Christians arrested for defending their beliefs - Page 21

Flyboy · 28-09-2009, 23:10

They are being prosecuted under the Public Order Act. This act is designed to prevent anti-social behaviour. So, it seems that they may have been behaving like yobs and harassing this woman.

**Maggy** · 29-09-2009, 06:21

The trouble is that we cannot know entirely what exactly what happened because we are only getting one side of the case and only a limited one at that.All this fierce speculation and anger over perceived unfair advantages of one religious community over another is immaterial UNTIL we get to the court case in December and we get the evidence from both sides.

Why not kick back and relax until then...all of us.

Julian · 29-09-2009, 08:40

I dunno but maybe having possibly the most important person in their lives referred to as a "Minor Prophet" they felt the need to express their perception of the woman's faith.

Russ · 29-09-2009, 08:43

If that's the case then someone needs thicker skin. For the last 6 years I've had abuse worse than that about my faith and Jesus, in real life and on Cable Forum.

However until it gets to court we don't yet know the difference between what was said and what the Mail would have us think.

Flyboy · 29-09-2009, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

The trouble is that we cannot know entirely what exactly what happened because we are only getting one side of the case and only a limited one at that.All this fierce speculation and anger over perceived unfair advantages of one religious community over another is immaterial UNTIL we get to the court case in December and we get the evidence from both sides.

Why not kick back and relax until then...all of us.

I doubt very much we will much more about this case, to be honest. By December there will be other news to cover and this will have been forgotten and it won't suit the right-wing press, or the "Christian" Institute, to report that the couple harassed and harangued this woman. Which is a shame, because the general public will now be left with a distorted view of the law and legal proceedings. Whenever someone finds something critical to say about a religion, we all be told that the PC brigade will go to police and have them arrested, because we can't say Jesus wore sandals, or Mohammed's beard looked a bit funny. This incident will be used to ridicule any thoughts of open and frank discussion.

So the Christian (a term I use very loosely) Institute will have won their immoral high ground and the BNP will cite this case every time they are shouted down because of their vile and abhorrent rhetoric.

I wonder if this couple will object about their image being used to promote the BNP at election time.

---------- Post added at 09:57 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I dunno but maybe having possibly the most important person in their lives referred to as a "Minor Prophet" they felt the need to express their perception of the woman's faith.

But it doesn't say to me that they were prepared to engage in a rational and balanced discussion with the woman. I would say that having one of the most important person in her life being referred to as a warlord would cause just as much upset. Oddly enough, we don't see many Christians complaining about Judaism seeing Jesus as nothing more than a common a criminal, do we?

**Maggy** · 29-09-2009, 10:17

Oh something tell me in my water that we WILL be hearing more about this case.I can almost guarantee that.

However if the court case ends up being heard around the time of a General Election maybe not..

**Hugh** · 29-09-2009, 10:23

re "minor prophet" - Jesus is regarded (ttbomk) one of the five "leaders of the prophets" in the Islamic faith.

1. Noah
2. Abraham
3. Moses
4. Jesus
5. Muhammad

Flyboy · 29-09-2009, 13:19

So, hardly a minor prophet then. I wonder if they understood what she was telling them, or were they so blindly ignorant of the Islamic faith, they heard what they wanted to hear.

29-09-2009, 13:24

Noah is not such a shining example after the flood abaited he got drunk and danced naked and Moses was not allowed into the holy land because he took credit for the parting of the red sea iirc

papa smurf · 29-09-2009, 13:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by zing

Noah is not such a shining example after the flood abaited he got drunk and danced naked and Moses was not allowed into the holy land because he took credit for the parting of the red sea iirc

flood

29-09-2009, 13:48

I take offence of you mocking me I will see you in court lollol

Saaf_laandon_mo · 29-09-2009, 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So, hardly a minor prophet then. I wonder if they understood what she was telling them, or were they so blindly ignorant of the Islamic faith, they heard what they wanted to hear.

Jesus is indeed an important prophet in the Muslim faith. We dont believe he was the Son of God but we do hold him in very high regard.

Julian · 29-09-2009, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So, hardly a minor prophet then. I wonder if they understood what she was telling them, or were they so blindly ignorant of the Islamic faith, they heard what they wanted to hear.

It's quite possible, but why they would "want to hear" something that might upset them is a mystery to me.

Conversely as a new convert to Islam, the woman may have misunderstood what she had been taught/read and made an incorrect statement - equally possible don't you think?

As Russ said, they needed thicker skins and so does she.

Flyboy · 29-09-2009, 15:42

As far as selective hearing is concerned, it is probable that they had a misconception of an Islamic perspective, on its views on the life of Jesus. So, (only a bit of fun you understand

) it is entirely possible that she said something like, "Jesus is considered to be one of the Ulul Azmi (the five leaders) and they took it as she meant he was insignificant. But then it is equally conceivable that she did misinterpret her own understanding of the Islamic view on Jesus. Still, that is no excuse then to insult her and tell her that she is under some form bondage, just because she chooses to wear a hijab (which they called a burkha, apparently).

29-09-2009, 22:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

They are being prosecuted under the Public Order Act. This act is designed to prevent anti-social behaviour. So, it seems that they may have been behaving like yobs and harassing this woman.

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?
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.