Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@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."

Under the Frazzled Code of Justice (now with more Bacon!) That is publishing, limited only by Types and Locations.

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.

IceRaptor wrote:

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.

I fail to see why.

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.

IceRaptor wrote:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_views

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.

sebster wrote:

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?

sebster wrote:

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).

Disagreeing with people in public is illegal?

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"...

ech.. somebody take me to jail...

sebster wrote:

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.

Its not that nuanced.

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.