PDA

View Full Version : Christians versus Gays



Dreadful Scathe
10th-January-2005, 05:28 PM
Hot topic of controversy. I read this post on a forum on about.com. I also replied to it (see 2nd post) this is bound to raise a few interesting thoughts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

CHRISTIANS FACE 47 YEARS IN PRISON FOR READING THE BIBLE IN PUBLIC

What we have been saying has now happened. You cannot quote what the
Bible has to say about homosexuality in public or you will be charged
with a "hate crime." is only the beginning. If we fail to
take a stand here, this "crime" will soon be applied across .

In the 27 years of this ministry, I have never witnessed a more
outrageous miscarriage of justice than what is happening in Philadelphia. Four Christians are facing up to 47-years in prison and
$90,000 in fines for preaching the Gospel on a public sidewalk, a
right fully protected by the First Amendment.

On October 10, 2004, the four Christians were arrested in Philadelphia. They are part of "Repent America". Along with founder
Michael Marcavage, members of Repent America—with police
approval--were preaching near "Outfest", a homosexual event, handing
out Gospel literature and carrying banners with Biblical messages.

When they tried to speak, they were surrounded by a group of radical
homosexual activists dubbed the "Pink Angels". A videotape of the
incident shows the Pink Angels interfering with the Christians’
movement on the street, holding up large pink symbols of angels to
cover up the Christians’ messages and blowing high pitched whistles to
drown out their preaching.

Rather than arrest the homosexual activists and allow the Christians
to exercise their First Amendment rights, the police
arrested and jailed the Christians!

They were charged with eight crimes, including three felonies:
possession of instruments of crime (a bullhorn), ethnic intimidation
(saying that homosexuality is a sin), and inciting a riot (reading
from the Bible some passages relating to homosexuality) despite the
fact that no riot occurred.

You may think I am exaggerating. I’m not. Our for Law
and Policy is representing these four individuals at no cost. We will
take this case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary to get
justice.

There is so much more about this case I don't have room for it in this
letter. We have prepared a 25-minute VHS/DVD in which two AFA-CLP
attorneys discuss the case in detail.

Please help us with our expenses in representing these committed
Christians. With your tax-deductible gift of $15, less than the cost
of a cup of coffee once a month for the next year, we will send your
choice of either the VHS or DVD. Watch the VHS/DVD, then share it with
your Sunday school class and church. This VHS/DVD should be required
viewing in every church in .

Click here to get your copy of the 4 Story
https://store.afa.net/ProductCart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=27

Thanks for caring enough to get involved. We must not allow this
travesty of justice to continue.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Chairman
OneMillionDads.com

Dreadful Scathe
10th-January-2005, 05:29 PM
heres my reply....
----------------------


Along with founder
Michael Marcavage, members of Repent America—with police
approval--were preaching near "Outfest", a homosexual event, handing
out Gospel literature and carrying banners with Biblical messages.
They were charged with eight crimes, including three felonies:
possession of instruments of crime (a bullhorn), ethnic intimidation
(saying that homosexuality is a sin), and inciting a riot (reading
from the Bible some passages relating to homosexuality) despite the
fact that no riot occurred.

Right, so you are saying that some individuals went to a clearly pro-homosexual event. and preached about how all homosexuals were an abomination to god. And there's injustice that these people were arrested?

For you to say "despite the fact that no riot occured" shows an ignorance of what "incitment" means and its says a lot about how law-abiding and well behaved the homosexual "activists" were.


holding up large pink symbols of angels to
cover up the Christians’ messages and blowing high pitched whistles to
drown out their preaching.

Thats all? There is a fundamental first ammendment right that allows you to preach, but would you go into South Central L.A. and preach for the return of slavery? You can say what you like can't you? Its your right! Somehow I dont think either the police or the locals would allow you to continue for long.


You may think I am exaggerating. I’m not

I think you've got it spot on. You portray this particular group of Christians as hateful and the "homosexual activists" as law abiding, peaceful people willing to stand up for their rights to be what they are without ever resorting to violence.

Maybe in your own head the "homosexual activists" are the bad guys, but it doesnt come across that way with the facts as they are presented.

CJ
10th-January-2005, 05:49 PM
Am not sure I'm with you on this, DS: which is a rarity.

1) Let's not hide the facts: the Christian view on homosexuality isn't really one that is progressive. The last quotation from the Vatican on the subject used the words "homosexuality" and "intrinsically evil" in the same sentence!!

However, they do have the right to say their stuff wherever they want. Particularly in USA, where there is a strong "God fearing" element, they should be protected if having their say a la 1st amendment, etc.

The way to beat these people is with reasoned debate and intelligent argument (just ask ChrisA) and not by cheap shots, whistling over their speeches or drowning them out.

Education, education, um, like learning stuff.

I would have less sympathy for someone preaching pro-slavery stuff in certain parts of LA, but they should have the right to say it without being shot. Some one having a pop @ them with a 45 would make sense, but would not be right either.

On a technicality (and following the UK flawed model): if no riot occurred, then should it not be ATTEMPTED incitement of a riot?!?

But hey it's America. Which means 2 things...

1) It'll always be a bit bizarre

2) We are maximum 15 years behind!!!!

Scary.

Gadget
10th-January-2005, 06:18 PM
However, they do have the right to say their stuff wherever they want. Particularly in USA, where there is a strong "God fearing" element, they should be protected if having their say a la 1st amendment, etc.
Correct, but isn't there a law against inciting people? It's the actual act of trying to incite rather than the results. They were not preaching towards the "general public", but towards a specific gathering of individuals that the 'sermon' was branding as "evil". Stoning with words.
Isn't there also a law against causing a disturbance? Being offensive? Prejudice?


The way to beat these people is with reasoned debate and intelligent argument
Reasoned debate and argument from who's side? The 'Cristians' obviously thought against the idea and decided to preach instead.

Anyone else think that 'public' preaching should be banned? Not just in America, but the number of bible toting miscrients in town centers that pester shoppers really bugs me - I have no desire to have other's opinions dictated to me: if I did, I would go to a church, or ask individuals.

Dreadful Scathe
10th-January-2005, 06:19 PM
Am not sure I'm with you on this, DS: which is a rarity.


I took a contrary tone to his, but I agree its not as clear cut as all that. And the arrest of the Christians I can understand but what i failed to even mention was the sentance they are up for, probably because I thought taking a contrary position was more important in the first instance. the sentance is ridiculous, I'd expect them to be told to 'move along' and possibly cautioned at most.




I would have less sympathy for someone preaching pro-slavery stuff in certain parts of LA, but they should have the right to say it without being shot. Some one having a pop @ them with a 45 would make sense, but would not be right either.

A very good point. In this case though, drowning out someones ability to preach hate at you and the group you belong to, is equally a right of the people at the event. Who wants to hear anti-DJ propoganda at a "battle of the DJs" event ? I would understand complaints more if they were doing it in a public park and they THEN got drowned out, I would totally be on their side in that case, wether I agreed with what they preached or not.



On a technicality (and following the UK flawed model): if no riot occurred, then should it not be ATTEMPTED incitement of a riot?!?


incitement : "an act of urging on or spurring on or rousing to action or instigating" - its the instigating part, or the attempt thats illegal surely. Their behaviour could be said the be instigating just as the "pro-slavery" one would be.

Dreadful Scathe
10th-January-2005, 06:25 PM
Anyone else think that 'public' preaching should be banned? Not just in America, but the number of bible toting miscrients in town centers that pester shoppers really bugs me - I have no desire to have other's opinions dictated to me: if I did, I would go to a church, or ask individuals.

A simple "no thanks" does for me. I would not want to see us ban certain people from preaching in public, thats a step toward a police state ;) What I have an issue with is "targeting" i.e. Nazis preaching outside a bar-mitzvah, anti-gay Christians preaching at a gay-rights festival or anything where its clearly not the "general public" they are talking to, but a particular group of people they have an issue with.

Graham
10th-January-2005, 06:54 PM
I note that the original post carefully avoids mentioning which specific bible passages were being quoted. For example, Leviticus 20:13 states that homosexuals must be put to death - this can clearly be interpreted as an incitement to violence against a specific and identifiable group of people. Although I generally defend free speech, I do think that people have a right to be protected against people advocating violence towards them.

John S
10th-January-2005, 08:15 PM
I note that the original post carefully avoids mentioning which specific bible passages were being quoted. For example, Leviticus 20:13 states that homosexuals must be put to death - this can clearly be interpreted as an incitement to violence against a specific and identifiable group of people. Although I generally defend free speech, I do think that people have a right to be protected against people advocating violence towards them.
The Bible also advocates death by stoning for a whole range of "offences":
blasphemy, straying near the tabernacle, not observing the sabbath, disobeying parents, having sex with a menstruating woman, adultery, and (in certain circumstances) losing one's virginity! (Bible references available on request for the seriously nerdy!)

So while I support anyone's right to believe that all these things are still worthy of death today, I also believe that if I want to disobey my parents by shouting out blasphemies as I lose my virginity in having adulterous sex with a menstruating woman near the temple, I should be allowed to do so without a gang of self-righteous bigots gathering around to advocate my being stoned to death - I could go on the Jerry Springer show for that!

Anyway, Jesus also said to those who wanted to stone an adulterous woman "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone."

Having said that, I agree that a sensible police action would have been to invite the protesters just to move along - but perhaps that was tried and failed??? Right of assembly has to be balanced against the right of people to behave legally as they wish, without threats of violent death.

Finally, I suspect this is a touchy subject for a lot of people, and I hope that any posts on this thread are respectful of others' sensitivities. And if I've offended anyone by being flippant, I apologise now.

Lynn
10th-January-2005, 09:07 PM
Anyone else think that 'public' preaching should be banned? Not just in America, but the number of bible toting miscrients in town centers that pester shoppers really bugs me - I have no desire to have other's opinions dictated to me: if I did, I would go to a church, or ask individuals. If you really don't want other people's opinions dictated to you, then you need to stop watching television, reading papers... we are bombarded by advertising and manipulated by editors from many directions.

I'm not in favour of any incitement to riot (and believe me we have a lot of that here in NI!) but I'm glad we live in a society where people have the freedom to say what they believe and prefer people saying openly 'this is what we are about' than subtle persuasions from media.

jivecat
10th-January-2005, 10:36 PM
Anyone else think that 'public' preaching should be banned? Not just in America, but the number of bible toting miscrients in town centers that pester shoppers really bugs me - I have no desire to have other's opinions dictated to me: if I did, I would go to a church, or ask individuals.

Yes, indeed. The bigoted, manipulative, self-righteous cr@p they spout has reduced me to heckling them before now. But I've no quarrel with individuals who hold sincere, private, Christian beliefs.

Dance Demon
10th-January-2005, 11:47 PM
Anyone else think that 'public' preaching should be banned? Not just in America, but the number of bible toting miscrients in town centers that pester shoppers really bugs me - I have no desire to have other's opinions dictated to me: if I did, I would go to a church, or ask individuals.

Hmmmmm.....I get pestered more in shopping centres by double glazing reps, the AA/RAC, people shaking collecting tins for numerous charities, than I do by "Bible toting miscreants"......As I have said before, loads of "non-believers" when in times of great distress or peril, change their minds all of a sudden, and start praying to whoever might be able to help them. However we digress. The point in the christians preaching at the gay rally is obviously because they feel that the gays need to be saved. Wouldn't be any point in targetting the local church or Salvation Army hall, as they have already seen the light. If the shoe was on the other foot, and the Christians had acted the way that the gays had, they would have been accused of victimising the gays. I often wonder why we have Gay Pride marches with people bearing placards with " PROUD TO BE GAY" OR "EQUAL RIGHTS FOR GAYS" extoling the virtues of homosexuality. perhaps it's time for the most persecuted group of people to have a march.......the banners would read...EQUAL RIGHTS FOR HETEROSEXUAL WHITE MALES............

ChrisA
11th-January-2005, 12:35 AM
with reasoned debate and intelligent argument (just ask ChrisA)

:D


and not by cheap shots,

Irony is not dead in Fife, I see.

CJ
11th-January-2005, 12:54 AM
:D

Irony is not dead in Fife, I see.

:wink:

Lou
11th-January-2005, 10:41 AM
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR HETEROSEXUAL WHITE MALES............

What? You'd sacrifice all your benefits & advantages to become equal? You're a generous person .Good on you, DD! :D :clap: :hug:

Andy McGregor
11th-January-2005, 12:42 PM
Some people have forgotten that the word gay has another meaning. It's been used in literature for centuries. Somehow in the last part of the last millenium this word was taken to mean only one thing - and that thing is homosexual.

I like homosexuals (although I couldn't eat a whole one :wink: ) but it annoys me that a segment of them seem to have hijacked this word.

Here is the last sentence from Peter Pan;

When Margaret grows up she will have a daughter, who is to be Peter's mother in turn; and thus it will go on, so long as children are gay and innocent and heartless.

Who among us can read this sentence without thinking about homosexuals, at least for a moment?

So, my message to gays is - please make up your own word :flower:

Dance Demon
11th-January-2005, 12:49 PM
What? You'd sacrifice all your benefits & advantages to become equal? You're a generous person .Good on you, DD! :D :clap: :hug:

Try teling that one to the guy dressed as Batman chained to the railings at Buckingham palace :wink: :devil: :devil:

Andy McGregor
11th-January-2005, 12:51 PM
.......the banners would read...EQUAL RIGHTS FOR HETEROSEXUAL WHITE MALES............

I think this is a valid view; to which I would add 'able bodied'.

I've seen many instances of positive descrimination and quotas of ethnic minorities, women only short lists, disabled employees, etc. In positively recruiting for those groups you are reducing the opportunities for able bodied, white/British, men. And you may not be employing the best person for the job either. Just someone who made up your quota or 5% or whatever that might be. You are, on some occasions, effectively saying to someone "I would have given you the job if you'd been from an ethnic minority because I'm behind on my quota".

And, the WOSL*, as the most hypocritical thing the Labour Party** have ever got away with :angry:

*Women Only Short List for parliamentary candidates.

** This does not include the things the Labour Government have got away with :whistle:

Dreadful Scathe
11th-January-2005, 01:36 PM
And, the WOSL*, as the most hypocritical thing the Labour Party** have ever got away with :angry:

*Women Only Short List for parliamentary candidates.

** This does not include the things the Labour Government have got away with :whistle:

I hate that aspect of modern society, that theres this idea of quotas or an element of pride when a company says we have 3 disabled staff, 2 black people and 40% of our managerial staff are women! What happened to the best person for the job? Maybe we'll eventually get over all that other stuff and pick the best suitest person without even considering the fact of what they look like/what sex they are/what religion or whatever else their difference is.

Dreadful Scathe
11th-January-2005, 02:54 PM
update on the christian arrests:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/138293.htm#more

jivecat
11th-January-2005, 08:54 PM
I hate that aspect of modern society, that theres this idea of quotas or an element of pride when a company says we have 3 disabled staff, 2 black people and 40% of our managerial staff are women! What happened to the best person for the job? Maybe we'll eventually get over all that other stuff and pick the best suitest person without even considering the fact of what they look like/what sex they are/what religion or whatever else their difference is.

(High Dudgeon Mode On)

The time has not long passed (if indeed it has) when in order to compete in the job market a woman had to be twice as good as any competing man to stand a chance. That wasn't fair, and discrimination against women must frequently have resulted in the employment of someone who was not the best person for the job. When society is completely free of discrimination against people for factors irrelevant to their job performance- gender, colour, sexuality, age, etc, then we will no longer need quotas. Until then, they have their place, even though they're an easy target for cheap jokes. Consider yourself lucky if you don't think you'll ever be discriminated against on any of the grounds I've just listed.

(HDMO)

Dreadful Scathe
11th-January-2005, 10:39 PM
when in order to compete in the job market a woman had to be twice as good as any competing man to stand a chance.

I would say that in the past they sometimes didnt get considered for the job at all, especially managerial and higher level posts. It doesnt change the fact that the quotas have put incompetent people in place in the past.

Eventually we want the people doing the hiring to naturally not discriminate, rather than hire based on 'we have to hire this women to meet our quota'. I'd agree though, that sort of bias will be with us for a while yet.

Lynn
11th-January-2005, 11:14 PM
I'd agree though, that sort of bias will be with us for a while yet. I think that every job should be 'best person' for the role. Here in NI we have other angles of bias - so for every job you have to fill in an extra form indicating which community you belong to. I'm not sure to what extent it influences candidate selection.

horsey_dude
11th-January-2005, 11:36 PM
Since this thread is moving into a sort of human rights equal opportunity post I want to ask the followng question:

How does any white male get any job if you can hire an equally qualified women employee for 75% of the pay?

If I started a business (any business, lets say a widget making company) and hire exclusively and only women. By paying them 75% of the male wage I could force out any company stupid enough to hire males by undercutting the price on the finished product. In fact If I paid my female employees more then the average for women (say 85%) but less than normal male wage (100%) I would have higher than average staff retention and satisfaction which would help even more.

What is the flaw in this argument?

HD

Lynn
11th-January-2005, 11:58 PM
What is the flaw in this argument? Women should be paid the same as men for the same jobs?

Jon L
12th-January-2005, 12:38 AM
Yes, indeed. The bigoted, manipulative, self-righteous cr@p they spout has reduced me to heckling them before now. But I've no quarrel with individuals who hold sincere, private, Christian beliefs.

My word! what a controversial thread we have here! Now as I have mentioned before on this site. I shared my Christian faith because someone asked on what we believed (at the end of 2003) - when someone asks "me" that - I am duty bound to say what I believe to be the truth. However I accept that people will differ with me, and have every right to

I think rather than "Bible bash" , my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ would do far better in taking God's love and goodness out into the broken world,and try to mend it by helping people. That is a much better witness! Honest discussions are good, but discerning when it is appropriate and when it is not iare very important.

Jon L
12th-January-2005, 12:44 AM
Anyone else think that 'public' preaching should be banned? Not just in America, but the number of bible toting miscrients in town centers that pester shoppers really bugs me - I have no desire to have other's opinions dictated to me: if I did, I would go to a church, or ask individuals.

No - Britain is a free country which has it's roots in Christianity. We tollerate other cultures and religions and welcome their diversity. This does not mean we necessarily agree with them, and have every right to say so. We do not want to be like certain countries where differing with their beliefs may result in loss of liberty and possible death.

jivecat
12th-January-2005, 12:57 AM
when someone asks "me" that - I am duty bound to say what I believe to be the truth. However I accept that people will differ with me, and have every right to.

Thanks for your moderate response, JonL. You also have every right to explain you believe to be true when asked.



I think rather than "Bible bash" , my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ would do far better in taking God's love and goodness out into the broken world,and try to mend it by helping people. That is a much better witness!


There's few things more damaging to a religious faith than those that are poor exponents of it. I'm always more outraged by Christians who are acting in what I think is an unChristian manner than by some old agnostic who's behaving badly.

To put things in perspective, on the rare occasions I attend church I feel like heckling as well, though have so far managed to restrain myself.

Gus
12th-January-2005, 01:13 AM
No - Britain is a free country which has it's roots in Christianity. We tollerate other cultures and religions and welcome their diversity. This does not mean we necessarily agree with them, and have every right to say so. We do not want to be like certain countries where differing with their beliefs may result in loss of liberty and possible death.Its an intersting point. Other cultures/religions have come to this country and have stamped THEIR value set on this country. Its a curious thing that the value set of some elements of society are allowed certian attitudes (e.g. violent proteststion against blasphemy, 'non-humane' animal slaughter, treating women as second class, foced marriages etc) ... yet the fiundamentals of the Anglo Saxon community are (some might say) diminished.

I wonder how far we should allow such tolerances. Rastafrai ... a legitimate religion to many has ganja as part of its religion but its banned in the UK. How about religions where women are denied the right to become religous leaders (RCs watch out?) or have to pray seperately? Can a worker refuse to adhere to company policy because it is contrary to his religous beliefs?

Gadget
12th-January-2005, 10:04 AM
No - Britain is a free country which has it's roots in Christianity. We tollerate other cultures and religions and welcome their diversity. This does not mean we necessarily agree with them, and have every right to say so. We do not want to be like certain countries where differing with their beliefs may result in loss of liberty and possible death.
I agree, we have every right to say so, but shouting is disturbing the peace; pestering individuals is harrassment. In my mind, it's the same as aggressive begging - except trying to get you to part with your mind instead of your money.

I am not against the beleifs or the freedom to express them; I am against preaching unsoilicited to individuals, groups or unsuspecting shoppers. What would "christians" think if a satanist stood outside of a church one sunday with a loud-hailer handing out leaflets and telling them that the one god being worshiped was the wrong one and would lead to pain, missery and suffering - turn to the dark side and have wealth, happyness and fulfillment.

Magic Hans
12th-January-2005, 10:40 AM
...
I think rather than "Bible bash" , my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ would do far better in taking God's love and goodness out into the broken world,and try to mend it by helping people. That is a much better witness! Honest discussions are good, but discerning when it is appropriate and when it is not iare very important.

:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Lets take Quakers and Quakerism (if that's a word!)

Their belief or "creed" is to "Let your life speak". hmmmmm .... that doesn't seem particularly religious or theological at all!! Some feel that "words are cheap", if sometimes convincing(!!!) ... or that words without action is next to meaningless.

I've just picked up a book on "Quaker Wisdom" and was interested to read that:
"Quakerism (oh .... it is a word!! :)) has no theology, no body of religious dogma, no sacred books, no written creed." .... and

no minister, priest or religious leader, liturgy, or religious adornments at their places of gathering, or "worship".

I wonder if there is some reason there for this sect to have been fairly constant over many years in the West??

Ian

Dreadful Scathe
12th-January-2005, 11:45 AM
No - Britain is a free country which has it's roots in Christianity. We tollerate other cultures and religions and welcome their diversity.

I would say the religious "roots" in Britain is paganism, Christianity is something that was brougth from outside.

"Tolerate" has more than one meaning, and although a lot of us may mean "To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others). "
there are some, especially right wingers, who would use the definition "To put up with; endure." Which is not quite as condusive to a happily integrated country.

Graham
12th-January-2005, 04:55 PM
In my mind, it's the same as aggressive begging - except trying to get you to part with your mind instead of your money.
They'd have their work cut out with some people round here :wink:

Graham
12th-January-2005, 04:59 PM
I would say the religious "roots" in Britain is paganism, Christianity is something that was brougth from outside.
In the context of the original quote, Britain means the United Kingdom, and I think it's fair to say that the rise of Christianity at the expense of paganism predates the formation of the constituent nations.

CJ
12th-January-2005, 05:56 PM
Bearing in mind, Engeland was run by the Romans for so long.

Jon L
12th-January-2005, 06:41 PM
I would say the religious "roots" in Britain is paganism, Christianity is something that was brougth from outside.

.

Agreed on the second point - but every town in this country has a church or a place of worship. Also there is law on the books that acknowledges the church and the right of every British person to attend if they wish.

On the question of "tollerance" IMHO our country is very respectful towards other beliefs, and they are free to practice their faiths without persecution (and rightly so) The same cannot be said of countries where other religions are mainstream.
Incidentally what we do in modern jive would be probably be banned totally in other places in the world.

Jon L
12th-January-2005, 06:48 PM
I am not against the beleifs or the freedom to express them; I am against preaching unsoilicited to individuals, groups or unsuspecting shoppers. What would "christians" think if a satanist stood outside of a church one sunday with a loud-hailer handing out leaflets and telling them that the one god being worshiped was the wrong one and would lead to pain, missery and suffering - turn to the dark side and have wealth, happyness and fulfillment.

I can see what you're trying to say, but legislation against freedom to express one's faith is dangerous IMHO however well intended - it could be easily misused in years to come to marginalise those who wish to express oppostion to matters on religious or ethical grounds.

Dreadful Scathe
12th-January-2005, 11:02 PM
Agreed on the second point - but every town in this country has a church or a place of worship. Also there is law on the books that acknowledges the church and the right of every British person to attend if they wish.


A Scottish Law or an English Law? Thats too vague to look up.

You agree on the 2nd point so can I assume you disagree on the 1st point, that religion has its roots in Paganism? I'd like to hear your argument against that when we know that Christianity has only been around for 2000-ish but Paganism was the main religion before that and is still around to this day.




In the context of the original quote, Britain means the United Kingdom, and I think it's fair to say that the rise of Christianity at the expense of paganism predates the formation of the constituent nations.

I always assume people are talking about the Island when they say "Britain", not the current political/social map. If thats not what JonL meant, then you have a point :)

Gadget
13th-January-2005, 12:41 AM
Incidentally what we do in modern jive would be probably be banned totally in other places in the world.
:what: perhaps the way you dance it :what: {:wink::D}

I can see what you're trying to say, but legislation against freedom to express one's faith is dangerous IMHO however well intended
Indeed; and I'm not advocating that. I'm against causing a public nusance and incitement. I don't care about your faith - you could be selling the word of god or the word of CRSmith: If you get in my face while I'm going from A to B or attending a meeting opposing your viewpoint, then you p1ss me off.

Graham
13th-January-2005, 02:28 PM
I always assume people are talking about the Island when they say "Britain", not the current political/social map. If thats not what JonL meant, then you have a point :)
Well the fact that he called it a "free country" led me to infer that he was talking socio-politically rather than geographically. :wink:

CJ
13th-January-2005, 02:56 PM
If you get in my face while I'm going from A to B or attending a meeting opposing your viewpoint, then you p1ss me off.


Touching. Isn't it more than a little heart warming to read about man's kindness to fellow man? Yes, let's celebrate our differences so that we can expand and grow as humans... :waycool: Way to go, the Gadgie!!

Dreadful Scathe
13th-January-2005, 03:09 PM
Touching. Isn't it more than a little heart warming to read about man's kindness to fellow man? Yes, let's celebrate our differences so that we can expand and grow as humans... :waycool: Way to go, the Gadgie!!

Shut it CJ, i was browsing along minding my own business when I stumbled across this post that I didnt want to read!! Cease and Desist. Awa' and spout yir pish in Aberdeen on Union Street and annoy Gadget instead :)

Graham
13th-January-2005, 03:15 PM
Shut it CJ, i was browsing along minding my own business when I stumbled across this post that I didnt want to read!! Cease and Desist. Awa' and spout yir pish in Aberdeen on Union Street and annoy Gadget instead :)
Hey! That's incitement!!! You better come along with me, sonny. :angry: :wink:

Magic Hans
14th-January-2005, 01:45 PM
Just one thing I can say ......

..... and that's ......

Ummmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!

[ or is it Aaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .......
or Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm]

:D:D:D

Dreadful Scathe
18th-January-2005, 02:29 PM
Back to the original post. If anyone is still interested that is ;)

Heres a very biased article that blames everything on the "Pink Angels":

http://www.covenantnews.com/repent041115.htm

Apparantly the “Pink Angels” harrassed the Christians and continually surrounded them "and began to blow whistles, scream obscenities, and hold their approximately 10-foot-high pink Styrofoam boards to obscure the Repent America workers from anyone’s view". The article suggest the Christians just wanted to preach against the homosexual lifestyle. All perfectly reasonable.

This "Repent America" article : http://www.repentamerica.com/pr_outfest.html

Apparantly, the police are to blame as .. "Their blatant disregard of the law by allowing hecklers to impede our way, block our message, and then arrest us, is inexcusable"

However, over in the unbiased news at http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/10381186.htm?1c

"City officials said the video [which they claim shows their innocence] did not show the start of the confrontation, when they said Marcavage tried to interrupt a performance with his antigay preaching and then disobeyed a police order to move to the perimeter of the Outfest to avoid the potential for violence."

Karen Brancheau, a lawyer for the local District Attorney's Office, is quoted as saying :

"They were not prohibited from preaching," Brancheau added. "A reasonable request [which they chose to ignore] was made to prevent a situation from becoming dangerous to their own safety as well as the safety of the participants."

That quote and other unbiased opinion can be found here . http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2005/wndphilly.html

In other words, they were warned but ignored the warnings and were quite rightly arrested. The "Pink Angels" werent warned of course because it was a gay festival and er..they were part of it. The suggestion that the "Pink Angels" should have been arrested was ridiculous. Interestingly, in some of the pro-christian news all of the "Pink Angels" are said to be gay, how do we even know that is the case, they were certainly pro-gay but its not necessarily the same thing. Homosexuality is evil to these Christians though, so it stands to reason all protesters against the Christians were gay ;). They even label the police pro-gay when in actual fact the only "pro" they are likely to be is "Pro Law and Order". :)

Saying all the above though, theres no reason for the Christians to get anymore than a fine and a caution. Whilst I would like people like that to remain locked away from the rest of us, it wouldnt see justice done in this case :).

Dreadful Scathe
19th-January-2005, 12:04 PM
Loved this letter to a TV show host that was preaching the "abomination of homosexuality". Its from a good Christian ;) and well worth reading



Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Dance Demon
19th-January-2005, 12:34 PM
Loved this letter to a TV show host that was preaching the "abomination of homosexuality". Its from a good Christian ;) and well worth reading

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: excellent

Oh by the way...don't we have Gay ministers now....is that not a contradiction in terms according to the Christians beliefs... :confused:

Gus
19th-January-2005, 01:25 PM
Loved this letter to a TV show host that was preaching the "abomination of homosexuality". Its from a good Christian ;) and well worth readingSpot on Mate :worthy: I'm a fairly committed Christian and hold store by the Bible ... but my religious education was fairly enlightened (amazing considering I was educated by 'Religious Beatings Incorporated' {aka The Christian Brothers}) and we led to believe that much of the Good Book is NOT meant to be taken literally. The stories relate to another time with a very different social order .... and so you have to be able to put things in context. The discrimination against Homosexuals is no different than the Bibles discrimination against women .... which does raise some interesting questions for our 'devout' American Christian friends (aka extremist, moronic, bigoted hypocrites).

Dance Demon
19th-January-2005, 01:37 PM
I's quite interesting that the Bible contains two books. The Old Testament, and the New Testament. The New Testament completely contradicts what is written in the Old Testament. Christians are people who believe what was taught by Christ, which is what is in the New Testament. Therefore it could be said that Christians do not practice the beliefs written in the Old Testament, where the bits about stoning peole and certain practices being abominations are contained.
So it would not be correct for "Christians" to quote the Old Testament as the basis of their belief that Homosexuality is an abomination....would it? :devil:

Will
19th-January-2005, 02:31 PM
I's quite interesting that the Bible contains two books. The Old Testament, and the New Testament. The New Testament completely contradicts what is written in the Old Testament. Christians are people who believe what was taught by Christ, which is what is in the New Testament. Therefore it could be said that Christians do not practice the beliefs written in the Old Testament, where the bits about stoning peole and certain practices being abominations are contained.
So it would not be correct for "Christians" to quote the Old Testament as the basis of their belief that Homosexuality is an abomination....would it? :devil:
A similar issue to this (and Christ's response to it) can be found here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:3-11;&version=31;).

What Jesus says about the Old Testament can be found here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-18;&version=31;).

The explanation is here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%202:9;&version=31;).