Christian preacher arrested for saying gays were sinful has charges dropped

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.

can-worms.jpg


TBH.

I agree with the right of religious freedom, or indeed mostly any freedom provided it doesn't negatively impact upon, or harm, others. In fact I argued the minister's case above, though it was mostly ignored amongst the CPS/police arguing. :p

However, it strikes me your attitude to homosexuality is probably rather bigoted based solely upon the teachings of your particular religion's bible (though which particular version/translation of it, I don't know)...

I personally have no taste for homosexuality whatsoever, to perhaps (admittedly) the point of revulsion if I'm honest but that's a gut reaction not a logical one. However what people do behind closed doors is no damn business of mine and I don't see how being gay can in any way be likened to paedophilia, save for the fact it falls into the rather broad and general "sin" category as defined for you by someone else. :o
 
TBH.

I agree with the right of religious freedom, or indeed mostly any freedom provided it doesn't negatively impact upon, or harm, others. In fact I argued the minister's case above, though it was mostly ignored amongst the CPS/police arguing. :p

However, it strikes me your attitude to homosexuality is probably rather bigoted based solely upon the teachings of your particular religion's bible (though which particular version/translation of it, I don't know)...

I personally have no taste for homosexuality whatsoever, to perhaps (admittedly) the point of revulsion if I'm honest but that's a gut reaction not a logical one. However what people do behind closed doors is no damn business of mine and I don't see how being gay can in any way be likened to paedophilia, save for the fact it falls into the rather broad and general "sin" category as defined for you by someone else. :o

Im not comparing homosexuality to paedophilia. In fact, I don't care what goes on behind closed doors, but what I do care about is being told I am not allowed to air my views if they are contrary to those of the repressed.
 
Why was homosexuality a crime and why is it now not only decriminalised but encouraged?

Because certain people with power didn't like it and thus made it illegal, using religion as a vector to do so. Before religious zealots came and conquered countries, humans were naturally engaging in all sorts of "unatural acts" such as homosexuality and bestiality and still do widely today regardless of the law. In countries like Japan homosexuality was never illegal. It is not encouraged as far as I can see, so I have no idea what you have been reading.

It isn't that they were made that way, they decided to be like that.

Unsubstantiated nonsense.
 
Im not comparing homosexuality to paedophilia. In fact, I don't care what goes on behind closed doors, but what I do care about is being told I am not allowed to air my views if they are contrary to those of the repressed.

As far as your right to your opinions, as I've said throughout the thread I'm 100% in agreement with you. Regardless of what others believe, you have an inalienable right to hold your own opinions. But we all know about opinions and anus holes, don't we? :D:p

I'm afraid though, whether intentional or not, your earlier post most certainly did sound as though you were comparing homosexuals with paedophiles. You basically provide the impression that freedom for 'the gays' is the thin end of the wedge to open paedophilia. :o

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.

The one thing I will bring issue with though, is the "As a heterosexual" part. I think you meant to say "As a committed Christian who takes the bible very seriously". After all, not all heterosexuals share your views at all - so we can't very well say your opinions are due to your heterosexuality. As you said, it's actually because of your religious views.

Talking of which, you seem to have taken an overly-simplistic view earlier when you talked of people either believing we rose from the slime by chance or were created by (your) God with a plan and commandments for us etc... You failed to take account of the millions of other people who believe neither of those things. :p
 
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?

As a Christian do you also believe that a daughter can be sold into slavery? That if you work on the sabbath you should be put to death? Which do you think is worse, eating shellfish which according to the bible is an abomination or homosexuality? Do you go to church wearing glasses even though you are forbidden?

Using the bible to defend your homophobia is disgusting and you shame all Christians by doing so.


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.

LOL
 
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.
Can you supply your research that empowers you to come to this conclusion?

I'm sure the scientific and phycological community would love to see this amazing piece of work!
 
As a Christian do you also believe that a daughter can be sold into slavery? That if you work on the sabbath you should be put to death? Which do you think is worse, eating shellfish which according to the bible is an abomination or homosexuality? Do you go to church wearing glasses even though you are forbidden?

Using the bible to defend your homophobia is disgusting and you shame all Christians by doing so.

I am not a Christian (I am agnostic), however I was raised in a Christian family and went toa Church of England primary school and visited Church at least twice a week from school age until about 13 years old.

I went to Church at first because I was "made" to, then because I wanted to learn about it, and then because I wanted to discuss my views on it. I was part of the adult Bible study group at the age of 8 and took part in often animated discussions about interpretation of the Bible and its teachings.

From this background, I wholly agree with hurfdurf (for the first time? who knows...).

Mejinks, you just cannot take the Bible and pick and choose the teachings that you want to fit to your own beliefs and the way you were raised. If you want to be like that, then you join the ranks of the fundamentalists of all denominations and that is a very bad place to be indeed.

Why do you hold the view that Homosexuality is something abhorrent to the levels of needing to preach about it? Homosexuality has been practiced for millennia (and indeed was not seen as 'wrong' until "modern" times), and indeed as for your statement that it is a choice rather than being born that way I would direct you towards doing some scientific reading on the matter. Genetic homosexuality is a trait found in a great many species of animals, the most recent that I have read about was that it has been discovered in Sheep.

It is all probably irrelevant to you as you will fall back to the Bible saying it is wrong, but there are several other key teachings that overrule your vitriol towards those that find the same sex physically alluring.

Ultimately, the fair view is that you are as entitled to your opinion (albeit with particularly tenuous foundations) as A.N.Homosexual is. It is also your right to express your opinion but is expressly NOT your right to cause offence, that is where the line is drawn. You also do not have the right to express yourself in a manner which may cause distress or unrest to those around you.

The Police, in this instance, probably didn't do themselves any favours however they were acting in the interests of the public and in the spirit of the Law. The fact the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to persue the case does not speak to the Crown's opinion on homosexuality or indeed on the right to his free speech but only on the fact that in the balance of probability, prosecuting the case was not in the public interest (cost vs reward).
 
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.

It is unlikely that any case will be forgotten about or ignored because a police officer is involved, wouldn't you agree ?

Your lack of experience and what the facts actually are ( namely exhaustive medical and numerous and varying witness accounts which can easily be ongoing a year later ) really does you no favours.

Can you categorically state that Mr Tomlinson's death was caused by the actions of that officer ?
 
It is unlikely that any case will be forgotten about or ignored because a police officer is involved, wouldn't you agree ?

Your lack of experience and what the facts actually are ( namely exhaustive medical and numerous and varying witness accounts which can easily be ongoing a year later ) really does you no favours.

Can you categorically state that Mr Tomlinson's death was caused by the actions of that officer ?

Lets put it this way they have not yet looked into why the Acting Detective Inspector gave incorrect information to a pathologist involved in the third post mortem.

The family submitted a complaint to the IPCC on 30 November-2009 and still have heard nothing about teh Acting DI.
Can you categorically state that Mr Tomlinson's death was NOT caused by the actions of that officer?

As I said If that was any of us we would be in prison waiting for either a trial or the results to see what happend.
Look at it from the public's point of view, there MAYBE a potential murderer free and he is getting paid.

Here is the time line. http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/search/label/Timeline

The one that gets me is
"5th April 2009
It emerges that the police officer, who has been questioned for manslaughter over Ian, should
not have been working for the Metropolitan Police as he had previously been suspended for a serious disciplinary charge"
 
Lets put it this way they have not yet looked into why the Acting Detective Inspector gave incorrect information to a pathologist involved in the third post mortem.

The family submitted a complaint to the IPCC on 30 November-2009 and still have heard nothing about teh Acting DI.

A 6 month wait when the IPCC are involved is nothing out of the ordinary.

I have been subject to a complaint via the IPCC ( which was spurious ) and that took 4 months with very little evidence to scrutinise. Indeed the IPCC have often been criticised for not resolving issues swiftly.

Can you categorically state that Mr Tomlinson's death was NOT caused by the actions of that officer?

Exactly the answer I expected. No I cannot and it seems neither can the CPS and medical opinion either way, certainly up to this point hence a delay. It has nothing to do with a police cover up or special treatment for the officer involved.

As I said If that was any of us we would be in prison waiting for either a trial or the results to see what happend.

You would have to be charged first of which the officer has not. Cover up or insufficient evidence at this time ?


The one that gets me is
"5th April 2009
It emerges that the police officer, who has been questioned for manslaughter over Ian, should
not have been working for the Metropolitan Police as he had previously been suspended for a serious disciplinary charge"

Suspended is one thing. Substantiated is something else.

If he had been suspended and the allegation upheld then, if serious enough he would have been dismissed. Is it known what the outcome of the suspension was ? If he was back on the ground then it was either a minor infraction that was upheld but not serious enough or an allegation that was without foundation.

Once it is finalised, I will give you my personal opinion on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Im an anti - religion nutjob and Athiest extremist, but this is over the top even for me.

The only time an arrest should be made is if any person has actually threatened to kill someone else over any reason. Strong belief in fundamental lunacy normally predisposes one to have a higher likelihood of issuing such threats, but until they do let them preach whatever they want.
 
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.

Because every single major scientific body has now concluded that homosexuality is not a choice, but the way a person is and the way they were made.

You have far more choice over what religion you choose to follow, than anyone else has over which gender they are attracted to.

If I am a Christian, it is against my beliefs.

Beliefs are completely optional and are not the way that you were made. You just decided to believe in that one religion over any other, and believe in one particular part of the bible over any of the rest of it, and you simply use what the bible says as an excuse to defend your own bigotry and personal beliefs.

Homosexuality also is not in any way against every Christians belief. Heres an interesting website that you may want to look into:

http://christiangays.com/

This part is very interesting, and completely true:

Learn THE FACTS about the Bible and Homosexuality! by Rembert Truluck

- Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Bible
- Bible languages of Hebrew and Greek have no word for
homosexual, sex or for romantic love
- The Bible nowhere says that gays and lesbians can or
should change their orientation
- The Bible in the original languages never condemns same sex
romantic love as sin
- Jesus never mentioned homosexuality
- The Bible repeatedly demonstrates God's love, care and
acceptance of all outcast, rejected, misunderstood and
alienated people
 
Last edited:
TBH religious people have an awful lot more to worry about focusing their zeal for their preferred teachings upon than whether a person finds happiness and comfort with the same or opposite sex. To them I say try re-reading your chosen faith's words of universal acceptance and love, of being non-judgemental, of sharing and having equanimity in compassion; and then taking out those teachings and applying them to the sick, the hungry, the under-privileged, the needy and the dying before you worry whether such-and-such is Arthur or Martha.

Unfortunately it seems one of life's rules that, generally speaking, spirituality is suppressed by blind adherence to religious dogma. I'm pretty sure that if Jesus, Mohammed (peace be upon him), or pretty much any god or prophet thereof came to earth today and saw some guy hating against homosexuals, someone of a different faith, or anyone at all in fact, they'd be shedding tears not cheering them on...

I don't belong to any particular organised religion per se (it's complicated :p), but I always, always place my emphasis on the golden rules of spiritual morality, equanimity in my compassion, and basically maintaining a live and let live mindset.

There's an old proverb about religion being a finger pointing at the moon; focus too much on the finger and you'll miss out on all the heavenly glory. Try to become the finger, and you're just deluding yourself...

</rant> :D
 
Well, um, the Bible that I read was very much against gay sex.

I guess that's just not what people want to hear, however.

But I can understand people who, on reading the Bible which says gay sex is wrong, would be against gay sex.

The people I don't understand are those who want to fit what the Bible says around themselves. Either go with it, or don't.

It's stupid to say "I go with it to some extent, but there are things I disagree with." It's not pick'n'mix, people :p
 
Well, um, the Bible that I read was very much against gay sex.

I guess that's just not what people want to hear, however.

But I can understand people who, on reading the Bible which says gay sex is wrong, would be against gay sex.

The people I don't understand are those who want to fit what the Bible says around themselves. Either go with it, or don't.

It's stupid to say "I go with it to some extent, but there are things I disagree with." It's not pick'n'mix, people :p

Where does it say that? More to the point, which of the numerous versions of the 'bible' are you talking about? There are so many, and so much of the original material is missing thanks to various 'councils' through history, it's almost laughable tbh.

I do know though, that the bible(s) of the Abrahamic traditions say something very much like "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I don't remember the "Go out and wail on people you think are sinners because it's your job to judge and convert them". I'm pretty sure their God is the only one actually qualified to do that, hence judgement day etc. Pretty arrogant to take his place, what? :D

Besides, if Christians/Catholics/whatever actually adhered to the entire bible they'd be living rather different lives. As you said... pick n mix. :p
 
Where does it say that?

1 Timothy 1:10 (new testament) "fornicators, men who lie with men, kidnappers, liars, false swearers"

Leviticus 18:22 (old testament) "And you must not lie down with a man the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing."

There are others.
 
Back
Top Bottom