Forums

What do you think? Should this street preacher be charged?

Page:
   Sign Up To Reply  
 
avatar
Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
May 5, 2010, 10:20 am

May 4, 2010 4:34PM

Street Preacher Charged for Saying Homosexuality a Sin


Al Webb, Religion News Service


A Christian street preacher in Britain will stand trial for telling a passerby — in earshot of a policewoman — that God views homosexuality as a sin.


Police arrested Dale McAlpine, a 42-year-old Baptist, under Britain’s Public Order Act 1986, which forbids “using threatening, abusive or insulting words … tending to and causing harassment, alarm or distress.”


McAlpine told The Daily Telegraph newspaper that he was arrested after a part-time police officer said she heard him reciting a list of “sins” against God, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same-sex relationships.


The preacher denied mentioning homosexuality, but he did concede he had told a passing shopper that it was a sin in the eyes of God.


At a magistrates court hearing in Workington, England, on Friday, McAlpine pleaded not guilty to the public order offense charge but was arraigned for trial at an unspecified date.


“My freedom was taken away on the hearsay evidence of someone who disliked what I said, and I was charged under a law that doesn’t apply,” he said.


The newspaper report said McAlpine was fingerprinted, given a DNA swab and retina scan, and was locked in a police cell for seven hours on April 20.


“I am not homophobic,” he insisted, “but sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator.”


McAlpine’s arrest comes days after a top British judge was criticized for ruling that Christian beliefs are not entitled to special protection under the laws of the nation.


http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2010/05/street_preacher.html


avatar
Ann Maree
Chief Moderator
Joined in 2008
May 5, 2010, 2:46 pm

Opens a can of worms doesn’t it. I’d like to know what orfeo thinks of this. He’s always great with legal stuff.


If this guy is charged then every conservative church person who says the same thing in Britain should be charged too. And he no doubt doesn’t have malicious intent, believing he’s doing the right thing according to his interpretation of the bible.


avatar
Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
May 5, 2010, 3:14 pm

I thought it was an interesting question Ann Maree…..hehe.


Would be nice to have a space where people dont call us sinners automatically because of our orientation……but at what price.


avatar
Ann Maree
Chief Moderator
Joined in 2008
May 5, 2010, 6:59 pm

Yes it is a pickle of a question. (to sound like Ned Flanders :-) )


I agree – it would be nice to move about freely in life without others assuming we’re sinners, purely on the grounds of sexual orientation. The judge has perhaps reacted extremely in an attempt to counteract the homophobic society we live in. But that can be just as damaging as homophobia. As is common with major societal shifts, this example probably illustrates how the pendulum swings from one side to the other before settling in middle ground. And that can take some time to achieve.


avatar
N149
 
Joined in 2010
May 5, 2010, 8:34 pm

I read this a few hours ago…


It is quite the pickle…


I keep arguing with myself about it….


Obviously on one hand free speech… On the other hand it is discriminatory… Hmmm…


avatar
poidah
 
Joined in 2010
May 5, 2010, 10:26 pm

I fall on the camp of needing to rein in free speech. Free speech against organisations and government to critique and bring consciousness is fine.


Speaking without consciousness and putting down groups of people adversely impact people and needs to be reined in. Obviously there is a spectrum from subtle disregard to overt insult and verbal abuse, however, most people are not aware of the impact of their words. No one would argue about the danger of a person wantonly waving a gun aimlessly. However, insulting people or groups aimlessly, that also has as negative an impact I say.


avatar
iplantolive
 
Joined in 2008
May 5, 2010, 10:27 pm

I wouldn’t want anyone passing judgement on me purely based on whether I was a homosexual or not.


avatar
Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
May 6, 2010, 12:16 am

here is a thought……..what the preacher is saying is actually true and false


Homosexuals are sinners……but so are heterosexuals.


and as our gentleman in Adelaide has mentioned……what about the damage that a message of error causes. On whose hands is the blood of those who have taken their lives.


avatar
Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
May 6, 2010, 12:19 am

Basically saying that homosexuality is a sin is a false statement…….its a orientation and as such is amoral……just as heterosexuality is.


avatar
Guest

May 6, 2010, 1:47 pm

But avb, the preacher said “homosexuality is a sin”…the truth is homosexuals, heterosexuals, bi-sexuals, asexuals…whatever-sexuals are sinners, we all are….but homosexuality as an orientation isn’t a sin. The law clearly says he hasn’t the right to say that, and because the law also says other things too, impinging on our freedom of speech,, perhaps the law needs to change hehe.


avatar
Guest

May 6, 2010, 1:48 pm

Sorry avb, only just read your last statement…you are right :-)


avatar
Guest

May 6, 2010, 1:51 pm

Tricky, do we decide to let these types of comments slide at the risk of losing our freedom of speech to have a say on other topics??


avatar
Guest

May 6, 2010, 1:52 pm

Lol…me again…I think we have to pick our battles with wisdom :-)


avatar
Ann Maree
Chief Moderator
Joined in 2008
May 6, 2010, 2:40 pm

And as far as I know there’s still the religious objection/exemption (outside the law) that allows people to make these kinds of comments based on their faith or interpretation thereof. I think that’s what the judge was trying to change; that people wouldn’t get away with expressing predjudice under the religious banner.


Any lawyers or those more familiar with the law, please feel free to correct me or add to this discussion. :)


avatar
Guest

May 6, 2010, 2:51 pm

Okay.


avatar
Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
May 10, 2010, 9:31 pm

This is all the more interesting in light of the recent incident in Australia where a polie officer was called a “prick” and the person saying it was arrested. The case was later thrown out of court as completly ridiclous. Obviously there are some differences but the basic premise is the same. Can you say hateful things about people in public and get away with it? Apparently so. My gut tells me it would be nice to see this ‘preacher’ held accountable for his ‘beliefs’ and the public reciognition that it is discriminatory. But where do you draw the line. If that precedent was set pretty soon all kinds of evangalistic methods would be crimes because Christians claim that Jesus is the only way and that ultimatley everyone else are sinners without redemption who will die and go to hell. Ain’t a real pretty picture and I could see it coming under the label of “abusive” and “causing distress” objectivly and from a secular standpoint, there is no difference between that statement and the one about homosexuality. It wouldn’t be the first time that a bunch of Christians were locked up but do we really need to go there?


avatar
Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
May 11, 2010, 1:05 am

I agree Sandy……its a can of worms isn’t it.


I think it is good to make people aware of the tragic circumstances there negative and ignorant statements can create…..but gaol?


avatar
JKH
 
Joined in 2009
May 11, 2010, 1:53 pm

Freedom of speech is a right, but the preacher is abusing the right to promote hatred, the preacher may not be aware he is promoting hatred.


Legally, as I said, the preacher is entitled to freedom of speech, but in this case, he can be charged for abusing the right of freedom of speech by slandering, and promoting hatred. I am not sure if Britain have any law that is specifically targeting homophobic actions or comments, but certainly, he can be charged for slandering and promoting hatred targeting a minority group. And also, he did mention that he was telling ONE passing shopper about the sin of homosexuality, clearly, his action is targeting an individual, that may or may not get him a charge of verbal assault to an individual.


In general, He should be charged, but I guess the best way to let people know about homosexuality and faith is through knowledge and education.


avatar
Ann Maree
Chief Moderator
Joined in 2008
May 11, 2010, 2:15 pm

Yeah good point ,JKH, and well said. Thank you.


Interesting when you think that this case represents many, many others. So where would it stop if this person was charged? There are a multitude that could also be charged, especially in churches. Managing those numbers would be too onerous a task I would think.. so as you say, education is a good way to deal with this issue at the moment.


avatar
Guest

May 12, 2010, 8:28 pm

Very good points JKH and AnnMaree….’tis a tough one eh?


Page:
   Sign Up To Reply  
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 1.7; Page loaded in: 0.111 seconds.