• 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

I await the arrest of Richard Dawkins. The man openly offends religious people and says things far worse and offensive than calling homosexuality a sin. Seriously, what is up with the UK? Is it going to enforce liberal secular morals and silence all who disagree in such a fascist way? People have a right to their opinion and a right to voice it, be it secular liberals, militant atheists, or fundamentalist Christians.
 
Well I certainly missed this from the article:

He claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.”

So this was a witch hunt by a homosexual who didn't like the fact this guy didn't agree with him.

This is actually worse than I thought.
 
He was still arrested for his beliefs. Its kind of sad you are trying to parse it just because he said it aloud.

I really can't take anyone seriously who whines about infringements to civil liberties on one hand but is happier than a clam at high tide about infringements in another. You either accept the principles of civil liberties, or you don't and thus making a never ending string of exceptions for why a group is not deserving of them. If you were a little more enlightened you'd perceive this obvious wrong (arresting someone for a very innocuous action) and say to yourself, "Gee, this sort of thing is pretty damn common on an institutionalized level in our own country. I guess intolerence can go both ways!" Instead, completely oblivious to the point of the story you only perceive the wrong done to the preacher, and there your enlightenment ends.
 
I really can't take anyone seriously who whines about infringements to civil liberties on one hand but is happier than a clam at high tide about infringements in another.

More empty rhetoric without evidence. Typical.

You either accept the principles of civil liberties, or you don't and thus making a never ending string of exceptions for why a group is not deserving of them. If you were a little more enlightened you'd perceive this obvious wrong (arresting someone for a very innocuous action) and say to yourself, "Gee, this sort of thing is pretty damn common on an institutionalized level in our own country. I guess dickwadery can go both ways!" Instead, completely oblivious to the point of the story you only perceive the wrong done to the preacher, and there your enlightenment ends.

#1 I never once claimed I was enlightened because that's reserved for those pc folks who claim they are tolerant of everything until you find something they don't agree with..

#2 You have yet to prove this is a crime or even related to any law in this country.

If you are going to continue making these laughable claims you could at least try and back them up.
 
That's the thing about Free Speech. It applies to speech that you may disagree with.

I hope the United States never goes this far. We have to vigilantly protect Free Speech and an attitude of tolerance the expression of ideas we find repugnant.

I agree, however, IMO the Fred Phelps gang oversteps when they protest at funerals.

This sounds like overzealous police misusing disturbing the peace type laws.
 
No. I'm judging you on what you said. You don't like that though, do you?
No! What you judged me on was what your perception of my religious beliefs - that just because I agree w/the preacher on homosexuality being a sin automatically means that I persecute gays and lesbians. As I've said to you before, I may not agree with a person's lifestyle, but I in no way attempt to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat.

Are you actually equating those things (persecution of slaves) with having your posts debunked on an internet forum? Oh, the soul-crushing agony of persecution by logic.

That comment only goes to show you didn't read my entire post. You stopped at the Biblical quoates and assumed I was on some anti-gay tirade presuming that's what the preacher was doing. But nothing could be further from the truth on either count. There's nothing in the article that concludes that the preacher is anti-gay as much as his words affirm that he's anti-sinful lifestyle according to his religious beliefs. As for the content of my post (#51), had you bothered to read it all, this is what you would have read at the end:

According to the article, "the Public Order Act, introduced in 1986 to tackle violent rioters and football hooligans, is being used to curb religious free speech." So, is it possible this preacher was being persecuted and this law is being used as a tool to shut him up?

Now, if you had commented on the above which you delved into alittle bit when you later posted this:

No. He was silenced because he broke the law IN ENGLAND. I don't personally support those laws, no matter how wrong-headed and stupid I believe the preacher (and those like him) to be.

...we'd be speaking on the merits of his arrest and not the merits of one's religious convictions which isn't the point of this thread nor was it a point I was trying to make in my original post. Yet anytime someone breaths a hint of their (Christian) religious convictions you go on one of your little rants where you feel you have to belittle them in order to make yourself look better, towit:

Spare me the love of Jesus. The message he was sharing was one of hate and intolerance towards gay people in the guise of his religious views...views that I personally consider archaic, backward ass, and stupid.

Not once did I say I was against gays or lesbians, or that they didn't have a right to live their lives as they see fit. Nor did the preacher for that matter. I pointed out those passeages from Scripture not only to show that the preacher was correct according to Biblical tenants but also to make the broader argument that despite what he said he ultimate was arrested for speaking up for his religious beliefs. His arrest had nothing to do with the tenor inwhich he uttered his religious convictions to a stranger but had everything to do with someone not liking what was said and using a noise ordinace law in order to shut him up. That is wrong! But it's the law of their land, not mine. So, perhaps the preacher should pay closer attention to who's around him next time he speaks. Or maybe he should continue to stand up for his religious convictions and rightfully answer questions concerning the various sins as he understands them from his religious teachings. The irony here is you come across as someone who stands up for her God given rights (in this case, freedom of speech and freedom of religion) yet put people down when they exercise same (referring to the preacher here and not myself). I find that very hypocritical. Yet you stand firm to your belief that the preach broke the law. Well, where's the evidence of that? According to the article, the preacher wasn't shouting at the time he was conducting his conversation with the woman who inquired of him. So, how was he in the wrong? Ah! He uttered words of hate which is untrue. What he did was confirm what the Bible says on specific matters that were addressed to him. A cop overheard him, didn't like what he had to say and and busted him on a flimsy noise ordinance charge.

The law is stupid. So was his message. Do not mistake my defending his right to speak with me condoning his message. His (and your) messages about gays and lesbians are abhorrent, repugnant, and socially retarded. I don't care that they're biblical, the Bible is an archaic document that belongs in the dungheap. We'd be far better off as a society without these silly archaic prejudices.

Again, not once did I express my point of view on gays and lesbians here or anywhere else. I merely quoted where the preacher was correct on the matter from a Biblical standpoint. But again, I in no way am saying you have to agree or disagree with the lifestyle or anyone's religious beliefs. I merely pointed out the what the preacher said was Bibically based.

Nonetheless, the U.S. is a better system than the British system because people have unrestricted freedom even to put out viewpoints that I find personally disgusting.

Now, that is something we both can agree with.
 
Last edited:
How is that different?
Well, there's speaking and then there's not speaking. He was arrested for the former. In either case, one can hold any number of beliefs. And in fact, one can speak of things that one doesn't even believe at all, and STILL be arrested for speaking of them. (in the UK)

Ergo, the arrest was for speaking certain things, and not for believing certain things.
 
Well, there's speaking and then there's not speaking. He was arrested for the former. In either case, one can hold any number of beliefs. And in fact, one can speak of things that one doesn't even believe at all, and STILL be arrested for speaking of them. (in the UK)

Ergo, the arrest was for speaking certain things, and not for believing certain things.

So speaking what he believes :lol:
 
I in no way attempt to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat.

I could FEEL your happiness when you bolded "abomination."

That comment only goes to show you didn't read my entire post. You stopped at the Biblical quoates and assumed I was on some anti-gay tirade presuming that's what the preacher was doing. But nothing could be further from the truth on either count. There's nothing in the article that concludes that the preacher is anti-gay as much as his words affirm that he's anti-sinful lifestyle according to his religious beliefs. As for the content of my post (#51), had you bothered to read it all, this is what you would have read at the end:

I'm not you. I read your post. I just didn't find it all that interesting.

...we'd be speaking on the merits of his arrest and not the merits of one's religious convictions which isn't the point of this thread nor was it a point I was trying to make in my original post. Yet anytime someone breaths a hint of their (Christian) religious convictions you go on one of your little rants where you feel you have to belittle them in order to make yourself look better, towit:

You belittle yourself.

Not once did I say I was against gays or lesbians, or that they didn't have a right to live their lives as they see fit. Nor did the preacher for that matter. I pointed out those passeages from Scripture not only to show that the preacher was correct according to Biblical tenants but also to make the broader argument that despite what he said he ultimate was arrested for speaking up for his religious beliefs. His arrest had nothing to do with the tenor inwhich he uttered his religious convictions to a stranger but had everything to do with someone not liking what was said and using a noise ordinace law in order to shut him up. That is wrong! But it's the law of their land, not mine. So, perhaps the preacher should pay closer attention to who's around him next time he speaks. Or maybe he should continue to stand up for his religious convictions and rightfully answer questions concerning the various sins as he understands them from his religious teachings. The irony here is you come across as someone who stands up for her God given rights (in this case, freedom of speech and freedom of religion) yet put people down when they exercise same (referring to the preacher here and not myself). I find that very hypocritical. Yet you stand firm to your belief that the preach broke the law. Well, where's the evidence of that? According to the article, the preacher wasn't shouting at the time he was conducting his conversation with the woman who inquired of him. So, how was he in the wrong? Ah! He uttered words of hate which is untrue. What he did was confirm what the Bible says on specific matters that were addressed to him. A cop overheard him, didn't like what he had to say and and busted him on a flimsy noise ordinance charge.

Again, not once did I express my point of view on gays and lesbians here or anywhere else. I merely quoted where the preacher was correct on the matter from a Biblical standpoint. But again, I in no way am saying you have to agree or disagree with the lifestyle or anyone's religious beliefs. I merely pointed out the what the preacher said was Bibically based.

I remain unconvinced by you.

Feeling persecuted again?
 
Wow .. the UK, I wasn't aware that they were so backwards, I thought freedom of speech was somewhat universal in the "west".

Hate speech is the only thing that should be an arrestable act, otherwise for the sake of freedom we just need to tolerate those we disagree with or eventually we will have a police state. Saying homosexuality is a sin (wrong) does not constitute hate speech.

That is why this is such a big deal, the UK is moving towards a police state.
 
Wow .. the UK, I wasn't aware that they were so backwards, I thought freedom of speech was somewhat universal in the "west".

Hate speech is the only thing that should be an arrestable act, otherwise for the sake of freedom we just need to tolerate those we disagree with or eventually we will have a police state. Saying homosexuality is a sin (wrong) does not constitute hate speech.

That is why this is such a big deal, the UK is moving towards a police state.

:doh

Calling someone an abomination for their "sexual sin" falls into the category of hate speech in the UK and several other western nations, including Canada. Fail.

Free speech is defined differently in different countries. The U.S. has perhaps the most liberal free speech laws in the world, allowing the greatest latitude.

Your flimsy reasoning above is precisely why I hope we never implement hate speech laws in this country.

Maybe you should do more research on the subject.
 
That's one side of the story. I'm sure that there are at least 2 others. Maybe 3 or 4.

Well in my opinion the UK is on the wrong side. Saying someone is an abomination isn't hate speech either.

I call people abominations for various things all the time :2razz:
 
That's the thing about Free Speech. It applies to speech that you may disagree with.

I hope the United States never goes this far. We have to vigilantly protect Free Speech and an attitude of tolerance the expression of ideas we find repugnant.

Requoted for truth. This is it, in a nutshell.
 
Unless you are inciting a riot or violence against people you should be able to say whatever you want.

Seriously, this scares me, if the US goes down this route 2000 years of social and governmental evolution has been wiped out.
 
Unless you are inciting a riot or violence against people you should be able to say whatever you want.

Seriously, this scares me, if the US goes down this route 2000 years of social and governmental evolution has been wiped out.

I would encourage you not to use the term "hate speech," then. It has a specific meaning that isn't encompassed by inciting a riot. I think you're misusing it, which leads to misunderstandings.

But yes, I find the UK's hate speech legislation extremely troubling (along with Canada's), and it's something that in my opinion should be stringently resisted by Americans.

That's why even though I think that Fred Phelps is a completely worthless meatsack who should die in a fire, I will defend his right to say offensive things forever.

But I'm still going to get you. And your little dog. :twisted:

Love,

another scary nonbeliever
 
Unless you are inciting a riot or violence against people you should be able to say whatever you want.

Seriously, this scares me, if the US goes down this route 2000 years of social and governmental evolution has been wiped out.

The US isn't going to go down this route. We left the UK behind centuries ago, for very good reasons. ;)
 
The US isn't going to go down this route. We left the UK behind centuries ago, for very good reasons. ;)

Don't be so sure. I mentioned this in a different post, but using the Interweb as a sample, and purely anecdotally, I think the current high school generation is incredibly intolerant of other peoples views.

Catz wants to burn the preacher, tongue in cheek, I think the younglings today literally want to burn the preacher.
 
I would encourage you not to use the term "hate speech," then. It has a specific meaning that isn't encompassed by inciting a riot. I think you're misusing it, which leads to misunderstandings.

But yes, I find the UK's hate speech legislation extremely troubling (along with Canada's), and it's something that in my opinion should be stringently resisted by Americans.

That's why even though I think that Fred Phelps is a completely worthless meatsack who should die in a fire, I will defend his right to say offensive things forever.

But I'm still going to get you. And your little dog. :twisted:

Love,

another scary nonbeliever

Then it should be legal to say it, barring inciting a riot or espousing violence.

People get harassed, it sucks, but it happens... trying to limit the harassment by encroaching on peoples right to speak is a slippery sloap.
 
Don't be so sure. I mentioned this in a different post, but using the Interweb as a sample, and purely anecdotally, I think the current high school generation is incredibly intolerant of other peoples views.

Catz wants to burn the preacher, tongue in cheek, I think the younglings today literally want to burn the preacher.

I don't want to burn the preacher. I enjoy taunting them too much when they're alive. Who would I make fun if we got rid of all the Christians. I'd have to move on to the muslims, and we know they don't have a sense of humor.

Using the board as an example, people are incredibly intolerant of each other's views. We're still here, bashing. :) It's the American way.
 
Then it should be legal to say it, barring inciting a riot or espousing violence.

People get harassed, it sucks, but it happens... trying to limit the harassment by encroaching on peoples right to speak is a slippery sloap.

Yes, I agree completely. We don't have a right to avoid having our feelings hurt.
 
I don't want to burn the preacher. I enjoy taunting them too much when they're alive. Who would I make fun if we got rid of all the Christians. I'd have to move on to the muslims, and we know they don't have a sense of humor.

Using the board as an example, people are incredibly intolerant of each other's views. We're still here, bashing. :) It's the American way.

Haha, very true, in fact I think you were taunting me a few weeks back!

(If I were a Muslim you would be dead) :rofl

Sometimes I do love the American way ...
 
He doesn't have to believe it. Just speaking those things in general. It's the speaking that got him arrested, not the believing.

Since he does believe it it is being arrested for speaking what he believes.


I think the Bible gave him away :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom