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.

Soladrin 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


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.

Where's the hate speech again?

Frazzled wrote:
Greatest power on earth, so badass they had to invent a new name for us-hyperpower?

That was my first thought too Frazz, but I know he wasn't going there so that's why I asked for clarification. LOL

GG

Kilkrazy wrote:

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

Your whole country is filled with outrageous nonsense.

olympia wrote:The cops did him a favor getting him off the street before he got his skull cracked open by some "sinners."

It's good to know you support the rationale of the police who prohibited black civil rights leaders from speaking in the United States.

generalgrog wrote:

I think you said you were gay olympia

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.

[youtube]

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!

Soladrin wrote:Your whole country is filled with outrageous nonsense.

How many years have you lived here?

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.

Anyway, that's my explanation.

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.

Soladrin wrote:Your whole country is filled with outrageous nonsense.

At least our shoes are made of leather and rubber, as God intended.

Of course homosexuality is a sin. It's a hot sweaty man-swuzzling sin. Mmmh.

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...

Here's "Free Speech" in Austin, Texas one of the most liberal cities in the U.S. and certainly Texas.

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/pace/prodemopick.htm

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.

dogma wrote: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.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

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!

You can't do it here. It's against the law.

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

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.

dogma wrote:

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..

generalgrog wrote:

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.

Find me some wooden shoes with "Nike" stamped on them with the Nike "swish" and I'd buy them.

Soladrin wrote:Your whole country is filled with outrageous nonsense.

I am shocked, just shocked you would say such a thing.

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?