• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin

Oh....and isn't a vagina also used for expelling waste...as is the penis?

Silly boy, don't you realize that the vagina is only PROPERLY used for expelling live babies? That's the only god-sanctioned use of it.

Sex should only be performed fully-clothed, in the missionary position, lest anyone enjoy it. Sex is a duty, not an act of pleasure.
 
Last edited:
You stopped at the point where I illustrated that what the preacher said was based on Scripture

I don't care that it was based on capitalized S scripture. I made a mocking comment about that, in fact. Who cares? That does not make it protected speech of any sort in the UK. And, we both know it.

and that's all you saw and it pissed you off that anyone could once again show you where the Bible clearly shows where homosexuality is a sin

I taught Sunday School in a Southern Baptist church for 15 years. I know what the Bible says. You're so special with your word-handling rightly-dividing ways. :roll:

To your point of view, that's passing one's religious beliefs on someone. But I've done nothing of the sort.

No. My comment was that the fact that it comes from the Bible is meaningless to the context of the discussion. The bible is an archaic document. Trying to interpret daily life by the rantings of 3,000 year old itinerant goatherds is dumb.

Why? Because it doesn't conform to your way of life? Because at some point in your life someone misused you based on his/her religious beliefs?

Awww....feeling persecuted again? No, because I think it's dumb to live your life according to hardline tenets from ancient people who were tribal, violent, misogynistic, and backward-ass in their thinking. Did you similarly seclude your wife for three times as long after she became ritually unclean by giving birth to a daughter as she would have been secluded after giving birth to a son? Fundamentalism is stupid, and does not allow for logical thought. It's being infected by a meme created by someone else that keeps people from having to think for themselves and allows them to cling to their illogical prejudices.

Sorry, but don't hate me for someone else's wrong-doing.

Fine. Don't hate ME because I can run logical circles around you. ;)

First off, I don't believe everything I've read in the Bible and I certainly don't apply alot of the Old Testiment beliefs or rituals in my life. That would be dumb. If I had to slaughter cattle for every sin I've committed we wouldn't have cows! :2razz:

Just the stuff that conforms to your own prejudices and doesn't require any special accomodations, right? Butchering cattle is hard. Dismissing gay people as having a right to live their lives by the dictates of their own consciences is hard.

Second, I don't see an absolute truth to Scripture...

ORLY?

I think we get it twisted when we combine the right to say whatever you want with the viability of the content of the message or dialog plus the venue inwhich we use to convey that message or exchange dialog.

In other words, was what this preacher said wrong? No.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them [men] have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Similar wording is found in 1 Corinthines 6 -

9.Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived : neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10.Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

So, what this preacher said according to the word of God is correct.

And, as before, my point to you is so what? The word you speak of is archaic.

I won't condemn you for it as you apparently are doing to me and others who do have religious values.

Want a tissue? I didn't condemn you. This is what I said, which you called "persecution." (ROFLMAO)

The problem is that the word of gourd was made up a few thousand years ago by roaming sheep herders. So, people who use it to justify their deep-seated aversion to gays/lesbians, and think others should take it seriously as well, look rather ridiculous.

No offense, but I don't need men who died 3,000 years ago to tell me what foods to eat, what clothing fibers to wear, and who to sleep with or how to raise my kids. But if you do, well, it takes all kinds.


And I'm fine with that. The only time I get upset with anyone here is when they take my words out of context or attempt to belittle me as you're attempting to do.

I want to reassure you that I've provided your words in their full context. And, I'd like you to know that I'm here with the kleenex in case you're persecuted again.
 
Last edited:
He was having a conversation with a woman about religion, which she willingly engaged in with him. You have an odd notion about what constitutes "jerk running his mouth".




Sigh. Do we really have to go over this again? There's a thread on DP where The Baron and I both covered numerous verses of scripture defining homosexuality as a sin, even parsing the original Greek in the NT.

You can like it or not like it, accept it or ignore it, but it is in there: Biblically, homosexual activity is a sin. Period.








I meant what I said. Phobias refer to irrational fears, or understandable fears taken to irrational lengths. Homophobia is a much-misused term, used to tar anyone who has the slightest reservations about any gay agenda item.

Believing that the Bible classifies homosexuality as a sin has nothing to do with homophobia, it has to do with being a Bible-believing Christian. There is no reason that fear has to enter into it.





No sir. The Bible is quite clear on the matter, that homosexual activity, among other things, is a sin in God's sight. I didn't write the Book, take it up with the Author.
NT:
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9
2 Peter 2:2-6
Jude 1:7-8

Sure, and Leviticus lists off pretty much everything as a sin, so if you want to see any of those things as a sin there it is for you. If I wanted to I could argue that God hates black people because he turned Abel black as punishment for his crime. Of course most people would say that's pretty stupid, but point being that if I wanted biblical evidence for black=bad, well...there it is.
 
Sure, and Leviticus lists off pretty much everything as a sin, so if you want to see any of those things as a sin there it is for you. If I wanted to I could argue that God hates black people because he turned Abel black as punishment for his crime. Of course most people would say that's pretty stupid, but point being that if I wanted biblical evidence for black=bad, well...there it is.

Your opinion of the Bible doesn't change the fact this man was arrested for his religious beliefs.
 
Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships.

The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Wokington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.

Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.


Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin - Telegraph


Wow. Welcome to politically correct fascism, can I take your order?

A PCSO arrested him? They do not have the power to do that unless North England has different rules.

I find it disgraceful that he got arrested but can't say I am surprised anymore by the actions of the police and our laws.
And lol at people trying to use first amendment rights for UK. UK citizens has never had the right to say whatever we want nor will we ever such a right in a constitution.
 
Actually yes he was.

He said it was a sin and they arrested him.

What part is confusing you?

Right, he said it was a sin and so they arrested him (though I suspect there's more to the story). He wasn't arrested because he had a belief in his head and was arrested for it. And I don't know what you're arguing with me over this for since I stated in the beginning that the officer was in the wrong.
 
Actually yes he was.

He said it was a sin and they arrested him.

What part is confusing you?

From where are you getting your information that he was arrested simply for stating his opinion that homosexuality is a sin? Have you read witness statements? Have your read transcripts of the hearing? Or are you just taking the Telegraph's word for it? They quoted no one from Cumbria police, indeed the only corroboration for you and their claim that he was arrested for that particular action was the preacher himself. Perhaps the fact of him being a preacher is enough for you to believe his every statement.
 
Silly boy, don't you realize that the vagina is only PROPERLY used for expelling live babies? That's the only god-sanctioned use of it.

Sex should only be performed fully-clothed, in the missionary position, lest anyone enjoy it. Sex is a duty, not an act of pleasure.

Oops....I forgot ;)
 
Sure, and Leviticus lists off pretty much everything as a sin, so if you want to see any of those things as a sin there it is for you. If I wanted to I could argue that God hates black people because he turned Abel black as punishment for his crime. Of course most people would say that's pretty stupid, but point being that if I wanted biblical evidence for black=bad, well...there it is.

I think that's a specifically Mormon belief, and isn't really scriptural. There is nothing in the OT that mentions that the Mark of Cain = black skin.
 
From where are you getting your information that he was arrested simply for stating his opinion that homosexuality is a sin? Have you read witness statements? Have your read transcripts of the hearing? Or are you just taking the Telegraph's word for it? They quoted no one from Cumbria police, indeed the only corroboration for you and their claim that he was arrested for that particular action was the preacher himself. Perhaps the fact of him being a preacher is enough for you to believe his every statement.

Quoted for truth. Sometimes, when people are looking for bias, they find it (shockingly enough).
 
Right, he said it was a sin and so they arrested him (though I suspect there's more to the story). He wasn't arrested because he had a belief in his head and was arrested for it. And I don't know what you're arguing with me over this for since I stated in the beginning that the officer was in the wrong.

He was still arrested for his beliefs. Its kind of sad you are trying to parse it just because he said it aloud.
 
From where are you getting your information that he was arrested simply for stating his opinion that homosexuality is a sin? Have you read witness statements? Have your read transcripts of the hearing? Or are you just taking the Telegraph's word for it? They quoted no one from Cumbria police, indeed the only corroboration for you and their claim that he was arrested for that particular action was the preacher himself. Perhaps the fact of him being a preacher is enough for you to believe his every statement.

The article says it pretty clearly.

What are you basing your disbelief on? Of thats right, nothing
 
He was still arrested for his beliefs. Its kind of sad you are trying to parse it just because he said it aloud.

No, he was arrested for speaking them aloud in a public place.

And his arrest was wrong, IMO. Despite how deplorable his beliefs may be.
 
He was still arrested for his beliefs. Its kind of sad you are trying to parse it just because he said it aloud.

Wrong. He was ostensibly arrested for how he COMMUNICATED his beliefs. That's why it was a disruption of the public peace offense.

Of course, English free speech laws are different from our own. However, even in the U.S., if you share your views in disruptive ways, you can be arrested.

There are legal limits on free speech even in the U.S. For instance, students are not allowed to wear clothing items that might be disruptive to the learning environment. Schools can censor even religious symbols if it is determined that those symbols have a link to gangs and/or disruptive behavior.

You can listen to whatever music you want, but if you listen to it too loudly, many communities have noise ordinances that prohibit noise that is loud enough to disrupt other people's use of their own property or public spaces.

This isn't just "evil socialists attack religious people."
 
The article says it pretty clearly.

What are you basing your disbelief on? Of thats right, nothing

I'm not opining on the justice or injustice of the case. I'm pointing out that you are whipping yourself into a froth of indignation on the basis of one newspaper article whose only witness to the event was the preacher himself. So, you are saying that this is the action of the politically correct fascist state on the basis of one street preacher's sense of victimhood.

If you can corroborate his story with the testimony of disinterested witnesses, then we can take it from there. The Telegraph provides no such corroboration. Why are you so keen to believe a street preacher rather than the police?
 
And his arrest was wrong, IMO. Despite how deplorable his beliefs may be.

It depends upon how disruptive his presentation was. A street preacher might be arrested, even in the U.S., if his actions were deemed to be a nuisance and/or disruptive. I.e., if he was shouting loudly enough to be disruptive to everyone else who was sharing the common space, law enforcement even in the U.S. would probably cite him for a nuisance or noise ordinance violation.
 
I'm not opining on the justice or injustice of the case. I'm pointing out that you are whipping yourself into a froth of indignation on the basis of one newspaper article whose only witness to the event was the preacher himself. So, you are saying that this is the action of the politically correct fascist state on the basis of one street preacher's sense of victimhood.

It reaffirms existing paradigms and Tex enjoys being frothy.
 
Why are you so keen to believe a street preacher rather than the police?

I, like many Americans, am apt to take the word of the private citizen over the government authority any day. The private citizen is innocent until proven guilty under the burden of proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. The government authority enjoys no such privilege. Ever.
 
Wrong. He was ostensibly arrested for how he COMMUNICATED his beliefs. That's why it was a disruption of the public peace offense.

Did he yell it out? No.

He said it to another person. The very fact its considered a public peace offense is absurd but I don't expect you to understand that.

Of course, English free speech laws are different from our own.

NO! Stop the presses!! :rofl

However, even in the U.S., if you share your views in disruptive ways, you can be arrested.

Show me one law in the US that is similar. Go ahead.

There are legal limits on free speech even in the U.S. For instance, students are not allowed to wear clothing items that might be disruptive to the learning environment. Schools can censor even religious symbols if it is determined that those symbols have a link to gangs and/or disruptive behavior.

Children are not adults. Next.

You can listen to whatever music you want, but if you listen to it too loudly, many communities have noise ordinances that prohibit noise that is loud enough to disrupt other people's use of their own property or public spaces.

And since he wasn't yelling this is another worthless and useless observation of the subject.

This isn't just "evil socialists attack religious people."

Actually thats exactly what it is. This guy didn't yell or scream. He simply related his religious beliefs to another person on the street and he was thrown in jail for it.
 
I'm not opining on the justice or injustice of the case. I'm pointing out that you are whipping yourself into a froth of indignation on the basis of one newspaper article whose only witness to the event was the preacher himself. So, you are saying that this is the action of the politically correct fascist state on the basis of one street preacher's sense of victimhood.

I'm trusting the article as it was reported. You are basing your distrust off nothing.

This isn't rocket science. What keeps alluding you?

If you had bothered to read it the article also reports on what the police said as well.

If you can corroborate his story with the testimony of disinterested witnesses, then we can take it from there. The Telegraph provides no such corroboration. Why are you so keen to believe a street preacher rather than the police?

Ah so he's a liar until another article says he isn't even though you have no basis he is lying. Nice logic.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom