-
After just now reading a post-speech interview of Roy Costner, I believe there is ground to say he was dishonest in that he confirms knowing he was not to say anything religious in his speech and that by implication of his submitted manuscript he agreed to this stipulation.
Here’s something else said by Costner in the same interview:
“Let me first say that every person, regardless of their religious affiliation – whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or any other belief – should be allowed to say what they want because of the First Amendment. I felt that my free speech was being encroached upon, because I wasn't allowed to say what I wanted to say or acknowledge who I wanted to acknowledge.”
I agree with that wholeheartedly. Wholeheartedly.
Going down a path of having people give speeches that are not wholly owned by them turns effort to learn into a rabbit hole.
Watchtower apologists brand folks like me as dishonest because of my choice to stand up and say things Watchtower does not want me to say, and particularly things I learned that Watchtower might consider confidential. If this is an act of dishonesty then so be it. But I don’t think it immoral or otherwise wrong.
I don’t consider my action any more immoral than the action of Roy Costner as immoral. I applaud the lad for saying what was his and owning it.
In the end I think Costner was making a political statement more than anything else. He didn’t like how non-local influence was affecting his community and he did something non-violent about it. And, in the end, there’s nothing anyone can do to penalize Costner because all he did was use the free exercise and free speech clauses of the US Constitution. He was not speaking of or for his school system. He spoke for himself, and he was willing to answer for himself. That’s my kind of person.
I accept there is evidence Costner was deceptive in his action. Now what?
Marvin Shilmer
______________
PS: AndDontCallMeShirley I appreciate that when asked you provided information in an effort to support statements of yours. In each case I tried to explain the problems I saw using those piece of information as evidence. That said, as stated above in this very post, today I found what I was looking for by way of solid evidence supporting an assertion of deception/dishonesty by Costner. This evidence does not depend on presupposition. So for me that question is settled.