Christian preacher arrested for saying gays were sinful has charges dropped

Semantics aside, it really doesn't bode well does it? Having seen the video it would appear the facts were quite plain. He had said nothing while preaching publicly, but the gay/lesbian/'equality' C3PO took offence at the fact the preacher expressed (when asked?) the fact that the bible condemns homosexuality as a sin.

How on earth does this discussion equate to a 'racially aggravated' (WTF?) public order offence? It does rather seem that PC plod was rather PC-happy and as a consequence decided to arrest a minister for something he couldn't even have possibly done (since homosexuality isn't a race). Whatever happened to religious freedom and freedom of expression? He was hardly advocating suicide bombing.

No wonder the CPS dropped it. It doesn't bode well for community relations, does it? How many of the Muslim clerics and supporters holding 'behead the soldiers' and 'death to the West' placards have been arrested during rallies? We see them waving their banners and shouting loudly on the news, but the police appear to be standing aside and watching.

Regardless of what goes on behind the scenes, it doesn't give a very good (nor reassuring) impression.
 
God Hates Aamerica

15 years ago, in a conspiracy between members of the police, media, city government, and a crooked lawyer/judge/strip joint owner/bloody jew, america sought to silence WBC by beating her members bloody on the sidewalks outside the Vintage Restaurant in Topeka.
Click to expand...
That's more like it, that's the sort of PCSOs we need in the Lakes :D
 
To be honest Im sick of religion being used as an excuse to condone peoples bigoted beliefs. Its so easy to say "it's wrong to be gay" because you subsrcrbie to some ancient fictional text.
Id rather these backward sheep took responsibility for their own views and stopped hiding behind the all encompassing shield that is religion.
 
Ampeg said:
To be honest Im sick of religion being used as an excuse to condone peoples bigoted beliefs. Its so easy to say "it's wrong to be gay" because you subsrcrbie to some ancient fictional text.
Id rather these backward sheep took responsibility for their own views and stopped hiding behind the all encompassing shield that is religion.
Click to expand...

But do they have those views because they're their views or do they have them because the religion they believe in tells them so?
 
Ampeg said:
To be honest Im sick of religion being used as an excuse to condone peoples bigoted beliefs. Its so easy to say "it's wrong to be gay" because you subsrcrbie to some ancient fictional text.
Id rather these backward sheep took responsibility for their own views and stopped hiding behind the all encompassing shield that is religion.
Click to expand...

Likewise I'd prefer the law to be used without prejudice (i.e. ignoring Muslims screaming for the heads of British soldiers but arresting Christians in the Lake District), and applied fairly (i.e. not inventing offences because the officer didn't like the guy's opinion after he asked for it!).

Whether you feel the preacher's religious faith is rubbish or not, the fact remains he has a right to it which is enshrined in law and common decency. He didn't go all WBC on them, screaming about the 'fags' from the town hall steps. He simply answered a question when asked and the PCSO decided to have his colleagues pile in and arrest the chap for a fictitious offence.

Quite a difference imho.
 
deuse said:
Ooo I don't know hmmmmm.. Ian Tomlinson? 12 months with the CPS and still no copper has been charged.

If that was anyone else they would be doing 15 years by now.
Click to expand...

And yet the CPS were more than happy to run the charge against TSG Sgt. Delroy Smellie?

So, by your logic, how does CPS stand for Copper Protection Service?
 
Soviet said:
And yet the CPS were more than happy to run the charge against TSG Sgt. Delroy Smellie?

So, by your logic, how does CPS stand for Copper Protection Service?
Click to expand...


Oh you mean the case which was heard without a jury for some reason or other..
And striking a woman is no where near as bad as causing death.

It was a bit like throwing a man to the wolves knowing they had no teeth or in that case..NO JURY ;)
 
Character tests should be required of any police officer before they can serve. Anyone willing to enforce any and every draconian law set by the government, eg extreme porn et al, should be disqualified, as should people incapable of using logic and common sense.
 
Last edited:
Christians who judge others are horrible, hypocritical and bigoted. Replace homosexual with short/a woman/black/ginger/Muslim and it is just as bad, he should be charged for being offensive just like Muslims who are for their offensive statements.
 
Whereas I don't discriminate against homosexuals, I don't agree with their lifestyle either. As a heterosexual, I am being forced under duress to accept something that is against my beliefs.

I wonder how long it will be before I am forced to accept paedophiles because they are a minority group with alternative sexual tastes as well.
 
mejinks said:
Whereas I don't discriminate against homosexuals, I don't agree with their lifestyle either. As a heterosexual, I am being forced under duress to accept something that is against my beliefs.

I wonder how long it will be before I am forced to accept paedophiles because they are a minority group with alternative sexual tastes as well.
Click to expand...

Why is it against your beliefs and how is it being forced on you? :confused:

Paedophilia is a crime and harms people, homosexuality is something between consenting adults and perfectly legal, harming no one.
 
mejinks said:
Whereas I don't discriminate against homosexuals, I don't agree with their lifestyle either. As a heterosexual, I am being forced under duress to accept something that is against my beliefs.

I wonder how long it will be before I am forced to accept paedophiles because they are a minority group with alternative sexual tastes as well.
Click to expand...


Rather than trying to refute that myself I will just post this instead. Oh by the way you mean "child molesters", not paedophiles. Thought vs action.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (sometimes misstated as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.
Click to expand...

The argument takes on one of various semantical forms:

* In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).
* Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.
Click to expand...

Often proponents of a "slippery slope" contention propose a long series of intermediate events as the mechanism of connection leading from A to B. The "camel's nose" provides one example of this: once a camel has managed to place its nose within a tent, the rest of the camel will inevitably follow. In this sense the slippery slope resembles the genetic fallacy, but in reverse.

As an example of how an appealing slippery slope argument can be unsound, suppose that whenever a tree falls down, it has a 95% chance of knocking over another tree. We might conclude that soon a great many trees would fall, but this is not the case. There is a 5% chance that no more trees will fall, a 4.75% chance that exactly one more tree will fall (and thus a 9.75% chance of 1 or less additional trees falling), and so on. There is a 92.3% chance that 50 or fewer additional trees will fall. The expected value of trees that will fall is 20. In the absence of some momentum factor that makes later trees more likely to fall than earlier ones, this "domino effect" approaches zero probability.

This form of argument often provides evaluative judgments on social change: once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule.

Note that these arguments may indeed have validity, but they require some independent justification of the connection between their terms: otherwise the argument (as a logical tool) remains fallacious.

The "slippery slope" approach may also relate to the conjunction fallacy: with a long string of steps leading to an undesirable conclusion, the chance of all the steps actually occurring in sequence is less than the chance of any one of the individual steps occurring alone.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mejinks said:
Whereas I don't discriminate against homosexuals, I don't agree with their lifestyle either. As a heterosexual, I am being forced under duress to accept something that is against my beliefs.

I wonder how long it will be before I am forced to accept paedophiles because they are a minority group with alternative sexual tastes as well.
Click to expand...

*shakes head*
 
mejinks said:
Whereas I don't discriminate against homosexuals, I don't agree with their lifestyle either. As a heterosexual, I am being forced under duress to accept something that is against my beliefs.

I wonder how long it will be before I am forced to accept paedophiles because they are a minority group with alternative sexual tastes as well.
Click to expand...

"Whereas I don't discriminate against black people, I don't agree with their equal rights either. As a white man, I am being forced under duress to accept something that is against my beliefs." - do you see what I did there. ;)
 
hurfdurf said:
"Whereas I don't discriminate against black people, I don't agree with their equal rights either. As a white man, I am being forced under duress to accept something that is against my beliefs." - do you see what I did there. ;)
Click to expand...

Totally changed the subject?
 
hurfdurf said:
Why is it against your beliefs and how is it being forced on you? :confused:

Paedophilia is a crime and harms people, homosexuality is something between consenting adults and perfectly legal, harming no one.
Click to expand...

If I am a Christian, it is against my beliefs. I am not allowed to express those beliefs without fear of persecution as highlighted above. I wonder if they guy would be free now had it not been made such a high profile case?

Why was homosexuality a crime and why is it now not only decriminalised but encouraged?

Gender, race, disability are all relating to what a person is and discrimination is unfair, homosexuality is all about what a person does. It isn't that they were made that way, they decided to be like that.

As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.

Energize said:
Rather than trying to refute that myself I will just post this instead. Oh by the way you mean "child molesters", not paedophiles. Thought vs action.
Click to expand...

Are you agreeing with me or saying that it will never happen and you can be confident of that?

Mr^B said:
*shakes head*
Click to expand...

You do that. Nice reasoned debate there. :rolleyes:
 
deuse said:
Oh you mean the case which was heard without a jury for some reason or other..
And striking a woman is no where near as bad as causing death.

It was a bit like throwing a man to the wolves knowing they had no teeth or in that case..NO JURY ;)
Click to expand...

How it was heard has no bearing on the fact that CPS charged him though does it? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom