Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Todd Bentley banned from the UK - Yay!
|
Stick Monitor
Apprentice
# 17253
|
Posted
He's big, he's back, he's....banned!
Finally, a government decision on religion that makes sense [ 22. August 2012, 11:27: Message edited by: Stick Monitor ]
Posts: 50 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think it's unfortunate all round.
It's unfortunate that churches did not have the sense to refrain from inviting him in the first place.
I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with governments excluding visitors on the grounds of their religious beliefs, however lunatic they may be.
And Bentley is already playing the victim card to the full.
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote: In clips, he is heard telling an audience: "And the Holy Spirit spoke to me, the gift of faith came on me. He said, 'kick her in the face with your biker boot'. I inched closer and I went like this – bam! And just as my boot made contact with her nose, she fell under the power of God."
[*Wipes away tears]
I laughed so hard when I read this - must be the gift of Holy Spirit too.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
God bless the Home Office!
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stick Monitor
Apprentice
# 17253
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: I think it's unfortunate all round.
I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with governments excluding visitors on the grounds of their religious beliefs, however lunatic they may be.
I know what you mean, given recent illiberal tendencies in British society. However, it would be interesting to know who grassed him up - it may be that HMG took good advice from a discerning church leader of some sort.
Posts: 50 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Yeah despite being glad he's not coming here I'm concerned if the ban is based on his belief. Where do you draw the line? I'd be more happy if the ban was explicitly to stop him hitting and kicking people here. Which I guess it pretty much was.
-------------------- C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~ Philip Purser Hallard http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
I totally agree that he's an idiot: anyone who can make a comment like 'We know and believe that the UK has a great destiny', has proved it in one. But the whole point of a liberal society is that we must allow the free exchange of ideas; there must be a VERY good reason for doing otherwise; surely the test should be 'Would his behaviour in the past constitute an offence under British law'. I don't think there is anything like this justification for this restriction; instead we are seeing the anti-democratic tendencies of any government being demonstrated. Not impressed.
-------------------- Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I'm sure there's some background information we'll never here (it's a government decision after all) but I tend to agree with George Spigot: maybe we should have told Todd Bentley "Sure, come over, but please take some advice regarding our violence against the person legislation".
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
We have precedents for banning lunatics associated with other religions who, say, advocate strapping a bomb to your chest and walking into a crowded space as a sure fire way to Paradise. What makes the lunatics associated with our faith any more welcome than the lunatics associated with others?
-------------------- Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I'm entirely happy to exclude someone who intends to assault people in the name of religion. After all, if kicking someone in the face (whether it was God's idea or not) isn't assault, what is it?
-------------------- We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stick Monitor
Apprentice
# 17253
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Ender's Shadow: surely the test should be 'Would his behaviour in the past constitute an offence under British law'.
You and George Spigot together have a really good point there. Isn't the kicking of a woman in the face an assault? That and the list of other violent offences well documented elsewhere, e.g. punching a terminal-pancreatic-cancer patient in the gut which made him black out? That and fraudulent claims of healing and resurrections which kept the dollars rolling in?
Yes, it's much more likely someone in Whitehall rolled his/her eyes at the prospect of a visit from yet another Christian loon but there might be some intelligence in it. [ 22. August 2012, 12:23: Message edited by: Stick Monitor ]
Posts: 50 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The thing is, we don't really know on what grounds he was banned. The Telegraph focuses on the perceived assaults, but we have no idea whether the Home Office did.
To answer Alan's point, I don't think he's advocating terrorism.
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I too am intrigued as to exactly why he's been banned - it was a bit of a surprise to hear about it.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I'd be interested to know which church/denomination he belongs to. ...Wait, no, let me guess... it wouldn't be "Todd Bentley Ministries" by any chance, would it?
-------------------- "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Ah, it seems the local MP for Croydon, his first planned port of call, has something to do with it (story).
Scanning Guardian and Huffington Post articles suggests (but again does not prove) that the grounds were "protecting vulnerable people".
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stick Monitor
Apprentice
# 17253
|
Posted
Most of the media coverage is focused on his criminal and violent past as the reason for the ban. It looks like the Labour MP for Croydon (where the tour was meant to start), Malcolm Wicks, raised the objection in a personal letter to the Home Secretary.
This from the organisers' website: quote: We are terribly disappointed and sorry to tell you all that the Home Office has refused entry to the UK to Todd Bentley, citing the reason being his former criminal conviction and his unorthodox method of ministering. The Home Secretary was responsible for the final decision, and tells us that the decision cannot be appealed.
Posts: 50 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Ender's Shadow: But the whole point of a liberal society is that we must allow the free exchange of ideas; there must be a VERY good reason for doing otherwise; surely the test should be 'Would his behaviour in the past constitute an offence under British law'.
I don't think permitting him to pursue a "ministry" that consists of punching and kicking people could fairly be described as an "exchange of ideas". YMMV.
As for whether his past behaviour would constitute an offence - that rather depends on your position on the ability to consent to assault, and your interpretation of the nature of any consent given by his victims. I'm cautious about answering that one, but in various ways, there's a clear difference between Bentley and (for example) a boxer.
Frankly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. There's no danger of lunatic religious beliefs being excluded as long as Benny Hinn and Ken Ham are regular visitors to these shores, so I can't get worked up about a guy being turned away because he wants to come here and hit sick people.
-------------------- The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by The Great Gumby: Frankly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. There's no danger of lunatic religious beliefs being excluded as long as Benny Hinn and Ken Ham are regular visitors to these shores, so I can't get worked up about a guy being turned away because he wants to come here and hit sick people.
Finally we agree on something Gumby me ol' mucker!
I don't know much about Ken Ham, but Benny Hinn is well dodgy!
(don't mention the war.. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it...)
-------------------- "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stick Monitor
Apprentice
# 17253
|
Posted
Just noticed that he was due to arrive the day after the Paralympics starts. That probably had something to do with it too.
Posts: 50 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
I do find it amusing. I'm not a fan of Todd Bentley, I think he's a shyster, though one who genuinely believes he is someone with the power of the Holy Spirit inside him, rather than, as anyone else would say, a sociopath.
However, despite being a loon, AFAIK he's only once kicked someone in the face, and we have only his word for it, no one has come forward to tell their story of being kicked in the face by him. He said that one time in his early ministry he did this, as an exceptional act of faith despite being aware it was a crazy thing to do at the time. The only recent violent thing he did that there's any evidence for (as far as I've read - I may of course be wrong) is knee a cancer guy in the stomach - and the cancer guy said he felt better afterwards so it may not have been a particularly powerful blow - just part of his stage act.
So he may have been violent or pretended to be violent once or twice on stage, but the media's love of presenting him as though he does this as a regular feature of his ministry is very far from the truth.
Admittedly its his own fault for boasting about it on talk shows, however.
-------------------- “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mark Betts: Finally we agree on something Gumby me ol' mucker!
Even a stopped clock is right occasionally.
I'll leave the question of which of us is the stopped clock as an exercise for the reader.
You'd like Ken Ham. He's full of fascinating gems, some of which go well beyond the usual creationist schtick. There's a brilliant bit on his AiG website where a 10yo asks him how he reconciles his belief about the age of the universe with the millions of years the light's had to travel to get here from distant stars.
His answer was that this poor, confused boy had got muddled up by fancy science talk: quote: When we hear the term light-year, we need to realize it is not a measure of time but a measure of distance, telling us how far away something is. Distant stars and galaxies might be millions of light-years away, but that doesn’t mean that it took millions of years for the light to get here, it just means it is really far away!
Um, Okay.
-------------------- The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by seasick: I'm entirely happy to exclude someone who intends to assault people in the name of religion. After all, if kicking someone in the face (whether it was God's idea or not) isn't assault, what is it?
Prizefighting? Martial arts?
I mean, under some circumstances you can give another person permission to hit you. It seems to me that if you seek the ministry of Todd Bentley, knowing his reputation, you have effectively done exactly that.
I feel that we in America owe all our love of freedom and due process to our British heritage. It is disappointing and distressing to see the Mother Country now throwing it all away with even greater enthusiasm than we are doing so ourselves. Can't you see, about six inches down the road in front of you, what a double-edged sword it is to let some bureaucrat in the government define "the public good" and limit your freedom of assocation accordingly?
-------------------- Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alogon: Can't you see, about six inches down the road in front of you, what a double-edged sword it is to let some bureaucrat in the government define "the public good" and limit your freedom of assocation accordingly?
I presume there may be other reasons from his past why they might refuse him entry.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I'd be interested to know if the Home Office consulted anyone in the House of Bishops or other denominational representatives before making its final decision.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alogon: I feel that we in America owe all our love of freedom and due process to our British heritage. It is disappointing and distressing to see the Mother Country now throwing it all away with even greater enthusiasm than we are doing so ourselves. Can't you see, about six inches down the road in front of you, what a double-edged sword it is to let some bureaucrat in the government define "the public good" and limit your freedom of assocation accordingly?
I can see that Alogon. In fact, despite what I have said, it has been in the back of my mind - who else will our nanny-state government decide is not "in the public good" in months or years to come?
-------------------- "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by daronmedway: I'd be interested to know if the Home Office consulted anyone in the House of Bishops or other denominational representatives before making its final decision.
I don't think Todd Bentley Ministries has a House of Bishops.
-------------------- "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mark Betts: quote: Originally posted by Alogon: I feel that we in America owe all our love of freedom and due process to our British heritage. It is disappointing and distressing to see the Mother Country now throwing it all away with even greater enthusiasm than we are doing so ourselves. Can't you see, about six inches down the road in front of you, what a double-edged sword it is to let some bureaucrat in the government define "the public good" and limit your freedom of assocation accordingly?
I can see that Alogon. In fact, despite what I have said, it has been in the back of my mind - who else will our nanny-state government decide is not "in the public good" in months or years to come?
Is this the same Mark Betts who, over on two other threads, is defending the right of the Russian government to lock people up for years for offensive religious speech?
Have you had a sudden conversion experience and turned in to a libertarian?
-------------------- Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alogon: I feel that we in America owe all our love of freedom and due process to our British heritage. It is disappointing and distressing to see the Mother Country now throwing it all away with even greater enthusiasm than we are doing so ourselves. Can't you see, about six inches down the road in front of you, what a double-edged sword it is to let some bureaucrat in the government define "the public good" and limit your freedom of association accordingly?
Alogon, I'd accept this criticism from some directions, but doesn't your country refuse entry to anyone with the most minor conviction for use of cannabis, however young they were and however long ago?
Or has this been moderated?
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stick Monitor
Apprentice
# 17253
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alogon: It seems to me that if you seek the ministry of Todd Bentley, knowing his reputation, you have effectively done exactly that.
Fair point wrt the informed, Todd fanbois. But what about the vulnerable sick who consult such snake-oil salesmen in dark desperation? Should we not protect them somehow, albeit imperfectly? It would be nice to think, as daronmedway posits, that May consulted the state church for pastoral guidance. I admit she probably didn't. In addition, the CofE (and other churches) should be doing a better job, day-to-day, of walking alongside the sick and suffering, to steer them away from Charlatans like Bentley.
Posts: 50 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Enoch: Alogon, I'd accept this criticism from some directions, but doesn't your country refuse entry to anyone with the most minor conviction for use of cannabis, however young they were and however long ago?
Or has this been moderated?
Indeed. Although spent convictions cannot I believe be used to refuse someone entry to the UK I am unsure about sexual offences. This combined with the general aura of Todd's Ministry probably rang alarm bells.
-------------------- blog//twitter// linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
five
Shipmate
# 14492
|
Posted
This happens on a fairly regular basis (with debate here as well), but ultimately seems to amount to their physical presence being banned, but you can still access their speech, words, etc, on YouTube or elsewhere on the internet, British citizens are certainly not banned from going to Florida to visit him in the hopes of being healed, and so on. Which frankly is a step up from the days when Gerry Adams (admittedly, a UK citizen) could not have his voice legally broadcast in the UK.
The list of people banned from the UK doesn't seem to be on primarily on belief though - it is through action. Sometimes, those two overlap. But if your actions include inciting hatred against people (which would be in contravention of English laws) like Michael Savage, or violent actions like "kill or be killed" martial arts teacher Tim Larkin, then why should the government allow such people to come here? Especialy when they can still address the Oxford Union by video link (as has happened).
-------------------- And Jesus said 'the greatest commandments are these: Love the Lord your God with 10% of your time and energy, and Pamphlet your neighbour with tracts' - Birdseye
Posts: 1250 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Stick Monitor: In addition, the CofE (and other churches) should be doing a better job, day-to-day, of walking alongside the sick and suffering, to steer them away from Charlatans like Bentley.
Hear! Hear!
I'm sure many in the 'mainstream' churches carry out a healing ministry, in a calm, modest but regrettably almost anonymous way. Such an approach is preferable, IMO, but it leaves the field open to those who target the sick and disabled.
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alogon: I feel that we in America owe all our love of freedom and due process to our British heritage. It is disappointing and distressing to see the Mother Country now throwing it all away with even greater enthusiasm than we are doing so ourselves. Can't you see, about six inches down the road in front of you, what a double-edged sword it is to let some bureaucrat in the government define "the public good" and limit your freedom of assocation accordingly?
I'm far more bothered about those who come here fleeing persecution, famine, war and poverty and who are refused access than I am about religious nutcases. As others have pointed out, there is still a good selection of people with strange ideas being allowed in and that's how it should be. If we exclude those who appear to be going actively to harm people, I think that's reasonable.
-------------------- We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
He has a conviction for a sex attack on a 7 year old child.
And then there are these rather succinctly put objections.
quote: Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester who now runs a church education charity, said: ‘I think the Home Secretary should make enquiries and see if there is any threat to public order. If the police have any indication that violence will be used against people who may be ill or vulnerable, it will be for her to decide if police should attend.’
Peter May, a prominent Christian GP who served for 25 years on the Church of England’s ruling General Synod, and has investigated spurious faith healers for more than 20 years, said: ‘I’m concerned by Todd Bentley’s methods because a physical injury on any sick person could be very serious.
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Enoch: Alogon, I'd accept this criticism from some directions, but doesn't your country refuse entry to anyone with the most minor conviction for use of cannabis, however young they were and however long ago?
I didn't know that, but it's terrible. If prejudice against pot smoking continues to subside, it will have to go into abeyance or, better yet, be repealed outright.
I don't hesitate to criticize my country or its government when I see problems. Do we hear anyone on the Ship from either side of the pond defending this law? No? Good. Now back to the issue at hand.
There may be other reasons to justify Bentley's banning, but as long as they remain unstated, we have no way to discuss them. Furthermore, the main question this would raise is of ends and means. If such a silly but convenient means to exclude someone as prior marijuana use is available, I don't imagine that it is invoked consistently. It is invoked when a governmental official has another reason to exclude a foreigner, but marijuana will the stated pretext. And maybe the real reason is some sense of the public good in the authorities' view, but they are not yet so arrogant as to justify themselves thus.
In this case, the stated pretext is "public good." My argument is that this is dangerously vague and insultingly paternalistic even as a pretext, let alone the real reason. How much difference does it make?
-------------------- Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alogon: In this case, the stated pretext is "public good." My argument is that this is dangerously vague and insultingly paternalistic even as a pretext, let alone the real reason. How much difference does it make?
The HO rarely gives a more detailed reason as to why someone might have been barred from the country.
You can argue that this shouldn't be the case, but that's a somewhat different topic.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stick Monitor
Apprentice
# 17253
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Edward Green: Although spent convictions cannot I believe be used to refuse someone entry to the UK I am unsure about sexual offences.
Checked the guidance. Sex offences are not treated differently, it all goes on length of sentence. For anyone who would have served >30 months for the offence in the UK then the conviction is never considered spent. I reckon that would exclude TB outright and permanently.
However the phrase 'not conducive to the public good' seems to be the main phrase being bandied about, which is a different reason for refusal.
Posts: 50 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mark Betts: quote: Originally posted by daronmedway: I'd be interested to know if the Home Office consulted anyone in the House of Bishops or other denominational representatives before making its final decision.
I don't think Todd Bentley Ministries has a House of Bishops.
actually, Bentley's "apostolic" oversight comes from Bill Jonson of Bethel. But that isn't my point. I was wondering if the Home Office in the UK is in the habit of consulting UK church leaders when it is considering whether to ban someone who purports to be a Christian evangelist/healer.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by daronmedway: I was wondering if the Home Office in the UK is in the habit of consulting UK church leaders when it is considering whether to ban someone who purports to be a Christian evangelist/healer.
If the reason for their being barred from the UK was on the basis of a (possible) public order offence, I can see that they may consult members of the other community. If it was a criminal sanction of some kind I'd imagine they wouldn't.
Given the basis for being barred is a legal condition of some kind, I'm not sure why they should consult religious leaders acting in that capacity.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm very wary about banning anyone like this, even though they might be fruit-cakes. I'm not sure that Bentley actually DID kick an old-lady in the face - he just claims to have done. I don't believe a word the guy says.
The whole thing about thumping or hitting people and them being miraculously healed as a result - contrary to expectations - is an old Pentecostal canard. Similar stories were told of Smith Wigglesworth, the Bradford plumber and early Pentecostal pioneer, the subject of early Pentecostal hagiographies which still circulate in the kind of circles Todd Bentley moves in.
So, what he was saying in effect was, 'Look folks, one greater - or at least as great as - Smith Wigglesworth is here ...'
The logic goes like this ...
God tells him to do something very, very silly and downright dangerous - ie. kick an old lady in the face. He protests at first, 'Surely not, Lord!' But, in obedience to the divine command he does so and, lo and behold, instead of the old lady being injured as one might expect she has been miraculously and gloriously healed ... hallelujah! Praise the Lord! All glory be to God ... etc. etc. yadda yadda yadda ...
The story probably doesn't have any basis in fact whatsover. He's just telling it to capitalise on similar stories about early Pentecostal elder-statesmen in order to draw on a received tradition ... and claim himself as an inheritor of that tradtion, that 'anointing.'
It is completely bogus, it is completely bollocks.
It is documented that Bentley (Bent Toddley as one Shipmate memorably dubbed him) punched a guy with cancer in the stomach - but the guy he punched claimed that this made him feel a lot better. Probably the thump in the stomach took his mind off his cancer temporarily ...
-------------------- Let us with a gladsome mind Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alogon: There may be other reasons to justify Bentley's banning, but as long as they remain unstated, we have no way to discuss them.
In this case, the stated pretext is "public good."
As far as I can see on the Home Office's website there are no reasons given, in fact there is no statement to the effect that he has been banned. Indeed if you put "Todd Bentley" into the search engine nothing comes up at all. Therefore we have no basis on which to discuss anything to do with this "case" apart from pure speculation. [ 22. August 2012, 23:12: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
-------------------- "We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
The expression 'non conducive to the public good' is used to cover all sorts of things mainly covering public policy, public security and public health (and yes I did almost type pubic health there). I understand it's most commonly used to stop people with criminal convictions or those actively involved in crime from entering the UK.
-------------------- 'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stick Monitor
Apprentice
# 17253
|
Posted
quote: As far as I can see on the Home Office's website there are no reasons given, in fact there is no statement to the effect that he has been banned. Indeed if you put "Todd Bentley" into the search engine nothing comes up at all. Therefore we have no basis on which to discuss anything to do with this "case" apart from pure speculation.
Such an announcement would never be put on a govt website because it is a matter for a private individual.
To be fair, if you have another careful look at the various links I provided above you will see the thread is not pure speculation:
- the guidance docs issued by the Home Office - a statement by the tour organisers that Todd had been told specifically (as required by law) that his previous convictions and the nature of his ministry were the issues that got him banned etc
Posts: 50 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
OK I see that. Although the guidance documents by their very nature cannot explain to us why any individual exclusion took place. So we are left with the statement on Todd Bentley's own website which may be selective and is certainly defensive. For this thread it is still primarily speculation when it comes to the Home Office's reasoning and any broader implications.
-------------------- "We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
You don't think a sexual offense conviction against a 7 year old child would be likely to be relevant then ?
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doublethink: You don't think a sexual offense conviction against a 7 year old child would be likely to be relevant then ?
Maybe if it's true.
-------------------- "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
I think it's blindingly obvious that we have a process here where the executive can make decisions with no clarity in their reasoning, or opportunity to challenge their evidence. These are exactly the symptoms of dictatorial behaviour that needs to be resisted. Consider the possibility of a less high profile person whose name is the same as a felon: that individual under the present system would have no opportunity to challenge the incorrect evidence that led to the exclusion. This is an exercise of 'prerogative power' that needs to be ended.
-------------------- Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I believe it is a matter of record, that he does not dispute.
It is relevant particularly to his ministry because in the UK a convicted sex offender would not be legally permitted to work with children or vulnerable adults - and people with terminal illness would be considered vulnerable. In other words he would not pass an enhanced CRB check for any position that required one - and in most churches that would include people in leadership positions.
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doublethink: I believe it is a matter of record, that he does not dispute.
It is relevant particularly to his ministry because in the UK a convicted sex offender would not be legally permitted to work with children or vulnerable adults - and people with terminal illness would be considered vulnerable. In other words he would not pass an enhanced CRB check for any position that required one - and in most churches that would include people in leadership positions.
No - it's an offence which the judiciary of Canada chose to seal. It is therefore not for the executive to use that as the basis for their decision. Either we are countries under the rule of law, or we aren't.
-------------------- Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|