Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think like most of these incidents people refuse to understand that they are calculated based on their expectancy to get arrested based on existing laws. The law that got him arrested has as much to do with the area where non religious public disorder has been a problem as it does the insistance that freedom of religion means the ability to publically target a specific sect of society protected under the law.
He knew exactly where he was preaching and knew exactly this would happen. Some will argue that it is about religious freedom, but just like the other thread, it really isn't.
It has to do with people who preach in places where the content of their message can be seen as trying to disrupt. Which is what the laws surrounding his arrest were made to avoid.
Normally, I would say this is just another preacher setting himself up to be "persecuted" in order to get the fundies all riled up. Like the preacher in Philadelphia discussed in another thread...all he had to do was move to another area a few feet away and nobody would have stopped him. But looking as if he were being persecuted was the whole point.
HOWEVER...that this story is from the UK and I have no idea of the practice of free speech there notwithstanding (and he may have been trying to assume a persecution complex), I almost have to side with the preacher, not because of his message, but it almost seems as if his freedom of speech has been abridged. If he were using perjoratives and if he were not obeying the law as far as where he was allowed to speak, volume, curfews, etc., then I could understand an arrest.
IMO, if this happened in the US under identical conditions, the ACLU would jump on this in a heartbeat.Yes, the ACLU does defend fundamentalist Christians if it feels constitutional rights have been abridged. Not strictly a "commie" organization
That's usually what the law is most concerned with - the potential for inciting a riot.
Makes you wonder what they would've done to Jesus...
Actually the whole idea of Jesus speaking in public is not the same as it is today. Jesus specifically talked to the religious leaders of the time when it come to the harshness we in modern times see it as.
Where are the religious leaders today as opposed to then? Are they walking out around in public where these "preachers" are?
When he spoke to the multitudes it was concerning Love, when he spoke to the man in the tombs, he was not accusing the man, he was freeing him.
The religious of today think they are following Jesus footsteps and they are not.
They are disruptive and the issue is trying to be made into an issue of religious freedom when the truth is that these type of people want the right to disrupt.
Actually the whole idea of Jesus speaking in public is not the same as it is today. Jesus specifically talked to the religious leaders of the time when it come to the harshness we in modern times see it as.
Where are the religious leaders today as opposed to then? Are they walking out around in public where these "preachers" are?
When he spoke to the multitudes it was concerning Love, when he spoke to the man in the tombs, he was not accusing the man, he was freeing him.
The religious of today think they are following Jesus footsteps and they are not.
They are disruptive and the issue is trying to be made into an issue of religious freedom when the truth is that these type of people want the right to disrupt.
You're right, a better comparison would be John the Baptist, and we saw what happened to him.
The arrest was wrong. The preacher should have sued, if they can sue in England.
Homosexuality is a sin. Should we arrest the person who yells "Stop theif" or the thief himself?
Not an accurate comparson. Homosexuality being wrong is a religious intepretation, not something that you can go have someone arrested for.
But this is what always happens, the basics of homosexuality cannot be argued against any more than an adulterer makes the case against heterosexuality so your forced to make comparisons that have nothing to do with one another.
The arrest was wrong. The preacher should have sued, if they can sue in England.
Homosexuality is a sin. Should we arrest the person who yells "Stop theif" or the thief himself?
Bad comparison. The theif breaks the law because what they do is considered a crime against another human being. You can believe what you want homosexuality's status in your religious beliefs, but it is not akin to someone being a criminal.
Secondly, I always wonder why the focus of some Christians is on homosexuality instead of on the sins of hypocrisy, excessive pride and boasting, judging others in place of God. You know, the stuff Jesus was actually concerned about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
