If so, the pastors in favor of television advertising shouldn't have pushed for a change so they could "legally" advertise on TV. They should've just "circumvented."

The new doctrine of "circumvention." The rule is, by-laws were made to be bent, as long as they aren't broken.

It's ironic to hear the rule of law crowd ... that injected themselves w/ the AS and ate a manual a day .... now promoting situational ethics and the doctrine of "circumvention".

[bishopnl]

cir·cum·vent /ˌsɜrkəmˈvɛnt, ˈsɜrkəmˌvɛnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sur-kuhm-vent, sur-kuhm-vent] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to go around or bypass: to circumvent the lake; to circumvent the real issues.
2. to avoid (defeat, failure, unpleasantness, etc.) by artfulness or deception; avoid by anticipating or outwitting: He circumvented capture by anticipating their movements.

IF circumvention is just bypassing by-laws or
IF circumvention is an attempt to, by artfulness or deception, avoid said by-laws...

why would we want to be involved in either one? Just leave, or stay. Why would there need to be some delicate wording involved in order to justify involvement in two organizations?

Because renaming something doesn't make it something else. I daresay if a lady member showed up in one of these more conservative churches tomorrow in a pair of slacks, and justified it by calling it a "split dress" it still wouldn't change the fact in the eyes of the pastor that she's wearing slacks. Calling an organization a "fellowship" so a pastor can retain dual membership isn't going to change what it is...it's only going to be an artful way of circumventing the rules. And IMO, that's unethical.