Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin

you just called the preacher stupid....and i have read other posts in other sections where you have done the same.

jallman said:

Secondly, freedom of religious expression trumps anyone's right to not be offended. In fact, there's no right to not be offended. Religious expression is a fundamental human right.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but religious expression is not a fundamental human right. Nowhere in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights may that right be found. Whatever the first amendment to the US Constitution may say, that only applies to US society. No one has the right in a civil human society to deliberately offend anyone, and offensive behaviour should be, and often is, punishable at law.

jallman said:

It's sad to hear about what's going on in England.

Click to expand...

We are touched by your condolences, but let not your heart be troubled; Britannia will very likely survive, irrespective of trans-Atlantic opinion. :2wave:

BamaBrat said:

you just called the preacher stupid....and i have read other posts in other sections where you have done the same.

Click to expand...

Feel free to prove it. I often call posts or beliefs stupid. I almost never call individuals stupid. I did make an exception for the preacher though. I think he's a maroon.

Leo said:

No one has the right in a civil human society to deliberately offend anyone,

Click to expand...

Oh, come on now.

Now you've strayed far into freedom of speech territory. Which, of course, is where this belongs.

Is that a universal human right?

Leo said:

I'm sorry, but religious expression is not a fundamental human right.

Click to expand...

IN your opinion. Ours differs.

Catz Part Deux said:

IN your opinion. Ours differs.

Click to expand...

Of course, but I did reference the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which freedom of religious expression is conspicuous by its absence. :2wave:

Leo said:

I'm sorry, but religious expression is not a fundamental human right. Nowhere in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights may that right be found. Whatever the first amendment to the US Constitution may say, that only applies to US society. No one has the right in a civil human society to deliberately offend anyone, and offensive behaviour should be, and often is, punishable at law.

Click to expand...

Our society is the only one that matters because we're the only ones doing it right.

And you are flat wrong because Article 18 specifically grants freedom of religion in both public and private. Here...let me show you:

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Click to expand...

So yeah, it is a fundamental human right and the "right" to not be offended...well, I still don't see that anywhere in any article.

We are touched by your condolences, but let not your heart be troubled; Britannia will very likely survive, irrespective of trans-Atlantic opinion. :2wave:

Click to expand...

So do you want a cookie (or a biscuit) or did you have some point to make?

So how long did it take for the conservatives in the first part of this thread to realize this story occurred in England and not the United States?

Leo said:

Of course, but I did reference the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which freedom of religious expression is conspicuous by its absence. :2wave:

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I don't believe that human rights are determined by the UN. But thanks for playing!!!

:2wave:

CriticalThought said:

So how long did it take for the conservatives in the first part of this thread to realize this story occurred in England and not the United States?

Click to expand...

A long ****ing time. Surprised, we are not.

Leo said:

Of course, but I did reference the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which freedom of religious expression is conspicuous by its absence. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Except that it's conspicuous by its presence in Article 18. :rofl

Catz Part Deux said:

A long ****ing time. Surprised, we are not.

Click to expand...

Figures.

Why would anyone be surprised? The Westboro Baptist Church is forbidden in the UK if I remember, and you can't get much more of a banning of a religious organization's freedom than that. This is a freedom of expression issue, and the UK clearly disagrees vehemently with promoting prejudice based on religious beliefs. Personally, I've seen enough people in this country try to ban LGBT books and online resources that I'm pretty protective of free expression even when its coming from religious prejudice. I'm offended by them and they are offended by me, and yet we manage to live together in a free society.

CriticalThought said:

Personally, I've seen enough people in this country try to ban LGBT books and online resources that I'm pretty protective of free expression even when its coming from religious prejudice. I'm offended by them and they are offended by me, and yet we manage to live together in a free society.

Click to expand...

You know why? Because you haven't been conditioned to be a little ***** by your culture.

That's the problem with the EU today...they are culturally weak because of political correctness run amok.

They can't even protect their culture with moral and historical instruction because they can't freely express their traditional values in public without this type of thing. Their cultural distinctions will eventually fade or there will be an uprising. You cannot suppress free expression and not have backlash. Severe backlash.

I mean right here in this very thread, a European called on a document expecting it to prove a point and didn't even know what the document said. Further, he looked to the UN instead of his own country's charter to tell him what was valued and what was not. What does that tell you about the loss of cultural and national identitiy they suffer?

misterman said:

Oh, come on now.

Now you've strayed far into freedom of speech territory. Which, of course, is where this belongs.

Is that a universal human right?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course it is.

Article 19 UN UDHR
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Click to expand...

However, nothing in that article indicates that exercising that right is without consequence. If you sign the Official Secrets Act as a member of the government or security services, you may be subject to legal sanction if you impart classified information. Similarly, if you publish derogatory information (which you believe to be true, but turns out to be otherwise,) about someone else, you may be subject to legal sanction. And on a more human level, if you deliberately say insulting things about someone else's loved ones, within that person's hearing, it is likely you will get a fat lip, or a bloody nose. And you will get very little sympathy in any of those events.

Freedom of speech is a valuable commodity, but it does not supersede common human decency, or due regard for the feelings or safety of others. Inflammatory invective can be more dangerous than guns and bombs.

Leo said:

Freedom of speech is a valuable commodity, but it does not supersede common human decency, or due regard for the feelings or safety of others.

Click to expand...

So how does that apply to a woman who walks up to a preacher and initiates debate with him about his beliefs and then walks off to get an officer because she found what he related to her offensive?

I cannot believe English society has become that weak.

jallman said:

You know why? Because you haven't been conditioned to be a little ***** by your culture.

Click to expand...

The idea that people are protected from ever being offended is simply baffling to me. Where does that mistaken idea come from?

jallman said:

Except that it's conspicuous by its presence in Article 18. :rofl

Click to expand...

True, I must admit I missed that bit, so I retract my statement about the right to religious expression. :3oops:

Leo said:

True, I must admit I missed that bit, so I retract my statement about the right to religious expression. :3oops:

Click to expand...

At least the English still know how to deliver a gracious apology. I think it's the nannies.

Catz Part Deux said:

The idea that people are protected from ever being offended is simply baffling to me. Where does that mistaken idea come from?

Click to expand...

This is my personal opinion so you take it how you will but...

I think it's been a push in Europe to do what we did by uniting the colonies under one federation except that Europe has too much cultural distinction. When you can press a dissolution of those distinctions under the guise of tolerance and, ironically, contempt for the oldest cultural traditions in the society, it makes it a little easier to corral everyone under the same government umbrella eventually which would be the EU.

Europe, for all its cultural achievement, is still having to imitate something we did over 200 years ago with far less difficulty. :lol:

Leo said:

True, I must admit I missed that bit, so I retract my statement about the right to religious expression. :3oops:

Click to expand...

Thank you. You do your society's reputation for being polite a great service.

Catz Part Deux said:

The idea that people are protected from ever being offended is simply baffling to me. Where does that mistaken idea come from?

Click to expand...

The death of reason?

It's unusual for me to agree with jallman but I'm afraid I have to in this regard. You can't protect someone's sensibilities without trampling on the sensibilities of someone else. That is why we have freedom of expression. Everyone then has an equal opportunity to be pissed off with everyone else.

jallman said:

Europe, for all its cultural achievement, is still having to imitate something we did over 200 years ago with far less difficulty. :lol:

Click to expand...

WE didn't even use the guillotine.

Because we're AMERICA. **** yeah!

jallman said:

So how does that apply to a woman who walks up to a preacher and initiates debate with him about his beliefs and then walks off to get an officer because she found what he related to her offensive?

I cannot believe English society has become that weak.

Click to expand...

Read the post wherein I gave my opinion upon what happened. My remarks about offensive speech are principle, not necessarily about that particular instance.

disneydude said:

If it wasn't your point...why did you feel the need to comment that the "preacher was right" in his interpretation of the biblical scripture.

You post that....and then complain that people take you to task for posting it.

I agree with you on the second point, however, think you are dead wrong in your first statement.

Click to expand...

I posted it because it was part of the larger argument - WHY WAS THEH PREACHER ARRESTED?

Was he arrested because he broke the law?

Or was he arrested because he spoke a Biblical truth and the arresting officer used a law as probably cause to arrest him - a law that had NOTHING to do with the charge laid against him?

That is the basis of my argument. Yet the moment I quoted Scripture to show that the preacher was correct in his view - that homosexuality (as well as being effiminate) is a sin according to God - suddenly the issue is no longer whether or not the Preacher had a right to speak or whether he broke the law towhich he has been accused of violating. Now, suddenly folks have pounced on whether or not I believe as the Preacher believes.

Well, fact of the matter is I do. But I don't go around calling out gays and lesbians or telling them they're going to hell because I don't know that. But I do know that homosexuality and being effiminate is a sin in the eyes of God. And so, if asked I will stand by that. But that's no different than being asked if drunkeness is a sin. Yes, it is according to Scripture, but I'd no more tell a drunk person he or she is going to hell just because they consumed too much alcohol. But even with the issue of drunkeness people misenterpret it to mean, "Oh, now I can't have a drink?" Yes, you can. Just know that getting intoxicated usually leads itself to other problems and anyone who's been drunk (or reminded of their actions while drunk once they come out of their drunken fog) will likely tell you they did something really stupid that night! You're lucky if you can just laugh about it the next day. Still, I'm not trying to pass my believes on anyone. I'm just trying to explain my point of view and how things tend to get turned around the moment God, religion or one's religious believes suddenly enter the conversation.

Since my post #51, most everyone has jumped on the religious angle, specifically where I quoted directly from the Bible to show that the preacher was correct in what he said concerning homosexuality. But no one has argued whether or not the preacher was wrongfully arrested based on a law that had nothing to do with the charges brought against him, and that is the basis of my argument. But you were quick to stop at the religious point that strikes down homosexuality and jump me for showing where the preacher was correct from a Biblical point of view. And not once have I attempted to push my religious believe on the matter on anyone else.

If the basis of my argument was whether or not the preacher's interpretation of Scripture was wrong I'd defend my position wholeheartedly. But since that's not what I was arguing, I'll save that for another thread.

CriticalThought said:

Everyone then has an equal opportunity to be pissed off with everyone else.

Click to expand...

A long, rich tradition in the U.S., I might add. And our politicians used to kill each other over minor insults. Because we're badasses.