Christians arrested for defending their beliefs

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

The fact they were prosecuted under the said act you quote does not necessarily mean the couple were behaving " Like Yobs "
Why can you not accept this ?
Do you know the reason the act was brought out? the purpose of its existence?

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, was introduced (amongst other reasons) to protect people from being harassed, alarmed or distressed by others. I think this falls into that category

Imo it's a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
Bang the three of their heads together.
But as has been said, all will no doubt come to light in court.
But from your comments you appear to be siding one way, I would say until it gets to court have an open mind.

I think the involvement of the "Christian" Institute has led me that way. Nothing they touch can be of any good or benefit to anyone, who hods the principals of freedom, democarcy and justice as a basis of moral concience.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, was introduced (amongst other reasons) to protect people from being harassed, alarmed or distressed by others. I think this falls into that category



I think the involvement of the "Christian" Institute has led me that way. Nothing they touch can be of any good or benefit to anyone, who hods the principals of freedom, democarcy and justice as a basis of moral concience.

The Public Order Act 1986 is designed to help police arrest those inciting disorder on the streets, through violence or
abusive behaviour. 'It should never be used where there has been a personal conversation or debate with views firmly
expressed,' said Neil Addison, a leading criminal barrister and expert in religious law.

'If someone is in a discussion and they don't like what they are hearing, they can walk away.'

If the christian faith does not hold the principles of freedom, democracy and justice as a basis of moral conscience who does?
Not any good looking into Islam either, because if we are unbelievers we should be killed according to them.
Sledgehammer/Nut.

I found it amusing that you used a quote to support your proposition from someone who had campaigned vociferously against the law outlawing incitement to religious hatred - who would have thought he didn't think this prosecution was a bad idea.

btw, Christian faith also holds the ideals of "love thy neighbour", be respectful of others, and treat others as you would like to be treated - being harangued over the breakfast table by your host seems not to fulfill any of those (imho).

Re Islam and killing unbelievers - funnily enough, there are passages in the Bible (Deuteronomy) saying the same thing; strange you didn't point that out.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

The Public Order Act 1986 is designed to help police arrest those inciting disorder on the streets, through violence or abusive behaviour.

Sorry, but harassing, alarming and distressing behaviour comes in many different forms: The stalker, following a vulnerable teenage girl; the ex-wife sending abusive text messages; the yobs down the street vandalising bus stops; the playground gang, bullying the schoolboy on social networking sites; neighbours, playing loud music until three o'clock in the morning; the shop customer, being abused in the store by the staff; the elderly driver, intimidated by the thug ion a van because he wasn't not driving fast enough, the list goes on and on. All these examples are covered by the Public Order Act, which used to prosecute them every single day. This is not a new phenomenon, the authorities use the act to prevent this behaviour, from anyone they receive a complaint about. I cannot see any difference in it being used in these circumstances.

'It should never be used where there has been a personal conversation or debate with views firmly expressed,' said Neil Addison, a leading criminal barrister and expert in religious law. 'If someone is in a discussion and they don't like what they are hearing, they can walk away.'

But where do we draw the line? One man's debate is another's harassment. Myself and my family have suffered abuse in the past and there have been many occasions where I do just walk away, but there have been times when it goes beyond what is reasonable and I have had to take a stand. For example, Flyboy10 is disabled, he suffers with an ASD, amongst other things and has been ridiculed and abused because of it. Now, sometimes it is down to ignorance of the condition, but sometimes it is the result of downright bigotry, prejudice and the desire to cause distress and alarm. Should I let it go, or should I take action, such as making sure that the little gits don't get away with it again? Do we continue to allow the thuggish elements of our society to slowly whittle away what little dignity we have left. To constantly reduce our right to a peaceful existence, the right to live a life free of harassment and prejudice, all in the name of that so-called, misconceived phallacy that is "freedom of speech?"

If the christian faith does not hold the principles of freedom, democracy and justice as a basis of moral conscience who does?
Not any good looking into Islam either, because if we are unbelievers we should be killed according to them.
Sledgehammer/Nut.

One would hope, but then I do not believe this is the aims and objectives of the "Christian" Institute.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Not any good looking into Islam either, because if we are unbelievers we should be killed according to them.
Sledgehammer/Nut.

The bible contains a book entirely dealing with the killing of non-christians.

As the Christian Institute keeps being mentioned, I thought it may be useful for posters to have more info on them.

Who we are

The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom” and “the advancement of education”.
The Christian Institute is a nondenominational Christian charity committed to upholding the truths of the Bible. We are supported by individuals and churches throughout the UK.
We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. We are committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.

Their views

[Flyboy]

Surely even that should give you some insight and indication of the perspective of their goals, objectives and so-called "Christian" values.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Surely even that should give you some insight and indication of the perspective of their goals, objectives and so-called "Christian" values.

Yes it shows they hold the Bible in high regard and there's nothing wrong with that and neither should they be criticised for it.

However I feel it's important to hold a "live and let live" attitude along with a "let he without sin" mentality.

Did the couple in question do that? We don't know. We'll find out when it gets to court.

[Flyboy]

Hmm, let's explore those "beliefs" for a bit:

What we believe-Christian beliefs on transsexualism

Three fundamental premises lie behind the Bill: one, human psychological states rather than human bodily nature can determine a person ’s gender; two, it is right for a surgeon to deform a healthy body in the interests of a psychological disorder; and, three, the State should validate psychosocialconfusions having precedence over unambiguous biological sex. Christians say these premises are wrong from biblical teaching, and also church tradition and common sense reason. First, the Bible teaches that a human person is amind-body whole. So the body determines personhood, not just the mind.

What we believe-Parents have a God-given authority over their children

Parents are expected to exercise loving discipline over their children. As part of this most parents use physical chastisement such as smacking.
Discipline must not be harsh. Fathers are told to instruct children according to what is good and not to exasperate their children (Ephesians 6:4). That discipline can be painful is clearly accepted in Scripture (eg Hebrews 12:7-11). However, attempts to make the administration of reasonable chastisement a criminal offence should be strongly resisted as should other moves which usurp the authority of parents.

What we believe-Marriage is sacred

Marriage clearly is different from other types of relationship. Marriage
is part of God’s ‘common grace’. The Bible clearly teaches that the only context for sexual activity is within lifelong monogamous marriage (1 Corinthians 6:9). Marriage is the proper context for raising children.

Apologetics-Civil Partnerships

Civil partnerships’ thus equate holy matrimony with homosexual liaisons. Marriage is not morally equivalent to such lifestyles.

Apologetics-Homosexuals in the Armed Forces

Far too much material to quote here.

Christian Freedoms and Heritage-Incitement to Religious Hatred

Now, where have we heard these excuses before?

•The Government argued the proposed offence was needed for two reasons:3
◦To combat activities of extremists who stir up hatred against people because of their religious beliefs.
◦To close a loophole that exists under the current incitement to racial hatred laws, whereby mono-ethnic faith groups such as Jews or Sikhs are protected from those who stir up hatred against them, but multi-ethnic faith groups are not.

•However, there was already a criminal offence to incite a crime against another person, whether or not religion is the cause. In addition, the ‘religiously aggravated’ offences (passed in 2001) could also be used.

•‘Religious belief’ is not like race. Religious belief and atheism are about ideas on which people can change their minds and have vigorous debate. However, no-one can choose their race.

•The race laws only protect Jews and Sikhs as a race. The law does not protect their religion as a religion but as a sign of their race. The proposed offence could see courts adjudicating on the fundamental beliefs of Jews and Sikhs, as well as Muslims and Christians, in an unprecedented way.

•Some cults are litigious. They will be able to hold the threat of litigation over any one who criticises them.

•Even if prosecutions against ordinary religious debate are unsuccessful, the threat of prosecution may cause many to keep quiet. This will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

Now, bearing in mind that these have been written, in far more moderate language than is really believed, I think we can surmise that the "Christian" Institute does not hold the Christian values one would expect, i.e., tolerance, forgiveness and understanding.

[Reedy]

As some people like to quote the bible, May I just point out that the bible is full of contradictions and discrepancies.

But how can the word of god be incorrect?

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ml#good_to_all

--------------------------------------------------------
War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
--------------------------------------------------------
Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
--------------------------------------------------------
Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
--------------------------------------------------------
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

My point about the Bible was not to introduce religion-bashing and contradictions, but to point out that whilst the Koran has some things that can be taken negatively, so has the Bible, in order to rebut the point

Not any good looking into Islam either

[Xaccers]

Should the thread title be corrected?
I'm pretty certain christian beliefs don't include Mohammed being a warlord, middle eastern dress being a form of bondage, or insulting others of differing faiths to an extent that the CPS feel the need to prosecute.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Should the thread title be corrected?
I'm pretty certain christian beliefs don't include Mohammed being a warlord, middle eastern dress being a form of bondage, or insulting others of differing faiths to an extent that the CPS feel the need to prosecute.

by corrected do you mean altered to fit your point of view ?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

by corrected do you mean altered to fit your point of view ?

Sorry? Are you saying that christian beliefs include Mohammed being a warlord, middle eastern dress being a form of bondage, or insulting others of differing faiths to an extent that the CPS feel the need to prosecute?
Or are you objecting to an incorrect thread title being changed because it won't make Muslims look bad?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Sorry? Are you saying that christian beliefs include Mohammed being a warlord, middle eastern dress being a form of bondage, or insulting others of differing faiths to an extent that the CPS feel the need to prosecute?
Or are you objecting to an incorrect thread title being changed because it won't make Muslims look bad?

no
i am asking if you want the title altered to fit your point of view ,i hope that clears things up for you, if not I'll try to simplify the question so you can understand it .