stephen green of christian voice was arrested for handing out leaflets that contained biblical scripture in regards to homosexuality at a gay rally in wales.
if this is regarded as homophobic and an offence in law - why isnt the bible banned because of its homophobia?
im an atheist and couldnt care less if someone is gay - but if we are going to allow christianity how can we outlaw some of its teachings?
in a free country dont we have to let people give their opinions - no matter how odious those opinions may be?
homosexuality is a minority - and those that think homosexuality is a sin are a minority. Which minority do we protect?
2006-09-07 02:35:04 · 24 answers · asked by aurora03uk 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The UK is a nanny state and I am SICK TO DEATH of do gooders. We can't do anything anymore! Ba ba white sheep? B*llocks!
2006-09-07 02:38:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The quick answer the this is both! Unfortunately there are some out there who feel that homosexuality is wrong, some of us may feel that attitude is wrong but they are as equally entitled to their opinion as anyone else is in society.
This guy may have been arrested under any number of charges although i doubt it was simply because he turned up with some leaflets at a gay rally which were somewhat offensive seeing as the right to hold a peacefull protest is protected under law!
The government is bound by law to protect the rights, civil and religious liberties of each and every citizen so matter how alien they may seem to us!
We all were given free will and we will never have a harmonious agreeable society so all we can do is ignore those who are ignorant to us or our friends and try not to be that way to them or anyone else.
Never be ashamed of your own feelings or beliefs and simply pity those who don't understand you!
2006-09-07 09:53:59 · answer #2 · answered by Rock-Chick 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Green was charged with using “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby, contrary to section 5(1) and (6) of the Public Order Act 1986″
Essentially, he was arrested for distrubuting material that said nasty things about homosexuals near homosexuals that were likely to be offended. Freedom of speech isn't the same on paper in every free country.
I'm an atheist AND gay, and I know, understand and appreciate the fact that freedom of speech (in the United States, anyway) not only means I get to say what I want and no one can stop me, but also that other people get to say what *they* want and I can't stop them.
2006-09-07 09:50:18 · answer #3 · answered by Protagonist 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ferdinardcloete reponse is a great reason NOT to follow any sort of religion. Go on, be brave, tell us which relegion you belong too, and where it shows that you have the right to be personally insulting for no reason and tell athiests to shut up ?
I guess they could only have arrested him on a public order offense. Maybe he was being pushy too much, i don't know the circumstances.
However, I've got 999 ready on my phone for when I pass the church on Sunday.
I have no comment on the morality either way. But if the Christian teaching is not banned then a leaflet with a sub-quote should be allowed.
Are we now to remove all stained glass windows because they represent illegal posters ?
2006-09-07 09:46:10 · answer #4 · answered by Michael H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Firstly. I would like to point out that the grand majority of Christians accept homosexuality and see the Bible's teaching as outdated and archaic.
Legally, the Bible couldn't be banned as it is seen as a ekklesiastical document, and because of it's religious nature it does not bind any one person or group to a specific set of ideas. Also, a homophobia case would have a defendant- who would be on trial?
I also believe that the fact this sort of activity goes on should not matter, so long as no direct attack upon either droup were to take place. This is the principle of free speech. Similarily, the free speech law would also ensure that Christian sppeches on homosexuality would continue according to the principle of free practice of religion.
I personally couldn't care either way, despite my Christian belief. Either is a personal choice, and you could not ban one to protect another.
2006-09-07 16:30:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What that's saying is that homosexuality is right, and that Christians, the Bible and therefore God are wrong. What gave the authorities the right to put themselves above God? Also, there is a big difference between being homophobic, ie: scared of those who are gay, and believing that homosexual behaviour is wrong. Christians also believe that sex outside marriage, breaking the law (inc speeding, copying Cd's etc) and abortions (for example) are wrong. It doesn't mean we turn our backs on those people, or refuse to have them as our friends. We all make mistakes, no one is perfect. The advantage of being a Christian is that we are able to have a relationship with God, and can apologise when we do things wrong.
2006-09-07 09:53:13 · answer #6 · answered by rini27886 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wonder if what really annoyed everybody is the fact that the homos NEED to march or show pride. Do we ever see a hetero pride rally? If people kept their sexual proclivities to themselves life might be a lot easier.
As far as distributing "literature" (?????) unles they were being unpleasant about it, I can't imaging it would be stopped (mind you, they might very possibly be unpleasant about it. Telling people that the Bible says you'll go to hell seems to be considered threatening these days).
As for the last statement, I'm not so sure about that. In Europe, every schoolchild is taught the simple truth that "The primary goal of EVERY living organism is that it seeks to reproduce it's species". It could therefore be said that homosexuality tends toward extinction and is therefore damaging to the race.
2006-09-07 11:47:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simple. The right to free speech is paramount. The leaflets may be offensive, but no one has the right to not be offended. If "offensive" speech could be outlawed, all speech would be at risk, since most of us are offended by something.
Unless Mr. Green was openly advocating acts of violence he shouldn't have been arrested or prevented from distributing his materials. I say this in spite of the fact that Green and his small-minded ilk probably don't want free speech for anyone but themselves.
2006-09-07 09:52:47 · answer #8 · answered by x 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he was jsut handing out leaflets then I think the only legal reason for arrest would be disturbing the peace. i.e. If him handing out the leaflets was aggravating people and potentially making a riot/fight start, then the police would be right to arrest him (and people from the other side too) to diffuse the situation.
But other than that I don't think the arrest could be justified, and it would be despicable. We live in a country with free speech, if all he was doing was handing out leaflets then he wasn't inciting religious hatred or anything.
2006-09-07 09:43:30 · answer #9 · answered by Steve-Bob 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What would the reaction be if someone was to hand out leaflets in support of homosexuality, the gay community and their rights at a gathering of Christians I wonder?
2006-09-07 09:47:49 · answer #10 · answered by Blue robbin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If homosexuals can march for their rights then what right do we have to stop christians handing out leafelets about their beliefs - as long as they weren't being voilent then they should be left alone. No one had to take or read the leaflets. PC gone mad. We shouldn't be supporting one group more than another - that is discrimination.
2006-09-07 09:56:05 · answer #11 · answered by peggy*moo 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋