For what it's worth, I don't think a trial about inciting animosity or provoking disobedience would go into whether he's *right* in his criticisms. That would almost certainly be ruled as distinct from his actions.
For what it's worth, I don't think a trial about inciting animosity or provoking disobedience would go into whether he's *right* in his criticisms. That would almost certainly be ruled as distinct from his actions.
Weird. You'd think, if the criticisms are correct, then the responsibility for inciting animosity would fall on the person who did the bad things. It's not like rational people blame people getting upset over, say, theft or murder, on the person who called the cops or the news media.
Not that I don't believe you. I'm an American, and therefore accustomed to legal processes doing irrational things.
I hope "they" just let him do his thing rather than "make a martyr out of him". I know people who think he is a voice of conscience and that he represents some portion of the Church, albeit rather small.
Thoughtful reflections.
For what it's worth, I don't think a trial about inciting animosity or provoking disobedience would go into whether he's *right* in his criticisms. That would almost certainly be ruled as distinct from his actions.
As least, that's what I'd expect.
Weird. You'd think, if the criticisms are correct, then the responsibility for inciting animosity would fall on the person who did the bad things. It's not like rational people blame people getting upset over, say, theft or murder, on the person who called the cops or the news media.
Not that I don't believe you. I'm an American, and therefore accustomed to legal processes doing irrational things.
I hope "they" just let him do his thing rather than "make a martyr out of him". I know people who think he is a voice of conscience and that he represents some portion of the Church, albeit rather small.