• 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

Wouldn't you be if someone mischaracterized you?

Heh. If only I had.

It's funny how you have issues with having your actual beliefs written out plainly like...

"I think homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes."

Why does it bother you so much to just say it plainly like that, without sixty pages of explanation about why you're not a bad person for feeling that way and how you really care about gays/lesbians and are sensitive to their needs, but they're really big sinners?
 
It's almost as if people are ashamed of being religious bigots nowadays.
 
I'm trusting the article as it was reported. You are basing your distrust off nothing.

I'm placing more trust in the judgement of police officers than I am in a partisan, poorly-researched article that only quotes one side of a dispute. Is that how you like your journalism?

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

It's an article without proof. It interviews no witnesses. It has no response from the police. It quotes only the perpetrator and his counsel. You're right, it isn't rocket science. Now, what keeps eluding you? You are alluding to the fact that the police are lying. Where's you proof?

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

Er, no. It doesn't. I just reread the article. The police are not quoted. All that's there is the charge that he was arrested on and HIS report of what the police did.

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

I am not saying he's a liar, I'm saying that, and this may come as a surprise to you, there are two sides to a story and you are jumping up and down and claiming fascism based on one side of this story. It doesn't seem to occur to you that he may be lying, exaggerating, or misquoting. To you it's a clear story of some poor preacher having his rights infringed. It might be, but you can't draw that conclusion from one poorly researched article in one partisan newspaper.
 
I'm placing more trust in the judgement of police officers than I am in a partisan, poorly-researched article that only quotes one side of a dispute. Is that how you like your journalism?

Really. And what police report are you citing that supports your half baked theories?

It's an article without proof. It interviews no witnesses. It has no response from the police. It quotes only the perpetrator and his counsel. You're right, it isn't rocket science. Now, what keeps eluding you? You are alluding to the fact that the police are lying. Where's you proof?

It also reports on what the police said. But that would take you actually reading the article which you obviously have not done.

Er, no. It doesn't. I just reread the article. The police are not quoted. All that's there is the charge that he was arrested on and HIS report of what the police did.

Must I quote the article itself?

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.

Next time read the article mmmkay? :roll:

I am not saying he's a liar, I'm saying that, and this may come as a surprise to you, there are two sides to a story and you are jumping up and down and claiming fascism based on one side of this story. It doesn't seem to occur to you that he may be lying, exaggerating, or misquoting. To you it's a clear story of some poor preacher having his rights infringed. It might be, but you can't draw that conclusion from one poorly researched article in one partisan newspaper.

Anything is possible. But I'm not so blinded by ideology that I refuse to accept what he said without evidence to the contrary. You know, like you are. :2wave:
 
Wouldn't you be if someone mischaracterized you?

People do it every day on this forum.

You learn to roll your eyes and ignore them.

Like this post I responded to this morning:
You of all people know its not a red herring. You ran head-on into this issue and then realized you needed to run away.

You of all people know its not a red herring. You ran head-on into this issue and then realized you needed to run away
.

The first bit is trolling, and there's nothing you can do about it. If you report it, and if a mod issues a warning, the behavior still will not change. So I suggest you do what I did in that thread and simply crop out the retarded portions of someone's post and respond only to the substance.
 
Really. And what police report are you citing that supports your half baked theories?

You're the one with the theories. I'm refusing to jump to conclusions based on one side of the story. You are.

It also reports on what the police said. But that would take you actually reading the article which you obviously have not done.
It alleges that's what the police allege. It also said the police gave no statement, so we only hear what the police allege from the mouth of the perp and his counsel. Please quote what the police said, if you can.

Must I quote the article itself?

Nope, read it and understood it better than you, clearly.

Anything is possible. But I'm not so blinded by ideology that I refuse to accept what he said without evidence to the contrary. You know, like you are. :2wave:

Your sophistry is legendary. You accept whatever someone tells you provided it supports your own partisan standpoint. I'm not jumping to conclusions and I'm not believing everything the press tells me simply because it fits my weltanschauung.
 
I admitted that you were wrong, I demonstrated that you were wrong,....
:roll:
You may persist in your delusions, but regardless how much you do so, they are still your delusions.
 
I guess the real question here is if the preacher has the right to believe homosexuality is a sin, and if he has the right to express that belief, presuming he does so a manner that does not directly put someone else in danger.

Can't really see how the answers are anything but yes and yes.
 
Last edited:
Heh. If only I had.

It's funny how you have issues with having your actual beliefs written out plainly like...

"I think homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes."

Why does it bother you so much to just say it plainly like that, without sixty pages of explanation about why you're not a bad person for feeling that way and how you really care about gays/lesbians and are sensitive to their needs, but they're really big sinners?

I don't have a problem with sharing my beliefs at all. And I did say it plainly. I don't think I could have been more clear on how I view the matter. What I DO have a problem with is being prejudged concerning my beliefs or my lifestyle based on my beliefs before you even know much about me.

You prejudged.

You assumed I was prejudicial against homosexuals just because I've identified myself as a Christian by virtue of quoting Scripture that supported the preacher's words concerning homosexuality as a sin. Even now after giving my views on the matter you still attempt to paint me as someone who belives homosexuality is the BIG unforgivable sin that God or even man just will not forgive. Being that you were once a 30 yr Christian yourself, you know that to be untrue. There's only one sin God cannot forgive. Do you know what it is?

Before in another board you assumed I was a sexist pig just because my wife (BamaBrat) and I prefer living our lives and running our household where the male takes the leadership role and is the more "assertive" figure (which you closely equated to "male dominance") based solely on the fact that we hold true to some Christian values...not all, but some.

You assumed that I was some religious fundamentalist w/o even knowing what I believe or how I apply my faith to my life.

You prejudged and that forced me to defend my views. But until this thread, I hadn't put you down once for your beliefs nor your abandonment to what was once your Christian faith. Yet you expect me to..."turn the other cheek" and just take it on the chin. Hell no!

Like anyone else, I'll take only so much BS from anyone, but eventually you push me, I'm gonna push back.
 
True...its more of a hatred than a fear.
Presuming for the moment that this is true -- why then the need to mal-characterize it as a fear?
 
:roll:
You may persist in your delusions, but regardless how much you do so, they are still your delusions.

So even a good night's sleep didn't help you get over the case of WRONG you came down with? Poor thing.
 
Presuming for the moment that this is true -- why then the need to mal-characterize it as a fear?

It's not. The english language does not take root words and translate the definitions literally. You're just wrong. So wrong. But it seems you like it that way.
 
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?
No personal sympathy for the dude here. Don't think he should've been arrested for being a bigot, but I might have been arrested for "disturbing the peace" if I went out in public yelling at people (whether it had to do with religion or not).

And of course the fundies will claim that some random asshole getting (possibly) unfairly charged with a crime = "The New World Order". :mrgreen:
 
You're the one with the theories. I'm refusing to jump to conclusions based on one side of the story. You are.[/quopte]

LOL I at least have an article as evidence. You have nothing., zip, zero.

It alleges that's what the police allege. It also said the police gave no statement, so we only hear what the police allege from the mouth of the perp and his counsel. Please quote what the police said, if you can.

It never once says the police's allegations came from the victim. You are fabricating evidence.

Nope, read it and understood it better than you, clearly.

Obviously not if you can't even read the statement from police.

Your sophistry is legendary. You accept whatever someone tells you provided it supports your own partisan standpoint. I'm not jumping to conclusions and I'm not believing everything the press tells me simply because it fits my weltanschauung.

No I accept what evidence I have until it is proven to be contrary.

Unlike you who doesn't accept it based on nothing. :2wave:
 
No personal sympathy for the dude here. Don't think he should've been arrested for being a bigot, but I might have been arrested for "disturbing the peace" if I went out in public yelling at people (whether it had to do with religion or not).

Never once said he was yelling. Read the article.

And of course the fundies will claim that some random asshole getting (possibly) unfairly charged with a crime = "The New World Order". :mrgreen:

The only fundie was the homosexual zealot who turned him in for preaching something he didn't agree with.

Again, read the article.
 
So even a good night's sleep didn't help you get over the case of WRONG you came down with? Poor thing.
As noted, you may continue to exhibit your delusions at your leisure - I, for one, get a kick out of goading you into this sort of self-abusing behavior.
 
Last edited:
No personal sympathy for the dude here. Don't think he should've been arrested for being a bigot, but I might have been arrested for "disturbing the peace" if I went out in public yelling at people (whether it had to do with religion or not).
It doesn't seem that this was the case, however.

And of course the fundies will claim that some random asshole getting (possibly) unfairly charged with a crime = "The New World Order". :mrgreen:
Where did this happen?
 
In the OP. "Wow. Welcome to politically correct fascism, can I take your order?"

Sounds a lot like apocalyptic scare-mongering to me.
Well, let me ask this:

In that regard, what would you think if the speech that got the guy arrested was a sentiment you agreed with?
 
Back
Top Bottom