Ang dating daan beliefs and practices

Rated 4.71/5 based on 866 customer reviews

At most, his utterance merely bordered on the indecent.

Second, the word “puta” or “prostitute” describes a bad trade but it is not a bad word. “Evil” is bad but the word “evil” is not; the use of the words “puta” or “evil” helps people understand the values that compete in this world.

A policy that places these ordinary descriptive words beyond the hearing of children is unrealistic and is based on groundless fear.

Surely no member of the Court will recall that when yet a child his or her hearing the word “puta” for the first time left him or her wounded for life.

On August 10, 2004, in an apparent reaction to what he perceived as a malicious attack against him by the rival television program, Soriano accused Michael of prostituting himself with his fabricated presentations. Actually, the Court concedes that petitioner Soriano’s short outburst was not in the category of the obscene.

It was just “indecent.” But were his words and their meaning utterly indecent?

ADD policies and prohibitions reach into virtually every area of life and cover minutia to the extreme.

Members believe in the superiority of their “religion” over all other religions.

The MCGI has crossed the line, by stating “a Christian must hate the person”.

The hosts of the two shows have regularly engaged in verbal sparring on air, hurling accusations and counter-accusations with respect to their opposing religious beliefs and practices. For a 15-second outburst of its head at his bitterest critics, it seems not fair for the Court to close down this Bible ministry to its large followers altogether for a full quarter of a year. Primarily, it is obscenity on television that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech does not protect.

It appears that in his program Ang Tamang Daan, Michael M. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng demonyong ito…” Michael and seven other ministers of the Iglesia ni Cristo lodged a complaint against petitioner Soriano before the MTRCB. As the Court’s decision points out, the test of obscenity is whether the average person, applying contemporary standards, would find the speech, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

Leave a Reply