Free speech for thee but not for me I guess
Here's the part I like. Can you imagine having to announce this as your titele 25 times a day-what a mouthful!
identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police
Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin
A Christian street preacher was arrested and locked in a cell for telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God.
By Heidi Blake
Published: 1:05PM BST 02 May 2010
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.
Related Articles
Tory candidate 'tried to 'cure' gay people through prayer'
Preacher threatened with arrest for reading out extracts from the Bible in public
Change and repent, bishop tells gays
Homosexual minister says he is 'humbled' by Church of Scotland's support
Pope's comments on homosexuality must not overshadow inclusiveness of Christmas
Pope says humanity needs 'saving' from homosexualityPolice 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.
Mr McAlpine, who was taken to the police station in the back of a marked van and locked in a cell for seven hours on April 20, said the incident was among the worst experiences of his life.
“I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know," he said.
“My freedom was taken away on the hearsay of someone who disliked what I said, and I was charged under a law that doesn't apply.”
Christian campaigners have expressed alarm that the Public Order Act, introduced in 1986 to tackle violent rioters and football hooligans, is being used to curb religious free speech.
Sam Webster, a solicitor-advocate for the Christian Institute, which is supporting Mr McAlpine, said it is not a crime to express the belief that homosexual conduct is a sin.
“The police have a duty to maintain public order but they also have a duty to defend the lawful free speech of citizens,” he said.
“Case law has ruled that the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual conduct is sinful is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society."
Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith.
During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.
After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.
The street preacher said he told the PCSO: “I am not homophobic but sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator”.
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.”
The preacher then began a 20 minute sermon, in which he says he mentioned drunkenness and adultery, but not homosexuality. Three regular uniformed police officers arrived during the address, arrested Mr McAlpine and put him in the back of a police van.
At the station, he was told to empty his pockets and his mobile telephone, belt and shoes were confiscated. Police took fingerprints, a palm print, a retina scan and a DNA swab.
He was later interviewed, charged under Sections 5 (1) and (6) of the Public Order Act and released on bail on the condition that he did not preach in public.
Mr McAlpine pleaded not guilty at a preliminary hearing on Friday at Wokingham magistrates court and is now awaiting a trial date.
The Public Order Act, which outlaws the unreasonable use of abusive language likely to cause distress, has been used to arrest religious people in a number of similar cases.
Harry Hammond, a pensioner, was convicted under Section 5 of the Act in 2002 for holding up a sign saying “Stop immorality. Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism. Jesus is Lord” while preaching in Bournemouth.
Stephen Green, a Christian campaigner, was arrested and charged in 2006 for handing out religious leaflets at a Gay Pride festival in Cardiff. The case against him was later dropped.
Cumbria police said last night that no one was available to comment on Mr McAlpine’s case.
Its just a bit silly, isnt it? when you cannot say what you think?
To be fair not everything is covered in this article and I dont think it is that typical a case but seems heavy handed and a misuse of a ruling or law that we don't really need.
Kilkrazy wrote:This should be cross-referenced with the Christian sex therapist case.
I missed that, just looked it up. It just beggars belief. A perfectly able and law abiding citizen cannot refuse to work without it jeopardizing his career?
I second that, in cases like this I am always reminded of Know your rights by the The Clash in the middle there is a line that goes "You have the right to free speech, as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it" Says it all really
I second that, in cases like this I am always reminded of Know your rights by the The Clash in the middle there is a line that goes "You have the right to free speech, as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it" Says it all really
I agree, I think free speech is BS if used for sowing hatred.
Well this person is certainly a bigot and a fool who will be ignored by most. But a criminal? Sorry I'm not comfortable with people being arrested for voicing opinions, no matter how odious and silly they are.
Let him preach his nonsense and let the rest of the world respond by ignoring him or telling him precisely what we think of him. Now that's free speech.
Well this person is certainly a bigot and a fool who will be ignored by most. But a criminal? Sorry I'm not comfortable with people being arrested for voicing opinions, no matter how odious and silly they are.
Let him preach his nonsense and let the rest of the world respond by ignoring him or telling him precisely what we think of him. Now that's free speech.
I agree. I'm for very few limits on free speech-mostly place and limited to speech and not acts.
It is most certainly not "hatred" to tell someone that what they are doing is a sin in the eyes of God. I hope that minister sues the local magistrate.
There's a difference between someone saying they think something is wrong and threatening someone. What hate was he preaching exactly? So "the law" believes in heaven? Someone can be arrested for telling someone they can't get to a place that said person may or may not even believe exists? Does that mean a Christian can be arrested for telling a non-Christian (discriminating based on religion, but fill in the blank here) that they believe they're going to hell, regardless if said non-Christian believes in hell or not? Or maybe they can be arrested for telling a Christian that they're not going to hell (again, discrimination by religion) because maybe that Christian wants to go to hell? This is a stupid, stupid can of worms.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:There's a difference between someone saying they think something is wrong and threatening someone. What hate was he preaching exactly? So "the law" believes in heaven? Someone can be arrested for telling someone they can't get to a place that said person may or may not even believe exists? Does that mean a Christian can be arrested for telling a non-Christian (discriminating based on religion, but fill in the blank here) that they believe they're going to hell, regardless if said non-Christian believes in hell or not? Or maybe they can be arrested for telling a Christian that they're not going to hell (again, discrimination by religion) because maybe that Christian wants to go to hell? This is a stupid, stupid can of worms.
And there you go. It's now hate speech to declare your imaginary pillow fort off limits to someone.
Perhaps the reverend should have saved his preaching for church.
You can imagine the howl of protest that would erupt from religious people if an atheist should set up some kind of public anti-religion thing. In fact you don't have to, because we already know from the Agnostic bus adverts last year.
You can't stop people believing stuff. The problem is when they want to proclaim their beliefs to other people and they don't want anyone else to be allowed to proclaim other beliefs.
Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps the reverend should have saved his preaching for church.
You can imagine the howl of protest that would erupt from religious people if an atheist should set up some kind of public anti-religion thing. In fact you don't have to, because we already know from the Agnostic bus adverts last year.
You can't stop people believing stuff. The problem is when they want to proclaim their beliefs to other people and they don't want anyone else to be allowed to proclaim other beliefs.
Freedom of speech works both ways.
Doesn't the facts of the case directly conflict with your statement?
The "other people" are the ones putting der nuttball in jail. They didn't want him to proclaim other beliefs.
Its nuts. How does this impact anyone but Christians who disagree of a philosphical basis?
WHat happened to Trafalgar Square and all that time honored tradition of freedom of speech in the UK?
Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps the reverend should have saved his preaching for church.
Speech shouldn't be restricted to certain places. In America we even allow the nazi skinheads to have their little marches. People show up to yell back at them, but as long as no violence erupts or any inciting of riot happens it's fine.
In america, the law isn't their to protect you from speech, but to protect speech from you. It's a shame Britain is so close minded.
Kilkrazy wrote:
You can imagine the howl of protest that would erupt from religious people if an atheist should set up some kind of public anti-religion thing. In fact you don't have to, because we already know from the Agnostic bus adverts last year.
It's their right to do that if they want to. It's also peoples right to react to it. The police shouldn't have a right to lock you in irons for speaking your mind.
Also could you please provide a link to said agnostic adverts...I'm not familiar with the issue you describe.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
WHat happened to Trafalgar Square and all that time honored tradition of freedom of speech in the UK?
Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps the reverend should have saved his preaching for church.
You can imagine the howl of protest that would erupt from religious people if an atheist should set up some kind of public anti-religion thing. In fact you don't have to, because we already know from the Agnostic bus adverts last year.
You can't stop people believing stuff. The problem is when they want to proclaim their beliefs to other people and they don't want anyone else to be allowed to proclaim other beliefs.
Freedom of speech works both ways.
Doesn't the facts of the case directly conflict with your statement?
The "other people" are the ones putting der nuttball in jail. They didn't want him to proclaim other beliefs.
Its nuts. How does this impact anyone but Christians who disagree of a philosphical basis?
WHat happened to Trafalgar Square and all that time honored tradition of freedom of speech in the UK?
We don't have free speech in the UK. We have speech limited by a number of laws such as sedition, slander and discrimination. Very much as you do in the USA.
The "other people" are the police, upholding the law of the land.
Atheists and homosexuals aren't allowed to hold anti-Christian rallies outside churches. Should Christians be allowed to hold anti-homo or anti-atheism rallies outside churches?
Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps the reverend should have saved his preaching for church.
Speech shouldn't be restricted to certain places. In America we even allow the nazi skinheads to have their little marches. People show up to yell back at them, but as long as no violence erupts or any inciting of riot happens it's fine.
In america, the law isn't their to protect you from speech, but to protect speech from you. It's a shame Britain is so close minded.
Kilkrazy wrote:
You can imagine the howl of protest that would erupt from religious people if an atheist should set up some kind of public anti-religion thing. In fact you don't have to, because we already know from the Agnostic bus adverts last year.
It's their right to do that if they want to. It's also peoples right to react to it. The police shouldn't have a right to lock you in irons for speaking your mind.
Also could you please provide a link to said agnostic adverts...I'm not familiar with the issue you describe.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
WHat happened to Trafalgar Square and all that time honored tradition of freedom of speech in the UK?
QFT
GG
No offense but... look where it's gotten you so far?
Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps the reverend should have saved his preaching for church.
Speech shouldn't be restricted to certain places. In America we even allow the nazi skinheads to have their little marches. People show up to yell back at them, but as long as no violence erupts or any inciting of riot happens it's fine.
In america, the law isn't their to protect you from speech, but to protect speech from you. It's a shame Britain is so close minded.
Kilkrazy wrote:
You can imagine the howl of protest that would erupt from religious people if an atheist should set up some kind of public anti-religion thing. In fact you don't have to, because we already know from the Agnostic bus adverts last year.
It's their right to do that if they want to. It's also peoples right to react to it. The police shouldn't have a right to lock you in irons for speaking your mind.
Also could you please provide a link to said agnostic adverts...I'm not familiar with the issue you describe.
GG
Well, actually I agree with you on this point. I do believe people should be free to express their beliefs. But that's not what christians seem to want in the UK. They seem to want their own belief and ability to express to be specially protected above other people's.
olympia wrote:Hate speech is not protected speech. The cops did him a favor getting him off the street before he got his skull cracked open by some "sinners."
I think you said you were gay olympia? Is it hate in your eyes for me to tell you that God loves you and wants you to repent? Is it also hate when I tell people that are living together in a heterosexual unmarried relationship that God loves them and wants them to repent? Or is it just hate when I say that to homosexuals?
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, actually I agree with you on this point. I do believe people should be free to express their beliefs. But that's not what christians seem to want in the UK. They seem to want their own belief and ability to express to be specially protected above other people's.
Now I have to admit that I would certainly not like that ad. However, I would respect peoples right to place that ad there. Was there some kind of an uproar that got that taken down? I would disagree with that action if that was what happnened.
Instead of trying to take that down, I would have just placed my own ad saying something like "God is alive, so deal with it". See we both get to have our say. :-)
Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps the reverend should have saved his preaching for church.
Speech shouldn't be restricted to certain places. In America we even allow the nazi skinheads to have their little marches. People show up to yell back at them, but as long as no violence erupts or any inciting of riot happens it's fine.
In america, the law isn't their to protect you from speech, but to protect speech from you. It's a shame Britain is so close minded.
Kilkrazy wrote:
You can imagine the howl of protest that would erupt from religious people if an atheist should set up some kind of public anti-religion thing. In fact you don't have to, because we already know from the Agnostic bus adverts last year.
It's their right to do that if they want to. It's also peoples right to react to it. The police shouldn't have a right to lock you in irons for speaking your mind.
Also could you please provide a link to said agnostic adverts...I'm not familiar with the issue you describe.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
WHat happened to Trafalgar Square and all that time honored tradition of freedom of speech in the UK?
QFT
GG
No offense but... look where it's gotten you so far?
Greatest power on earth, so badass they had to invent a new name for us-hyperpower?
The has had many problems, freedom of speech is not one of them. Its when speech is limited that the dictator rises.
generalgrog wrote:Instead of trying to take that down, I would have just placed my own ad saying something like "God is alive, so deal with it". See we both get to have our say. :-)
Ad War!
Anyway, strictly speaking, stating that homosexuality is a sin should only be hate speech for those people who are both gay, and christian. To anyone else, it should simply be meaningless, as without the belief in a christian God the notion of sin carries no weight. And, if we're going down that road, then a lot of theological discussions become filled with hate speech, so probably not the best idea. It would be different, of course, if someone were to scream "HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN1!!!!!1!!!!" on a street corner, or at someone in particular.
There's a line between hate and opinion, but if it were somebody with a sign saying "People of religion are misguided" and they got thrown in jail for it the other side would be screaming and the religious ones acting coy. I want everyone to be able to say what's really on their mind and I'd rather people work out their own issues than the government do it for me. I can see both sides of this argument as a bi somewhat-religious person but arresting people won't help anybody.
olympia wrote:Hate speech is not protected speech. The cops did him a favor getting him off the street before he got his skull cracked open by some "sinners."
How is it hate speech again?
If you're not Christian then it doesn't apply to you.
If you are Christian then different sects have different views. Debate him if you feel like, ignore him, or choose the 3rd way-call HIM a sinner-for violating the Golden Rule. It makes for fun filled antics.
Atheists and homosexuals aren't allowed to hold anti-Christian rallies outside churches. Should Christians be allowed to hold anti-homo or anti-atheism rallies outside churches?
You can do that here. Thats the whole basis for right t life movement protesting, or protests outside of Mormon churches after Prop 8 (is it 8?). Just can't do it on their property. As long as your freedom ends at my nose, then its the new black!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps the reverend should have saved his preaching for church.
Speech shouldn't be restricted to certain places. In America we even allow the nazi skinheads to have their little marches. People show up to yell back at them, but as long as no violence erupts or any inciting of riot happens it's fine.
In america, the law isn't their to protect you from speech, but to protect speech from you. It's a shame Britain is so close minded.
Kilkrazy wrote:
You can imagine the howl of protest that would erupt from religious people if an atheist should set up some kind of public anti-religion thing. In fact you don't have to, because we already know from the Agnostic bus adverts last year.
It's their right to do that if they want to. It's also peoples right to react to it. The police shouldn't have a right to lock you in irons for speaking your mind.
Also could you please provide a link to said agnostic adverts...I'm not familiar with the issue you describe.
GG
Well, actually I agree with you on this point. I do believe people should be free to express their beliefs. But that's not what christians seem to want in the UK. They seem to want their own belief and ability to express to be specially protected above other people's.
How is that protected. He's a streetcorner/preacher nutjob. In fact, he's the one being discriminated against. I can stand on the corner and say ther is no god-fine, but he goes to jail. Ok. So are you going to arrest all Christians, Muslims, and Jews for their belief in hell? Are you going to arrest them for their beliefs in who can and can't go to hell? Thats literally what you're saying.
In the words of the immortal bard "that dog don't hunt."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
olympia wrote:Hate speech is not protected speech. The cops did him a favor getting him off the street before he got his skull cracked open by some "sinners."
I think you said you were gay olympia? Is it hate in your eyes for me to tell you that God loves you and wants you to repent? Is it also hate when I tell people that are living together in a heterosexual unmarried relationship that God loves them and wants them to repent? Or is it just hate when I say that to homosexuals?
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, actually I agree with you on this point. I do believe people should be free to express their beliefs. But that's not what christians seem to want in the UK. They seem to want their own belief and ability to express to be specially protected above other people's.
Now I have to admit that I would certainly not like that ad. However, I would respect peoples right to place that ad there. Was there some kind of an uproar that got that taken down? I would disagree with that action if that was what happnened.
Instead of trying to take that down, I would have just placed my own ad saying something like "God is alive, so deal with it". See we both get to have our say. :-)
GG
I like it, but with a few monitues thought I could have made the ad much more funny. Here's one.
"There probably is no God, so go ahead and eat that cupcake!"
generalgrog wrote:I think you said you were gay olympia? Is it hate in your eyes for me to tell you that God loves you and wants you to repent? Is it also hate when I tell people that are living together in a heterosexual unmarried relationship that God loves them and wants them to repent? Or is it just hate when I say that to homosexuals?
I'm not meaning to answer for Olympia here, just express my own view; if anyone were to say that how I was living was "wrong" I would not be particularly impressed. Especially if the "supreme power in the universe" supposedly loved me "despite" how I was living, but wanted me to repent and change my ways. I think I would be even more annoyed if I did not believe in whatever god or religious point of view was being expressed.
But would it be hate? Depends how it was expressed. The rather one sided article quoted at the start of the thread seems to me to be relatively free of hatred, it was more an expression of "I believe thus" (even if I don't agree with it), rather than any real expression of hatred.
Instead of trying to take that down, I would have just placed my own ad saying something like "God is alive, so deal with it". See we both get to have our say. :-)
There were and are many religious ads on buses here in the UK. KK is correct that religion in the UK appears to want to be free to say whatever it wants wherever and however it wants while remaining "protected" from anyone disagreeing with them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:without the belief in a christian God the notion of sin carries no weight
I would suggest that "sin" applies in pretty much all religions, not just Christianity. Although I do agree with you that too much religious debate will likely degenerate, so I will leave it there - just had to point out that sin is not a uniquely Christian concept
I'm as gay as Christmas when I've had a few drinks and there's room on the dance floor. Oh...wait a second...you mean homosexual? No, I'm straight but I'll admit that little ice-skater guy from the olympics is alluring.
As for free speech in the U.S. it works like this: you apply for a permit to hold a march/rally, etc. The state decides whether or not the exercise of your speech rights are a risk to "public safety" as defined by the state. If not, then your free speech can proceed. If so, then you cannot. Allow me to cite some case law.
Its a tough call for me, as i am a libertarian and have no dislike for homosexuals, and it seems wrong to allow people to say things that may lead to them being victimised.
But at the same time, i hate it when people arent free to express their beliefs, especially people i disagree with, and not only because i like refuting them.
I even think that those extremist Muslim types should have been able to march through Wootton Bassett, because the more vocal they get, the more vocal i can get.
It is painfully obvious to secular folks that the Religious do indeed ask for and recieve special treatment. They want the UN to pass an anti blasphemy law so you arent legally allowed to say anything bad about them.
In this regards i fully support them having the freedom to say whatever on earth they want.
If they want to shout out about hellfire and stamping gays into hell, i openly encourage it. First of all it makes them look bad to middle of the road folks, secondly it makes them look even more base and hypocritical if they are being openly offensive about a group and then they accuse me of being rude and offensive it if i point out that i happen to think their ancient books of desert scribblings are ridiculous.
So its a tough call for me... i guess i dont care either way what was decided, thats what the guys above my pay band are for!
I don't care if the copper was Gay, Lesbian, Bi or Transgender... some of them are just dicks and always will be. I ain't getting on side with either of them... but...
Threats of godly wrath, whilst juvenile, are clearly made only to cause fear.
Police with strong religious or ties to other social groups should really not be able to call for the arrest of a person who conflicts with their personal values. A liason officer should be liasing between the whateversexuals and the police, not involving these groups in a personal vendetta with some old stooge.
SilverMK2 wrote:
I would suggest that "sin" applies in pretty much all religions, not just Christianity. Although I do agree with you that too much religious debate will likely degenerate, so I will leave it there - just had to point out that sin is not a uniquely Christian concept
Bah, you've drawn me in.
Prohibited behavior is a concept common to all religions. However, sin is the word used by Christians to refer to prohibited behavior, and so references behavior prohibited by Christians in particular. You wouldn't say that it is a sin for Muslims to eat pork. Well, some would, but I wouldn't. I think that the use of the term as a catchall for any behavior prohibited by any faith is a result of westernization, and that it clouds a lot of the subtle differences between faiths.
Frazzled wrote:If you're not Christian then it doesn't apply to you.
Again, Christians are on the only ones who have the concept of sin
I personally am not religious in the slightest, however, I would still find it relatively offensive if someone passed judgment upon me based on what some supposedly universal power (who apparently loves everyone, yet can't stand the way certain people live) thinks.
It is kind of like if someone came up to you and gave you a note from a really important person (a top scientist, president, sports star - whatever - something that many people look up to) telling you that you are living in a really bad way and have to change if you want to earn their respect and love, that they really love you can can't stand to see you living the way you do.
Don't get me wrong, it works both ways, with atheists trying to convert religious people and convince them that they are being silly, etc, and I don't support that either.
Frazzled wrote:Greatest power on earth, so badass they had to invent a new name for us-hyperpower?
I think you invented that one yourselves. Exactly how many unwinnable wars against sub-first world nations does a nation have to engage in before they can call themselves a 'hyperpower'? I only ask because I'm thinking of writing a paper on cultural conceit and exceptionalism...
The Use of a Sidewalk for: Protest, Demonstration or Picketing
Protesting, demonstrations or picketing activities that uses the public sidewalk do not require a permit from the City.
There are rules that you must follow so as not to violate several laws:
* You can not block the sidewalk where it prevents the use by other citizens
* You can not block ingress or egress to the doors of the building
* You can not block driveways from the street to the property
* You can not set up tables or other obstructions on the sidewalk
* You can not get into the street for any reason
* You can not get on “private property” without the permission of the property owner
* Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action. * Banners or signs may not be hung off of or attached to bridges over roadways; signs may be carried while walking on sidewalks over bridges.
To request the use of a public street to hold "March", a Parade Permit is required 10 days prior to the date of the event. Parade Permits are approved by APD – Special Events. The permit is at web site: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/police/parade.htm.
Prohibited behavior is a concept common to all religions. However, sin is the word used by Christians to refer to prohibited behavior, and so references behavior prohibited by Christians in particular. You wouldn't say that it is a sin for Muslims to eat pork. Well, some would, but I wouldn't. I think that the use of the term as a catchall for any behavior prohibited by any faith is a result of westernization, and that it clouds a lot of the subtle differences between faiths.
Anyway, that's my explanation.
As a non-religious person, I can't say that I am well up on religious thinking and concepts, but I would suggest that "sin" as defined as "prohibited behavior in relation to Christian morals, ethics and beliefs" and "sin" as "prohibited behavior in relation to a religious system of belief" are more or less identical in modern language. This is just my own point of view.
Our language developed in a relatively mono-religionistic environment, so "sin" may well have originally applied solely to Christianity for the reason that the language developed in a "Christian rich" environment. However, the concept of "love" does not just apply to people who speak English, it is pretty universal. Just because love is an English word, does not mean that it doesn't equally apply to people in a certain emotional state who have never heard a word of English.
Atheists and homosexuals aren't allowed to hold anti-Christian rallies outside churches. Should Christians be allowed to hold anti-homo or anti-atheism rallies outside churches?
You can do that here. Thats the whole basis for right t life movement protesting, or protests outside of Mormon churches after Prop 8 (is it 8?). Just can't do it on their property. As long as your freedom ends at my nose, then its the new black!
SilverMK2 wrote:
I personally am not religious in the slightest, however, I would still find it relatively offensive if someone passed judgment upon me based on what some supposedly universal power (who apparently loves everyone, yet can't stand the way certain people live) thinks.
I don't understand why people think that a father can not like what his children are doing, and still love them. Does a father that has to go visit his child in jail, that robbed a liquour store, somehow stop loving them because they have done wrong?
Does a father that disciplines his children for doing something wrong, such as stealing candy from a convenience store, suddenly stop loving his children?
God is described as our heavenly Father. Why should his love be any less than a human father?
Nurglitch wrote:Of course homosexuality is a sin. It's a hot sweaty man-swuzzling sin. Mmmh.
Ah, yes. This helps me to clarify what I said... Just because you have values, it doesn't mean that anyone has a responsibility to care. Non-self-justifying-christian-homosexuals know that they are sinning in the eyes of a group they don't have to care about. The poor old religious ducky is probably a bit more unsure because he feels he does have a legitimate responsibility to at least critique certain lifestyles... but then some Christians don't do this at all either.
Social conflicts, from this example all the way up the scale to all-out war, are a tricky one. When someone has legal authority to take down the other, the Cold War begins... and as soon as someone fires a shot, the person with the bigger cops/nukes wins out, however unfair it is. What I want to know is where the Insistent, Stepladder-weilding, Unkempt and Rude Person's police liason officer was during all of this.
Frazzled, enough with the 'it doesn't apply to you' crap. Number One, it's crap, and Number Two, if my neighbours are nuking each other, I want to know about it!
SilverMK2 wrote:
As a non-religious person, I can't say that I am well up on religious thinking and concepts, but I would suggest that "sin" as defined as "prohibited behavior in relation to Christian morals, ethics and beliefs" and "sin" as "prohibited behavior in relation to a religious system of belief" are more or less identical in modern language. This is just my own point of view.
Our language developed in a relatively mono-religionistic environment, so "sin" may well have originally applied solely to Christianity for the reason that the language developed in a "Christian rich" environment. However, the concept of "love" does not just apply to people who speak English, it is pretty universal. Just because love is an English word, does not mean that it doesn't equally apply to people in a certain emotional state who have never heard a word of English.
Well, prohibited behavior is an English phrase, and I'm using it to refer to predominantly non-English-speaking groups, so I don't necessarily think that's a problem. And yeah, in every day language the word sin would apply to all, or at least most, religious prohibitions. I just don't think that it should, and intend to take it back, as it were.
Soladrin wrote:Your whole country is filled with outrageous nonsense.
At least our shoes are made of leather and rubber, as God intended.
People actually believe that wooden shoes nonsense? Only the occasional farmer wears those things, their god awful, but boy, do tourists like to buy them... stupid stupid tourists..
SilverMK2 wrote:
I personally am not religious in the slightest, however, I would still find it relatively offensive if someone passed judgment upon me based on what some supposedly universal power (who apparently loves everyone, yet can't stand the way certain people live) thinks.
I don't understand why people think that a father can not like what his children are doing, and still love them. Does a father that has to go visit his child in jail, that robbed a liquour store, somehow stop loving them because they have done wrong?
Does a father that disciplines his children for doing something wrong, such as stealing candy from a convenience store, suddenly stop loving his children?
God is described as our heavenly Father. Why should his love be any less than a human father?
GG
Does an omniscient, omnipotent father who knows that his child is about to be hit by a car but fails to do anything to prevent the tragedy deserve to be called a father?
Back on topic, though, at a University where I taught in the U.S. a group of fundamentalist christians used to come to campus about once a year and set up shop outside the student union and proclaim about homosexuality and abortion and such. It was a matter of pride for the administration that only once had angry students beamed one of these fundies in the head with a natural light bottle. Last year about six gay couples made out (and more I think judging by the groping I saw) in front of them. There's the whole argument that the best way to discredit ridiculous speech is to allow it. It worked with Sarah Palin during the campaign so perhaps there's something to the argument.
In Christianity it's believed that Heaven is a lot better than Earth so in essence you could argue that he is doing what is best for his "child". He is bringing them someplace better.
generalgrog wrote:I don't understand why people think that a father can not like what his children are doing, and still love them. Does a father that has to go visit his child in jail, that robbed a liquour store, somehow stop loving them because they have done wrong?
Does a father that disciplines his children for doing something wrong, such as stealing candy from a convenience store, suddenly stop loving his children?
God is described as our heavenly Father. Why should his love be any less than a human father?
I'm not arguing that there is "love" between "god(s)/universal spirits/etc" and people (although I don't believe there are such things, or that there are things they "dislike" and will punish people for when they die).
However, in a more conventional right/wrong sense (ignoring any divine intervention), we are not talking about something criminal, something harmful to others (such as robbing an off-license), we are talking about some arbitrary limitation on social intercourse (quite literally ). I'm willing to accept that there are some things people can do that others will not like (homosexuality, dancing around worshiping the trees, sitting in a building every week singing, etc), however, to then go out of your way to go and tell these people that not only do you not like what they are doing, but that the universe/god/someone important/etc does not like what they are doing is a bit.. off?
Fateweaver wrote:In Christianity it's believed that Heaven is a lot better than Earth so in essence you could argue that he is doing what is best for his "child". He is bringing them someplace better.
Fateweaver wrote:In Christianity it's believed that Heaven is a lot better than Earth so in essence you could argue that he is doing what is best for his "child". He is bringing them someplace better.
olympia wrote: * Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.
What are you trying to say here? That calling a person a sinner is a threat? That the word "gay" is vulgar, or pornographic?
olympia wrote: * Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.
What are you trying to say here? That calling a person a sinner is a threat? That the word "gay" is vulgar, or pornographic?
Eh? I'm not saying anything. I'm just quoting the state, municipal, and county authorities. Telling someone, "You are going to burn!" is a threat, clearly.
olympia wrote: * Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.
What are you trying to say here? That calling a person a sinner is a threat? That the word "gay" is vulgar, or pornographic?
I would certainly say that calling someone a sinner is a threat. It's a threat equivalent to being brutally assaulted by a butterfly, but a threat nevertheless.
The point is, did he have them displayed on posters or signs?
Thank God I live in a country where I "CAN" tell people homosexuality is a sin and not get arrested. Bitch slapped by gay people; sure but at least I won't go to jail for it.
Fateweaver wrote:Thank God I live in a country where I "CAN" tell people homosexuality is a sin and not get arrested. Bitch slapped by gay people; sure but at least I won't go to jail for it.
Thank the agnostic/atheistic/deist founding fathers instead.
Fateweaver wrote:Thank God I live in a country where I "CAN" tell people homosexuality is a sin and not get arrested. Bitch slapped by gay people; sure but at least I won't go to jail for it.
I support your right to visit gay dungeons in your search for a daddy! Just remember to establish a safe-words (or a bicycle horn...)
The Use of a Sidewalk for: Protest, Demonstration or Picketing
Protesting, demonstrations or picketing activities that uses the public sidewalk do not require a permit from the City.
There are rules that you must follow so as not to violate several laws:
* You can not block the sidewalk where it prevents the use by other citizens
----Thats an act, not speech and keeps your act from interfering with my acts.
* You can not block ingress or egress to the doors of the building
----Thats safety and keeps your act from interfering with my acts.
* You can not block driveways from the street to the property
----Thats an act and safety and keeps your act from interfering with my acts.
* You can not set up tables or other obstructions on the sidewalk
----Thats an act and keeps your act from interfering with my acts.
* You can not get into the street for any reason
----Thats an act and safetyand keeps your act from interfering with my acts.
* You can not get on “private property” without the permission of the property owner
----You're not getting thaty whole speech vs. trespass thing very well are ya?
* Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action. ----That means nothign disgusting or pornographic. Lets have some perspective shall we?
* Banners or signs may not be hung off of or attached to bridges over roadways; signs may be carried while walking on sidewalks over bridges.
----Thats an act and safetyand keeps your act from interfering with my acts.
To request the use of a public street to hold "March", a Parade Permit is required 10 days prior to the date of the event. Parade Permits are approved by APD – Special Events. The permit is at web site: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/police/parade.htm.
----They are default approvals. If you permit is denied absent another event or violating the above you can get it it overturned. Dude I freeking live here.
Again, this isn't some old man yelling "turn down the music, you damn kids!" It's a guy who genuinely wants people to be better (regardless of what side of his definition you fall on) who thinks he's accomplishing something. If I went around do something that you considered dangerous or harmful and you cared about what was happening, you'd probably try to warn me about it (again, regardless of what side of the issue I was on). Not everyone is Westboro Baptist Church nor is everyone a saint with the best of intentions. People should be judged more on intent than message, IMO. Yes, it's very sticky/unrealistic to define, but it's what actually matters. A Muslim delivering tracts door to door is a lot less bothersome than one who has a bomb strapped to him. Do they really both deserve the same societal judgment? As long as there are gay pride rallies AND public church services in the same universe, no one should care. Freaking coexist, universe! :(
Nurglitch wrote:Of course homosexuality is a sin. It's a hot sweaty man-swuzzling sin. Mmmh.
Ah, yes. This helps me to clarify what I said... Just because you have values, it doesn't mean that anyone has a responsibility to care. Non-self-justifying-christian-homosexuals know that they are sinning in the eyes of a group they don't have to care about. The poor old religious ducky is probably a bit more unsure because he feels he does have a legitimate responsibility to at least critique certain lifestyles... but then some Christians don't do this at all either.
Social conflicts, from this example all the way up the scale to all-out war, are a tricky one. When someone has legal authority to take down the other, the Cold War begins... and as soon as someone fires a shot, the person with the bigger cops/nukes wins out, however unfair it is. What I want to know is where the Insistent, Stepladder-weilding, Unkempt and Rude Person's police liason officer was during all of this.
Frazzled, enough with the 'it doesn't apply to you' crap. Number One, it's crap, and Number Two, if my neighbours are nuking each other, I want to know about it!
And if they were nuking each other, you'd have a right to. Otherwise your point is as full of crap as the local DMV.
olympia wrote: * Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.
What are you trying to say here? That calling a person a sinner is a threat? That the word "gay" is vulgar, or pornographic?
Eh? I'm not saying anything. I'm just quoting the state, municipal, and county authorities. Telling someone, "You are going to burn!" is a threat, clearly.
No you couldn't be more wrong.
The threat has to be 1) immediate; 2) to a reasonable have the means to carry out such a threat.
I hope you get hit by a rock-not a threat.
I am going to bean you with this rock-potential threat.
You're going to hell-not a threat.
I am going to ake this AK-47 ans send you to hell-definite threat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:It's not the effect on the accused group, it is the possibility of arousing passions in other parties.
Otherwise no-one would give a fig about propaganda or Muslim extremist preaching.
Are Muslims allowed to preach extremism in the USA? I assume they are.
olympia wrote:Telling someone, "You are going to burn [in hell]!" is a threat, clearly.
No, it's not. Not even close. The court would throw that interpretation of the statute out so fast it would break a window on the way out.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:I would certainly say that calling someone a sinner is a threat. It's a threat equivalent to being brutally assaulted by a butterfly, but a threat nevertheless.
Firstly, threats do not carry legal weight if a person has no observable ability to act on them. Secondly, telling someone they will come to harm if they persue a certain action is not a threat in any case, unless you are telling them that you will be the one to harm them. Telling someone that if they will get hit by a train if they stand on the train tracks is not a threat, telling someone that they will get killed by Bigfoot if they go to Colorado is not a threat, telling someone that they will be arrested by the police for an action is not a threat, and telling someone that they will suffer spiritual retribution for homosexuality is not a threat.
Nurglitch wrote:Of course homosexuality is a sin. It's a hot sweaty man-swuzzling sin. Mmmh.
Ah, yes. This helps me to clarify what I said... Just because you have values, it doesn't mean that anyone has a responsibility to care. Non-self-justifying-christian-homosexuals know that they are sinning in the eyes of a group they don't have to care about. The poor old religious ducky is probably a bit more unsure because he feels he does have a legitimate responsibility to at least critique certain lifestyles... but then some Christians don't do this at all either.
Social conflicts, from this example all the way up the scale to all-out war, are a tricky one. When someone has legal authority to take down the other, the Cold War begins... and as soon as someone fires a shot, the person with the bigger cops/nukes wins out, however unfair it is. What I want to know is where the Insistent, Stepladder-weilding, Unkempt and Rude Person's police liason officer was during all of this.
Frazzled, enough with the 'it doesn't apply to you' crap. Number One, it's crap, and Number Two, if my neighbours are nuking each other, I want to know about it!
And if they were nuking each other, you'd have a right to. Otherwise your point is as full of crap as the local DMV.
The local transit authority here may be full of crap too, but that doesn't apply to you. How remarkably irrelevant of me to say so. Not even the Crotchety Grumbling Old Coot police liason officer can liase you out of that one.
olympia wrote: * Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.
What are you trying to say here? That calling a person a sinner is a threat? That the word "gay" is vulgar, or pornographic?
Eh? I'm not saying anything. I'm just quoting the state, municipal, and county authorities. Telling someone, "You are going to burn!" is a threat, clearly.
No you couldn't be more wrong.
The threat has to be 1) immediate; 2) to a reasonable have the means to carry out such a threat.
Frazzled, if you're a half-way decent attorney you should be able to get me a TRO against someone if I "feel" threatened, right?
So the appropriate response to "You're going to burn!" is: "When?" Or produce a marijuana cigarette and say, "But not until I get home."
Speaking of Islam, there was an imam in Toronto recently that used an arabic figure of speech that went something along the lines of "Please God, allow the inequity of the kuffar to destroy them!" That's paraphrased, by the way, though I can probably dig up the speech. Essentially it expresses the hope that the non-believers' non-belief comes back to bite them. It's on the level with a Christian preacher telling people that homosexuality is a sin, but given that it applied to non-moslems there was considerably more outcry.
Right, I believe this link covers the Imam and the comments to which I was referring.
Incidentally, making a member of a group, organisation or family feel uncomfortable about their beliefs constitutes a criminal threat. We're all part of some sort of family... and a lot of people have cases here.
olympia wrote: * Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.
What are you trying to say here? That calling a person a sinner is a threat? That the word "gay" is vulgar, or pornographic?
Eh? I'm not saying anything. I'm just quoting the state, municipal, and county authorities. Telling someone, "You are going to burn!" is a threat, clearly.
No you couldn't be more wrong.
The threat has to be 1) immediate; 2) to a reasonable have the means to carry out such a threat.
I hope you get hit by a rock-not a threat.
I am going to bean you with this rock-potential threat.
You're going to hell-not a threat.
I am going to ake this AK-47 ans send you to hell-definite threat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:It's not the effect on the accused group, it is the possibility of arousing passions in other parties.
Otherwise no-one would give a fig about propaganda or Muslim extremist preaching.
Are Muslims allowed to preach extremism in the USA? I assume they are.
olympia wrote: * Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.
What are you trying to say here? That calling a person a sinner is a threat? That the word "gay" is vulgar, or pornographic?
Eh? I'm not saying anything. I'm just quoting the state, municipal, and county authorities. Telling someone, "You are going to burn!" is a threat, clearly.
No you couldn't be more wrong.
The threat has to be 1) immediate; 2) to a reasonable have the means to carry out such a threat.
Frazzled, if you're a half-way decent attorney you should be able to get me a TRO against someone if I "feel" threatened, right?
So the appropriate response to "You're going to burn!" is: "When?" Or produce a marijuana cigarette and say, "But not until I get home."
Only if you were boinking said person. Come on if you know what a TRO is you, you sure as hell know what they are for. Don't make me whip out Godzilla fail!
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Incidentally, making a member of a group, organisation or family feel uncomfortable about their beliefs constitutes a criminal threat. We're all part of some sort of family... and a lot of people have cases here.
If this were true nearly all communication would be a threat. Although I have no idea where this is supposed to be the law.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Incidentally, making a member of a group, organisation or family feel uncomfortable about their beliefs constitutes a criminal threat. We're all part of some sort of family... and a lot of people have cases here.
Nurglitch wrote:Speaking of Islam, there was an imam in Toronto recently that used an arabic figure of speech that went something along the lines of "Please God, allow the inequity of the kuffar to destroy them!" That's paraphrased, by the way, though I can probably dig up the speech. Essentially it expresses the hope that the non-believers' non-belief comes back to bite them. It's on the level with a Christian preacher telling people that homosexuality is a sin, but given that it applied to non-moslems there was considerably more outcry.
Yeah, this seems to be no different from the general concept of "karma", or even the concept of a person being undone by their flaws. It's not really a threat.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Incidentally, making a member of a group, organisation or family feel uncomfortable about their beliefs constitutes a criminal threat. We're all part of some sort of family... and a lot of people have cases here.
What country has that nonsense?
Mine, that rainy place near Europe, most of yours and interestingly, not Canada. Is Texas its own country yet?
Exactly. It's not a threat, yet people found it threatening. The analogy being that being told that you're a sinner, and having some inkling of what happens to sinners, can seem threatening even if the person doing the telling has no intention of carrying it out. It's much more like harassing someone rather than threatening them.
Nurglitch wrote:Exactly. It's not a threat, yet people found it threatening. The analogy being that being told that you're a sinner, and having some inkling of what happens to sinners, can seem threatening even if the person doing the telling has no intention of carrying it out. It's much more like harassing someone rather than threatening them.
I think calling it harassment would be going to far, unless the person was repeatedly targeting an individual or group who had asked to be left alone with the message. I would call it "annoying", in most cases.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Incidentally, making a member of a group, organisation or family feel uncomfortable about their beliefs constitutes a criminal threat. We're all part of some sort of family... and a lot of people have cases here.
What country has that nonsense?
Mine, that rainy place near Europe, most of yours and interestingly, not Canada. Is Texas its own country yet?
Do you have a more... uh... exact citation of the law you're describing?
How is it that white supremacist groups can get permission to peaceful protest if doing so is apparently a criminal action because they make the minorities uncomfortable.
Making someone feel uncomfortable about who they are isn't a crime unless you threaten them with harm for who they are or harass them over who they are.
With all these asinine laws I'm seeing regarding freedom of expression and speech (which I know our Bill of Rights doesn't pertain) makes me love America more and more.
Nurglitch wrote:Exactly. It's not a threat, yet people found it threatening. The analogy being that being told that you're a sinner, and having some inkling of what happens to sinners, can seem threatening even if the person doing the telling has no intention of carrying it out. It's much more like harassing someone rather than threatening them.
I think calling it harassment would be going to far, unless the person was repeatedly targeting an individual or group who had asked to be left alone with the message. I would call it "annoying", in most cases.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Incidentally, making a member of a group, organisation or family feel uncomfortable about their beliefs constitutes a criminal threat. We're all part of some sort of family... and a lot of people have cases here.
What country has that nonsense?
Mine, that rainy place near Europe, most of yours and interestingly, not Canada. Is Texas its own country yet?
Do you have a more... uh... exact citation of the law you're describing?
Well since you're talking about harassment as well... The expression of an offensive religious opinion, regardless of which party take offense, is subject to being treated as harassment just as sexual harassment would. It's your right to free speech, don't complain to me about how ineffective it is.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Well since you're talking about harassment as well... The expression of an offensive religious opinion, regardless of which party take offense, is subject to being treated as harassment just as sexual harassment would. It's your right to free speech, don't complain to me about how ineffective it is.
Harassment fits under specific criteria, like I said. Simply offending does not equal harassing. Expressing controversial religious opinion in an office may be harassment, but doing so on the street corner almost certainly isn't, just as telling raunchy jokes may be harassment in an office but not in a bar.
Also, do you have the citation for a law that states "making a member of a group, organisation or family feel uncomfortable about their beliefs constitutes a criminal threat" in the United States?
Arctik_Firangi wrote:
Well since you're talking about harassment as well... The expression of an offensive religious opinion, regardless of which party take offense, is subject to being treated as harassment just as sexual harassment would. It's your right to free speech, don't complain to me about how ineffective it is.
I think you're equating laws about harassment in the work place, with the general concept of harassment. Harassment in the work place, especially sexual harassment, can be regarded as fairly heavily enforced. Though that has as much to do with corporations working to avoid law suits as it does the law itself. Harassment in public, or away from private property, is much more difficult to prove or determine.
This is a sad and sorry story indeed, but not one the churches are unprepared for, such measures date back to the frist term of the Blair government, and accelerated after 2005. There has been a lot of legislation of late which directly targets Christianity, New Labour doesn't like us very much. I wont go into all the details but the new laws that criminalised Christian beliefs were veiled under seemingly unrelated acts of Parliament. We are being persecuted by stealth. I first read of prosecutions of street preachers back in 1998, after two preachers were arrested for preaching on the steps of a cathedral, on the grounds that Moslems might be offended. I find that rather odd allowing for what some Moselm clerics preach openly.
It is also odd that Moslems are not being targeted by this law even though religious based homophobia is a FAR bigger problem in Islamic and Jewish communities than it is in Christianity. But that is a point for another thread.
The last set of 'homophobic hate speech' laws in 2007 were curtailed mainly on the behalf of comedians, though the church also benefited through a lter amendment, it was this amendment to the white paper which was annulled in the stealth legislation. You could call homosexuality wrong from the pulpit, until now. I don't have the notes to hand but this final concession was repealed in a sub-clause of a bill relating to a completely different matter, nothing to do with hate speech or freedom of speech at all. Passed quietly and enacted.
You see the first and biggest problem is that some entire genres of speech are now classified as hateful whereas hate is an emotional overlay. If I was to say vote for party x or not for party y I am making polticial point not a point of hated per see, though I might hate some politicans or not the opion is not by default hateful. If I was to say my faith calls x good and y evil that should not be considered hateful either, its explaining a point of relgious doctrine, yes some could hate through the doctrines, but people can and do hate over any cause, the cause itself is not to blame.
Yet along come these new laws that broadly define any religious critique of homosexuality hateful. This is not only absurd its highly ironic.
Looking up at the four pages of this thread there are some who rile at Christians simply for expressing their religious views, regardless of what action is taken over them.
Take these two alarming comments:
Albatross wrote:Good, I'm glad he was arrested. Free speech is a myth anyway, and people shouldn't be allowed to preach hate on our streets.
LuciusAR wrote:Hmmm.
Well this person is certainly a bigot and a fool who will be ignored by most. But a criminal? Sorry I'm not comfortable with people being arrested for voicing opinions, no matter how odious and silly they are.
Let him preach his nonsense and let the rest of the world respond by ignoring him or telling him precisely what we think of him. Now that's free speech.
Some here calling for expressing Christian doctrines on homosexuality to effectively be banned, on the grounds they are 'hateful' others being somewhat more lenient but still calling for those who profess such points of doctrine to be mocked. Where is that hate here, in the street preacher or in the critic. There is the possibility the street preacher was genuinely hateful, but the press reports makes no comment on such, only that these opinions were expressed. However we can see undeniable malice towards those who hold such views.
Persons such as myself.
I believe in God, in the teachings of the Bible and in Gods law. I honestly believe that homosexuality is a sin. I placed that comment in red so that it stands out. Yes I believe that, rationally and calmly and without hatred. Now I can and normally would add a plethora of caveats* to that statement because the Bible is a most misunderstood book, and Christians are largely misunderstood people, but today I will not, after all if faced by a real bigot, someone who hates on account of that comment and that comment alone, I might not get a chance to explain further. even though my personal testimony** could help heal many breaches on this subject.
All I will say is that there is no hatred in the above comments, and as you do not know me, or see me calmly typing here I ask you politely to take that at face value. After all we are all capable of expressing an opinion that something is wrong without seething, though some may find that more difficult than others, we all know this is true and thus I should get entitled to the benefit of the doubt here.
What is the future for myself and my Christian brothers? While I have witnessed violent persecution in England that was a freak occurance, however this is undoubtably state persecution. I am being told that I cannot follow my Biblical beliefs and must be too ashamed to speak them. I will not bow to this. I am not hateful and I do nothing wrong, however I believe in my God wholeheartedly, like many before me I will not abandon my faith just because it is made unwelcome by politicians, the Romans tried that, and many others throughout history, the Chinese are trying that now. Who am I to give up so easily if my brothers do not give up when they face far more terrible abuse than I could face as a result of this little unjust law. It is bad enough to face actual persecution in a western democracy, and many in the church wondered if and how that could possibly happen with all the rights and freedoms we have.
* and ** I will be happy to go into those on another post or thread, but they are not the issue here.
While it's important that everyone is entitled to speak their opinion, that doesn't mean that it's a good to have everyone capable of saying whatever they want in any situation - fire and crowded theatres and all that. I think it was fair to ask the man to move along, as I don't think it's a necessary part of the public debate to have guy yelling hateful things on a public sidewalk.
Arresting the fellow was too much, he should have been told to move along, and provided with a few locations he could give his speach - public squares open to speakers and the like.
generalgrog wrote:Speech shouldn't be restricted to certain places. In America we even allow the nazi skinheads to have their little marches. People show up to yell back at them, but as long as no violence erupts or any inciting of riot happens it's fine.
In america, the law isn't their to protect you from speech, but to protect speech from you. It's a shame Britain is so close minded.
Yeah, there's this US idea that they hold free speach above and beyond, and it's wrong.
The US is far more willing to restrict art on the basis of public decency, swear words and nudity are heavily restricted, and if your special kind of porn is found to be obscene then you might end up losing your house. Protests against Bush were moved into 'free speach zones' away from Bush's motorcade. Libel and slander carry more weight in the US, and the grounds for establishing them are typically lower than in Europe. US copyright laws are far broader, and fair use far more narrowly defined.
This isn't to say the US is wrong in its level of censorship, it's policies have evolved over a couple of centuries and seem to more or less represent the balance the US population wants between free speach and other matters. In Europe the same thing applies, speach there is more free in some ways, and less free in others, as they've chosen their own balance.
I don't buy the equivocation going on in this debate, either here on Dakka or more widely in our respective countries' media. Stating publicly that a certain behavior is sinful can only be illegal in a tyranny.
Manchu wrote:I don't buy the equivocation going on in this debate, either here on Dakka or more widely in our respective countries' media. Stating publicly that a certain behavior is sinful can only be illegal in a tyranny.
sebster wrote:While it's important that everyone is entitled to speak their opinion, that doesn't mean that it's a good to have everyone capable of saying whatever they want in any situation - fire and crowded theatres and all that. I think it was fair to ask the man to move along, as I don't think it's a necessary part of the public debate to have guy yelling hateful things on a public sidewalk.
Where do you get that idea? The Public Oder Act already covers this however there is a world of difference between yelling and 'made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others' . Read the article, he was arrested over content not method.
The Public Order Act can cover arrest for saying anything depending on its manner of delivery, shout them loud enough or in a threatening manner and you can be arrested under the Public Order Act for reciting nursery rhymes. There is no indication in the article that the defendant was doing any such thing as invoked the Act.
The disturbing fact is that such arrests and official interference are hardly rare occurances, I have witnessed this myself and seen how blatantly hypocritical the authorities get on this issue. I know friends who do 'outreach' and booked a Saturday timeslot to set up a stall outside the shippng centre. Many groups do this religious and secular. The Chrisians and the Chritians alone were forced to set up their stall at the side of the plaza rather than in the middle near the foot traffic. Socialist Worker could set up in the middle, so could Al Mouhajiroun, Animal liberty and anyone else except Christians. Also the church was monitored very heavily to ensure it caused no offence and to make sure those holdiong the stall did not stray over a n arbitrary line while holding materials. The very next Saturday Al Mouhajiroun was there, set up in the middle of course and leafleting anyone who approached, the council sent no monitors to keep them to any specific area. They only offered some leaflets to some people and other leaflets to others, I picked up the other leaflets they were handing out to certain targeted minorities anyway. I still have them. Of the eight different leaflets one called for violent Jihad angainst Israel, one called for violent Jihad against America, and one called for all women to be forced to wear the veil by law. Somehow this was more acceptible than baloons labelled 'Jesus loves you' and small leaflets expaining how to accept Jesus as Saviour. Al Mouhajiroun is now banned post 7/7 but at the time it was given more leeway, far more leeway than harmless church groups.
The blatant hypocrasy beggars belief.
Orlanth wrote:Where do you get that idea? The Public Oder Act already covers this however there is a world of difference between yelling and 'made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others' . Read the article, he was arrested over content not method.
He was standing on a step ladder yelling his views. The final trigger was the coversation with the women, but the context of what he was doing shouldn't be ignored.
It still seems that the hateful part is standing on a ladder and yelling. So, as Orlanth said, the man could have just as well been yelling nursery rhymes, right? The Public Order Act therefore prohibits standing on ladders and yelling at people?
Manchu wrote:I don't buy the equivocation going on in this debate, either here on Dakka or more widely in our respective countries' media. Stating publicly that a certain behavior is sinful can only be illegal in a tyranny.
The perceived equivocation only exists where one persists in the delusion that one does not live in a tyranny simply because one lives in a liberal democracy or constitutional republic. To put a fine point on here, everyone here is in favour of tyranny so long as it favours their beliefs over different ones. There's plenty of lip-service otherwise, but seeing as it's usually couched as incoherent appeal to some principle such as freedom of speech it can be ignored as the product of brainwashing. Why are these appeals incoherent? Because to believe in the primacy of the 'freedom of speech' over some other set of controls on one's powers of speech is to favour one's beliefs over those of others.
Even in nations that allow wide latitude to express opinion certain opinions are not tolerated. Such opinions are the usual examples used to demonstrate that the 'freedom of speech' is merely the branding of what should properly be called 'power of opinion', since it is both power to express a particular set of opinions, as well as freedom from censorship of those opinions. One such classic example is that of loudly expressing the opinion that there is a fire in a crowded theatre. More recently and close to home for me is a current gag-order on the Canadian press covering a particularly nasty murder/rape of a young girl; the court is invoking state-law to prevent the details of the trial from being published.
As it was put in a memorable "Law and Order" episode I saw a couple of years ago:
"Open up! Police!"
"Hey man, this is a free country!"
"No it isn't, it's a democracy and the rest of us don't like what you're doing."
The fact is that while inveighing against any change in the shape and scope of one's power of opinion as being tyrannical, the fact is that you gave up any claim on sovereignty when you took up citizenship in a country and handed it over to a government to exercise that power over you. Yes, to make it illegal for someone to declare legally acceptable behaviour to be a sin is tyrannical, but then so is making it legal.
Once you realize that you're simply preferring one form of tyranny to another, then the equivocation is simply acknowledgment that the sales-pitch doesn't match the product. Pepsi doesn't sell itself with the phrase "What else are you going to drink?" and so likewise liberal democracy prefers more upbeat branding to distinguish itself from other forms of tyranny.
The idea that any degree of limitation on speech implies every degree of limitation on speech is childish. (Similarly, the confusion of a liberal democracy with a tyranny belies that peculiar form of naiveté specially bred into the citizens of liberal democracies.) I'm afraid I find the rest of your points incoherent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:It still seems that the hateful part is standing on a ladder and yelling. So, as Orlanth said, the man could have just as well been yelling nursery rhymes, right? The Public Order Act therefore prohibits standing on ladders and yelling at people?
Quick amendment here. This can't be right, as I see pictures of Muslims yelling things in your British streets very often. Admittedly, they are not standing on ladders. And it could be that newspapers do not print stories about their arrests, although this seems doubtful.
Manchu wrote:It still seems that the hateful part is standing on a ladder and yelling. So, as Orlanth said, the man could have just as well been yelling nursery rhymes, right? The Public Order Act therefore prohibits standing on ladders and yelling at people?
It's a combination. You can stand on a ladder and sing Jose Feliciano songs and not get arrested, you might even get an arts grant for it. You can tell people that homosexuality is a sin, you can even form a political party around it and run for office and no-one will stop you.
But standing on a ladder in a public forum and saying emotionally charged things opens it up to another set of considerations. Is there any right to go shopping without being told you're living a sinful life? If nothing else, do parents have a right to take their kids shopping without being exposed to homosexuality and sexuality in general?
Is there a limit to where the political dialogue can take place?
Again, I don't think the guy should have been arrested, but I have no problem with telling him to move along.
Well, that's because you failed reading comprehension. I wasn't saying that some degree of limitation on free speech justified any degree of limitation on free speech. I was pointing out that the rhetorical appeal against tyrannical behaviour that you used was stupid because liberal democracies differ only from other tyrannies in degree rather than in kind.
I see that the coke analogy flew straight over your head, because otherwise you might have made the connection that people genuinely like coke regardless of its advertising. You're allowed to prefer liberal democracy; indeed I believe it was Winston Churchill that remarked how terrible democracy was except by comparison to all other political systems.
My point, to belabour the point, is that a beneficent tyranny is still a tyranny, so why are you surprised when people dance around that fact, and that rhetorical appeal to the undesirability of tyrannical behaviour is therefore mendicant?
Did I dumb it down enough for you. Would you like to try again?
Nurglitch wrote:To put a fine point on here, everyone here is in favour of tyranny so long as it favours their beliefs over different ones.
That is, on its face, absolute nonsense. All you've done here is illustrate your own, incredibly narrow, understanding of rational self-interest.
Nurglitch wrote:
There's plenty of lip-service otherwise, but seeing as it's usually couched as incoherent appeal to some principle such as freedom of speech it can be ignored as the product of brainwashing. Why are these appeals incoherent? Because to believe in the primacy of the 'freedom of speech' over some other set of controls on one's powers of speech is to favour one's beliefs over those of others.
Yes, but that does not imply that one's beliefs are to favored of the beliefs of all others.
Nurglitch wrote:Well, that's because you failed reading comprehension.
I don't know about Manchu but I got gold stars and well done! stickers on all my reading comprehension homework, and I'm struggling to figure out what you're saying.
I mean, I get that you know that all liberal democracies have limits on speach, but there's a whole other something going on that's quite hard to figure out.
Speaking as someone who is bringing up rational self-interest in a discussion of consistency of political beliefs, you may want to reconsider the assignment of who's talking "absolute nonsense".
One's beliefs are always favoured above those of others. It follows that one preferring freedom of speech oppresses one that wishes to enforce radical controls on speech and print. Perhaps you would like to prove me wrong by arguing for my position against your own.
Nurglitch wrote:One's beliefs are always favoured above those of others. It follows that one preferring freedom of speech oppresses one that wishes to enforce radical controls on speech and print. Perhaps you would like to prove me wrong by arguing for my position against your own.
Manchu wrote:It still seems that the hateful part is standing on a ladder and yelling. So, as Orlanth said, the man could have just as well been yelling nursery rhymes, right? The Public Order Act therefore prohibits standing on ladders and yelling at people?
Public Order Act 1986
1986 CHAPTER 64
An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide for the exclusion of certain offenders from sporting events; to create a new offence relating to the contamination of or interference with goods; to confer power to direct certain trespassers to leave land; to amend section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) Act 1985; to repeal certain obsolete or unnecessary enactments; and for connected purposes
[7th November 1986
]
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:–
[4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress]
[(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
If one's belief is in freedom of speech, then clearly one prefers that freedom of speech to radical controls on speech. So...if one's belief is in freedom of speech, it follows trivially that one prefers that belief in freedom of speech.
However, given that one prefers that belief in freedom of speech, one prefers it to other beliefs in different degrees of freedom in speech. Usually when one refers to 'freedom of speech' they mean the current configurations of powers of speech available to citizens of liberal democracies such as the USA or Canada or Australia, rather than to such powers of speech as are available in Iran or Korea.
This is better seen if one compares the freedom of speech one has amongst liberal democracies rather than in more tyrannical states, such as the difference between one's freedom of speech in Canada as compared to that in Australia, or the anemic version currently on life support in Airstrip One.
Manchu wrote:The idea that any degree of limitation on speech implies every degree of limitation on speech is childish. (Similarly, the confusion of a liberal democracy with a tyranny belies that peculiar form of naiveté specially bred into the citizens of liberal democracies.) I'm afraid I find the rest of your points incoherent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:It still seems that the hateful part is standing on a ladder and yelling. So, as Orlanth said, the man could have just as well been yelling nursery rhymes, right? The Public Order Act therefore prohibits standing on ladders and yelling at people?
Quick amendment here. This can't be right, as I see pictures of Muslims yelling things in your British streets very often. Admittedly, they are not standing on ladders. And it could be that newspapers do not print stories about their arrests, although this seems doubtful.
Stories in the papers about Christians being arrested are vanishingly rare, that is why there is so much comment about this case. This is only the third or fourth case in several years which has made the papers due to the controversy about suppression of Christians.
Whoa there Killkrazy, let's not bring sanity, confirmation bias, and the representativeness of newspaper reports into this. At this rate people will shrug and go back to discussing toy soldiers!
sebster wrote:I don't know about Manchu but I got gold stars and well done! stickers on all my reading comprehension homework, and I'm struggling to figure out what you're saying.
It sounds like Manchu is using tyranny to mean "overly restrictive laws/a government that has such laws", while Nurglitch is using tyranny to mean "restrictions/a government that has restrictions", and they're fighting over it. Or something.
sebster wrote:I don't know about Manchu but I got gold stars and well done! stickers on all my reading comprehension homework, and I'm struggling to figure out what you're saying.
It sounds like Manchu is using tyranny to mean "overly restrictive laws/a government that has such laws", while Nurglitch is using tyranny to mean "restrictions/a government that has restrictions", and they're fighting over it. Or something.
Aha, that is the definition of a "conflict!"
And I think I need some scotch to finish reading the rest of this thread.
But hey, this is a society in which we try to be sensitive to others and their way of life. Unfortunately modern religion does not like much of the modern acceptance of socially liberalizing ways of life.
So let's switch to the ancient worshipping of Dionysus, who partied alot and didn't care who he ended up with at the end of the night!
Wow, even after imbibing a bit more to make this thread more tolerable, I found that Nurglitch's douchebaggery is directly corollary to his ignorance...their both really high... If you really think that about Christ then you are sorely misguuided, and your own level of rudeness is horrible. Learn this phrase: civilis est non a subcribo infirmitas. You Latin speakers, please pardon my horrible grammar...
Yup. It was the whole "son of God" thing, although Joshua only referred to himself as the "son of Man", or "this dude". Makes for a nice syncretism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:Wow, even after imbibing a bit more to make this thread more tolerable, I found that Nurglitch's douchebaggery is directly corollary to his ignorance...their both really high... If you really think that about Christ then you are sorely misguuided, and your own level of rudeness is horrible. Learn this phrase: civilis est non a subcribo infirmitas. You Latin speakers, please pardon my horrible grammar...
That's alright, I think you're pretty stupid yourself.
WarOne wrote:I do think though that the language you are using is not very nice.
True, but then again I wasn't trying to be nice. I tend to be rude to rude people...its a classic character foible of mine
WarOne wrote:Nurglitch was trying to tie in the Christian-Pagan ties to which Christianity must be thankful for.
The idea that I must be thankful for his statement is based upon the false reality that he proclaims. His ideas are not supported in any credible academic or religious circles, not to mention my own religious beliefs...
Oh, well, my beliefs disagree with yours and therefore must be false and offensive? At least you've been useful in helping me make my point. Shine on you crazy diamond.
Jeb: No no no. I understand that Nurglitch needs more proof about that particular statement he made, but Christianity had some of its basis in prior religions and beliefs. I am not asking you as Christianity to thank him for his statement; I am asking Christianity to be thankful of what prior religions and belief systems had given to Christianity in order to pay for the rent.
Maybe it helps to understand that I am not talking about Christianity in the context of every person who worships Jesus Christ in some context, but as a separate entity and idea regardless of the worshippers of that religion.
If I went around telling other people off about my imaginary deathbot in the sky is watching them and going to punish them for wearing pants or whatever random problem I have with them I'm pretty sure I would be put a way too. They call it "insanity". Some old timers also call it "faith" but the terms are interchangeable. I don't wanna hear about your imaginary friend any more than you want to hear about mine, buddy.
BTW his name is Zoltar and he is watching, and he knows when you are wearing pants, and his son walks among us spreading lies and deciet in the name of some carpenter and thereby shall bring about the plague of poop unon all of those who do not accecpt Eris Esoteric as the purveyor of the origional snub doctrine, BY WHICH THOU SHALL PARTAKE OF NO HOT DOG BUNS ON FRIDAY!!! ...which has been seconded by J.R. "bob" dobbs as proof of its RIGHTEOUSNESS! BOW DOWN SINNERS AND KISS THE FEET OF THY PET SNAKE FOR TOMORROW WE SHALL ALL BE WAITING FOR 2012!!!!!
yeah If I walked around saying that kind of stuff I'd probably be arrested too. Makes about as much sense as noah's ark, or talking bushes, or zombie messiahs.
Nurglitch wrote:Oh, well, my beliefs disagree with yours and therefore must be false and offensive? At least you've been useful in helping me make my point. Shine on you crazy diamond.
No, that isn't what I said. I could care less if they are offensive or not, but I expect such statements to backed up by academic or religious thought. Your claim is backed up by neither, and decidedly false. I merely pointed that out, albeit in a rather rude manner: my apologies on that. That does not however allow your point to hold any truth whatsoever...
WarOne wrote:Jeb: No no no. I understand that Nurglitch needs more proof about that particular statement he made, but Christianity had some of its basis in prior religions and beliefs. I am not asking you as Christianity to thank him for his statement; I am asking Christianity to be thankful of what prior religions and belief systems had given to Christianity in order to pay for the rent.
And we are. Judaism is the religion that we come from; indeed Christianity is not something different then Judaism, rather it is Judaism fulfilled. That being said, as I Christian I believe in the omnipotence and eternal nature of God, and that it is He who influenced other religious, not the other way around. Again, my beliefs, not that I am forcing them on anyone else...
Fundamentalist atheists are as bad (though in my view worse) than fundamentalists of any religion.
You don't attack what people believe - no matter how twisted and "wrong" their thinking, they still believe what they do based on evidence of one sort or another.
Attacking people for their beliefs is just as abhorrent as the most terrible beliefs.
I believe (although perhaps believe is the wrong word, since I don't "believe" in a religious way, more "understand it to be correct" in the work done by science which shows a natural evolution of the universe, life and other natural phenomena. To this is evidence that god(s)/etc do not exist.
Someone else can look at the exact same science and think "wow, this can't have all happened by itself" and thus come to believe that there is some higher power. There is plenty of science (which I don' particularly agree is either science or correct) which will show that everything has been designed by god etc.
Even without this, there is plenty of scope for people to see god in science.
Not saying that it is a good thing, or that I personally can see god in what science has discovered but many do. This is of course aside from all the religious teaching, religious community/spirit, etc that hooks youngsters in and which converts older people in later life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:Advice: Start writing about your imaginary friend now!
Many people have, which I think is part of the problem
Nurglitch wrote:
One's beliefs are always favoured above those of others.
No, that's only true if you fail to extend the self beyond one's person. Parents often place more importance on the beliefs of their children, than their own. It also happens between significant others, and between close friends. This significantly complicates the 'self' in rational self-interest. Indeed, the very concept of subservience requires that one's beliefs be subsumed by those of others.
Nurglitch wrote:
It follows that one preferring freedom of speech oppresses one that wishes to enforce radical controls on speech and print. Perhaps you would like to prove me wrong by arguing for my position against your own.
Yes, in cases where diametrically opposed perspectives conflict, one must necessarily oppress the other to achieve dominance. But you didn't say anything about diametric opposition. You said any form of government can be reduced to a tyranny because any form of government must seek to oppress those who oppose it.
What comes to mind immediately is that dominance is not necessary for governance, only control; thereby eliminating the need for oppression, and thereby eliminating the potential for reductive tyranny. We can further reduce this into an argument over free will, but that seems counterproductive.
How is the historically ecumenical development of the Christ "decidedly false"? You validated my point about how we prefer our own beliefs to those of others by deciding that my opinion was false because it disagreed with your own.
I mean I'm not offended by your ugly religion claiming any legitimate descent from Judaism, nor your crass manner for proclaiming such stupid and offensive beliefs in a public forum where your opinion cannot be avoided. I'm just glad alcohol has affected your judgment enough that you're able to make my point for me while attempting to deny it.
WarOne:
I'm curious, but how can Christianity be understood as a separate entity from those who hold it as a religion? I mean I don't have a problem imagining English as a separate entity from the people who use it, but a set of beliefs seems somehow different from a language.
SilverMK2 wrote:Many people have, which I think is part of the problem
Or maybe we do not have enough imaginary friends.
Imagine this:
What if we had the capacity to end war and death by war by allowing imgainary friends to fight by proxy the conflicts to which we waste so many real lives!?!?!?
Think about the consequences of such an action: all conflicts would be resolved by having real people act as generals at the head of an army of imaginary people, complete with gear and weapons to fight such a war. The winner would then be able to declare that her side is victorious and ergo her demands or point of view superior.
All we would need is some sort of way to define how such conflicts occur and what imaginary friends count when they are drafted by their real friends.
Nurglitch:
Easy.
Christianity could not pay the drug dealers back to which he owed money to them for a prior transaction in which money was lended in exchange for drugs. After that time window ended, Christianity had its knee caps busted.
Now if you wanted to add worshippers, things would get very complicated indeed:
As Christianity was backed into a corner by drug dealers holding bats in a menacing fashion, Christianity suddenly turned on the drug dealers, who attacked en masse in a mob attacking with fists, kicks, and amens that Christianity in this context was being treated plurally as a religion of many people rather than in the context of a singular noun.
If one's belief is in freedom of speech, then clearly one prefers that freedom of speech to radical controls on speech. So...if one's belief is in freedom of speech, it follows trivially that one prefers that belief in freedom of speech.
Right. Now, what if instead of being a hypthetical construct defined by a single belief, they are complex human beings, perhaps even having two beliefs. What if they simultaneously believed in free speach, and the idea that people can walk down the street without hearing something offensive?
Wouldn't they then support a system where all speach could be heard, but not at all times in all places? Wouldn't sensible people call that compromise, and silly people call it tyranny?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:It sounds like Manchu is using tyranny to mean "overly restrictive laws/a government that has such laws", while Nurglitch is using tyranny to mean "restrictions/a government that has restrictions", and they're fighting over it. Or something.
Yeah, that was the piece I was trying to puzzle out. Was Nurglitch hiding some insight under the wordplay, or was it really just a cover for how silly 'every control is tyranny' really is.
I was addressing precisely what Manchu labeled "equivocation": naturally these things occur in single bodies as much as they occur in multiple bodies. One often makes such equivocation as one might make to skirt the elephant in the room in the relative privacy of one's own skull. I believe it's sometimes called "cognitive dissonance", but given certain people's tendency to wander off into crazy-land, let's stick with strictly epistemic terms of "belief".
Firstly, let's acknowledge that physics, and perhaps economics, put a hard and fast limit on our powers of opinion such that we cannot have our opinions impressed upon others at all times and in all places. Given that nature has given us such limits to work within, politics gives us further limits on our powers of opinion, as much self-inflicted as by sovereign power.
Secondly, those political limits are considerably more concerned with content: we might not wish people under our power ever have the opportunity to send or receive pornography involving children, as much as organize the use and sale of radio frequencies, or disseminate information about ongoing legal proceedings.
Such an attempt to be 'sensible' as you describe is then wrong-headed in principle as well as in practice because we have to go back and make all the ad hoc tweaks to such a compromise as should shoe-horn such sensible compromise into the realities of physical, economical, political, and personal powers.
More realistically one would recognize that acknowledging the tyranny of politics, as well as those of physics and economics, should be done by those seeking to develop principles about what additional limits should be set on our powers of speech. Appeal to tyranny as setting those limits too low, even as a rhetorical move, begs the question (in the colloquial and technical senses) as to the nature and rightness of those limits, as though one had not already admitted to tyranny and was merely bargaining on the price.
Which puts me in mind of something Winston Churchill is reputed to have said to a rich Englishwoman once (again, poorly paraphrased):
Churchill: "My dear, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?"
Woman: "Why certainly my dear, for a million pounds!'
Churchill: "How about five pounds?"
Woman: "Winston, do you take me for a prostitute?"
Churchill: "Dear lady, we've established what you are and are merely haggling over the price."
SilverMK2 wrote:Fundamentalist atheists are as bad (though in my view worse) than fundamentalists of any religion.
You don't attack what people believe - no matter how twisted and "wrong" their thinking, they still believe what they do based on evidence of one sort or another.
"beliefs" by their very nature attack other people's beliefs, in that "if I believe something and you believe something different... one of us must be wrong...". At least the Atheists and Agnostics have the sense to say they have no idea what they are talking about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:
Guitardian wrote: I don't wanna hear about your imaginary friend any more than you want to hear about mine, buddy.
Funny that.
Question: What is the best selling book in the Wurld?
Advice: Start writing about your imaginary friend now!
yeah and mariah carey was the 'artist of the century' according to dumb people's votes too... and 'transformers 2' deserves an oscar. Sorry I don't look to sales as a guide to authenticity. SO MANY PEOPLE WATCHED TRANSFORMERS IT MUST BE TRUE!! dumb.
I prefer to stay holed up in my high high IQ tower and trying not to follow a herd, or use the herd as my exscuse to argue about something that nobody can give a definite answer about. Numbers don't speak for you, you speak for you.
Watch out... according to the most popular movies of all time, megatron and Sauron might just have it out for you (with Chris Aguillera doing a soundtrack!) yeah these things are real. They are real because they are the voice of the walmart nation, so they must be on to something, right?
Guitardian wrote:"beliefs" by their very nature attack other people's beliefs, in that "if I believe something and you believe something different... one of us must be wrong...". At least the Atheists and Agnostics have the sense to say they have no idea what they are talking about.
Belief does not imply that other systems of thought are incorrect. I believe that the stapler on my desk is a dark blue colour, however, because everyone's eyes are different, someone else may think it is purple. Neither of us is correct or incorrect because we each see the exact same thing in different ways. The evidence would support either one of us. Science may be able to supply us with an exact colour value of the stapler and then render it into a "judgement" of what colour it "actually" is, but that does not change how each person experiencecs the stapler., neither of which is more or less valid than the other.
A very simple illustation and nothing like as complex and emotionally invested as religion/belief in the existance or non-existance of higher powers, however, you can have belief in something such as god and still not exclude the fact or possibility that someone believes in the same god/power, just in a different, equally valid way.
Lot less ways of going about it than calling people who buy the Bible "dumb".
I could stoop to your level and insult your beliefs about the immigration bill in AZ but I won't as I'll end up with another vacation from here, most likely a month and I like Dakka (most times).
WarOne wrote:Think about the consequences of such an action: all conflicts would be resolved by having real people act as generals at the head of an army of imaginary people, complete with gear and weapons to fight such a war. The winner would then be able to declare that her side is victorious and ergo her demands or point of view superior.
Yeah, and then you have the RAW lawyers telling you that you can't use certain powers or even entire imaginary units because the Rules of Imaginary Warfare are so poorly written that they contradict themselves
Besides, you have never played army, or cowboys and indians when you were smaller?
"I shot you!"
"No you didn't!"
"Yes I did!"
"Didn't. I'm telling mum on you!"
I have owned several bibles, and never bought one. They get left in hotel rooms for your reading enjoyment, handed out by Gideons on street corners, shovelled upon you by well meaning people who are genuinely interested in your 'soul' finding 'Jesus'. Just leave it in the drawer before you go and satan wont burn you. That's the theory. Yeah. Dumb. Sorry.
SilverMK2 wrote:Fundamentalist atheists are as bad (though in my view worse) than fundamentalists of any religion.
Sorry mate, but that is the biggest load of crap I have ever had the misfortune to read on here, and I've read some of Tony the Guardsman's threads.
PICTURE REMOVED SO AS NOT TO CAUSE OFFENCE
When has an Atheist/Agnostic/Secularist committed a heinous crime such as 9/11 or the London Bombings in the name of their beliefs? When? Seriously, I'll wait.
SilverMK2 wrote:Someone else can look at the exact same science and think "wow, this can't have all happened by itself" and thus come to believe that there is some higher power. There is plenty of science (which I don' particularly agree is either science or correct) which will show that everything has been designed by god etc.
Enlighten me.
SilverMK2 wrote:Even without this, there is plenty of scope for people to see god in science.
I would say that this is more accurate.
Do I think that arresting the man was a little heavy-handed? Perhaps.
Do I care? No.
I firmly believe that homosexual people should be allowed to walk down the street without having to hear that their 'lifestyle' is wrong - remember, we are talking about a group which has been vehemently victimised in our society. Just BEING gay was enough to land you in prison not so long ago, and being openly gay in public was a very dangerous thing to do until relatively recently (some would argue it that it still is in certain places). I don't want gay people to feel threatened in my country.
I have no problem with religious people feeling threatened in my country. I am not a reasonable man.
Sure, on an interpersonal level I am an amiable sort of chap - I can mix with people from all walks of life, and can maintain friendships with religious people. I get on fairly well with several religious Dakkites (although, not after this I suspect...) and bear them no ill-will for their beliefs.
However, I would like to see organised religion dismantled - totally removed from public life. I believe that religion is something which should be practised behind closed doors.
Is that reasonable? No.
Do I care? Again, no.
This message brought to you by the Atheist Taliban
Albatross wrote:Sorry mate, but that is the biggest load of crap I have ever had the misfortune to read on here, and I've read some of Tony the Guardsman's threads.
Oh dear, I must have done something horribly wrong to you in order to be compared in this way
When has an Atheist/Agnostic/Secularist done something like this in the name of their beliefs? When? Seriously, I'll wait.
I can't see the image at work, but from the file name, I assume you are talking about the 11th of September attacks?
I would like to clarify that when I said "Fundamentalist atheists are as bad (though in my view worse) than fundamentalists of any religion." I was meaning in terms of those people who are a case of "do what I say, not what I do" - the people who complain about people not washing and then down themselves in aftershave, people who talk about the evils of smoking and then go out and get hammered on booze, etc, not in terms of horrific physical acts against people, places, nations etc.
I was going to include the following few lines in the first post, but did not want to do so because of how it may have come across, but in reply to your post, I think I may well include them: The reason that millitant atheists annoy the crap out of me more than fundamental religious people is that atheism is supposed to be about reason and logic, not about emotion, conversion, "I'm right and you're wrong", etc. You expect a certain amount of foaming at the mouth from religion, but atheists are supposed to be above that - to show that you don't need an invisible man looking over your shoulder to live a good and worthwhile life, that you don't need to get everyone around you to bend the knee to your way of thinking in order to get on with them and get a bit of "love thy brother" (homosexuality pun? Fun times ) community spirit on the go.
Atheism is not a system of belief, it is a catch word for people who do not believe in god(s), either actively or passively. That is it. There is no church of the atheiest, no atheist text telling you how to lead a good life, etc. You can't and shouldn't "convert" people to your cause. Reasoned debate should be the cornerstone of atheisum, not attacks on people of faith.
Some people you will never be able to demonstrate that there is no evidence for the existance of god (in so far as I would call something evidence anyway, as I went on to say and which you questioned, there are ways of interpreting the universe to suggest there "is" a god, etc... I'm not going to go into it as I don't personally subscribe to this idea, and I don't keep up with "Christian Science" (or any other religious science)), but you don't then go on to mock them or attack them in other ways. With no framework of belief and "accepted behaviour" to fall back on and/or blame for your behaviour, you are just being an idiot, rather than someone who may well have been raised and "brainwashed" into spouting whatever it is they are saying.
I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post as it seems to be personal beliefs and I don't particularly see the point in commenting on them as they are personal beliefs.
SilverMK2 wrote:I would like to clarify that when I said "Fundamentalist atheists are as bad (though in my view worse) than fundamentalists of any religion." I was meaning in terms of those people who are a case of "do what I say, not what I do" - the people who complain about people not washing and then down themselves in aftershave, people who talk about the evils of smoking and then go out and get hammered on booze, etc, not in terms of horrific physical acts against people, places, nations etc.
Cool. Probably should have made that a bit clearer, but this is the internet! No hard feelings.
p.s My last post was (slightly) tongue-in-cheek. Slightly.
And I'm not quite sure what your comment was in relation to. An Atheist does not a Humanist (is that the right word? ) make. There are plenty of non-religious (in the tradiational sense) beliefs which promote various "be good to one another/the earth/etc" ideas which do not have a higher power. However, you do not have to identify yourself with any of these movements in order to be a good person.
Orlanth wrote:Where do you get that idea? The Public Oder Act already covers this however there is a world of difference between yelling and 'made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others' . Read the article, he was arrested over content not method.
He was standing on a step ladder yelling his views. The final trigger was the coversation with the women, but the context of what he was doing shouldn't be ignored.
Manchu wrote:It still seems that the hateful part is standing on a ladder and yelling. So, as Orlanth said, the man could have just as well been yelling nursery rhymes, right? The Public Order Act therefore prohibits standing on ladders and yelling at people?
Take a good long read, try and find ANYTHING that gives ANY impression that the man was yelling shouting or otherwise being obnoxiously loud.
Let me repeat the words used to describe his speech:
overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others
Now to account for invoking the Public Order Act you have to get very loud threatening or abusive. Delivering a serrmon is none of the above unless the preacher is arrested on content.
How read this passage from the article:
Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith.
During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.
After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.
So McAlpine was preaching the Gospel, someone came up to him asked him difficult questions on his faith and then denounced him as a bigot to the police for answering them. I have had that happen to me from time to time, but it never involved the police.
"You a Christian, so do you beleive this..." [pointing to various verses.]
"Yes I do"
"That all the evidence we need to condemn you."
The more I look at this the more I see a set up and a double helping of PC nonsense used as the beatstick. The questioner is asking the questions to look for claims to be offended, can't you see something wrong with that. How can you complain about being offended if you actively look for an offense to begin with.
Nurglitch wrote:
Secondly, those political limits are considerably more concerned with content: we might not wish people under our power ever have the opportunity to send or receive pornography involving children, as much as organize the use and sale of radio frequencies, or disseminate information about ongoing legal proceedings.
Those are not limits in the same sense as physical limits. By comparison, they are restrictions and nothing more. A physical law cannot be broken if it is correct. An economic law cannot be broken if it is correct. A political law, if such a thing were to exist, could not be broken if it were correct. However, I cannot conceive of even a single political law (that can be proven by data), given nothing more than the available evidence of history. Therefore, given that which is available, it is nonsensical to compare a political restriction to a physical one. One day, it may no longer be, but for now it is.
Nurglitch wrote:
Such an attempt to be 'sensible' as you describe is then wrong-headed in principle as well as in practice because we have to go back and make all the ad hoc tweaks to such a compromise as should shoe-horn such sensible compromise into the realities of physical, economical, political, and personal powers.
That doesn't make sensibility wrong-headed. It essentially defines what sensibility is.
Nurglitch wrote:
More realistically one would recognize that acknowledging the tyranny of politics, as well as those of physics and economics, should be done by those seeking to develop principles about what additional limits should be set on our powers of speech.
The tyranny of politics, as you use the phrase here, is not the same as equating all political systems with tyranny. All you've said here is that politics, as a science, or rule, has an absolute hold over itself.
Nurglitch wrote:
Appeal to tyranny as setting those limits too low, even as a rhetorical move, begs the question (in the colloquial and technical senses) as to the nature and rightness of those limits, as though one had not already admitted to tyranny and was merely bargaining on the price.
Invalid argument for reasons of terminological confusion.
And I'm not quite sure what your comment was in relation to. An Atheist does not a Humanist (is that the right word? ) make. There are plenty of non-religious (in the tradiational sense) beliefs which promote various "be good to one another/the earth/etc" ideas which do not have a higher power. However, you do not have to identify yourself with any of these movements in order to be a good person.
Humanism is an atheistic system of belief. You can be atheist without being Humanist, but you can't be Humanist without being atheist, or at least agnostic.
When has an Atheist/Agnostic/Secularist committed a heinous crime such as 9/11 or the London Bombings in the name of their beliefs? When? Seriously, I'll wait.
Imprisoned or burned at the stake for being xtian, eh? My how times have changed. Well, look at Israeli politics too for another good example. "waaah waah poor us, give lots of fighter planes so we can be the bullies for once." Religions in general should have no place in a legal or governmental system, but they still do. If they get hauled off for their nutbaggery then at least a sad chapter of human history is one step closer to being finished.
My 'holy Robot zapgun in the sky' that causes lightning is no difference than someone else's 'holy ghost who makes good causes exist because of wine and crackers' except that one is a personal delusion and the other is a recognized institution.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Incidentally, making a member of a group, organisation or family feel uncomfortable about their beliefs constitutes a criminal threat. We're all part of some sort of family... and a lot of people have cases here.
What country has that nonsense?
Mine, that rainy place near Europe, most of yours and interestingly, not Canada. Is Texas its own country yet?
That is NOT the law in the US. if you think so, you are woefully misinformed of the law and that thing we call the First Amendment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:
When has an Atheist/Agnostic/Secularist committed a heinous crime such as 9/11 or the London Bombings in the name of their beliefs? When? Seriously, I'll wait.
This is ridiculous. He shouldn't be arrested for saying that. Saying something that could be interpeted as a hate crime, but isn't, should not get him arrested.
I agree it is sin in God's eyes, but he still loves them and wants them to repent.
Kilkrazy wrote:People often get arrested incorrectly.
Perhaps we should wait for the result of the court case before we make our judgement about whether it was a Public Order Offence.
Thats not how it ghappens inn the UK. The CPS probably wont prosecute, looking at the case at hand he defendant was baited ansd in Uk law you cannot convict on baited evidence. Lawyers know this and thus the cPS will not run with it.
However that is not good news. You see since Blair took over there has been a change in status of persons of whome charges are dropped. They dont get the charge scrubbed they just get an NFA stamp on it, No Further Action. This is very different from not guilty and it is taken into account on police files further comtact with the police and is brought up in vetting for certain companies and positions. an alleged offence with an NFA stamp is a socaial death sentence and there is little or nothing you can do about it unless you are big enough to force the police to comply with the law and destroy all evidence, including the NFA status.
I know some people this has happened to, both cases have nothing to do with religion and both are career enders simply because employers see 'potential convict' when they vet for any job worth sticking with and look no further at that candidate.
salamander man wrote:This is ridiculous. He shouldn't be arrested for saying that. Saying something that could be interpeted as a hate crime, but isn't, should not get him arrested.
So, someone who appears to be breaking the law should not be detained until such time as it can be determined whether they were breaking the law or not? If it looked like someone was attempting to break into a house or a car and a policeman saw them, you can bet there would be no complaint if they nabbed them. Free speach etc is slightly more difficult to determine, but if someone was sailing close to the wind, it might be wise to ask them to move on, or take them into custody, especially if there had been complaints from the public.
It makes me sad that things like that happen, it is only set to get worse though. I can't remember if it got stopped, but they were trying to push through laws to force ISP's to give out detailed information as to what people are doing online if the police asked in a nice voice. You can bet your ass that won't be abused at all... just like they don't abuse terrorism laws and pretty much any other law in order to get your details, DNA, inside leg measurement, etc, entered into their databases.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
salamander man wrote:And he appeared to be breaking the law? If I say I don't like baseball is that a hate crime?
People have already posted why what he was saying could be constituted a crime in the UK, check back on previous pages
Orlanth, i spend all this time tolerating your spurious claims so as not to cause offense, and then you post the old ridiculous Hitler pics...
You are deliberately misleading people.
Stalin, Mao and Hitler all rejected Darwin as a matter of public record, but none more obviously than Hitler. Hitler was on your side of the fence, not mine, and im sick of you saying it. I defy you to find any evidence that Hitler even once mentioned that Darwinism was possibly more likely than Divine Creation. Hitler was Roman Catholic, he had a devout upbringing, he mentioned God regularly, he had "God is with us" Marked on the belt buckles of the SS.
Read Mein Kampf, see how many times he mentions "our almighty creator"
Almost everything you say it either a outright lie or is flat out wrong, but you dont expect anyone to mention it because you Religious types play the victim if we do. If your religion was so true, then it wouldnt matter what i said about it.
Its truth would shine through, it would be undimmed by anything the likes of me said about it. It could take any criticism.
But it cant.
Its ultra defensive, its ultra prickly, its about as substantial as a merangue.
Evolution is a proven fact, there is more evidence for it than gravity. Christian zealots have spent 200 years desperately trying to refute it, all we have gotten is more and more evidence. Not one single aspect of modern Science supports creationism. Biology, Paleontology, Geology, it all laughs in the face of your absurd pseudo-science.
Now im fine with you believing in anything you want, but not lying in front of impressionable people via a forum in order to try and whip up some more converts to get a better score card off your vengeful jelous God on judgement day.
There is no evidence at all for your flood, your 6000 year old creation, your dinosaur riding cavemen, it is all utterly utterly ridiculous, and it is past time to call you out on it.
I was waiting for someone to correct the misrepresentation of Hitler's faith. Do you know the Pope lead a prayer for him on his birthday every year of the war until his death?
Albatross wrote:So Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao were driven to do the things they did because they were Atheists? Really?
Wow. Wrong.
In fact scratch that, let's keep your reasoning in mind when we examine the actions of Catholic priests who abuse children, shall we? Shall we?
Or shall we stop being foolish instead, and focus on the facts?
Albatross should I even bother trying to correct you, but I will answer for the benefit of those others who still want to listen.
Atheism was a major component of Communism and Nazism. It says so in their own texts, over and over again. Furthermore their attitude of distain for religion extended into brutal violence. Even if we temporarily exclude the Holocaust of Jews as a race action and political one (which is not entirely true or fair) this would not account for the terrible persecutions of religions within the Communist blok and Third Reich.
Mao started with 'religion is poison' and since taking over Tibet China has done much to oppress the religion based there. The source I heard said that 2000 temples have been destroyed since the take over, and that is not just limited to buildings but congregations and priests too.
However let us focus on current persecutions rather than historical ones, ans they are more topical.
Even today persecution of the Christian church in particular is very strong in China, there is an official state church. In those churches one cannot say for example that Jesus has the answers to life because in China communism has the answers. I have met Chinese exiles who were imprisoned and tortured for their faith, and the root of this persecution was very clearly ATHEIST COMMUNISM, the Chinese make no little to disguise this, though they do disguise the abuses themselves. Some of them including the man who came to our church to tell us about the suffering in China went back, so as to preach the gospel to his people. I have since heard of his rearrest and do not want to think about what he has had to endure. Frankly the denialists ought to grow up and show a little more respect, even if you do not believe in our faith, you should respect the fact that many are going out at great risk to themselves to preach the Gospel they believe in, what gain do they expect, honour, power and money? No chance, these men are hunted, but they go all the same because they believe that preaching Jesus to their own people is worth their own lives.. They are worth far more attention than a few kiddie fiddler priests in an entirely different denomination that Albatross would like to make the focus example of churchmen today.
The pink triangle is used today as a memory of the persecution of homosexuals, because they like the Jews and others shared the suffereing of the holocaust. They are not wrong in doing that. However something I should add, take a look at this identification guide to concentration and extermination camp inmates of the Third Reich.
The triangles denoted the offense, an inverse triangle indicated the person was Jewish. If the person was kniown to be just Jewish without anything else they would get either one or two triangles, normally just the one. This is made out to be a yellow Star of David in many films on the Holocaust, but it goes deeper, the fact is that Jews shared their suffering with others. look at who the Nazis targeted, red for political opponents, normally communists, but some others poltical groups also, pink for homosexuals. various types for immigrants and ethnic minorities and 'race defilers' and purple....
Sometimes Bibelforsher is translated as meaning Jehovahs Witnesses, which would be bad enough if it were true, but it actually refered to all non-mainstream Christian groups and Christian activists of any denomination. Had I lived within Germany or its conquered territories at the time I would certainly have qualified, in fact Pentecostalism started in Germany with the Von Bulows just after the Napoleonic war and Pentecostals were amongst the first to be rounded up and summarily murdered in Germany, those and the mentally ill were targeted before the Final Solution was decreed in the Waldensee conference of December 1941.
I know am not the only reader of this thread who would have got a purple triangle if caught. What is our crime? Why kill Europes Pentecostals and Evangelicals? Any guesses, are we united in a politcal doctrine (no we are not) are we of one tribe or race (no we are not) or are we a religion persecuted because of what we believe, which is anathema to atheistic fanaticism.
Do we not see echos of such hatred even here, with people talking of tolerance and equality and respect for all, except Christians. We understand what is happening, tt is a new chapter in an age old struggle of faith, the powers and principalities are never too far away.
mattyrm wrote:Orlanth, i spend all this time tolerating your spurious claims so as not to cause offense, and then you post the old ridiculous Hitler pics...
You are deliberately misleading people.
Stalin, Mao and Hitler all rejected Darwin as a matter of public record, but none more obviously than Hitler. Hitler was on your side of the fence, not mine, and im sick of you saying it. I defy you to find any evidence that Hitler even once mentioned that Darwinism was possibly more likely than Divine Creation. Hitler was Roman Catholic, he had a devout upbringing, he mentioned God regularly, he had "God is with us" Marked on the belt buckles of the SS.
Read Mein Kampf, see how many times he mentions "our almighty creator"
Almost everything you say it either a outright lie or is flat out wrong, but you dont expect anyone to mention it because you Religious types play the victim if we do. If your religion was so true, then it wouldnt matter what i said about it.
Its truth would shine through, it would be undimmed by anything the likes of me said about it. It could take any criticism.
But it cant.
Its ultra defensive, its ultra prickly, its about as substantial as a merangue.
Evolution is a proven fact, there is more evidence for it than gravity. Christian zealots have spent 200 years desperately trying to refute it, all we have gotten is more and more evidence. Not one single aspect of modern Science supports creationism. Biology, Paleontology, Geology, it all laughs in the face of your absurd pseudo-science.
Now im fine with you believing in anything you want, but not lying in front of impressionable people via a forum in order to try and whip up some more converts to get a better score card off your vengeful jelous God on judgement day.
There is no evidence at all for your flood, your 6000 year old creation, your dinosaur riding cavemen, it is all utterly utterly ridiculous, and it is past time to call you out on it.
Explain intermidiate links. Even Darwin in his book said: Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views. (The Origin of Species, 6th ed, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462.)
Notice what he said. Evolution says that one species eventually led to another. Thus, there should be "fine, intermediate varieties" of fossils in between species. But there isn't.
If you look through history you can dig up dirt on any group of people (Christians, atheists, gays, kings, Italians, entrepreneurs, politicians, etc.). There's no point in going over that because both sides have fuel. People suck. We can, at the very least, agree that people must do their best to overcome their weaknesses and live together. Arguing minutia will lead nowhere. Intelligent debate without personal, emotional stock will.
1: SilverMk2 is an example of someone that can make reasoned self controlled arguments. I recomend that the athiests and agnostics study his posts to learn how to have a reasonable mature discussion.
2: This thread is a testament to the fact that athiests are some of the most hypocritcal people in the world. It reminds me of the old joke where the preacher had a conversation with a bartender...
Preacher: Why don't you go to Church?
Bartender: Too many Hypocrites!!
Preacher: And there aren't any hypocrites in a bar?
3: That 1986 law that was passed in the UK is SCARY. I mean Red China SCARY.
I seem to remember a while back you getting rather upset and accusing me of being a nazi, because I am non-religious and because I used the word indoctrination to describe forcing religion on children long before they are capable of deciding for themselves.
that was quite a self controlled, and well thought out arguement.
As to the rest of your statements, I don't know how or why you feel so oppressed and threatened. You should try living in Ireland for a while, where the church has far more influence in laws and policy and has for decades. You might see then that these struggles aren't about faith versus atheism, but just idiots versus people who are different to them, and it goes in all directions.
I seem to remember a while back you getting rather upset and accusing me of being a nazi, because I am non-religious and because I used the word indoctrination to describe forcing religion on children long before they are capable of deciding for themselves.
that was quite a self controlled, and well thought out arguement.
And I'm sure you were an innocent little lamb, and didn't deserve my rebuke right? I mean... the bad Christian came out of nowhere and spewed hate all over poor little innocent falconlance right? :-)
I seem to remember a little bit of the convo, and if I recall corectly you said something offensive or at the very least demeaning, in which you sparked my righteous indignation. I.E. you got what you deserved.
My point still stands that if you were respectfull there would have been no need for the rebuke. That's what happens in forums, people get out of line and they get rebuked. I have had it happen to me as well when I have crossed the line. (I'm not perfect)
Anyway, you can have the last word on this issue or PM me cause, this could easily sidetrack the thread and I don't want to do that, since this is a very important discussion IMO.
also... take note that I said "some"..... not "all" atheists.
Hey, i didnt start it! Check it out, i only chirp in because i /facepalm when religious types start spamming the old Hitler/Mao/Stalin pictures!
I just had to point out the old falsehood consitently used by Creationists is utterly false. It was Orlanth started busting out the pics
Oh and even if it turned out that Hitler was a dyed in the wool evolutionary biologist, and Richard Dawkins was a sex fiend, it STILL wouldnt make one jot of difference to the fact of evolution, and frankly i find the idea extremely childish.
Like some sort of "who is the best person" Atheism vs Mono-Theism score card.
Its really just .. kids stuff isnt it?
Character assassinating has nothing to do with it. One is Scientific facts, and one is "outside" Science and a matter of faith.
And ive no grudge against Orlanth, indeed, i agree with him on most things we chat about here that are in the news... you know, politics and crime and such that arent related to Religion. I dont have an axe to grind with him im just sick to the back teeth of refuting the same garbage over and over again.. Almost all you creationists are literally as bad as these clowns when it comes to matters of the cloth, Its like some sort of fruity little club you guys made up!
(Note the horror style music and the long list of lies in the first 30 seconds)
mattyrm made me remove him from my ignore list..... darn it all!!
the problem matty is you haven't refuted anything. The only thing you have done succesfully is rant. You have a bad habit of drudging up the creation vs evolution debate whenever there is a religious oiented discussion.
Why don't you just create a thread on the issue and be done with it. We haven't had a creation vs evolution debate in while. Or even better, if you really are itching to debate the issue PM me.
salamander man wrote:Notice what he said. Evolution says that one species eventually led to another. Thus, there should be "fine, intermediate varieties" of fossils in between species. But there isn't.
However, think of the age of the Earth (~4.5 billion years), and how long life has been evolving for (~3.7 billion years?) and the events that have happened since then which will have destroyed (or simply moved out of reach) fossil evidence - shifting continents, meteorites, volcanic activity, general weather erosion, etc. From each epoch of time only so many animals will die in conditions which are conducive to the formation of fossils, then some of those will have their remains destroyed or scattered before they can fossilize. Of the ones which then make it, some will then be in locations that people just can't get to (bottom of the sea, under a lake, in the deepest darkest wastes of Scotland, etc ). Some will then be destroyed by the processes mentioned above and the remainder are about for us to find.
So of all life, only a very tiny fraction will have survived in the fossil record. Even in the records that do exist, there have been countless examples of animals being reconstructed "incorrectly", identified wrongly, etc. Every year we unearth more fossils which fill in more of the tree of life.
Saying that there are not fossils to show every stage of every animal/plant of every species is kind of like saying that the special effects in a film are rubbish when the first draft of the script has only just been sketched out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:[
(Note the horror style music and the long list of lies in the first 30 seconds)
While I agree with you SilverMK2, its probably best to leave it be. Bothering to respond to that kind of thing might give the false impression that they have a case.
Hey, i didnt start it! Check it out, i only chirp in because i /facepalm when religious types start spamming the old Hitler/Mao/Stalin pictures!
I just had to point out the old falsehood consitently used by Creationists is utterly false. It was Orlanth started busting out the pics
Oh and even if it turned out that Hitler was a dyed in the wool evolutionary biologist, and Richard Dawkins was a sex fiend, it STILL wouldnt make one jot of difference to the fact of evolution, and frankly i find the idea extremely childish.
Like some sort of "who is the best person" Atheism vs Mono-Theism score card.
Its really just .. kids stuff isnt it?
Character assassinating has nothing to do with it. One is Scientific facts, and one is "outside" Science and a matter of faith.
And ive no grudge against Orlanth, indeed, i agree with him on most things we chat about here that are in the news... you know, politics and crime and such that arent related to Religion. I dont have an axe to grind with him im just sick to the back teeth of refuting the same garbage over and over again.. Almost all you creationists are literally as bad as these clowns when it comes to matters of the cloth, Its like some sort of fruity little club you guys made up!
(Note the horror style music and the long list of lies in the first 30 seconds)
mattyrm, you've been surrounded by strawmen! USe fire, it's their only weakness!
Until someone can answer where the stuff that evolved came from or can show me a video of something evolving I can't take it as anything other than an interesting concept. I really don't see the evidence for it, and the fossil thing is one of the big sticking points for me. What is it that makes evolution such "reasonable fact" to so many? No one has been alive long enough to observe it, and we probably wouldn't even be thinking about it now except for a few eloquent people bringing it up in the first place. At what point does it make the jump from "random idea; I could be wrong" to "undeniable fact!" and why is there no middle ground on what should be a fairly emotionally-absent issue. I wish it wasn't a stigma of "creation vs. evolution" because it proves nothing except that people have their own bias and will cling to whatever they want to believe.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Until someone can answer where the stuff that evolved came from or can show me a video of something evolving I can't take it as anything other than an interesting concept. I really don't see the evidence for it, and the fossil thing is one of the big sticking points for me. What is it that makes evolution such "reasonable fact" to so many? No one has been alive long enough to observe it, and we probably wouldn't even be thinking about it now except for a few eloquent people bringing it up in the first place. At what point does it make the jump from "random idea; I could be wrong" to "undeniable fact!" and why is there no middle ground on what should be a fairly emotionally-absent issue. I wish it wasn't a stigma of "creation vs. evolution" because it proves nothing except that people have their own bias and will cling to whatever they want to believe.
The basic chemistry -> biology is actually remarkable simple.
Although it is wikipedia, this page can explain far better than I can how life came about, and the reasons why the theory of evolution has come to be regarded as as close to reality as it is currently know. Most people talking on the matter will still refer to it as a theory, as it is, but will reference the many, many pieces of evidence which fit the model which evolution explains.
salamander man wrote:Notice what he said. Evolution says that one species eventually led to another. Thus, there should be "fine, intermediate varieties" of fossils in between species. But there isn't.
However, think of the age of the Earth (~4.5 billion years), and how long life has been evolving for (~3.7 billion years?) and the events that have happened since then which will have destroyed (or simply moved out of reach) fossil evidence - shifting continents, meteorites, volcanic activity, general weather erosion, etc. From each epoch of time only so many animals will die in conditions which are conducive to the formation of fossils, then some of those will have their remains destroyed or scattered before they can fossilize. Of the ones which then make it, some will then be in locations that people just can't get to (bottom of the sea, under a lake, in the deepest darkest wastes of Scotland, etc ). Some will then be destroyed by the processes mentioned above and the remainder are about for us to find.
So of all life, only a very tiny fraction will have survived in the fossil record. Even in the records that do exist, there have been countless examples of animals being reconstructed "incorrectly", identified wrongly, etc. Every year we unearth more fossils which fill in more of the tree of life.
Saying that there are not fossils to show every stage of every animal/plant of every species is kind of like saying that the special effects in a film are rubbish when the first draft of the script has only just been sketched out.
...
Here we go.......
1: The 4.5 billion year figure is based on the CURRENT decay rate certain radioisotopes. We have to assume that the decay has always been the same in order to believe the 4.5 billion year figure. If our assumption is false then all of radio isotope dating is bogus, and also the idea that current life is descended through a long line of descending evolving life.
2: All of the animals we find in the fossil record are complete. There is no cow/whale we only have cows and whales and the descendents of their kinds. We have no dog/reptile or dog/bird we have dogs and birds. The closest thing they have found to a true transitional form is the archeopterix(bird/lizard), and that is highly contested.
So scientists just assume that we will find the "missing links" and they keep finding more and more distinct kinds of animals but no missing links.
GG
edit...sorry frazz couldn't resist the temptation..I will refrain from more debate about creationism in this thread.
That Wiki page doesn't answer my first objection (where it all came from) and the "search on youtube" response doesn't answer my second. If I go by what's on youtube there are lots of ghosts out and about as well. If anyone wants to PM me anything more feel free to keep the topic clutter-free (or clutter-less, realistically). I'm still going to read through that Wiki page as it's interesting.
We can observe it. HIV evolves to evade various drugs that are used against it. Staphacocus developes resistance to commonly used antibiotics, TB is showing similar signs. Even complex organisms like fluke parasites have evolved resistance to the drugs used to combat them inside our lifetimes. The mechanisms by which plants are domesticated follow evolutionary theory and are easily traceable within human history.
(Now I'm a dirty filthy hypocrite.)
The origin of life is open for debate, but the hypothesis currently worked under by a lot of biologists is that there were four stages in the development of life.
1.the abiotic synthesis of small organic molecules such as amino acids and nucleotides.
2.The joining of these small monomers into polymers including proteins nucleic acids.
3.The origin of self replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible.
4.The packaging of all these molecules into droplets with membranes that maintained their internal chemistry.
These stages have been tested in laboratories in conditions mimicing those most thought to be close to those on early earth. The spontaeneous generation of organic molecules and polymers has been observed, as well as the spontaeneous creation of phospholipid bilayers surrounding droplets.
RNA has been observed to self replicate abiotically, which may have been the starting point for inheritance. I hope this is clear. If not, I reccommend Campbells Biology as a good introductory text on general biology.
It's useless to talk about evolution because plenty of Christians believe in it, and no doubt there are non-Christians who don't. In other words, dis/belief in evolution is not a defining characteristic.
It is not relevant to the topic, which is a discussion of whether the Public Order Act 1986 was a suitable instrument for arresting this street preacher.
Da Boss wrote:We can observe it. HIV evolves to evade various drugs that are used against it. Staphacocus developes resistance to commonly used antibiotics, TB is showing similar signs. Even complex organisms like fluke parasites have evolved resistance to the drugs used to combat them inside our lifetimes. The mechanisms by which plants are domesticated follow evolutionary theory and are easily traceable within human history.
(Now I'm a dirty filthy hypocrite.)
An elaboration on what I mean, I apologize, Cannerus, for being terse, but now isn't a great time for me to be digging through the internet to find a video for you; ive wasted way too much work time alt tabbed onto this thread as it is.
Frazzled wrote:Allrighty. The cool aspects of this thread are are gone. Frazzled moving on.
Please argue the merits of evolution amonst yourselves. its irrelevant to the topic of free speech.
Well, evolution vs ID vs creationism is actually a fairly good point in the freedom of speech debate. The various merits behind the "evidence" for and against them is hotly debated (as can be seen from the latter part of this thread), and there are various groups trying to push forward one or the other belief in the school system. Should people be free to teach (or spout in some cases) whatever they believe, regardless of how much actual proof there is for what they believe?
Or should people be limited in their expression to things that are actually true and provable?
If you want to say something like "homosexuals are sinners and are going to hell (/god will not love them as much as he loves everyone else) if they don't repent", should you have to prove that is the case? If you want to say "Chinese people are better than Japanese people due to their genes", should you have to be able to prove that is the case before you can stand on the street and proclaim it?
If you believe in true freedom of speech, you should allow people to go on the streets and spout the most arrant, offensive nonsense they like. The other side can shoot down their arguments with logic and facts.
That's what people in the USA can do and there is much less public violence that you would expect.
I have to take issue with your statements there Silver. True and provable, aren't really. Science can only really "prove" something wrong.
Other frameworks for thought than science are valuable and should not be denigrated by strict adherance to the scientific method in all things.
The part where there is a debate is when people try to teach creationism as a science, which it is not, rather than a philosophical viewpoint or theological stance, which it is. The reasons for that, in my opinion, is that the scientific method works pretty well for getting results and impressing people, so calling something science or giving it the appearance of science lends it more weight to the layman. It is a dishonest argument, quite seperate from whether the earth was created 4.5 billion or 6000 years ago.
I believe that schools should be allowed to have a mix of messages if nothing else to prepare students for the other kinds of people they will inevitably have to interact with. My father lives in Australia now and apparently they have a free period where volunteers can come teach about religion, as long as they supply the curriculum. The students don't have to be in the class. More viewpoints can be a healthy thing as it starts the mind churning. I think free speech on paper is great because if everything is out there, the crap proves itself pretty quickly and the truth stands out.
But as this thread's OP shows, you have to be careful with what you say, even with free speech and the best intentions. It's not a pure ideal unfortunately.
Kilkrazy wrote:If you believe in true freedom of speech, you should allow people to go on the streets and spout the most arrant, offensive nonsense they like. The other side can shoot down their arguments with logic and facts.
That's what people in the USA can do and there is much less public violence that you would expect.
I aggressivley disagree wit, well most everything it seems but except for very minor limits I am ok with it.
Frazzled Rules on Free Speech:
Places. Certain places should be restricted. Locations near memorials, locations near K-12 school, maybe hospitals. Places where use of free speech violates someone else's Bill of Rights rights at a "compelling" interest level (legal standard). But that follows with limits on the 2nd Amendment etc. Can't carry firearms to a hanging or near a place of election for example (thats a question on a test BTW). Can search a house without warrant if there is the reasonable belief a crime is being imminently committed against another person for example (the cop hearing someone screaming in a house example)
Types. Common stare decisis on threats, and libel. Certain types of obscenity or profiting from speech that depicts an actual criminal activity (child porn as ean example). Revealing of private information that an ID thief can use. I am sure there might be a few others.
Acts. Free speech and publishing therein are protected. Acts are not. Burning flags, houses, destorying property or harming persons etc. No acts are speech. This includes blocking an abortion clinic. Thats an act not speech.
@Da Boss: That's true. I don't think regulation ever solves a problem as it only leads to more and more regulations. Add a sense of entitlement, rise to power, corruption then revolution and start the process again. I take responsibility for my actions because I'm a person. If someone says something and I get offended, I'm the one getting offended. Things need to be equal, because at the core of it all, nobody owe's anyone else anything. The weak deserve to be defended, but the problem with attacking the corrupt is that everyone's definition is a little different. I can understand preemptive action as well, but I'd be willing to err on the side of "let's worry about when it's a problem" versus "let's stop it before it may be a problem."
Frazzled wrote:
Acts. Free speech and publishing therein are protected. Acts are not. Burning flags, houses, destorying property or harming persons etc. No acts are speech. This includes blocking an abortion clinic. Thats an act not speech.
There also need to be restrictions on speech which result in harm to others. The classic 'yelling fire in a theatre' is a good example. And legal precedent that a party which incites a second party with speech is not absolved of guilt. You can't preach skin-head themes and be completely innocent when someone else follows through on your dogma. But otherwise, generally an agreeable list of conditions.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:My father lives in Australia now and apparently they have a free period where volunteers can come teach about religion, as long as they supply the curriculum. The students don't have to be in the class.
Intermixing secular schools and religious thought, even if voluntary, is a dangerous precedent (in my opinion). If you accept freedom of faith as a tenet of society, then that also implies freedom from faith, and that's difficult to provide if you're allowing difficult religious groups access. How does the school handle conflicts between faith groups without effectively discriminating? Isn't that access a subsidisation (even if trivial for things like electricity, HVAC, etc) of belief? It's far better to disallow religious or political groups from access at such a privotal area.
Frazzled wrote:
Acts. Free speech and publishing therein are protected. Acts are not. Burning flags, houses, destorying property or harming persons etc. No acts are speech. This includes blocking an abortion clinic. Thats an act not speech.
There also need to be restrictions on speech which result in harm to others. The classic 'yelling fire in a theatre' is a good example. And legal precedent that a party which incites a second party with speech is not absolved of guilt. You can't preach skin-head themes and be completely innocent when someone else follows through on your dogma. But otherwise, generally an agreeable list of conditions.
***I should note for clarity the current stare decisis is reasonably clear and I am onside. Words that could cause immediate physical harm or endangerment are limited and those historically have been extremely rare (and tie in with the inciting the mob/imminent threat of violence thing). You can indeed preach skin head thiemes and be completely safe, under both current law and the Frazzled Code of Heaping Spoons of Ultimate Justice!
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:My father lives in Australia now and apparently they have a free period where volunteers can come teach about religion, as long as they supply the curriculum. The students don't have to be in the class.
Intermixing secular schools and religious thought, even if voluntary, is a dangerous precedent (in my opinion). If you accept freedom of faith as a tenet of society, then that also implies freedom from faith, and that's difficult to provide if you're allowing difficult religious groups access. How does the school handle conflicts between faith groups without effectively discriminating? Isn't that access a subsidisation (even if trivial for things like electricity, HVAC, etc) of belief? It's far better to disallow religious or political groups from access at such a privotal area.
Agreed no freedom of speech in public school. In the US it is law that the kids have to go to school in some manner. Forced prosletizing is right out. That doesn't hold in college as they are legally adults and contract their rights in or out (ie don't have to go to such and such school if they don't like it).
IceRaptor wrote:
If you accept freedom of faith as a tenet of society, then that also implies freedom from faith, and that's difficult to provide if you're allowing difficult religious groups access.
"The students don't have to be in the class."
IceRaptor wrote:
How does the school handle conflicts between faith groups without effectively discriminating? Isn't that access a subsidisation (even if trivial for things like electricity, HVAC, etc) of belief?
Whoever reserves the room first gets it. And no more than teaching something others don't believe or would be squeamish about like evolution or seeing nudey pictures in an art class.
IceRaptor wrote:
It's far better to disallow religious or political groups from access at such a privotal area.
Frazzled wrote:
You can indeed preach skin head thiemes and be completely safe, under both current law and the Frazzled Code of Heaping Spoons of Ultimate Justice!
I tentatively agree that this is okay; there is a very fine line between personal responsibility and speech that incites. I tend to favour the idea that personal responsibility is pre-eminent, but there needs to be some consideration of the responsibility of the speaker. I think we tend to strike a decent balance here in the states, as you quote above.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
"The students don't have to be in the class."
Are students aware that the group is on campus? Do they enter wearing symbols of their faith? Are they known as a representative of that faith? Do they put up signage promoting the group? Just because students don't have to be in the class, doesn't mean they are not aware of it's presence. The presence implies acceptance and tacit approval of the messages contained. I can agree students should be exposed to religious studies from an anthropological or social dynamics viewpoint, but not from a "here's our faith" stance.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Whoever reserves the room first gets it. And no more than teaching something others don't believe or would be squeamish about like evolution or seeing nudey pictures in an art class.
The difference is that parents of religious children can choose if their child attends those classes or not. Public schools are the lowest common denominator (in more ways than one) - more viewpoints will be expressed than can reasonably be accommodated in a public school. A secular organisation has no interest (well, should have no interest) in promoting a religious view, because of the 'big tent' effect.
Are students aware that the group is on campus? Do they enter wearing symbols of their faith? Are they known as a representative of that faith? Do they put up signage promoting the group? Just because students don't have to be in the class, doesn't mean they are not aware of it's presence. The presence implies acceptance and tacit approval of the messages contained. I can agree students should be exposed to religious studies from an anthropological or social dynamics viewpoint, but not from a "here's our faith" stance.
I think firsthand exposure is more educational than any essay will ever be. I don't think acknowledging that something exists on campus automatically means you approve and accept it. Bullying isn't approved of, but it's still there. Also censoring religion as though it's a "dirty" topic and hiding it so that some may go completely unaware of it's existence is a bit frightening. That's not different than my previous example of censoring evolution or "questionable" art.
IceRaptor wrote:
The difference is that parents of religious children can choose if their child attends those classes or not. Public schools are the lowest common denominator (in more ways than one) - more viewpoints will be expressed than can reasonably be accommodated in a public school. A secular organisation has no interest (well, should have no interest) in promoting a religious view, because of the 'big tent' effect.
All I can make is my first point again. It's easier to see for yourself than it is to have someone else tell you their interpretation.
mattyrm wrote:Orlanth, i spend all this time tolerating your spurious claims so as not to cause offense, and then you post the old ridiculous Hitler pics...
Mattyrm, for a start you are anything but tolerant, and if you think my claims are spurious, which ones.
mattyrm wrote:
You are deliberately misleading people.
That is completely against my character to do, and as you don't know me and have never met me, please refrain from personal comments on my motivations. Let us stick to the issues please.
mattyrm wrote:
Stalin, Mao and Hitler all rejected Darwin as a matter of public record, but none more obviously than Hitler.
Irrelevant, for a start Darwin was never an atheist, secondly atheism is not based around Darwin. Alternate viewpoints are possible, and rejecting Darwin might be a poltical play towards part of the populace.
mattyrm wrote:
Hitler was on your side of the fence, not mine, and im sick of you saying it.
I will politely assume you mean Hitler is on 'my' side of the fence only in the same way Stalijn is on 'yours'.
mattyrm wrote:
I defy you to find any evidence that Hitler even once mentioned that Darwinism was possibly more likely than Divine Creation. Hitler was Roman Catholic, he had a devout upbringing, he mentioned God regularly, he had "God is with us" Marked on the belt buckles of the SS.
Hitlers views were a confused polyglot of many faiths and atheism combined. Hitler was raised a catholic, so for that matter was Stalin, Stalin went to a religious school, early background is not actually very relevant to their political-theologcal mix. In any event it is common in politics particularly dishonest politics to have nebulous views out of expediency. A good example is when politicians come to churches at election time, and feth them over between elections.
Stalin, who I hope you wont deny was an atheist leader of an atheist state re-opened the churches of Moscow in late 1941, temporarily and out of expediency.
mattyrm wrote:
Read Mein Kampf, see how many times he mentions "our almighty creator"
Case in point. Hitler self identified with Germany.
mattyrm wrote:
Evolution is a proven fact, there is more evidence for it than gravity.
Your fanaticism is getting the better of you. Many theists myself included have no problems with evolutionary theory, and yes is is still a theory although likely, don't try and overstep what better men than you and I cannot.
Gravity is a physical law, big difference.
mattyrm wrote: Christian zealots have spent 200 years desperately trying to refute it, all we have gotten is more and more evidence. Not one single aspect of modern Science supports creationism. Biology, Paleontology, Geology, it all laughs in the face of your absurd pseudo-science.
Yes sadly some relgious zealots do that, but the world laughs at them not us. We also we find atheist zealots who try to say revealed science proves there is no God. it proves no such thing. It is no less fair to claim the more we understand the more we see into Gods toolbox. We live in an age of a world described by Newton and Einstein, but Einstein and Newton were both active beleivers, in fact both Jewish converts to Chritianity. Were they ignorant zealots beneath your contempt too?
I dislike the term 'intelligent design' its not needed its still creationism. Genesis can be explained simply enough, it always could, however the 'Christian zealots' you mentioned, and also some Jews and Moslems take a hyper literal view of the book of Genesis which givers internal clues in plain text that it should not be read that way. Given a bit of theology its quite understandable, the story comes from Gods perspective, a timeless God at that. Its up to you what you believe, but if you think those who do so are morally or mentally deficient you only highlight your own ignorance.
mattyrm wrote:
Now im fine with you believing in anything you want, but not lying in front of impressionable people via a forum in order to try and whip up some more converts to get a better score card off your vengeful jelous God on judgement day.
There is no evidence at all for your flood, your 6000 year old creation, your dinosaur riding cavemen, it is all utterly utterly ridiculous, and it is past time to call you out on it.
Is that what you think I believe? One of the hopes for Off Topic relgionand poltical discussions is that even if we fail to change opinions we should be able to expres our own so they are not misrepresented. To a large extent this has been successful, many here now show a greater understanding of opposed viewpoints, still we get the odd one or two who will not listen, and stick to their own prejudiced vierwpoints of what others think.
What hope have you to express an intelligent point of view, if you insist on a bigoted opinion of what others think. Assuming someone thought 'all soldiers are murderous babykillers' and refused to budge on that point of view what hope would you have of explaining yourslef to them. Frankly you would justifibly give up and write them off, should we do so with you?
I will assume not for the sake of the peace. So lets go though the points you want to call me out on:
1. I am not knowingly lying. Please control yourself and refrain from ad hominem attacks.
2. My salvation is not based on the number of converts I find. I am not an evangelist by calling either.
3. There is plenty of evidence for the flood. It is recorded in the epic of Gilgamesh. like most ancient tales it is retold by each tribe under their own names. It is an ancient story of histocical integrity. 'waters covering all the earth is a fair point if you live in the Tigris-euphrates basin.
4. The 6000 year old creation is Seventh Day Adventist only, sorry got the wrong guys.
I will ignore the part about dino riding cavemen, its a fairly harmless way for you to vent.
Ahem.... Hitler did combine many random faiths together to form his own that he felt justified his actions. A wonderful example of "pick-and-choose religion".
He also built a lot of his structure around eugenics...which is completely contrary to most religious thought, especially Christianity.
Nightwatch wrote:Ahem.... Hitler did combine many random faiths together to form his own that he felt justified his actions. A wonderful example of "pick-and-choose religion".
He also built a lot of his structure around eugenics...which is completely contrary to most religious thought, especially Christianity.
True though mattrym has a point as Hitler is not an example of violent atheism, though many if not most senior Nazis and his state was atheist, somerthing Hitler did nothing to contradict in his actions. as Hitler had direct contro over the imagery of his regime the ambracing of an atheistic state with pagan and spiritualist trappings is closer to atheism than anything else. Hitler was a grey area and difficult to pin down is actual beliefs, this made sense as he could adapt his oratory to fit, words like 'destiny' and 'divine right' are good copy in rabble rousing speeches. In any case he was not a clear example.
But the communist leaders mentioned most certainly qualified as atheistic murderers.
Nurglitch wrote:Firstly, let's acknowledge that physics, and perhaps economics, put a hard and fast limit on our powers of opinion such that we cannot have our opinions impressed upon others at all times and in all places. Given that nature has given us such limits to work within, politics gives us further limits on our powers of opinion, as much self-inflicted as by sovereign power.
Absolutely, this is very much the core of my point.
Secondly, those political limits are considerably more concerned with content: we might not wish people under our power ever have the opportunity to send or receive pornography involving children, as much as organize the use and sale of radio frequencies, or disseminate information about ongoing legal proceedings.
Such an attempt to be 'sensible' as you describe is then wrong-headed in principle as well as in practice because we have to go back and make all the ad hoc tweaks to such a compromise as should shoe-horn such sensible compromise into the realities of physical, economical, political, and personal powers.
No, that doesn’t make it wrong headed, your claim there just doesn’t follow at all.
You seem to be trying to build some kind of grand ideal based on absolute first principals, but the reality is that every society is actually built in an ad hoc, emergent manner. Society is an on-going process of compromise between values.
More realistically one would recognize that acknowledging the tyranny of politics, as well as those of physics and economics, should be done by those seeking to develop principles about what additional limits should be set on our powers of speech. Appeal to tyranny as setting those limits too low, even as a rhetorical move, begs the question (in the colloquial and technical senses) as to the nature and rightness of those limits, as though one had not already admitted to tyranny and was merely bargaining on the price.
Sure, calling the incident in the OP tyranny is a bit dramatic, I said as much myself.
The issue is that you note quite rightly there are limits to everything, but conclude from that that everything is tyranny of one sort or another. My point is that tyranny really is a fundamentally different state of affairs to a liberal democracy, and recognising the practical limits placed on free speech or other freedoms is simply an inevitable, sensible part of any functioning society, and there’s really no point in throwing around words like tyranny at all.
Churchill: "My dear, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?"
Woman: "Why certainly my dear, for a million pounds!'
Churchill: "How about five pounds?"
Woman: "Winston, do you take me for a prostitute?"
Churchill: "Dear lady, we've established what you are and are merely haggling over the price."
Or words to that effect.
Only if one assumes that there is no relevance to the extent in any circumstance. Which works well in high school politics essays but is pretty much anywhere else. Compromise is a constant and necessary thing, and what ultimately measures a system is what was compromised for what else.
Reducing everything to the binary will result in farcical conclusions.
How about (acts) not listening when everyone stuck with you on the bus or subway is telling you to shut up they don't want to hear your babble. That should be some kind of abuse of free speech violation.
I think back to my college days, and I would eat my sandwich out on the commons lawn between classes and every day right at noon this little family of fundamentalists would come out, and dad would be yelling about the sin of fornication to random couples walking by, while mom handed out pamphlets for their church and their two adorable little girls would run around and accost college kids asking "do you believe in jesus? because if you don't you are going to hell"... to which I responded "I believe in brainwashing", recieved a perplexed look from a seven year old, and was not bothered again (except for the sound of 'dad' ranting in the background). I really wish there was a law to arrest that guy for buttplugging his kids minds and yelling at anyone and everyone (we're college kids douchebag, of course we fornicate!).
I wouldn't be able to just go downtown and start yelling at everyone whatever came to mind, without getting at least 'disorderly conduct', but I guess it's okay if God is involved, right, because that would be an affront to freedom of religion?
The wording in the constitution that gives us Freedom OF Religion also gives us Freedom FROM religion... which in my mind means I shouldn't have to hear someone else's delusions and brainwashing being yelled at me unless I choose to... do your preaching in the appropriate place sir, a CHURCH... That's what they're there for so you can have your little pulpit and your little audience who actually wants to hear your babble. That's why I avoid churches, and it's stepping on my RIGHT NOT TO BE ANNOYED to preach at me in any other public space. Keep it in a church and you can tell stories about seven-headed beasts and angels with trumpets and so on all you want, but take it outside and make it my problem and you are a nuissance.
Orlanth wrote:Take a good long read, try and find ANYTHING that gives ANY impression that the man was yelling shouting or otherwise being obnoxiously loud.
I’m going purely on what the article said, he stood on a step ladder giving a sermon. That takes it miles past ‘conversation in a voice loud enough to be heard by others’ and into the public forum.
Now to account for invoking the Public Order Act you have to get very loud threatening or abusive. Delivering a serrmon is none of the above unless the preacher is arrested on content.
My point was on the general principle of the issue. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. If you want to debate the specifics of the law I’ll leave you to it, as I don’t know.
How read this passage from the article:
Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith.
During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.
After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.
Except he was arrested afterwards while giving a sermon. The article is vague, we don’t know if the original officer only gave a warning, or if he called for on-duty cops to come and arrest him. It is just as possible that he was arrested afterwards during his sermon, for its manner and content.
We don’t know, but it says a lot that you’ve taken a specific reading from the article.
So McAlpine was preaching the Gospel, someone came up to him asked him difficult questions on his faith and then denounced him as a bigot to the police for answering them. I have had that happen to me from time to time, but it never involved the police.
You preach on street corners?
The more I look at this the more I see a set up and a double helping of PC nonsense used as the beatstick. The questioner is asking the questions to look for claims to be offended, can't you see something wrong with that. How can you complain about being offended if you actively look for an offense to begin with.
If you want to construct a worldview of Christians being oppressed by a PC conspiracy then you do that, there’s nothing anyone can do to reason you out of it. Hopefully you’ll come out the other side with a more sensible worldview.
mattyrm wrote:Evolution is a proven fact, there is more evidence for it than gravity. Christian zealots have spent 200 years desperately trying to refute it, all we have gotten is more and more evidence. Not one single aspect of modern Science supports creationism. Biology, Paleontology, Geology, it all laughs in the face of your absurd pseudo-science.
Actually there was little debate over Origin of the Species on it’s release, the Bible had been accepted as metaphor for a long time at that point and so didn’t conflict with faith. You have to wait about 40 or 50 years until biblical fundamentalism makes a resurgence before people start worrying that it conflicts with the literal word of the Bible.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Until someone can answer where the stuff that evolved came from or can show me a video of something evolving I can't take it as anything other than an interesting concept. I really don't see the evidence for it, and the fossil thing is one of the big sticking points for me. What is it that makes evolution such "reasonable fact" to so many? No one has been alive long enough to observe it, and we probably wouldn't even be thinking about it now except for a few eloquent people bringing it up in the first place. At what point does it make the jump from "random idea; I could be wrong" to "undeniable fact!" and why is there no middle ground on what should be a fairly emotionally-absent issue. I wish it wasn't a stigma of "creation vs. evolution" because it proves nothing except that people have their own bias and will cling to whatever they want to believe.
Evolution became a reasonable fact when it demonstrated predictive power. That is, the concept of evolution made predictions about how anatomy and the differences with species over geographic distances, and this was then tested. The results were consistent with the theory. In time genetics were discovered, and evolution has been constantly tested and refined until we arrived at our current understanding. It is now the core of our understanding of genetics, and a huge part of agriculture and medicine.
I also wish it wasn’t a creation vs evolution issue. One can have faith and accept evolution.
Kilkrazy wrote:If you believe in true freedom of speech, you should allow people to go on the streets and spout the most arrant, offensive nonsense they like. The other side can shoot down their arguments with logic and facts.
That's what people in the USA can do and there is much less public violence that you would expect.
No. Is every forum open to all debate? A person may want to debate homosexuality on the street corner, for or against, but to what extent does public decency enter the issue? Does a parent walking down the street have to accept that their child will hear about homosexuality and the like, without any say in the matter?
And if every forum is open to all manner of expression in the US, why can’t you see boobies on television?
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:If you believe in true freedom of speech, you should allow people to go on the streets and spout the most arrant, offensive nonsense they like. The other side can shoot down their arguments with logic and facts.
That's what people in the USA can do and there is much less public violence that you would expect.
I aggressivley disagree wit, well most everything it seems but except for very minor limits I am ok with it.
Frazzled Rules on Free Speech:
Places. Certain places should be restricted. Locations near memorials, locations near K-12 school, maybe hospitals. Places where use of free speech violates someone else's Bill of Rights rights at a "compelling" interest level (legal standard). But that follows with limits on the 2nd Amendment etc. Can't carry firearms to a hanging or near a place of election for example (thats a question on a test BTW). Can search a house without warrant if there is the reasonable belief a crime is being imminently committed against another person for example (the cop hearing someone screaming in a house example)
Types. Common stare decisis on threats, and libel. Certain types of obscenity or profiting from speech that depicts an actual criminal activity (child porn as ean example). Revealing of private information that an ID thief can use. I am sure there might be a few others.
Acts. Free speech and publishing therein are protected. Acts are not. Burning flags, houses, destorying property or harming persons etc. No acts are speech. This includes blocking an abortion clinic. Thats an act not speech.
I think we pretty much agree, although there’s probably a point of difference on places, I wouldn’t allow all speech in the middle of shopping centres, for instance. A place should be made and it should be important for everyone to able to have their say, but not all the time, not everywhere.
But I am wondering, do you consider giving money as speech, or as an act, because I’m really trying to get my head around that Supreme Court precedent.
Nightwatch wrote:Ahem.... Hitler did combine many random faiths together to form his own that he felt justified his actions. A wonderful example of "pick-and-choose religion".
He also built a lot of his structure around eugenics...which is completely contrary to most religious thought, especially Christianity.
Eugenics are also contrary to any informed view of evolution.
Orlanth wrote:Take a good long read, try and find ANYTHING that gives ANY impression that the man was yelling shouting or otherwise being obnoxiously loud.
I’m going purely on what the article said, he stood on a step ladder giving a sermon. That takes it miles past ‘conversation in a voice loud enough to be heard by others’ and into the public forum.
Well, getting back to my comment to you on this point, is that enough to be threatening?
Manchu wrote:Well, getting back to my comment to you on this point, is that enough to be threatening?
It might be in some circumstance, but I would think it unlikely in this case.
Does it have to be threatening to be unwanted in all public forums? Maybe to meet the specifics of UK law, but I’m not talking about that as I don’t know it.
My point is just that it reasonable for some speech to be limited from public venues. While someone has a right to have their voice heard, does that really mean someone else needs to be exposed to people talking about their sexual preference as sin when they do their shopping? Should there be any consideration for a parent who doesn’t want their kid exposed to the idea of homosexuality, whether for or against?
My point is just that it reasonable for some speech to be limited from public venues. While someone has a right to have their voice heard, does that really mean someone else needs to be exposed to people talking about their sexual preference as sin when they do their shopping? Should there be any consideration for a parent who doesn’t want their kid exposed to the idea of homosexuality, whether for or against?
I agree. There is a level of decency that must be adhered to in the Western World. People are very sensitive about sexual orientation, as we still have not gotten over then hump in terms of a social revolution that would make homosexuality accepted. A person who states something homophobic on the streets and deigns it a religious offense has crossed two levels of decency at least, as for instance there are people who can be homosexual and be christian. A person should not have to feel bad for who or what they are so long as their identity in question is not one who hurts others, derives pain or joy from the misery of others, ect.
At the very least, the preacher should reconsider his sermons, as there are other fine things to highlight about Christianity than the negative connotations involved historically with the Christian stance on homosexuality.
@sebster: No doubt you're making reasonable points as usual. The circumstances here, however, seem unreasonable.
A man was handing out religious leaflets. A passerby engaged him in debate regarding faith--note that he did not engage her in said debate and there is no indication of who brought up homosexuality. Afterwards, a PCSO approached the passerby--note that the passerby did not approach the PCSO. The PCSO told the man that there had been a complaint about something that the man had said and that he could be arrested for using homophobic language. The PCSO then mentioned that he was the LGBT liason for the local police. The man then stood upon a stepladder and talked for twenty minutes about subjects unrelated to homosexuality. Finally, three regular police officers arrived and arrested him.
On these bare facts, I think it's reasonable to describe these events as pretextual application--what I still think could also be called tyrannical abuse--of law.
Manchu wrote:
On these bare facts, I think it's reasonable to describe these events as pretextual application--what I still think could also be called tyrannical abuse--of law.
The preacher does admit that Corinthians 1 does have some connotation relating to homosexuality as a sin. The preacher also did admit to the liason officer that homosexuality is a sin. If this was a private setting, I would be more apt to say an arrest for saying such things would be wrong. However, this was a public setting and there will be a debate as to what the man really said should be considered a crime (even if he did not say homosexuality is a sin).
Manchu wrote:Disagreeing with people in public is illegal?
Possible. American had problems with people doing things like that, depending on when and where it happened.
There are many examples, but most happened in a wartime or civil rights context that has nothing to do with religion, although there could be early American examples of Prodestants persecuting Catholics as America had a very strong resentment of the Pope in the early to mid 19th century and for Catholics in general that lasted well into the 20th century.
No question that people have abused the law in the past and that we have had trouble living up to what we Americans claim to be our values. But that has no bearing on discussion about the case at hand.
To be totally blunt, I think this is a case of a particular public authority using the law as a pretext to harass someone with whom he disagreed. Of course I have no facts but the ones provided on which to base this opinion--but I do not think I am indulging in any speculation one way or the other, either. On the facts before me, this is very plainly a little show of tyranny.
WarOne wrote:I agree. There is a level of decency that must be adhered to in the Western World. People are very sensitive about sexual orientation, as we still have not gotten over then hump in terms of a social revolution that would make homosexuality accepted. A person who states something homophobic on the streets and deigns it a religious offense has crossed two levels of decency at least, as for instance there are people who can be homosexual and be christian. A person should not have to feel bad for who or what they are so long as their identity in question is not one who hurts others, derives pain or joy from the misery of others, ect.
Yeah, I agree but I think it goes both ways, pro-homosexuality speeches should be as restricted. As well as potential to cause offence there’s an issue of public decency.
At the very least, the preacher should reconsider his sermons, as there are other fine things to highlight about Christianity than the negative connotations involved historically with the Christian stance on homosexuality.
Sure, but I will argue that the preacher is welcome to his opinions, and should be entitled to raise them in more appropriate circumstances, even though I disagree with him. Well, as much as a Godless heathen like myself can disagree with a Christian on matters of what his religion believes is a sin.
Manchu wrote:A man was handing out religious leaflets. A passerby engaged him in debate regarding faith--note that he did not engage her in said debate and there is no indication of who brought up homosexuality. Afterwards, a PCSO approached the passerby--note that the passerby did not approach the PCSO. The PCSO told the man that there had been a complaint about something that the man had said and that he could be arrested for using homophobic language. The PCSO then mentioned that he was the LGBT liason for the local police. The man then stood upon a stepladder and talked for twenty minutes about subjects unrelated to homosexuality. Finally, three regular police officers arrived and arrested him.
On these bare facts, I think it's reasonable to describe these events as pretextual application--what I still think could also be called tyrannical abuse--of law.
Yeah, I’m not sure I accept the facts as presented in the article as a complete version. It doesn’t ring true to me that a guy giving a speech with no reference to homosexuality at all will be approached and questioned on that issue. And that the women would hear his opinion and walk away, only to be approached by a policeman who could only guess that she’d asked him about homosexuality and disagreed with him on the topic. The officer would then warn the gentleman about this then contact police, but let him continue giving a sermon before officers turned up to arrest him.
Given I feel we don’t know the full circumstances of the story and I don’t know the specifics of the UK law, I only really came in to challenge the argument put up earlier in the thread, that all speech must be free in all circumstances, and that the US is somehow more free than elsewhere because of this.
But even given the loose events of the case, I do agree arresting the guy was well and truly over the top and that if his speech was actually offensive or vulgar or whatever it would have been better to just move him along.
"People, gather round... for I bring the good news... dark skinneds shall be no more! The jews shall have thy holy whatever, and those towel-heads shall get their justice, as long as the fags stop doing whatever they are doing and your wife stops giving you your bi-nightly threesome with her cousin! This I TELL YOU is the lord's truth! ON HIS 14th commandment moses spake "Thou shalt not be idiots and while you are at it, quit yelling at people"...
So McAlpine was preaching the Gospel, someone came up to him asked him difficult questions on his faith and then denounced him as a bigot to the police for answering them. I have had that happen to me from time to time, but it never involved the police.
You preach on street corners?
No I don't, personally I wouldn't outside of a square of plaza which is reserved for that purpose. It is better to have a stall or band playing in a set aside area, look identifiable and then talk to people who approach you. I have been part of that yes.
The story gets of personal interest to me because sometimes I am approached and 'outed' in pubs and other public places by people who want to ridicule me before witnesses. Like most Fundies I believe in my faith including the Bible, I am not a Biblical literalist, many passages have indirect meaning, but I support it to some extent nevertheless. Some people will ignore that and assume I believe this or that or the other, either from literalism, or just through hearsay. However something I do believe is that I should not deny my God, if others wont deny God when faced with threats of death or loss of liberty, I can take the odd bit of character assassination.
Asked a stupid question I answer it properly, much of the time the question is just to mock me and to hope to rile me, the former I ignore (which is taken to mean I am too stupid to realise what they are doing) the latter pisses them off when I refused to get riled while others get heated. Of course if you do all this in a crowd some like to join in, so I can very quickly be alone.
This happens very rarely, but one or two people with a serious hate on for Christians will try this every now and then. Normally it starts with some trick questions about Biblical stories or Christian beliefs, we have seen similar stuff here.
Its largely harmless and most people tend to realise what the hecklers are doing. In fact none particularly pervasive heckler was doing so to impress a girl we both knew. She doesn't share my spiritual beliefs, but she mentioned that I did impress her by sticking to them when everyone around me was turning hostile. He more or less stopped when he realised it was having an opposite effect to that intended.
All this ended about ten years ago, I was not a very effective target but by its nature this sort of attack could crop up anytime. Now what will happen if it get noticed and it starts up again? It norammly starts with me being poijnted out and other around me being told I falsely believe this and that, which I cannot ignore lest it be assumed true. This follows up with trick questions and I will have to be extra careful how I answer them, this will get increasingly difficult if I am surrounded on all sides by hecklers, many of whom will twist what I say. Now that I can be formally charged just for having some Christian beliefs I can see this being used as a beatstick. There are ways around this but it will require some mental agility, but hey if you read the Gospels Jesus got this problem all the time.
sebster wrote:
The more I look at this the more I see a set up and a double helping of PC nonsense used as the beatstick. The questioner is asking the questions to look for claims to be offended, can't you see something wrong with that. How can you complain about being offended if you actively look for an offense to begin with.
If you want to construct a worldview of Christians being oppressed by a PC conspiracy then you do that, there’s nothing anyone can do to reason you out of it. Hopefully you’ll come out the other side with a more sensible worldview.
No, I do beleive there is a lot of PC nonsense harming this nation, but it mostly has secular targets, the church are a fringe of what is being put under the thumb. Look how even ther most wide eyed apologist is starting to realise there is a tendency to assume anyone who critiques immigration policy is a racist, blanket labelling Fundies as homophobes is a fringe benefit.
sebster wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Evolution is a proven fact, there is more evidence for it than gravity. Christian zealots have spent 200 years desperately trying to refute it, all we have gotten is more and more evidence. Not one single aspect of modern Science supports creationism. Biology, Paleontology, Geology, it all laughs in the face of your absurd pseudo-science.
Actually there was little debate over Origin of the Species on it’s release, the Bible had been accepted as metaphor for a long time at that point and so didn’t conflict with faith. You have to wait about 40 or 50 years until biblical fundamentalism makes a resurgence before people start worrying that it conflicts with the literal word of the Bible.
I thoroughly agree with you. Darwin had a low opinion of the churchmen of his time, but never intended his works to stand as a flagbearer for atheism. evolution has been hijacked by atheists, and normally it starts with creationists believe otherwise, deliberately ignoring what most creationists actually believe.
Remember in the Age of Reason the Bible was a much studied book, by learned men. Genesis wasnt taken literally then by most, and it showed there was much room for progressive thinking without treading on the toes of faith, at least in the protestant nations. We learned that lesson through Galileo and Copernicus which was written off as a Catholic problem. Thus folks like Newton could change the way people fundamentaly think about the universe without concern from the church heirarchy of the time.
The trouble is that Darwins theories started to be taken as a beatstick even within his lifetime, and some narrow minded clerics got threatened by this and reacted badly to it in debates. Even today who gets chosen to represent the theist point of view in debates, and intelligent and well spoken theist apologist, or a crusty olfd hard liner bishop.
Best example of this is the 'debate' over the spiritual content of the film Life of Brian. John Cleese and Michael Palin prepared to give a defence of the film as not heretical, the two aged clerics opposing them were so completely off key they decided instead that it was better to say nothing. The film is of course excellent, and while I know some Christians who are uncomfortable with it I believe Cleese's original commentary, it is not intended to cause offense to Christians or Jews.
How can you make progress with cretins like this being wheeled out to represent a theistic point of view.
sebster wrote:
I also wish it wasn’t a creation vs evolution issue. One can have faith and accept evolution.
It isnt, those who hate theists put words in our mouths to claim it is supported off and on by crusty bishops who should not be used as definitive sources of theistic belief.
Orlanth, I understand that when feeling attacked, a natural defence mechanism is to fling mud at the other party - but I think you are making purposeful misrepresentations.
No-one questions that millions of people died under oppressive Communist regimes. However you are distorting the facts to present a picture of evil deeds done in the name of atheism. This is not strictly correct. The people who perpetrated such heinous acts were not flocking to the banner of Atheism, they were flocking to the banner of Communism, and to the national destiny of their people.
Now, I won't deny that extreme secularism was a by-product of these particular brands of oppressive communism in practice - but secularism is NOT the same thing as atheism. Would you call France an Atheist State? Perhaps you might, but the difference between France and Stalin's Russia is the way in which secularism in public life is enacted and enforced.
The dictators you mentioned where not, politically speaking, fundamentalist atheists - they were fundamentalist Communists and extreme secularists. That they happened not to believe in god is neither here nor there. You can preside over a secular society and still be religious.
Atheism isn't a belief system or a cause, secularism is. That's an important distinction to make.
In any case, the point I originally made was in response to SilverMK2, and his assertion that fundamentalist atheists are worse than any religious fundamentalist (which has since been cleared up) - my response was to the effect that 'you don't see many atheist terror groups'.
Which I think is fair enough.
Also, I don't think creationism debate is particularly helping this discussion, so I'm staying out of THAT one.
Ultimately, if you believe in free speech (I personally do) then the position aught to be very simple.
The preacher should not have been arrested for saying what they thought. If what you believe is unpaletteable to others, that's just their lookout. You have a right to express your views. Equally, they have a right to counter your aguments, tell you what's wrong with your life or just ignore you and walk on.
There should only be two instances in which freedom of speech should be abbrogated. First is where there is a specific intent to incite criminal behaviour (e.g. someone leading a protest march should not have the right to say 'ok guys, time to smash the shop windows!').
The second is where there is a clear intent to abuse or cause emotional distress. I have no problem with Fred Phelps saying that he believes that homosexuality is a sin - I have a great problem when he feels its ok to harass grieving families.
Chimera_Calvin wrote:Ultimately, if you believe in free speech (I personally do) then the position aught to be very simple.
The preacher should not have been arrested for saying what they thought. If what you believe is unpaletteable to others, that's just their lookout. You have a right to express your views. Equally, they have a right to counter your aguments, tell you what's wrong with your life or just ignore you and walk on.
There should only be two instances in which freedom of speech should be abbrogated. First is where there is a specific intent to incite criminal behaviour (e.g. someone leading a protest march should not have the right to say 'ok guys, time to smash the shop windows!').
The second is where there is a clear intent to abuse or cause emotional distress. I have no problem with Fred Phelps saying that he believes that homosexuality is a sin - I have a great problem when he feels its ok to harass grieving families.
Ah, but how do you determine harrasment? They're just standing there speaking their mind, after all. It's all completely subjective - I'm an atheist/secularist and I feel harrassed when I walk past someone who is preaching from a religious text. For the sake of argument.
I can draw a clear distinction between someone standing on a street corner speaking to bypassers who want to listen, or just general commenting to the passing crowd and deliberately picketing private family funerals so that you shout at grieving relatives.
Chimera_Calvin wrote:I can draw a clear distinction between someone standing on a street corner speaking to bypassers who want to listen, or just general commenting to the passing crowd and deliberately picketing private family funerals so that you shout at grieving relatives.
Its not that nuanced.
I know there's a fething difference thank you very much! Cheers for the condescention though. You're going on my naughty list...
My point is that it the Phelps family do what they do in a society which has reached a broad agreement as to the limits of free speech. Just as we have. Are those limits the same? No, probably not - in practice there are no such things as 'inalienable rights' (a term which makes me cringe...), and anyone who believes otherwise needs to seriously grow up. Our rights are a negotiation, and that applies to everyone everywhere.
I would rather live in a pragmatic society than a purely idealistic one.
Are those limits the same? No, probably not - in practice there are no such things as 'inalienable rights' (a term which makes me cringe...), and anyone who believes otherwise needs to seriously grow up. Our rights are a negotiation, and that applies to everyone everywhere.
I would rather live in a pragmatic society than a purely idealistic one.
Thankfully a certain group disagreed with you a few hundred years ago.
Chimera_Calvin wrote:Ultimately, if you believe in free speech (I personally do) then the position aught to be very simple.
The preacher should not have been arrested for saying what they thought. If what you believe is unpaletteable to others, that's just their lookout. You have a right to express your views. Equally, they have a right to counter your aguments, tell you what's wrong with your life or just ignore you and walk on.
There should only be two instances in which freedom of speech should be abbrogated. First is where there is a specific intent to incite criminal behaviour (e.g. someone leading a protest march should not have the right to say 'ok guys, time to smash the shop windows!').
The second is where there is a clear intent to abuse or cause emotional distress. I have no problem with Fred Phelps saying that he believes that homosexuality is a sin - I have a great problem when he feels its ok to harass grieving families.
Ah, but how do you determine harassment? They're just standing there speaking their mind, after all. It's all completely subjective - I'm an atheist/secularist and I feel harrassed when I walk past someone who is preaching from a religious text. For the sake of argument.
If someone feels harassed, they feel harassed and have a right to complain. The policeman on the spot has to make a decision about whether an arrest is warranted. If an arrest is made, when the case gets to court, the magistrates or jury will do their best to decide if a reasonable person should have found the treatment complained of harassing.
The court would also refer to the Public Order Act to guide them in their deliberations. I shall repeat it here as it may be useful.
Public Order Act 1986
1986 CHAPTER 64
/.../
[4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress]
[(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
@Frazzled - Man, it must really be tiring being cranky, paranoid and defensive the whole time - percieving everything as an attack. You'll give yourself an ulcer if you aren't careful.
My point was that I don't believe in 'inalienable rights', you respond by posting some pictures of the founding fathers, I responded by pointing out that those some of those same men owned slaves and would preside over a country that permitted the keeping of other human beings in bondage.
You being you, you take that as some sort of value judgement - for my part, I think it was an excellent illustration of the concept that rights are 'negotiated'.
But whatever man, keep drinking that 'Freedom Liquor'.
It is a value judgement. Its one of the completely separate things the US is based on. Our rights are not negotiated, or given to us by the government, or a King, but derive from ourselves. Even if the government takes them, even if man takes them, they are still ours, and we will not rest until we get those rights back.
Frazzled wrote:It is a value judgement. Its one of the completely separate things the US is based on. Our rights are not negotiated, or given to us by the government, or a King, but derive from ourselves. Even if the government takes them, even if man takes them, they are still ours, and we will not rest until we get those rights back.
What is the basis of this? I know, but I want to see if you do.
Frazzled wrote:What is the basis of this? Please clarify.
Where do you get your concept of liberty from? Did it spring naturally from the populace, spontaneously taking shape, or was it something that was agreed upon by interested parties?
Frazzled wrote:What is the basis of this? Please clarify.
What is the basis of this? Please confuse.
But anywho touching on what sebster responded to me earlier about counterpointing that pro-homosexuality speech should be banned...well that is where we may have a problem. Things in a negative connotation are what is at stake here, especially since we flavor it with a religious spin. Not granted I do not see people expounding the positives of homosexuality on a street corner, but to think that saying something positive about something should go with being banned with saying something negative about something is well...
This is assuming the thing we are talking about has nothing to do with harming others, or has a history of causing problems for people to which a negative connotation may lead to harm. For instance, I cannot go to a street corning and expound the virtues of eugenics, especially in Western Europe where eugenics could be a touching subject, especially since we proved the horrible end result of such thinking. If I go to a street corner and denounce the KKK as a historical lesson in how white supremacy was a bad thing, killed people, ect.- I would probably not be arrested and would probably get a gold star sticker from my teacher.
Expounding the virtues of homosexuality on a street corner may seem odd, but I do not think I would get arrested, given that homosexuals are socially perceived as a group of people that have been persecuted in the past and are still persecuted today for who they are. And don't spin that religion is also what people are persecuted for, as I am well aware of it.
Frazzled wrote:What is the basis of this? Please clarify.
Where do you get your concept of liberty from? Did it spring naturally from the populace, spontaneously taking shape, or was it something that was agreed upon by interested parties?
In other words:
A NEGOTIATION
Er, it kinda sprang from this.
I guess thats a negotiation.
Frazzled wrote:What is the basis of this? Please clarify.
Where do you get your concept of liberty from? Did it spring naturally from the populace, spontaneously taking shape, or was it something that was agreed upon by interested parties?
In other words:
A NEGOTIATION
Er, it kinda sprang from this.
I guess thats a negotiation.
Fine. A group of people reach an agreement upon what they want and encourage other people to fight a group of other people for it. That's an acceptable example. What is important is that there are parties who decide which specific rights are desirable, and which aren't. That's why there is a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and the Magna Carta.
These things don't just materialise out of thin air, fully formed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:
Albatross wrote:
WarOne wrote:...granted I do not see people expounding the positives of homosexuality on a street corner...
Depends on the street corner, old chum...
THAT was taken from the visitmanchester website!
Clearly sir you are misinterpreting the re-enactment of Icarus and his father flying into the sun.
1) When all ideas are discussed openly, bad ones can be knocked down. Giving bad ones (not that I am taking a side here) a ban gives them power because it also protects them from refutation along with validating them.
2) Once you start drawing a line, they tend to spontaneously acquire the ability to move. Scary stuff.
3) Without an easy/clear/universal definition of what is hateful, you run into more difficulties.
Orky-Kowboy wrote:Martin Luther King's dream realised is Barack Obama? Wow. The ghettoes rejoice!
People set off fireworks at my apartment complex when it was announced he had won. I then heard loud cheering and literally everyone formed a big cheering crowd outside. I locked my doors and turned my lights off then went to bed >_<
As for Frazz and Albatross, since neither of you seem to really know the answer to the question, you now have assigned reading for the week. Bring eyedrops, because while it is interesting, it is also very dry.
Orky-Kowboy wrote:Martin Luther King's dream realised is Barack Obama? Wow. The ghettoes rejoice!
People set off fireworks at my apartment complex when it was announced he had won. I then heard loud cheering and literally everyone formed a big cheering crowd outside. I locked my doors and turned my lights off then went to bed >_<
It was bittersweet for everybody here. One the one hand, Obama won. On the other hand, Prop 8 passed.
The people who wanted Obama were dissapointed in prop 8 passing, and the people who voted yes on 8 were pissed that Obama won.
Albatross wrote:Orlanth, I understand that when feeling attacked, a natural defence mechanism is to fling mud at the other party - but I think you are making purposeful misrepresentations.
I think we an take that several ways.
Albatross wrote:
No-one questions that millions of people died under oppressive Communist regimes. However you are distorting the facts to present a picture of evil deeds done in the name of atheism. This is not strictly correct.
Hardline communism is atheistic as well as secular. atheism is a large part of theeir dogmas, admittedly it not not the basis of all they think, but it is the basis of much of what they think. When the commies took over the religious got put up against the wall along with the est. some might have died for being noble, or capitalist or other persons who offended communism in a secular way. Priests died largely because they offended communism in another way, in particular the atheistic principle.
I am not however accusing all atheists of being in agreement with this, or even any majority.
However communism is an athiest creed, in addition to secular organisations and roles it replaces, the Party or the Manifesto, or the Leader also directly replaces God. This is what is happening in China now. You have freedom of religion of a sorts except when you beleive in the tenets of the relgion. I cannot speak for other faiths in China, but there is an official Chinese Christian church, which preaches a watered down message the crucifixion the nativity and in part the resurrection. The underground church preaches the full message and the parts the government do not like are parts where sovereignty or authority is espoused. To a Christian, God is Truth and Jesus is Lord. In China only Communism can be Truth, and the Party is the only 'Lord' permitted. The Soviet Union was little different and as for the Khmer Rouge, they just slaughtered everyone with religious leanings out of hand, under the pretext of atheistic progress.
Nazism also holds to similar doctrines in apllication, though as Hitler had his own seperate confused theology he is not in personal a realistic example of an atheistic tyrant.
Albatross wrote:
Now, I won't deny that extreme secularism was a by-product of these particular brands of oppressive communism in practice - but secularism is NOT the same thing as atheism. Would you call France an Atheist State? Perhaps you might, but the difference between France and Stalin's Russia is the way in which secularism in public life is enacted and enforced.
Modern France or Revolutionary France. Paris under the Communards (1871) dabbled with applying atheism, as did some of the early French Revolutionary government, both failed as France is defacto a catholic country by demographics. They lacked the power to make such a change. Making France formally a secular state did work however, and does to this day. Unlike the UK, and Russia, France has no internal religion of note so by severing power ties to the vatican the French government could make itself secular even if the population largely were not. Thus wether the population is Cathoklic or not, orhow catholic those who are are becomes irrelevant.
Albatross wrote:
Atheism isn't a belief system or a cause, secularism is. That's an important distinction to make.
It is when non-existance of God becomes a formally applied doctrine. Non-existance of God the fundamentals of atheism was one of the founding philosophies of Communism and played a major part in social education.
Secularism wants seperation from religion, a secular state does not decree all religion false or as Mao put it 'poisonous'.
Albatross wrote:
'you don't see many atheist terror groups'.
Which I think is fair enough.
Many I can concur with, your original comment denied there were any. Though Communist states are not terror groups either they fit the original criteria.
Orlanth wrote:Hardline communism is atheistic as well as secular. atheism is a large part of theeir dogmas, admittedly it not not the basis of all they think, but it is the basis of much of what they think.
Really? I thought it was all that 'means of production, and that which is produced...' caper.
Again, atheism and secularism are by-products of those particular types of Communism (i.e Stalinism and Maoism). Atheism wasn't an end in and of itself for those dictators.
Orlanth wrote:Secularism wants seperation from religion, a secular state does not decree all religion false or as Mao put it 'poisonous'.
Depends on one's reasons for wanting a secular state, or for being an atheist.
Orlanth wrote:Non-existance of God the fundamentals of atheism
Non-subscription to theistic belief. Seriously, THIS again?
Frazzled wrote:It is a value judgement. Its one of the completely separate things the US is based on. Our rights are not negotiated, or given to us by the government, or a King, but derive from ourselves. Even if the government takes them, even if man takes them, they are still ours, and we will not rest until we get those rights back.
That's not a value judgment, that's a statement of belief.
In any case, our rights were negotiated, and were given to us, or protected by, by representatives. The fact that they were written in a such a way as to endorse the notion that they could not be taken away does not change the fact that the document protecting them was the result of a certain agreement reached by a group of people. Many beliefs negotiated into a single, agreeable statement of beliefs.
Orlanth wrote:No I don't, personally I wouldn't outside of a square of plaza which is reserved for that purpose. It is better to have a stall or band playing in a set aside area, look identifiable and then talk to people who approach you. I have been part of that yes.
That's cool. I'll admit that up until now I've seen guys on corners like that and made assumptions, but from now on I can see a dude on a corner like that and think there's a chance he's a wargamer like me. Very cool.
This happens very rarely, but one or two people with a serious hate on for Christians will try this every now and then. Normally it starts with some trick questions about Biblical stories or Christian beliefs, we have seen similar stuff here.
Yeah, those people sound like a-holes. Sorry you have to put up with that. I don't like it when it happens here, and it'd be even more odious in real life.
No, I do beleive there is a lot of PC nonsense harming this nation, but it mostly has secular targets, the church are a fringe of what is being put under the thumb. Look how even ther most wide eyed apologist is starting to realise there is a tendency to assume anyone who critiques immigration policy is a racist, blanket labelling Fundies as homophobes is a fringe benefit.
There's a lot of bad debate, with sacred cows on both sides.
I thoroughly agree with you. Darwin had a low opinion of the churchmen of his time, but never intended his works to stand as a flagbearer for atheism. evolution has been hijacked by atheists, and normally it starts with creationists believe otherwise, deliberately ignoring what most creationists actually believe.
Remember in the Age of Reason the Bible was a much studied book, by learned men. Genesis wasnt taken literally then by most, and it showed there was much room for progressive thinking without treading on the toes of faith, at least in the protestant nations. We learned that lesson through Galileo and Copernicus which was written off as a Catholic problem. Thus folks like Newton could change the way people fundamentaly think about the universe without concern from the church heirarchy of the time.
Yes.
The trouble is that Darwins theories started to be taken as a beatstick even within his lifetime, and some narrow minded clerics got threatened by this and reacted badly to it in debates. Even today who gets chosen to represent the theist point of view in debates, and intelligent and well spoken theist apologist, or a crusty olfd hard liner bishop.
It's a bit much to claim it came entirely from atheists. A re-emphasis on biblical literalism is a much bigger element that some annoying atheists. Atheists would probably like to be as relevant to the evolution of Christian belief as you're asserting, but we're really quite irrelevant.
Best example of this is the 'debate' over the spiritual content of the film Life of Brian. John Cleese and Michael Palin prepared to give a defence of the film as not heretical, the two aged clerics opposing them were so completely off key they decided instead that it was better to say nothing. The film is of course excellent, and while I know some Christians who are uncomfortable with it I believe Cleese's original commentary, it is not intended to cause offense to Christians or Jews.
Not being a Christian my sensitivities aren't going to be the same, but I can't see the Life of Brian as anything other than a really positive film that embraces the message of Jesus. It's a contraversy that pretty much escapes me entirely.
It isnt, those who hate theists put words in our mouths to claim it is supported off and on by crusty bishops who should not be used as definitive sources of theistic belief.
Sure, it sucks when people stereotype the whole of a faith, but evolution is dismissed by about half of the US population, and it's hard to credit that to anything but religion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:But anywho touching on what sebster responded to me earlier about counterpointing that pro-homosexuality speech should be banned...well that is where we may have a problem. Things in a negative connotation are what is at stake here, especially since we flavor it with a religious spin. Not granted I do not see people expounding the positives of homosexuality on a street corner, but to think that saying something positive about something should go with being banned with saying something negative about something is well...
There's an issue of public decency. Giving a speach on a street corner open to all... 'Mummy, what's homosexuality?'
Expounding the virtues of homosexuality on a street corner may seem odd, but I do not think I would get arrested, given that homosexuals are socially perceived as a group of people that have been persecuted in the past and are still persecuted today for who they are. And don't spin that religion is also what people are persecuted for, as I am well aware of it.
I don't want anyone to get arrested for preaching on a street corner, either for or against homosexuality. I think a quick chat from an officer, telling the guy the locations of public forums for debate, and then asking him to move along would be much better.
And yeah, I absolutely agree the homosexuals have and still are persecuted for trying to love the people that they love. I just don't believe that standing on a street corner yelling at people trying to do their shopping is anything other than annoying, and possibly inappropriate depending on the audience.
Standing on a street corner ranting on and on about unicorns or alien conspiracies would not be considered acceptable. If I want to hear about mythology I will look it up in a library or go to a church/synagogue/mosque/etc. If I want to go shopping for a T-shirt I shouldn't have to hear about how god kills kittens because sodom and gommorah loved too many gerbils or whatever gak. Again I say, if I ranted at random strangers who were not interested in listening to me at all, about whatever improvable nonsense my science-fiction filled head comes up with "WOE UNTO YE! THE WYVERNS ARE COMING FOR TOO MUCH CAKE HAS BEEN DESECRATED 4321 YEARS AGO ON THIS DAY! 4321 is THE NUMBER OF THE WYVERN! repent sinners for I have no sex life! Therefore my tiny prick needs you to act accordingly lest the unicorns will not protect us from the wyverns upon doomsday when it imminently arrives!"
I would totally completely get locked up in a looney bin. It might be more fun, rather than calling the cops on ranty preacher guy, or being that arguementative 'I think I look cool for argueing against your annoying ass' guy... just to outpreach him with the most absurd nonsense I can come up with.
Unicorn Robot Laser Horns are all of what stands between us and the wyvern attack. Take care with the number 4321 for it is a wyvern number...
Turns out an atheist protestor got the same charge, but ended up with a suspended 6 month jail term, 100 hours of unpaid work and a £250 fine. Basically a much larger punishment (the preacher got the fine), but no one heard about it because the catholic community certainly didn't get up in arms about it.
The government is at least keeping their silly law consistent, I suppose...
Guitardian wrote:gak. I get offended by zombie worshipping blood drinking miracle healers. Why don't they get the jail sentence like that atheist guy did?
Do you have even an ounce of class? It seems that every post you make in this thread is some ill conceived attempt at mockery of the Christian faith. Give it a rest and let those who are serious about and intrigued by this discussion a bit of freedom from witless trolling. I am an ardent supporter of our right to Free Speech, but as they say, "With great power come great responsibility." The freedom to speak and express yourself is a power beyond reckoning, so people should exercise it in a responsible manner. That being said, I am decidedly against further limitation of speech. From what I can read the preacher wasn't doing anything wrong, but Sebster has so aptly noted, we may not have the whole story.
No, that is incorrect. It lacks class when one makes idiotic statements that are meant to hurt and humiliate someone. That preacher did neither. I do not find pleasure in the fact that the Bible says certain things are wrong, but to disregard moral teaching as outdated or wrong because of my own feelings would be my own pride dictating Truth and not God, and that my friends is sinful. I would daresay that most Christians, as in those that truly have Christ as their focus and not the mindset of a Pharisee, are in anguish over the state of humanity. We weep for those who sin against God (which is all of us), but we do not judge. St. Paul made it abundantly clear that we are not to judge those outside the Faith as they have already been judged by God. Who then is a better judge? We are called upon to spread the Word with humility and love, and sometimes love entails telling others what they don't always like to hear...
JEB_Stuart wrote:No, that is incorrect. It lacks class when one makes idiotic statements that are meant to hurt and humiliate someone. That preacher did neither. I do not find pleasure in the fact that the Bible says certain things are wrong, but to disregard moral teaching as outdated or wrong because of my own feelings would be my own pride dictating Truth and not God, and that my friends is sinful. I would daresay that most Christians, as in those that truly have Christ as their focus and not the mindset of a Pharisee, are in anguish over the state of humanity. We weep for those who sin against God (which is all of us), but we do not judge. St. Paul made it abundantly clear that we are not to judge those outside the Faith as they have already been judged by God. Who then is a better judge? We are called upon to spread the Word with humility and love, and sometimes love entails telling others what they don't always like to hear...
Then why the double, or I could even say triple standard here? One guy shares his view about how gay is bad, another guy shares his view about how faith lacks common sense... one guy gets a fine and the other goes to jail. People are very clingy when it comes to their 'faith'. I personally don't have any as I never heard the voice of god tell me, I have just figured it out for myself.
A preacher thinks he is being helpful by taking his brainwashed 6 year old to accost college kids in the commons about how they need Jesus or they are going to hell, and tells them off for being fornicators, as if the child had any choice in what her dad teaches her... See I would call that child abuse, just as if I raised my son to think he was actually a robot from planet zoltar sent to save humanity from the wyverns and then unleashed him on the public would get him taken away by DCFS pretty quick.
So one brainwash is better than the other because the book has been around longer? Is that it? (I still haven't got anyone to publish my wyvern book... maybe I should consider hiding half-translated scraps of it somewhere in the desert on scrolls, maybe near the Arizona border, they're sure to be found there. That seems to have worked in the past in the holy land. Of yeah, the vatican not only hands out get out of jail free cards (and get-out-of-hell-free confessions), they also horde half the document found that they think contradict the ones in 'their' version of the bible.
Those forinstances are what I mean by the double standard, along with the vastly different punishments for the two news stories. Maybe god stepped in on the part of his follower. Yeah I'm sure that's got to be it.
So this preacher thinks he is being helpful by unleashing his child upon society with certain beliefs he thinks are RIGHT. Well I believe unleashing sarcasm is helpful, so really I'm just trying to help like any other good gadfly would. And have you seen my picture? and you think I might actually have CLASS?! moreso, you think I CARE?! sheesh.
I'm not trying to defend one thing or another here, but the crimes in each case were different. The atheist left indecent images laying around a public place, deliberately attempting to annoy people, while the preacher was just spouting his stuff in the street (and from the news story which I suspect is not exactly impartial he was not particularly attacking anyone or anything, just explaining what he thinks the bible says).
Then could it not be argued that the preacher was just spouting his stuff in the street, fully aware that it annoys people, but doing it anyways... ergo "deliberately attempting to annoy people" too?
As far as what is considered 'indecent' in a public place, that is kind of a matter of subjective opinion. I rather think an image of a half-naked man being tortured to death kind of indecent. I'd rather an image of fat naked midgets going poo than see a constant reminder of cruelty, stupidity, and public execution. But oh well... too many church steeples around, so I guess I'm stuck with it. It's okay, I'll just not get my way on that one.
As I said, I'm not attempting to defend one thing or the other, as I don't have all the details of each case, but I suspect that the preacher would not have commited as serious a class of crime as the guy with the pictures.
Again, I've not looked into the cases, seen the pictures, heard the things the preacher was saying, etc.
Just a note about double standards. Portland,OR, 2004, pioneer square (big city square right smack in the center of downtown) my friends and I were playing guitar and singing folk music - not for change - just to pass the time on a nice sunny day. We were told by a cop that we had to stop because it might be bothering some people. I didn't notice anyone bothered, many just hanging around on the steps seemed to me to be enjoying it, if not indifferent as they fed the pidgeons or ate their lunch or whatever.
Shortly later a preacher came out with his big booming voice and proceeded to insult gay people, fornicators, sinneers, etc and was far louder than we were being and he got the whole place irritated (Portland is a very progressive town) but he actually got a police escourt hovering nearby to make sure nobody was infringing on his free speech or accosting him for being a public jerk.
SilverMK2 wrote:That is fairly rubbish, but folk music is pretty bad
as in... accoustic guitars not rauciously loud amps, and no our music is not hippie songs about vietnam, just playing songs for our own amusement. Never mind. Your taste does not concern me I do it for a living. " " so take your "fairly rubbish" and go stuff it down some heavy metal band's throat for all I care dude. Go listen to your U.K. Dub or something. Not my point. Let me hear something you can play then talk gak.
The POINT WAS... that we were TOLD by a cop, NOT by a crowd, to STOP, but the church guy is PROTECTED BY a cop, FROM the crowd, so he could keep going. Musical taste is not the issue here.
@ Guitardian - I was being mildly silly (hence the ). I got what you were saying about the kind of music you would be playing - a group of people just playing some music, not some hippy protest rave.
I actually quite like Folk (and hate DUB), so please, relax - not everyone is out to get you, I was just trying to make light of the situation you found yourself in while agreeing with you that it was a fairly rubbish thing of them to do.
Sorry for misunderstanding I wasn't aware what you were referring to as 'fairly rubbish' I thought you meant the fact that we were playing, rather than, what I now understand as a solidarity in agreeing that that was fairly rubbish of THEM to do. My bad. I don't think anyone is out to get me, I just misinterpreted. Type is bad like that. It's all good. and yeah dub sucks. Even Jesus hates dub though, and that man is full of love. The guy who calls bs on the guy who calls bs on me is my friend. My misunderstanding.
Guitardian wrote:Just a note about double standards. Portland,OR, 2004, pioneer square (big city square right smack in the center of downtown) my friends and I were playing guitar and singing folk music - not for change - just to pass the time on a nice sunny day. We were told by a cop that we had to stop because it might be bothering some people. I didn't notice anyone bothered, many just hanging around on the steps seemed to me to be enjoying it, if not indifferent as they fed the pidgeons or ate their lunch or whatever.
Shortly later a preacher came out with his big booming voice and proceeded to insult gay people, fornicators, sinneers, etc and was far louder than we were being and he got the whole place irritated (Portland is a very progressive town) but he actually got a police escourt hovering nearby to make sure nobody was infringing on his free speech or accosting him for being a public jerk.
Double standard yet?
Or maybe the double standard is you bitching about free speech in the USA when you aren't even a citizen of the USA, yet sucked off the US taxpayer and seem to nothing but bitch about this country. Dear god just leave already.
JEB_Stuart wrote:No, that is incorrect. It lacks class when one makes idiotic statements that are meant to hurt and humiliate someone. That preacher did neither. I do not find pleasure in the fact that the Bible says certain things are wrong, but to disregard moral teaching as outdated or wrong because of my own feelings would be my own pride dictating Truth and not God, and that my friends is sinful. I would daresay that most Christians, as in those that truly have Christ as their focus and not the mindset of a Pharisee, are in anguish over the state of humanity. We weep for those who sin against God (which is all of us), but we do not judge. St. Paul made it abundantly clear that we are not to judge those outside the Faith as they have already been judged by God. Who then is a better judge? We are called upon to spread the Word with humility and love, and sometimes love entails telling others what they don't always like to hear...
Then why the double, or I could even say triple standard here? ...
...
...
.
If you read the two cases you will find out that the "in your face"-ness of the militant atheist was much greater than the street preacher. The atheist deliberately defaced a prayer room. Every case should be judged upon its merits.
(The preacher has not been arraigned yet, so it may end up with nothing.)
Guitardian wrote:Just a note about double standards. Portland,OR, 2004, pioneer square (big city square right smack in the center of downtown) my friends and I were playing guitar and singing folk music - not for change - just to pass the time on a nice sunny day. We were told by a cop that we had to stop because it might be bothering some people. I didn't notice anyone bothered, many just hanging around on the steps seemed to me to be enjoying it, if not indifferent as they fed the pidgeons or ate their lunch or whatever.
Shortly later a preacher came out with his big booming voice and proceeded to insult gay people, fornicators, sinneers, etc and was far louder than we were being and he got the whole place irritated (Portland is a very progressive town) but he actually got a police escourt hovering nearby to make sure nobody was infringing on his free speech or accosting him for being a public jerk.
Double standard yet?
Or maybe the double standard is you bitching about free speech in the USA when you aren't even a citizen of the USA, yet sucked off the US taxpayer and seem to nothing but bitch about this country. Dear god just leave already.
UM EXCUSE ME??!! I pay taxes like everyone else, but I don't and never have taken handouts, even when living on streets waiting for my paperwork. Since I can't vote all I can do is be vocal. Get your facts straight sir. I cannot leave as I am fully integrated into United Statesian culture and have all my stuff here which would take a year's salary to 'just move'. Maybe you own a private jet or something I can borrow? Even if I could move my entire life accross the pond I would be considered a foreigner if I went back 'home' because of my accent, my lack of local culture. It's not as if it was my decision I was a little kid when I got brought over here. I do not believe it is your place to tell people where they should go.
We may be polar opposites regarding conservative versus liberal values but that is my right as a United States, tax paying PERMANENT resident. That is a PERMANENT resident, as stated on my green card, which I PAID the federal government for. Get your head out of your butt and get your facts straight old man. As a taxpayer I have every right and protection you do except voting.
You are supposed to be a 'mod', a voice of reason, not flame bait! You should know better. Take your personal jabs and PM them to me if you want. If I recall you started this flame-bait thing in another thread. This is the last time I address one of your volatile posts 'mod': go back to your own country too, you don't seem like a native american to me. If I recall you locked that thread, only to have it reopened by a wiser man than yourself who labeled you a grouchy old man and to not pay attention to your rubbish.
There, I've said it in public, now can we get back to talking about if the law has a double standard when it comes to religious/irreligious public nuissances?
In the interest of promoting peace, Guitardian, your tone has been pretty harsh in every post in this thread. There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and not giving them an inkling of credit. I see that you've had some bad experiences with double standards, but that's not everywhere. I'm sure some people have the exact opposite stories as you. Everyone has different experiences. Take a chill pill and let's try to celebrate each other's differences in a way where we can still discuss their merits. Frazz, I'm not going to comment though I'm guessing you were a little flustered and I'm sure you can defend or explain yourself if you think it's worth the energy or not.
but except for very minor limits I am ok with it.
