|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Am I an extremist now?
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I don't think that the church should be interfering in what is a civil act either. I was just trying to point out that until very recently in England and Wales (and probably Ireland), the church has been very much involved in marriage. It's only in my living memory that civil ceremonies have become more common than church weddings. ONS statistics showing that in 1963 30% of weddings were civil ceremonies, the rest being religious, and in 2011 less than 30% of weddings were religious ceremonies.
I do think that marriage should be a civil act, but historically until very recently that hasn't been the case in England and Wales.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's only within my living memory that civil ceremonies have become more common than religious ceremonies in Australia as well.
That's not the point. The point is that it's the civil law that determines the legalities of marriage. It's been that way for far longer, but how long it's been that way isn't important to this discussion either.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's only within my living memory that civil ceremonies have become more common than religious ceremonies in Australia as well.
That's not the point. The point is that it's the civil law that determines the legalities of marriage. It's been that way for far longer, but how long it's been that way isn't important to this discussion either.
And an even more important point is that the civil law should not determine the legalities of marriage on the basis of any particular set of religious beliefs or someone's interpretation of those beliefs. Those beliefs have their place in churches, mosques or temples and not in determining who can marry whom.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... received for [sic] damages for false arrest.
... he was released without charge ....
Thank you, Curiousity killed. Back to you, Steve Langton.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
My point was that marriage has changed to be a civil act as canon law has been absorbed into the law of the land rather than having separate powers.
Except that until 1753 marriages were not required to be done in the Church of England (and even after an exception was made for Jews and Quakers) nor did Scottish law ever have that requirement. In addition marriages done outside England/Wales even non-religious ones such as in Gretna Green at the blacksmiths were still recognized in England/Wales.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The reason that marriage must have a civil component these days (the 1700s were long ago) is that so many benefits are tied to the married status. Health benefits, visiting your partner in the hospital, children, insurance -- all of these are not mandated by the church but by the government. It does not seem unreasonable to have them regulate marriage as well. To hand over the gatekeeping to the church -- or churches, since every church would want in on it -- is clearly chaos. Better to have a civil marriage status, and then you go and do your own religious thing, whatever you like.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Before 1753, marriage was governed by canon law, not civil or common law - so went before the church courts for decisions. Just because English law was horribly complicated.
But this is a continuing tangent, rather than the real thread of this discussion. The other half of my post finding out about the street preachers who had been arrested for homophobia was more to the point on this thread. And pointing out they were odd outlying situations.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Gee D and Orfeo
I have no interest whatsoever in trying to prevent
the legalisation of SSM.
Theologically and morally I believe SSM to be both meaningless and sinful, but (to stick with the analogy from upthread) I think the same about Hindus' religious beliefs and practices, while maintaining that in a liberal, pluralist society they should be free to pursue them.
My comments about marriage were entirely within the context of pointing out that a Christian single's commitment to orthodox Christian doctrine and morality prevents any opportunity of their finding sexual fulfilment.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... received for [sic] damages for false arrest.
... he was released without charge ....
Thank you, Curiousity killed. Back to you, Steve Langton.
You just don't get it, SM.
Anyone with a skerrick of commitment to the principle of freedom of expression would be horrified that we have reached the point of hysterical paranoia at which such people run the risk of being arrested in the first place.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
My comments about marriage were entirely within the context of pointing out that a Christian single's commitment to orthodox Christian doctrine and morality prevents any opportunity of their finding sexual fulfilment.
Yes, and my repeated response was that a gay Christian single's commitment to orthodox Christian doctrine and morality on sex outside marriage prevents any sexual fulfilment, while single.
Where you're wrong is in your use of "prevents any opportunity". I don't think that means quite what you think it means, because you don't seem to understand the difference between a lack of opportunity in fact and a lack of opportunity in law.
Because according to your doctrine, a straight Christian single asking "how do I find any sexual fulfilment" is told "you find a girl/boy and marry her/him". A gay Christian single asking "how do I find any sexual fulfilment" is told "you don't". One is given a task, and that task might well be difficult. The other is simply told No.
It is simply not accurate to use the same phrase "prevents any opportunity of their finding sexual fulfilment" for both situations. Facts change. Rules, according to you, don't.
[ 18. August 2015, 23:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... received for [sic] damages for false arrest.
... he was released without charge ....
Thank you, Curiousity killed. Back to you, Steve Langton.
You just don't get it, SM.
Anyone with a skerrick of commitment to the principle of freedom of expression would be horrified that we have reached the point of hysterical paranoia at which such people run the risk of being arrested in the first place.
This is absurd. It presupposes that there was ever a time when people were free from being erroneously arrested. There is always a risk of arrest when there is the power of arrest. Unless you can demonstrate a significant and sustained uptick in such arrests, you've no beginnings of a point.
[ 19. August 2015, 05:30: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well, yeah. You run the risk of arrest just by being a live human being.
I've heard of at least one case where someone's main risk factor for being arrested was that he just happened, by sheer chance, to strongly resemble a highly wanted criminal.
The police, airport security etc etc were fully prepared to leave him alone once they worked out he wasn't the same guy, but are we going to start saying what a terrible thing it is that the authorities rely on visual identification as the first line of operation? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Having read the news reports of those two cases of street preachers being arrested, I don't think homophobia was the main cause of their arrests:
- The preacher in Basildon was ostensibly arrested for preaching homophobic abuse following a complaint by someone else. This complaint was found to be false, which is why he received damages for wrongful arrest. The problem there was the original complaint.
- The preacher in Wimbledon was released without charge. He was preaching in a smart expensive area of London. There could be a number of reasons why someone could be arrested for noisy behaviour in a smart quiet area under the public order act. The arresting police officer has to choose the charge. I can speculate why this officer chose this charge, but as it was not substantiated the preacher was released without charge.
To contrast the few cases I could find of preachers being arrested for homophobic abuse, do you know how often people are arrested for taking photographs in public?
There were some earlier cases of arrests (I could find another two from 2001 and 2009) with half being charged and fined for offences, but the law on hate speech (Public Order Act 1986) in England and Wales was amended in 2013 which has made it harder to arrest street preachers (and comedians making jokes) for being offensive.
[ 19. August 2015, 07:05: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It presupposes that there was ever a time when people were free from being erroneously arrested.
Of course it doesn't.
You can't be serious.
quote:
There is always a risk of arrest when there is the power of arrest.
Utterly irrelevant truism.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
a lack of opportunity in fact and a lack of opportunity in law.
Meaningless distinction.
The law doesn't prevent anyone, gay or straight, from seeking out sexual fulfilment.
As for fact, the fact is that both straight and gay singles are free to go with orthodox Christian teaching or ignore it.
If they choose to observe it, and it means that they therefore forgo any opportunity for sexual fulfilment, then that is their choice.
You might not like the outcome, ie that this means that only some straights but all gays have to abandon that opportunity, but that is what orthodox Christianity has always taught.
You can try to demonstrate hermeneutically and exegetically that the overwhelming majority of Christians have been, and are, wrong in their interpretation of this issue, or you can reject Christianity which, in a pluralist society you are perfectly free to do - thank God.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
a lack of opportunity in fact and a lack of opportunity in law.
Meaningless distinction.
The law doesn't prevent anyone, gay or straight, from seeking out sexual fulfilment.
As for fact, the fact is that both straight and gay singles are free to go with orthodox Christian teaching or ignore it.
If they choose to observe it, and it means that they therefore forgo any opportunity for sexual fulfilment, then that is their choice.
You might not like the outcome, ie that this means that only some Christian straights but all Christian gays have to abandon that opportunity, but that is what orthodox Christianity has always taught.
You can try to demonstrate hermeneutically and exegetically that the overwhelming majority of Christians have been, and are, wrong in their interpretation of this issue, or you can reject Christianity which, in a pluralist society you are perfectly free to do - thank God.
[ 19. August 2015, 07:52: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
a lack of opportunity in fact and a lack of opportunity in law.
Meaningless distinction.
The law doesn't prevent anyone, gay or straight, from seeking out sexual fulfilment.
As for fact, the fact is that both straight and gay singles are free to go with orthodox Christian teaching or ignore it.
I'm talking about "law" in the sense of rules. The rules of Christian teaching you're talking about. I thought that was clear.
It's not a meaningless distinction, it's a fundamental one, however much you choose to throw my own personal experience back in my face as if it doesn't matter.
And similarly, you completely devalue the experience of gay Bible-believing Christians by saying they are "free" to ignore orthodox teaching. If I felt "free" to ignore any teaching that inconvenienced me we simply wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. The only reason I bother with conversations such as this is because I actually care about Biblical teaching. I wouldn't bother arguing with you about what was and wasn't Biblical if that question had no bearing on anything else.
[ 19. August 2015, 07:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday
Arrests may appear reasonable in accordance with the law but on closer examination it is found that there is no case to answer.
It looks to me that your free speech argument is a lament that such arrests, whether erroneous or not, are possible at all. So I think your problem must be either with the law or the training of the law enforcers.
Personally, I would prefer to live in a society which does not restrict free speech. I've concluded, reluctantly, that hate speech legislation may be for the common good, provided it is drawn tightly enough. So I think "the devil may be in the detail" of either the law as it stands or the ways in which it is enforced.
And as CK says, this law does not appear in practice to be making it easy to arrest street preachers for being offensive to others.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Simple questions for you Kaplan Corday:
1. Do you think there's any difference between telling a particular woman she's not allowed to drive because she's failed a driving test, and telling all women they are not allowed to drive or take a driving test?
2. Do you think there's any difference between telling a particular woman she's not suitable to teach in church, and telling all women they are not permitted to teach in church?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Complete freedom in anything never was and never should be.
There will always be restrictions, it is naive to argue otherwise.
This includes speech. It has to. The best we can do is to make those restrictions as light and as balanced as we can. But to pretend complete freedom, even of speech, is practical is not looking at the entire picture.
Your freedom ends where it interferes with my rights. That is the essence of hate speech laws.
Speech has power, therefore it should have guidelines for use.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks to me that your free speech argument is a lament that such arrests, whether erroneous or not, are possible at all. So I think your problem must be either with the law or the training of the law enforcers.
It reminds me very much of a complaint I occasionally hear about legal proceedings, after someone starts a court case that's not going to succeed on the merits.
"We have to stop people making court applications!" comes the cry. "Look at the terrible applications they make!"
It can be very difficult to get people who say things like this to realise that it's not actually possible to decide the merits of an application before an application is made. If you try, all you are doing is moving the assessment back one step - instead of making an application, you're getting people to make an application to make an application.
If you give people a power to do something, it's part and parcel of this that you accept the risk that they will do that something badly. It is simply not possible to give people a power to do something properly, because you can't work out whether they've done it properly until they've actually done it.
Which is why we have powers of assessment and review and appeal and what have you. It's why we have police making arrests but judges deciding whether a person is guilty.
It is logically impossible to construct a system whereby a policeman's power to arrest someone only applies to people who are actually guilty of something, unless you give the policeman the power to decide guilt. In which case it's not just a power to arrest, but a power to convict. The best you can do is give the policeman a power to arrest on reasonable suspicion of guilt. In which case it is logically inevitable that sometimes that suspicion won't be borne out.
[ 19. August 2015, 10:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
a lack of opportunity in fact and a lack of opportunity in law.
Meaningless distinction.
I'm pretty sure that this claim that the distinction between de facto and de juris discrimination is entirely the product of some pretty blatant situational ethics. Take, for example, hate speech laws. KC claims to find them unjust, and yet if the above argument were to be applied to them he should see no difference between not being allowed to publicly harass and denigrate homosexuals because one is unable to find any (opportunity in fact) or because one is imprisoned (opportunity of law). For some reason when it's a law against something he favors, suddenly the distinction is hugely relevant. What a surprise!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
a lack of opportunity in fact and a lack of opportunity in law.
Meaningless distinction.
I'm pretty sure that this claim that the distinction between de facto and de juris discrimination is entirely the product of some pretty blatant situational ethics.
My post which you quote was a reference to the fact that in Western countries at least, there is no law against homosexual sexual relations.
It had no reference whatsoever to the context into which you are attempting to force it.
You just made that up.
I see that you are taking some time off from trying to find some evidence for that allegation of yours that I hate homosexuals.
I'm sure you are looking hard, because you must be aware that your reputation for integrity and honesty depend on your finding it.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
My post which you quote was a reference to the fact that in Western countries at least, there is no law against homosexual sexual relations.
Which, as has been pointed out, was completely irrelevant to the post YOU were responding to.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Let’s perpetrate a bit of piscicide and dispose of a couple of red herrings (or straw people; straw herrings?)
First, I am not pushing for absolute freedom of speech, just for maximizing it, and rigorously interrogating any mooted restrictions on it, which any sane person believes needs doing – “eternal vigilance…” and all that.
Secondly, neither I nor anyone else is pretending that the application of laws does not involve review and definition.
The real question can be illustrated again by the Hinduism analogy, which is no doubt becoming a bit tedious by now, but analogies are required in this area in order to clarify issues by moving them away from the fog of gay exceptionalism.
Nobody could imagine a street preacher being arrested for telling passers-by that it is wrong to worship false gods.
As far as I am aware it has never happened, certainly not in a liberal, pluralist Western democracy.
If such a preacher were suddenly arrested, out of the blue, on the grounds that his words offended, or had the capacity to offend, members of other religions such as Hindus, all sorts of warning lights and bells would come on, even if the preacher were released without charge.
Not only would arrest and incarceration in such a situation, no matter how brief, be a grossly disproportionate overreaction by authorities, but it would signal a potentially very dangerous change in approach to freedom of expression, and any responsible person would be concerned about its possible implications for the future.
It might only be a straw, but it would be a straw in the wind.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Orfeo was not talking about law. He was talking about Christian theology of a particularly "gay sex is evil" sort. This is what the point is about. Not law. Not how you feel about what should or should not be legal in a pluralistic society. That's all well and good. But not orfeo's point.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Secondly, neither I nor anyone else is pretending that the application of laws does not involve review and definition.
When it comes to Christian law, though, that is exactly what you are saying. The fact that you call it "doctrine" doesn't alter the nature of it. It is a body of laws. If you want to see all the possible synonyms, read Psalm 119 which uses 8 different words in each section. "Law" is just one of the various words we use to describe a rule.
The fact that the enforcement mechanism is couched in terms of damnation or moral condemnation rather than courtrooms doesn't alter that.
This is one of the things I was trying to get across to you in the 2 questions you haven't yet answered.
[ 20. August 2015, 00:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
On Soror Magna's
quote:
Back to you, Steve Langton.
You asked for a citation - I referred you to where you would easily find examples.
In at least two cases street preachers were arrested for suggesting that gay sex is sinful - proceedings were indeed eventually dropped. My memory is that in one case the police officer actually provoked the situation by asking the preacher for his opinion on gay sex, which the preacher himself had not actually talked about up till then.
I'm broadly I think in agreement with Barnabas62 that the fault here is less with the law than with the officers - but such events still really should not have happened....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gee D;
quote:
Steve Langton and Kaplan Corday, there is a world of difference between carrying a sign saying and one which says "Gay sex acts are wrong and we must kill those who commit them".
I can't of course speak for Kaplan Corday; but for myself I would basically say indeed that "Gay sex acts are sinful and God will judge sinners". God, not me. And I absolutely reject the idea of saying "Gay sex acts are wrong and we must kill those who commit them". Did you really think I would suggest such a thing? And if so, why?
I personally wouldn't be carrying about signs of either variety....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Where did I suggest that either you or Kaplan Corday would say that? Do you feel guilty?
[ 20. August 2015, 06:52: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You asked for a citation - I referred you to where you would easily find examples.
In at least two cases street preachers were arrested for suggesting that gay sex is sinful - proceedings were indeed eventually dropped. My memory is that in one case the police officer actually provoked the situation by asking the preacher for his opinion on gay sex, which the preacher himself had not actually talked about up till then.
I'm broadly I think in agreement with Barnabas62 that the fault here is less with the law than with the officers - but such events still really should not have happened....
Steve, your account of these preacher arrests is flawed. One was triggered by an accusation by a passer-by, and that one resulted in damages for false arrest. The other was, I suspect, a police officer asked to move on a preacher causing a disturbance in a smart area. A police officer has to charge the offender with something to arrest them. Knowing how these things work out in practice, the police officer will have asked the preacher to move on. Only when the preacher refused, or if the policeman had been asked to move him on several times in the same place, would the police officer arrest him, and to do that he has to charge him. Most police officers aren't keen to arrest without good reason, they really would prefer to move people on. Arrests tie up police cells and interview rooms and garner lots of paperwork. Can you see how two accounts of this could provide the two different reports? Particularly when one of the reports comes from Christian Today.
The fact that we can find two cases since 2013 suggests police officers realise that the Public Order Act 1986 as amended in 2013 is not an appropriate legal basis for arrests of street preachers. I could only find one case where a preacher was fined for preaching under the Public Order Act.
Did you see how many cases I found of people arrested under the same public order act for taking photographs? I found three or four articles listing numbers of people affected in the same period.
The Public Order Act is not being used to arrest preachers generally. The four cases I can find in the last 14 years, with three being dismissed, really does not suggest that preachers are being accused of hate crimes. Particularly when I can list dozens of photographers arrested in the same time period under the same act through the same internet searches.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Curiosity killed...
quote:
Steve, your account of these preacher arrests is flawed. One was triggered by an accusation by a passer-by, and that one resulted in damages for false arrest. The other was, I suspect, a police officer asked to move on a preacher causing a disturbance in a smart area.
Ck, I was genuinely trying to be helpful by directing Soror Magna and others to the 'citation' requested. I entered the search terms as suggested and straight off came up with a page full of the directly relevant - not, as Soror Magna suggested,
quote:
dozens of stories of idiots arrested for trespassing or harassment or causing a disturbance or holding a parade without a permit
Had Soror Magna simply followed my suggestion and entered those search terms, she would have found cases where it was reported that “ someone was arrested just for saying homosexuality is sinful”. Had she tried and come up with those timewasting 'dozens of stories of idiots arrested (for other things)' I would of course apologize; but I've no reason to believe that would have happened. My impression on the quick search was that there were more than two episodes; if I got that wrong I do indeed apologize. And since you did go on to check further, perhaps you can confirm whether there was anything in the accounts to suggest Soror Magna's other suggestion that
quote:
“the aforementioned idiots can never stop at just that. It's always homosexuality is sinful AND homos are gonna fuck your kids and make them gay and poke you with needles to give you AIDS and they'll all burn in hell”
At the very least it isn't 'always' thus, and no such thing seems to have been reported even by the arresters/would-be-prosecutors in the cases I've heard of.
I'll do some further checking of the points myself; I was perhaps a bit abrupt last night after returning late from a busy day.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The question, it seems to me, is not whether or not people are getting arrested, but whether or not people are getting convicted. Police can arrest anybody. That doesn't mean the arrest was justified by the law.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The question, it seems to me, is not whether or not people are getting arrested, but whether or not people are getting convicted. Police can arrest anybody. That doesn't mean the arrest was justified by the law.
That's one question, but not the only question. Being continually harassed by police, detained and released without charge isn't as bad as being falsely imprisoned, but it's still a bad thing.
You limit that by providing consequences for police officers who arrest or detain without appropriate grounds.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gee D
quote:
Where did I suggest that either you or Kaplan Corday would say that? Do you feel guilty?
Not guilty, no. And BTW apologies that I seem to have messed up the copying and somehow missed out part of what I quoted from you.
More a case of puzzled that while making a point good in itself, you chose to address it particularly to myself and Kaplan Corday, with me first, as I can't recall dealing with that particular point earlier....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You just made that up.
I see that you are taking some time off from trying to find some evidence for that allegation of yours that I hate homosexuals.
I'm sure you are looking hard, because you must be aware that your reputation for integrity and honesty depend on your finding it.
Remember that stuff Louise was saying about not making things so personal not so long ago? And how any further transgressions would result in notification of the Admins?
Well, here I am.
Consider Kaplan Corday's 2-week suspension as the warning for everybody, as some posts by others might also be considered as perhaps straying close to the line. Let's just back away from overmuch personalization of the jousting, shall we?
-RooK
Admin
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The question, it seems to me, is not whether or not people are getting arrested, but whether or not people are getting convicted. Police can arrest anybody. That doesn't mean the arrest was justified by the law.
That's one question, but not the only question. Being continually harassed by police, detained and released without charge isn't as bad as being falsely imprisoned, but it's still a bad thing.
You limit that by providing consequences for police officers who arrest or detain without appropriate grounds.
Absolutely! But that isn't necessarily an indictment of the laws. Meaning the laws other than the ones enforcing appropriate police behavior.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But there is no evidence for the repeated arrest of street preachers.
I started this by thinking I hadn't heard of any preachers being arrested for homophobia in the UK, other than on the Ship, so idly googled to see what came up and the same four names are all I get. I'm only searching for arrests, not charges, and I'm not restricting my search to preachers, but am restricting it to the UK, because I am not going to attempt to get my head around the US. The stories aren't widely covered: local press, Pink News, Christian Today and the Daily Wail, pretty much, but it's the same handful of stories coming up repeatedly.
Having checked that, I realised I was far more aware of photographers being arrested under the same public order act from mainstream news and the photography boards I frequent and googled that as a comparison. For that one, I did get pages.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Curiosity killed
quote:
But there is no evidence for the repeated arrest of street preachers.
I wasn't really expecting any - but I knew there had been a few examples. I have over the last few years been giving thought to street preaching; though it's something I won't be doing myself because courtesy of Asperger's I'm basically too shy and just don't have the charisma.
I think it's a bit of a problem in the UK because we have a rather different situation to NT-era Palestine or the Greek cities in which Paul preached. Back then wandering rabbis or philsophers teaching in the streets seems to have been regular and expected, whereas that seems to be much less part of our culture and of course the streets weren't also required to accommodate cars and buses. I tend to the view that it's wrong to just assume a right to preach in the streets. But it's complicated....
Getting back to the OP, it seems to me that in a pluralist society, it should be a case of I'm allowed to disagree with what you believe, while you're allowed to disagree with what I believe, and even if expressed perhaps forcefully or with some mockery, expressing disagreement should be allowed. A situation where "I'm allowed to disagree with you but if you express your disagreement with me I'm going to have you prosecuted" is not "equality" and needs a great deal of extra justification.
A plural society means that because of that allowance of mutual disagreement people don't always get everything they want; and they should accept that as being better than a more totalitarian society that doesn't allow disagreement with whoever happens to be the 'top dog' in the society.
As of now I don't think the case has been sufficiently proved for gay issues to be beyond criticism (and I'm not sure it's healthy that ANY issue should be totally so!!). It is certainly proved to the point that gay people should not be criminalised, and in any case I personally oppose the old 'Christian country' idea and the imposition of 'Christian morality' on everybody regardless of their beliefs.
I'll leave that a bit open for now....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It is very easy to fall into a sort of confirmation bias with this sort of thing, with any single incident being seen as proof of a great big huge underlying problem.
A case in point is playing out in Australia right now. A coal mine is being blocked (very temporarily, as a matter of law) because a judge found the environmental assessment process wasn't followed correctly by the Environment Department.
The government has been denouncing this outcome angrily, vowing to put a stop to green groups being allowed to carry out what they call "lawfare", citing the case as evidence of how the greenies will thwart every coal-related project they can.
The government's view suffers from the following problems:
1. The judge's orders were by consent, after the Department agreed there had been a flaw in the process.
2. Changing the law on who can mount a court case will do nothing to alter the actual process required, meaning it will do nothing to alter the fact that the process carried out was flawed in this instance.
3. The laws they are denouncing were brought in by the last government of the same persuasion, and many of them were Ministers at the time.
4. Of 5,500 projects that have been through this process, only about 30 were ever challenged in the courts.
5. Only 6 of those court challenges had any success at all.
6. Only 2 projects have ever been stopped as a result.
It was actually today that there was an article explaining how a single isolated incident can be treated as proof of a culture war.
I think there is little doubt that conservative Christianity has chosen to treat homosexuality as a "culture war". It's the best explanation I've seen of why an issue that is scarcely mentioned in the Bible, and makes no appearance in the core Christian creeds, has become an article of faith.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Soror Magna;
quote:
Citation needed.
In this case, go on whatever browser you use and enter 'street preacher arrested' and you'll find more than enough citations from multiple media sources about more than one such incident. I won't bore you with all of them....
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Curiosity killed
quote:
But there is no evidence for the repeated arrest of street preachers.
I wasn't really expecting any - but I knew there had been a few examples. ...
So on Page 9 there were "more than enough citations from multiple media sources about more than one such incident" but now you tell us on Page 10 that "I wasn't really expecting any - but I knew there had been a few examples". Progress! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry - loose wording and a bit of Aspie over-literalism on my part; I wasn't expecting examples of 'the repeated arrest of street preachers'. I did expect - and there were - quite a few separate examples of such arrests. As I said, I did a quick check using the search terms I suggested and it threw up enough cases to fulfil your request for a citation; though some of the links were clearly multiple coverage of a single event, there were clearly more than one case altogether. I initially thought three or four; Ck found clearly two, I've since actually found a clear third, and that one actually involving apparently two arrests of the same preacher at different locations - an American first in England then in Scotland. A 'repeated' example contrary to my expectations.... Also I'm still unclear, but don't propose to bother checking further, that one of Ck's pair may actually be in addition to my eventual trio.
I gave you your basic citation; instead of checking it out you made a big fuss about what would not in fact have been time-wasting if you had checked, and a gratuitous, insulting and AFAICS in these cases inaccurate comment on what such preachers 'always' do. I tried to be helpful - your response has just been cheap points-scoring and I'm NOT impressed.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think there is little doubt that conservative Christianity has chosen to treat homosexuality as a "culture war". It's the best explanation I've seen of why an issue that is scarcely mentioned in the Bible, and makes no appearance in the core Christian creeds, has become an article of faith.
I suppose the answer to that is that the ancient Israelites didn't feel the need to discuss the rights and wrongs of homosexual behaviour, because once it was prohibited there was little left to say. Theirs wasn't an age when looking for personal fulfilment in sexual relationships was considered a group priority (although it might have been a priority for individuals).
The 'culture war' thing may be relevant, but in that case, conservative Christians are losing the war in western culture. Their teachings may be problematic among themselves (and a divided house soon falls!), but no one else is listening.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It's only in my living memory that civil ceremonies have become more common than church weddings.
Yet just because it occurs in a church doesn't make it any less a civil ceremony.
About 90% of the weddings I've been to in my life have been in a church, and about 90% of the couples were Christians. And a big variant has been how explicitly Christian they choose to make the ceremony in terms of what the pastor says, what bible readings are chosen etc. Yet in every single one of them there was a pervasive understanding that marriage was fundamentally a civil and legal ceremony, which they had personally chosen to add religious content to, due to themselves being Christian. And while the pastor might say something about God being a part of their marriage, or about them being married before God, this was always understood to be in addition to the rather more crucial-to-everyday-life fact that it was a marriage in the eyes of the State.
I think the crucial issue that sets the tone in people's minds is whether civil courts or canon law controls subsequent rulings on whether a couple is married or not. Because if it's the State who gets to rule whether the couple is actually married or not, then that sets the implicit tone for the marriage ceremony - it is being primarily performed with a view to being valid in the eyes of the State. Whereas if it's the Church who gets to rule whether the couple is actually married or not, then the ceremony does become an inherently religious one.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Starlight, my original post was mostly to refute the assertions that street preachers were being arrested and charged for homosexuality as a major anti-Christian move. Rather that a handful of cases have been seen as an issue, whereas photographers have been arrested far more often under the same law.
In passing I threw in a comment which became a major tangent. Summarising, that tangent concluded that historically marriage was governed by canon law and has only slowly changed to being a secular institution over several hundred years. This is probably why churches still feel they have a say in marriage. Canon law is no longer a separate entity but is bound into the English legal system. There are very good reasons for the secularisation of marriage, so other than services within churches, marriage is no longer a religious issue, but the churches are still trying to hang on to their influence.
But that is pretty much an irrelevance for this thread.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Nobody could imagine a street preacher being arrested for telling passers-by that it is wrong to worship false gods.
As far as I am aware it has never happened, certainly not in a liberal, pluralist Western democracy.
If such a preacher were suddenly arrested, out of the blue, on the grounds that his words offended, or had the capacity to offend, members of other religions such as Hindus, all sorts of warning lights and bells would come on, even if the preacher were released without charge.
Never assume your own personal ignorance of something is proof that it never happens:
quote:
Street evangelist Mike Overd, a client of the Christian Legal Centre, is being prosecuted in the United Kingdom for an alleged religious aggravation public order offense.
The charges follow a complaint to police in Taunton, that Overd made a comparison between the perfect life of Jesus and the life of Islam's prophet, Muhammad.
Despite the fact that it would supposedly set off "all sorts of warning lights and bells", this is something KC never heard of. But maybe it's just an isolated incident?
quote:
Eleven people across UK arrested for making 'racist or anti-religious' comments on Facebook and Twitter about British soldier's death
The murder of soldier Lee Rigby has provoked a backlash of anger across the UK, including the attacking of mosques, racial abuse and comments made on social media.
Eleven people have been arrested around Britain for making 'racist or anti-religious' comments on Twitter following the brutal killing in Woolwich on Wednesday.
Which is not surprising given that virtually all hate speech laws cover expressions of religious hatred. One could argue that the Overd example involves suppressing theologically-motivated expression while the second example covers baser statements of hatred, but I think that determining what is and is not theologically correct is an even more pernicious power to put in the hands of civil courts than hate speech laws themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I'm only searching for arrests, not charges, and I'm not restricting my search to preachers, but am restricting it to the UK, because I am not going to attempt to get my head around the US.
As I noted earlier, the First Amendment prevents the U.S. from having hate speech laws, though it does have hate crime laws. The U.S. has arrested zero street preachers under its hate speech laws because it has no hate speech laws. It has laws against creating a public nuisance and against general forms of harassment, but none that are dependent upon the hate content of a statement. This is fairly clearly illustrated by the fact that the Westboro Baptist Church has not been arrested en masse.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I initially thought three or four; Ck found clearly two, I've since actually found a clear third, and that one actually involving apparently two arrests of the same preacher at different locations - an American first in England then in Scotland. A 'repeated' example contrary to my expectations....
I suspect the American was not used to operating in countries with content-restriction laws on speech.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
From a post by Croesos;
quote:
The charges follow a complaint to police in Taunton, that Overd made a comparison between the perfect life of Jesus and the life of Islam's prophet, Muhammad.
If that can result in charges, it is indeed worrying. From my perspective, if some Muslim were to speak publicly, as a street preacher perhaps, comparing Jesus adversely to Muhammad, even very extremely, I wouldn't be bringing charges.
The problem here is simple - Muhammad's life does present problems, we have to be allowed to be critical. A lot of the current problems in the world arise from the example set by Muhammad when, having initially been exiled from Mecca, he returned at the head of an army and, essentially, set himself up as king. Groups like IS are essentially following that example (even if I'm not sure Muhammad would approve of all their actions!) If 'hate speech' laws can be interpreted to repress such debate, we're all going to be in trouble.
And the courts can't easily decide truth in such cases, agreed - but suppressing everything is not gonna help.
In the particular case were there aggravating factors? I'm going to follow your link and see...
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Though the general point I just made still stands, one item picked out in the report makes me want to give Mr Overd some lessons in historical perspective - his comments about Muhammad 'marrying a 9-year-old girl'.
While we don't find that acceptable now, it was common practice in Christian Europe as well as in Muslim states for people to be married that young, especially in the arranged marriages of royalty and nobility. AIUI, normally in such cases consummation would await sexual maturity. In the UK the age of marriage was only upped to 16 sometime in the Victorian age, though I think it was already 13 here by that time.
That marriage is not good grounds to criticise Muhammad.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton: From a post by Croesos;
quote:
The charges follow a complaint to police in Taunton, that Overd made a comparison between the perfect life of Jesus and the life of Islam's prophet, Muhammad.
If that can result in charges, it is indeed worrying. From my perspective, if some Muslim were to speak publicly, as a street preacher perhaps, comparing Jesus adversely to Muhammad, even very extremely, I wouldn't be bringing charges.
The problem here is simple - Muhammad's life does present problems, we have to be allowed to be critical.
Which gets to the main problem of hate speech laws; the placing of certain topics beyond the realm of criticism. In practice this usually means protecting widespread, popular beliefs from criticism while suppressing unpopular notions.
In part, I think that's one of the motivating factors behind all the panic instilled by the idea that hate speech laws might cover sexual orientation the same way they protect religious belief. It has suddenly occurred to previous supporters of such laws that they might fall afoul of what they had previously considered their shield against criticism.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Quoting from Terry Sanderson of the atheist side in the link you supplied;
quote:
In a multicultural society, none of us should have the legal right not to be offended. This law needs to be re-examined urgently."
Pretty much my point - and on this one I'm not worried to find myself agreeing with the atheist. I'm in two minds myself about the subject of that item, 'prayer rooms' in airports. I guess it's impractical to supply independent rooms for every possible belief and philosophy, but it does seem reasonable to provide in minimal form such a facility for those who might need it. Perhaps it should be more neutrally described as a "Quiet room for meditation and/or prayer". It does seem implicit in such a facility that one shouldn't leave in it stuff such as the atheist did in this case, which very overtly insults potential users who hold other views; plural society implies I and other users shouldn't find it offensive that a Quran is supplied, or other faith's scriptures/prayer books, or people find it offensive that a Bible is made available in such a case.
by Croesos;
quote:
In part, I think that's one of the motivating factors behind all the panic instilled by the idea that hate speech laws might cover sexual orientation the same way they protect religious belief. It has suddenly occurred to previous supporters of such laws that they might fall afoul of what they had previously considered their shield against criticism.
I don't expect the law to shield me from criticism by prosecuting critics; but I would like it to neither prosecute people who criticise Christianity nor prosecute Christians for being critical of other beliefs.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
