Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin

reply to post by Jay-morris


Sorry. The temptation to post something mean was quite overpowering. But that didn't make it right, so I deleted my mean comment.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by moonleaf]

Originally posted by moonleaf
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

Sorry. The temptation to post something mean was quite overpowering. But that didn't make it right, so I deleted my mean comment.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by moonleaf]

Post away! You cant offend me, so give it your best shot. I have posted threads on here you cant even answer, so i guess thats why you are getting angry

Originally posted by Stormwind™
reply to post by WolfofWar

 

lol the mistake they made was even answering your post. But I will in the correct way. Shut up you foolish droning indevidual.

Unless you are a lawyer solicitor barrister or judge or a
member of the freedom of speech society I suggest you pay strict attention to the fact that your betters decided some time ago what was appropriate. Your opinion whilst valid to you holds no sway over the vast bank of highly intelligent legal teams that make these laws.

Your betters have rendered your pathetic bleeting on as redundant.

If you wish to demean me do so while using the English language correctly. Indevidual is not a word, nor is "bleeting."

My betters already determined what is right and appropriate, it's called the United States Constitution. In it, the fundamental philosophies were set, in the Bill of Rights, that all men (and women) have the freedoms to express themselves civilly, however they wish, and on whatever subjects they wish, however vile or repugnant they may seem to you.

While the story does not necessarily display a incident of the violation of free speech in Britain, it's responses that it garnered display an astonishingly simple-minded view of the rights of man and an amazing complicity to the dismantling of said rights of expression for the sake of people not being offended.

My example, while obviously a bloated exaggeration, does reveal the absurdity of the discussion at hand. We cannot simply censor because we find something distasteful or that it brings back sorrow-filled memories. Freedom is a double-edged sword, and we must keep both sides sharp.

As for you, sir. You take your bumbling, frothing-at-the-mouth rambles out of this thread. You wish to criticize my thoughts, but I won't stand for you to attack me or try to belittle me because you lack the intellectual capacity to argue with me on an even plane. This is the last direct response to you if you choose to continue in that route, I don't have the time of day to argue with buffoons.

[edit on 5-13-2010 by WolfofWar]

reply to post by WolfofWar

Dear Wolfofwar

firstly the incident happened in the Uk. So your rambling on about the American constitution is very invalid. It's all covered by Uk law. I won't make you look any more silly on that point.

Do not ever presume to tell anyone to not say anything in a thread again else you are hurting the very free speech your wailing about.

Looking at your contribution to the thread I feel it's only prudent to point out I do not feel in slightest bit put down by you and your rather laboured flaccid point.

On matters of spelling I do not think being critisised by an American on matters of the English language is anything to be worried about.

Finally as to your attempt to regain some modicum of self respect I will leave you with this. You are it has to be said as stubourn as a mule. Though on so many levels wrong.

Regards.

reply to post by Stormwind™


It's spelled criticized.

There, fixed.

This is quite weird by the law & justice viewpoint... Because if we follow this logic, they also could jail the Pope in a possible future visit to the country...because the Church also says homossexuality is a sin, and the Pope represent the Church in this world! So they can say it's spreading chaos and incite to a certain kind of violence or social desorder.
They will start to arrest also all the priests on the sunday's mass, each time one of them touch that theme?!
Or all the christians that think that?...this is really weird.The world is going nuts, and we all are allowing it!

[edit on 13/5/10 by Umbra Sideralis]

reply to post by Umbra Sideralis


To be fair, the original article said the arrest was because he refused to compile to the police officers. That said, it's disturbing to me what responses we have gotten on this thread so far that believe that criticism of homosexual people should be outlawed. I do have to say, I think the world has gone mad.

The man is a zealot and a bigot, but it should never be a crime to express your opinion, unless you are inciting violence.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
reply to post by Stormwind™

 

It's spelled criticized.

There, fixed.

erm I think it's actually spelt. "It's spelt; criticized". I could be wrong about the semi colon. I'll make you a deal. You shut up about the odd spelling mistake and bend your efforts to the content instead and I'll stop pulling you up for your poor grammar. Deal? Lol

Originally posted by Stormwind™

erm I think it's actually spelt. "It's spelt; criticized". I could be wrong about the semi colon. I'll make you a deal. You shut up about the odd spelling mistake and bend your efforts to the content instead and I'll stop pulling you up for your poor grammar. Deal? Lol

No. You're incorrect. Spelt and spelled are interchangeable past-tense verbs for spell, one used more commonly in Americanized English than the other. Your use of a semi-colon is incorrect; semi-colons are used to break related independent clauses. Since spelt and criticized are not independent clauses, it would make no sense to use a semi-colon. Also since I used It's, which is a contraction, the sentence actually reads "It is spelled criticized." That is a complete and proper sentence.

So no, I refuse to make a deal with a person who does not understand the proper usage of the English language and appears to have a severe aversion to commas.

As for not responding to the content -- I chose not to do so because you commented without apparently even reading my reply after the first line.

While the story does not necessarily display a incident of the violation of free speech in Britain, it's responses that it garnered display an astonishingly simple-minded view of the rights of man and an amazing complicity to the dismantling of said rights of expression for the sake of people not being offended.

Firstly the incident happened in the Uk. So your rambling on about the American constitution is very invalid. It's all covered by Uk law. I won't make you look any more silly on that point.

It doesn't take a literary scholar to see that I am talking about the participants of this thread (most of whom are American) and the discussion of censorship. As for being covered in UK law, the UK in 1998 adopted the European Unions Convention on Human Rights, which in article 10 of said bill indicates:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

But that doesn't even matter, because we aren't even discussing that. So please, feel free to come back with some other biting response to me. Feel free to take your time searching through a thesaurus for words you barely use correctly -- Do all of this, please, I welcome discussion; but do so without so much emotion. Since you began posting responses to me you have not been using your intelligence, but just your anger and your emotions. Take a break from this thread, cool down, and come back collected, because right now you are not a worthy opponent for anyone.



[edit on 5-13-2010 by WolfofWar]

reply to post by WolfofWar


LOL well I guess that told me.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
But that doesn't even matter, because we aren't even discussing that. So please, feel free to come back with some other biting response to me. Feel free to take your time searching through a thesaurus for words you barely use correctly -- Do all of this, please, I welcome discussion; but do so without so much emotion. Since you began posting responses to me you have not been using your intelligence, but just your anger and your emotions. Take a break from this thread, cool down, and come back collected, because right now you are not a worthy opponent for anyone.

Not trying to nitpick, but you should not be capitalising the word after a dash. Unless, of course, it is a word that is usually capitalised. I have underlined the error for your convenience.

Aside from that, I must congratulate you on your knowledge and skilled usage of the (US) English language.

[edit on 14/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
The man is a zealot and a bigot, but it should never be a crime to express your opinion, unless you are inciting violence.

Someone said the same thing in this thread, and I asked how, and he never responded, so I'm going to ask you instead. How is he bigot? Is there a part of the story i'm missing here? Are you referring to the other people in the story, or the one it's about?

[edit on 14-5-2010 by technical difficulties]

reply to post by Dark Ghost


You are absolutely correct. Capitalization after an em hyphen is my bad habit of prose I suppose. It just feels right to do.

Rofl @ all the Christians on here going berk. I love a good drama!!!!

And to all the Christians that are defending the Preacher with quotes from the bible, well how is this one for you - "And God created us in His image......"

Going along that line of reasoning then, well, it looks like God is a Homosexual Paedophile that is racist to the nth degree. He is also a Murderer, Rapist, Sodomist, Homophobe, Autistic, Mentally Retarded person that just so happens to be a Black Caucasian Asian that loves to rape and pillage anyone that gets in his way.

Oh and on top of that, He loves his job as a thief, and when he gets caught for doing all these Illegal activities, well he will certainly get off the charges because he is an almighty loving god that loves everyone. Well everyone that does as he commands. Anyone that doesn't, well looks like you will be spending your time in Hell. Well until he forgives you, because he forgives ALL sins. Even doing things that he (dis)approves of because we are all created in his image.

Wow, really would love to believe in a God like that!!!!

Oh wait, I have more intelligence than that..............

Originally posted by WolfofWar
You are absolutely correct. Capitalization after an em hyphen is my bad habit of prose I suppose. It just feels right to do.

I understand the feeling. I often use capital letters on words I consider important, even though it is grammatically incorrect to do so. I also use the word "and" to start a new sentence which many people view as an error. Sometimes it comes down to style and people should just respect it as long as it does not make reading it a challenge, or convey a meaning contrary to the one you are intending to express.

'Correct' spelling, grammar, capitalization and punctuation are NOT the topic of this thread.

Rather than delete a number of posts, I Beseech you all to remain On Topic.

thank you

reply to post by TerribleTeam2


It does not matter whether you think Christian beliefs are silly, contradictory and redundant. The fact remains that a person was arrested for proclaiming his beliefs. They might have been be ill-mannered and designed to stir up controversy, but he is supposed to be protected by Freedom of Speech. (After all, he did not incite violence or state homosexuals should be targeted in anyway). If it was an Atheist that said "Being baptised is a sin" the same rules should apply - he also should not be silenced and arrested for his views.

[edit on 15/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by TerribleTeam2

 

(After all, he did not incite violence or state homosexuals should be targeted in anyway)

[edit on 15/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Proof?

I did not see in the article the specifics of his conversations with PCSO, do you have another source?

Originally posted by Stormwind™

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by TerribleTeam2

 

(After all, he did not incite violence or state homosexuals should be targeted in anyway)

[edit on 15/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Proof?

I did not see in the article the specifics of his conversations with PCSO, do you have another source?

Exactly. I'm sure the preacher would be happy if someone like me walked past and said, so he could hear it, "Priests are paedophiles and they shall burn in hell for their sins". He would scream the house down, even though it can be proven that a hell of alot of priests, are in fact, paedophiles.