Preacher in UK arrested for preaching against homosexuality

[rameumptom]

Interesting story here: Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin - Telegraph

He was on a short ladder preaching against sin in general, when a woman approached him concerning homosexuality. He told her that according to the bible it is a sin. She found a local "police community support officer" (PCSO), who happened to be homosexual. The PCSO asked the preacher, and he confirmed that it was a sin in the Bible. He then continued preaching against sin, but not mentioning homosexuality.

The PCSO called for a paddy wagon and they arrested him under the 1986 Public Order Act, originally meant to stop fights and incendiary language in public.

So, here we have a case of freedom of religion and speech being stopped by government in UK.

[GaySaint]

Ram: I certainly hope this is simply one side of the story, and wonder what a more liberal media outlet would report (with the truth always being somewhere in the middle, IMHO). Do you know if the Telegraph is usually considered conservative in it's views? Just my curiosity :)

Still, either way, and no matter what happened, I'm certainly glad we live in the US, where freedom of religion and speach is protected by the constitution. I think sometimes we forget that other countries don't hold all of the ideals that the US holds. Fortunately, as long as the constitution is upheld here in the US, nothing like that can happen here. Let's hope it stays that way, for both our sakes!

[marts1]

Don't think this had much to do with freedom of religion. Someone was just going overboard in trying to keep the peace is all.

[hordak]

Interesting story here: Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin - Telegraph

He was on a short ladder preaching against sin in general, when a woman approached him concerning homosexuality. He told her that according to the bible it is a sin. She found a local "police community support officer" (PCSO), who happened to be homosexual. The PCSO asked the preacher, and he confirmed that it was a sin in the Bible. He then continued preaching against sin, but not mentioning homosexuality.

The PCSO called for a paddy wagon and they arrested him under the 1986 Public Order Act, originally meant to stop fights and incendiary language in public.

So, here we have a case of freedom of religion and speech being stopped by government in UK.

Does the UK have free speech/ free religion? Besides free speech, as i understand it, protects what you have to say not how you say it. In this case it is important to note

Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.

Three regular uniformed police officers arrived during the address, arrested Mr McAlpine and put him in the back of a police van.

This is more than one gay officer with an "ax to grind" I'm with gaysaint on this the truth is in the middle

Edited May 3, 2010 by hordak

[Guest mormonmusic]

I think this is an excellent example of the distance the same sex agenda can be carried.

Back in Canada, when the first round of gay marriage laws hit parliament, our Bishop told us that we needed to get out and write letters to our "congressmen" against it, as the time may well come when "it will be illegal for me to stand at the pulpit and say homosexuality is wrong".

What's described in this article is a good example of where we are headed.

I disagree that this is about maintaining law and order, or that "the truth is somewhere in the middle". These kinds of arrests have happened before, and the article states:

"The Public Order Act, which outlaws the unreasonable use of abusive language likely to cause distress, has been used to arrest religious people in a number of similar cases." It also describes other situations where it's been used to arrest people who made comments about same sex orientation.

Don't think that in America this could never happen. It's happened in many cultures before where rights we take for granted are gradually worn away. Progressive, modern, and democratic nations have instituted policies where certain groups are not allowed to shop in certain places, own property, etcetera. And the constitution can be amended to take away those rights.

In Canada, we don't even have the right to personal property. When the Canadian Bill of Rights was passed, the left wing party had it taken out

Is it possibe we'll see the day when it's illegal to refuse a practicing homosexual membership in the Church through baptism?

Governments have had no compunction about legislating matters that are matters of conscience or religion in other contexts. I think we need to stand on guard for these freedoms, or they will wear away, as they are in Britain.

The preacher may "get off" these charges, but you can bet he will think twice about making similar comments again.

And this label "homophobic" bothers me. People who are against same sex marriage are not suffering from a mental disorder, such as agoraphobia etcetera. They are simply following the words of their prophet and the bible which speaks out against same sex practices.

Edited May 3, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Mahone]

I think we are only getting part of the story as well.

We all know the counter argument to "freedom of speech", whatever that actually means. How far does it go?

Gay people have been persecuted for a very long time. It was obviously worse throughout history, but they are still persecuted today. The government in the UK have gone a long way to try and combat this, and quite frankly, remarks such as the ones this preacher was making are not helping the situation, whether he intended offense or not. They don't need once again to be reminded about how "wrong" they are, or other people to be reminded of this.

In the article I read, there wasn't just complaints made about his remarks on gay people. He had caused a bit of a stir with another member of the public regarding other things in front of the police. He also stated that he had told the community support officer that he didn't believe what he had done was against the law. This suggests to me that he had effectively been asked to move along, whether he technicially was within his rights to do what he was doing or not. I don't know what it is like in the USA, but in the UK, if the police ask you to move along, you just shut up and do it, without bickering about your legal rights. If you don't, it isn't going to be a happy ending for you. Even if they didn't ask him to move along in so many words, he could see there was trouble stirring. If he had any sense, he'd have left so no more trouble was caused. If you think the police are wrong, take it up later with the courts if it bothers them that much. But initially, just do as they say.

It also says he wasn't a quiet prisoner, he was yelling hymns out of the cell as loud as he could in order to cause himself attention. I'm sorry, he didn't help himself.

[GaySaint]

Regardless of what this preacher was saying, if it was causing "excitement" and he refused to stop preaching, he probably should have been removed from the street.

I can imagine an "incitement of a riot" charge could be levied against someone in the US who was saying enough things to make enough people mad.

If any speech is incendiary, even in the US it can be restricted for the protection of all. I would be more concerned if this preacher were pulled from his pupil in front of his own congregation (who would likely be there in agreement and support).

Still, fine lines. Without knowing more details it is very hard for me to take a side here...

Edit: MormonMusic: I have to agree that the terms "homophobic" as well as "bigot" tend to be thrown around too much and too easily. Although I probably would have a lot of fun with someone who were truely homophobic... the kind of fun a cat has with a ball of string BOO!

[prisonchaplain]

I think we are only getting part of the story as well.

We all know the counter argument to "freedom of speech", whatever that actually means. How far does it go?

Gay people have been persecuted for a very long time. It was obviously worse throughout history, but they are still persecuted today. The government in the UK have gone a long way to try and combat this, and quite frankly, remarks such as the ones this preacher was making are not helping the situation, whether he intended offense or not. They don't need once again to be reminded about how "wrong" they are, or other people to be reminded of this.

I'm very big on understanding the other person's perspective, and in being balanced. But this isn't. The preacher did not incite or bait homosexuals. Rather, the woman may well have baited him. It appears his remarks were in response to questions. If I see a homosexual I'm not going to shout, "You sinner!" If he asks me, "Is it a sin to engage in homosexual sex?" I'm not going to lie to him, nor do I need to duck the question.

In the article I read, there wasn't just complaints made about his remarks on gay people. He had caused a bit of a stir with another member of the public regarding other things in front of the police. He also stated that he had told the community support officer that he didn't believe what he had done was against the law. This suggests to me that he had effectively been asked to move along, whether he technicially was within his rights to do what he was doing or not. I don't know what it is like in the USA, but in the UK, if the police ask you to move along, you just shut up and do it, without bickering about your legal rights. If you don't, it isn't going to be a happy ending for you. Even if they didn't ask him to move along in so many words, he could see there was trouble stirring.

In the US, a nation built on rebelling after all, it's not uncommon for citizens to appeal directly to the police to reconsider their commands. We some times plea for them not to give us traffic tickets, and it's especially common to question if police are engaging in racial bias. Granted, once the officer repeats his order, and makes it clear that debate is over, compliance is the order of the day. However, we are used to at least a modicum of appeal.

If he had any sense, he'd have left so no more trouble was caused.

So, if two missionaries are tracting, and the policeman comes and says, "Sorry, we don't like Mormons in these parts. You'll have to stop your proselytizing," you would simply expect them to comply, with no appeal? "Hey officer, don't we have a right to do this?"

If you think the police are wrong, take it up later with the courts if it bothers them that much. But initially, just do as they say.

It also says he wasn't a quiet prisoner, he was yelling hymns out of the cell as loud as he could in order to cause himself attention. I'm sorry, he didn't help himself.

IMHO, not a surprising reaction to apparent injustice.

[marts1]

Don't we have enough religious wars going on already?

[Mahone]

I'm very big on understanding the other person's perspective, and in being balanced. But this isn't. The preacher did not incite or bait homosexuals. Rather, the woman may well have baited him. It appears his remarks were in response to questions. If I see a homosexual I'm not going to shout, "You sinner!" If he asks me, "Is it a sin to engage in homosexual sex?" I'm not going to lie to him, nor do I need to duck the question.

Good point. We'd need the other side of the story here.

In the US, a nation built on rebelling after all, it's not uncommon for citizens to appeal directly to the police to reconsider their commands. We some times plea for them not to give us traffic tickets, and it's especially common to question if police are engaging in racial bias. Granted, once the officer repeats his order, and makes it clear that debate is over, compliance is the order of the day. However, we are used to at least a modicum of appeal.

Then question it in the courts. In this case in particular, his "rebelling" was most likely what was the final straw in him getting banged up in the first place. If I had a chance to have it all dropped by shutting up, that is what I'd do.

So, if two missionaries are tracting, and the policeman comes and says, "Sorry, we don't like Mormons in these parts. You'll have to stop your proselytizing," you would simply expect them to comply, with no appeal? "Hey officer, don't we have a right to do this?"

Depends on how/where the missionary was brought up. I'd suggest if the missionary was British, he'd be more likely to submit than some other nationalities. If I was the mission president, I would request that the missionaries comply with any requests from those in legal authority, and bring it up with me if they thought there was an injustice. If I thought it was worth following up, I'd do it through the correct legal channels.

IMHO, not a surprising reaction to apparent injustice.

Not surprising, but still silly. Not something I would do I'd hope.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Mahone

[hordak]

I think this is an excellent example of the distance the same sex agenda can be carried.

Back in Canada, when the first round of gay marriage laws hit parliament, our Bishop told us that we needed to get out and write letters to our "congressmen" against it, as the time may well come when "it will be illegal for me to stand at the pulpit and say homosexuality is wrong".

What's described in this article is a good example of where we are headed.

I disagree that this is about maintaining law and order, or that "the truth is somewhere in the middle". These kinds of arrests have happened before, and the article states:

"The Public Order Act, which outlaws the unreasonable use of abusive language likely to cause distress, has been used to arrest religious people in a number of similar cases." It also describes other situations where it's been used to arrest people who made comments about same sex orientation.

Don't think that in America this could never happen. It's happened in many cultures before where rights we take for granted are gradually worn away. Progressive, modern, and democratic nations have instituted policies where certain groups are not allowed to shop in certain places, own property, etcetera. And the constitution can be amended to take away those rights.

I don't know for sure but iirc westboro baptist church protested President Hinkleys funeral for being a being too soft on gays and the other false prophet allegations.

If that's not an indication free speech is alive and well (and often used in bad taste) i don't know what is.

Is it possibe we'll see the day when it's illegal to refuse a practicing homosexual membership in the Church through baptism?

Doubt it. Your speaking of a government regulation in the public sphere as an indication of a upcoming intrusion in the private sphere.

Gender and race are protected statuses and have been for decades, yet they have made no intrusion on how the church applies it's rules.

And this label "homophobic" bothers me. People who are against same sex marriage are not suffering from a mental disorder, such as agoraphobia etcetera. They are simply following the words of their prophet and the bible which speaks out against same sex practices.

Amen

[Guest mormonmusic]

Edit: MormonMusic: I have to agree that the terms "homophobic" as well as "bigot" tend to be thrown around too much and too easily. Although I probably would have a lot of fun with someone who were truely homophobic... the kind of fun a cat has with a ball of string BOO!

Mormonmusic grabs Teddy Bear and adopts fetal position.:yikes:

[Guest mormonmusic]

Doubt it. Your speaking of a government regulation in the public sphere as an indication of a upcoming intrusion in the private sphere.Gender and race are protected statuses and have been for decades, yet they have made no intrusion on how the church applies it's rules.

Amen

Hordak -- this is the kind of taking for granted you have to avoid. The scenario I present is a very real possibility depending on who gets control of our democratic process, and the extent to which socalist governments are able to slowly sway public opinion toward sympathy for the same sex agenda.

Pro same-sex attitudes are widespread against people who have no religious values.

If you want to read something enlightening, try "I Shall Bear Witness" a book by Victor Klempferer, a jew who survived Nazi Germany INSIDE Germany until the War was over, and managed to avoid the concentration camps. It's essentially his journal. It details the gradual loss of freedoms in favor of the government's agenda, the people giving more and more power to a government with less-than-democratic ideals, time honored legislation overturned, etcetera.

What happens is there is a crisis. A long, painful economic or other crisis that brings the people to their knees. They turn to whoever can fix the crisis, and invest power in them. This person brings a social agenda, converts the people to it, and slowly enacts more and more powers that further that agenda.

While I think we're still a way oof from this state of affairs, it's a very real possibility, and one has to do all they can to stop the will of the people from turning in those directions.

We already have the example of Britain throwing people in jail over making public statements of belief about same sex issues -- so this puts them further behind than some of the people's in the primitive Book of Mormon times.

[Soulsearcher]

As long as it's understood that there can be fears that government can go the other way. What happens if an ultra Conservative movement wins out and they just declare homosexuality against the law?

Even though only a movie, V for Vendetta showed a society like this, where government was taken to an ultimate conservative view where media and social interaction was policed. Other faiths and homosexuality were persecuted and practitioners were put to death.

Both sides have a "nightmare" scenario, is either really likely, not really, but if one wants to focus on theirs and uses that as a reason to fight their battles, realize the other side is coming from a very similar place.

[prisonchaplain]

Soulsearcher is spot on. I attended a conference, not one year after the 9-11 tragedy, and the superintendent of public schools says to an audience of 3000, "I see no real difference between Al Qaida and the Christian Coalition." On the other hand, imho, those of us who fear religious liberty being diminished for the sake of public order and sensitivities are more discerning of the future than those who fear a future American theocracy.

[Moksha]

The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Workington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.

Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.

If people cannot condemn disliked groups by speaking loudly from the top of a stepladder in a public place, where can they shout their dislike from? What's with this need to abstain from abusive and insulting language in public anyway?

[ADoyle90815]

One thing I do love about the US is that there is real freedom of speech. I do support equal rights for homosexuals, but I would fight to the death to protect the rights of those who want to speak out against equality.

[hordak]

Hordak -- this is the kind of taking for granted you have to avoid. The scenario I present is a very real possibility depending on who gets control of our democratic process, and the extent to which socalist governments are able to slowly sway public opinion toward sympathy for the same sex agenda.

Pro same-sex attitudes are widespread against people who have no religious values.

If you want to read something enlightening, try "I Shall Bear Witness" a book by Victor Klempferer, a jew who survived Nazi Germany INSIDE Germany until the War was over, and managed to avoid the concentration camps. It's essentially his journal. It details the gradual loss of freedoms in favor of the government's agenda, the people giving more and more power to a government with less-than-democratic ideals, time honored legislation overturned, etcetera.

What happens is there is a crisis. A long, painful economic or other crisis that brings the people to their knees. They turn to whoever can fix the crisis, and invest power in them. This person brings a social agenda, converts the people to it, and slowly enacts more and more powers that further that agenda.

While I think we're still a way oof from this state of affairs, it's a very real possibility, and one has to do all they can to stop the will of the people from turning in those directions.

We already have the example of Britain throwing people in jail over making public statements of belief about same sex issues -- so this puts them further behind than some of the people's in the primitive Book of Mormon times.

There is no precedent. Our societies changing views on everything from premarital sex, masturbation, adultery (which are more accepted today) to protected classes, women and blacks for example has not affected the churches application of it's standards on these issues. Why would you expect the church to be forced to baptize a practicing gay, because society is becoming more accepting when they don't have to give the the priesthood to women, who have been accepted and protected as equals for decades?

Besides in the US there is no indication (that i have seen) of the government eroding religious rights of free speech (e.g. westboro baptist church picketing funerals of government workers with no issue )

[prisonchaplain]

While Hordak is certainly correct concerning church ordinances, perhaps the more realistic concern is with church employment. Catholic pharmacists are required to give the morning after pill. E-harmony was forced to provide its dating services to homosexuals, despite the owners religious mores against such. If I'm not mistaken, Catholic Charities was forced to choose between adopting children out to same-sex couples, or to lose their ability to engage in the service. Some homosexual leaders have openly said they see no instance in which religious liberty concerns outweigh the equal rights and access that GLBT folk should receive. So, would LDS headquarters be forced to hire non-LDS, including them? Would churches who hire pianists/organists be forced to hire likewise? Could they even ask about religious convictions?

Some of what I suggested seems over the top. Then again, so did the e-Haromony thing. And yet, in retrospect, I've heard some argue for the legitimacy of that decision.

So...no, we shall not all be forced to convert to the Metropolitan Community Church. But, yes, we may be forced to hire those who do not support us or our mission.

[Jamie123]

As news sources go The Telegraph is quite respectable. It isn't one of "the tabloids".

I don't believe this preacher will be convicted of anything, even if it does go to trial - which I don't imagine for one moment it will. This will already give massive ammunition to the Christian Right and a lot of embarrassment to the police - and to the Gay Rights movement if they're stupid enough to support it. Somebody's going to see sense and drop the charges as quietly as possible.

[Jamie123]

One thing I do love about the US is that there is real freedom of speech. I do support equal rights for homosexuals, but I would fight to the death to protect the rights of those who want to speak out against equality.

I fully agree with you. A few years ago on a different forum I quoted Benjamin Franklin on how "people who sell their freedom for safety deserve neither" and was shocked by how many Americans thought I was an idiot. ("Yeah, I really trust the opinion of a man who flew kites in a thunder storm!")

I shudder at what happens in some countries (thankfully not ours - yet!) like Austria sending David Irving to jail for contradicting their version of what happened to Jews during WW2. (For the record I think he was wrong, but I'd defend his rights to say it.)

Edited May 4, 2010 by Jamie123

[hordak]

While Hordak is certainly correct concerning church ordinances, perhaps the more realistic concern is with church employment. Catholic pharmacists are required to give the morning after pill. E-harmony was forced to provide its dating services to homosexuals, despite the owners religious mores against such. If I'm not mistaken, Catholic Charities was forced to choose between adopting children out to same-sex couples, or to lose their ability to engage in the service. Some homosexual leaders have openly said they see no instance in which religious liberty concerns outweigh the equal rights and access that GLBT folk should receive. So, would LDS headquarters be forced to hire non-LDS, including them? Would churches who hire pianists/organists be forced to hire likewise? Could they even ask about religious convictions?

Some of what I suggested seems over the top. Then again, so did the e-Haromony thing. And yet, in retrospect, I've heard some argue for the legitimacy of that decision.

So...no, we shall not all be forced to convert to the Metropolitan Community Church. But, yes, we may be forced to hire those who do not support us or our mission.

The advantage of a unpaid ministry:D.

No i get what you are saying. Personally i have no issue with Catholic Pharmacist being forced to give out birth control because it is his job in the public sphere. I think in most cases the situation could be resolved in house (depending on the size of the pharmacy) but it is in public application of his job that he cannot discriminate. (Same way a member of the creativity movement, a racist religious group, cannot refuses to help a black person at work, even if it is against their religious beliefs) If it is his own private business it becomes more complicated , but if was working for someone else...

The Catholic charities as i understand it had to make that choice because they take money from the government, and are subject the the government regs,The LDS adoption service, self funded have had no problems.

The E harmony thing was crap. Not only because it went against the owners beliefs but the service not being offered doesn't equal discrimination. It would be like walking into pizza hut and demanding a burger.IMO. They feed people who like pizza, i like burgers and they don't have them so clearly their discriminating against me:rolleyes:

I don't think the church hires non member, don't know for sure. Has there been a case In the USA, where a church was forced to change it's hiring practices based on protected status? I imagine it happened with the Civil rights act of 1964 but think most would think that is a good thing.

Now i do agree with the general premise that these things evolve and wear resistance down over time, in the secular world, but see no evidence to support that of intruding on a churches (not individual members) right to preach how they see fit.

[Guest mormonmusic]

How could eHarmony be FORCED to offer services to homosexuals? What it a law in their state? That to me is not a far cry from forces disrespecting a religious institution's right to believe what it wants to believe.

By the way Hordak, there was an article about California (again) enacting a law that you can't sell a meal with a toy in it. Not on the same plane as removing religious freedom of speech, but getting into the same ball park as eHarmony.

[Hemidakota]

Interesting story here: Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin - Telegraph

He was on a short ladder preaching against sin in general, when a woman approached him concerning homosexuality. He told her that according to the bible it is a sin. She found a local "police community support officer" (PCSO), who happened to be homosexual. The PCSO asked the preacher, and he confirmed that it was a sin in the Bible. He then continued preaching against sin, but not mentioning homosexuality.

The PCSO called for a paddy wagon and they arrested him under the 1986 Public Order Act, originally meant to stop fights and incendiary language in public.

So, here we have a case of freedom of religion and speech being stopped by government in UK.

I expect the same lack of freedom will eventually hit our shores.

[prisonchaplain]

How could eHarmony be FORCED to offer services to homosexuals? What it a law in their state? That to me is not a far cry from forces disrespecting a religious institution's right to believe what it wants to believe.

There was a string on this awhile back. I homosexual filed suit agains eharmony, because it refused to allow him to use the service. A judge agreed with the plaintiff. Eharmony said it could not afford litigation, and so agreed to open a subsidiary service just for same-sex clients. I'm guessing the success of that venture to be nil, but the plaintiff made his point and eharmony dodged bankruptcy-by-litigation.