Christians arrested for defending their beliefs

Originally Posted by nomadking

They and the CPS are the ones with copies of the legal documents. They can prove what they are being accused of, which is the issue here, not what actually did or didn't happen. The case will be Crown v ...., not X v Y.

When a Jehovah's Witness calls at my door and I explain that I don't believe in God, am I likely to get arrested as a result? What if I criticise their beliefs with regard to blood transfusions?

Actually, it is fairly relevant what did or did not happen - it's what's normally called "evidence".

The CPS feel there is enough evidence to bring a case against the couple, but then have not commented further - unlike the couple and their supporters, who obviously (and quite rightly) have their own slant on this.

btw, my personal thoughts on this are that if this was just a spirited discussion about each faith (merits and issues), it's really dumb to have a court case about - but, unfortunately, there is not enough information to validate this assumption.

[nomadking]

They appeared briefly at Liverpool Magistrates Court on Friday to hear the date of their trial before magistrates

That will have been in public and so it can be proven what they are being accused of. That there was a discussion and disagreement took place does not seem to be disputed. It is whether discussions and disagreements are allowed and who decides which side is to be punished.

[papa smurf]

was muhammad a war lord ?



26 battles suggest to me he may have been something along those lines


1. WADDAN
2. SAFWAN
3. DUL-ASHIR
4. BADR
5. BANI SALIM
6. BANI QUAINUQA
7. SAWIQ
8. GHATFAN
9. BAHRAN
10. UHAD
11. HUMRA-UL-ASAD
12. BANU NUDAIR
13. DHATUR RIQA
14. BADRU-UKHRA
15. DUMATUL-JANDAL
16. BANU MUSTALEQ WITH HADRAT JAWRIYA
17. AHZAB
18. BANI QURAIZA
19. BANI LAHYAN
20. DHI QARD
21. KHAIBAR
22. WADIYUL-QURA AND TAIM
23. MECCA AND FALL OF MECCA
24. HUNAIN
25. GHAZWA
26. TABUK

[nomadking]

I don't think the real issue should be whether or not he was a warlord, but whether someone is allowed to freely claim that he was and, just as equally, someone should be allowed to freely claim that he wasn't.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by nomadking

I don't think the real issue should be whether or not he was a warlord, but whether someone is allowed to freely claim that he was and, just as equally, someone should be allowed to freely claim that he wasn't.

cant argue with that .

Originally Posted by nomadking

I don't think the real issue should be whether or not he was a warlord, but whether someone is allowed to freely claim that he was and, just as equally, someone should be allowed to freely claim that he wasn't.

No one has said anyone can't, just as no one has said this is why they were charged - it's what else that was said (that we don't know about/has not been reported) that may be the reason for the Public Order offence.

If you read further down the article, the defendant's solicitor states

They are committed Christians and it is the defence’s contention that they have every right to defend their religious beliefs and explain those beliefs to others who do not hold similar views.’

It all, imho, depends what is meant by "explaining those beliefs to others that do not hold similar views" - we have had posters on this forum whose idea of "explaining their beliefs" was to verbally attack, in a virulent and abusive manner, those who did not agree with them; but I am sure it will all come out in the trial.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

was muhammad a war lord ?



26 battles suggest to me he may have been something along those lines


1. WADDAN
2. SAFWAN
3. DUL-ASHIR
4. BADR
5. BANI SALIM
6. BANI QUAINUQA
7. SAWIQ
8. GHATFAN
9. BAHRAN
10. UHAD
11. HUMRA-UL-ASAD
12. BANU NUDAIR
13. DHATUR RIQA
14. BADRU-UKHRA
15. DUMATUL-JANDAL
16. BANU MUSTALEQ WITH HADRAT JAWRIYA
17. AHZAB
18. BANI QURAIZA
19. BANI LAHYAN
20. DHI QARD
21. KHAIBAR
22. WADIYUL-QURA AND TAIM
23. MECCA AND FALL OF MECCA
24. HUNAIN
25. GHAZWA
26. TABUK

What's your definition of a Warlord though? What's the definition by the agreived and defendants?

[nomadking]

They have been charged under public order laws with using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ that were ‘religiously aggravated’.

...
Although the facts are disputed, it is thought that during the conversation the couple were challenged over their Christian beliefs.

Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang are charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act – causing harassment, alarm or distress. If convicted, they face fines of £2,500 each and a criminal record.
The Muslim woman was staying at the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, which is run by the Vogelenzangs, when a conversation arose between the hoteliers and their guest about her faith.


It is understood that among the topics debated was whether Jesus was a minor prophet, as Islam teaches, or whether he was the Son of God, as Christianity teaches.
Among the things Mr Vogelenzang, 53, is alleged to have said is that Mohammad was a warlord. His wife, 54, is said to have stated that Muslim dress is a form of bondage for women.
The conversation, on March 20, was reported by the woman to Merseyside Police. Officers told the couple that they wanted to interview them over the incident.
After being questioned on April 20, they were interrogated again three months later before being charged on July 29 with a religiously-aggravated public order offence. They appeared in court on August 14 and are now awaiting trial.

So it seems possible that they weren't even the ones to bring up religion in the first place. So it may be, that they were the ones that had their religion insulted first, but as as they are not fascists they didn't complain to the Police.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by nomadking

I don't think the real issue should be whether or not he was a warlord, but whether someone is allowed to freely claim that he was and, just as equally, someone should be allowed to freely claim that he wasn't.

Yep - if only life in 21st C. Britain was a simple as that......

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Osem

Yep - if only life in 21st C. Britain was a simple as that......

or free from oppression.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by nomadking

or free from oppression.

or free from political correctness and intolerance..

[Xaccers]

Minor prophet? That's a new one to me.
Mortal prophet yes, but certainly not minor!

[nomadking]

But intolerance is basically a difference of opinion. Those that refer to people being bigots are actually by definition, bigots, for calling others bigots.

Originally Posted by nomadking

But intolerance is basically a difference of opinion. Those that refer to people being bigots are actually by definition, bigots, for calling others bigots.

Tortuous, and faulty, imho, logic.

For example - I think that the Klu Klux Klan, who treated African-Americans as a lesser race, lynched them, and terrorised them by setting fire to houses, churches, and beating those who stepped out of line, were bigots.

I think those who ran the apartheid regime in South Africa, treating the original inhabitants of the country as third-class citizens with less rights because they had a different colour of skin, were bigots.

Lynching people is not "a difference of opinion".

[SMG]

So much for the right to free speech. Another one way street. Pandering to the Muslims.

Muslims calling our troops murderers out on the streets = no action.

Christians saying Muh was a warlord = Firing squad.

No wonder we`re the laughing stock of the world.