Now We Have Witnessed The Censoring Of The Bible, Can We Now Expect To See Some Censorship Of The Koran?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/street-preacher-quoting-from-the-bible-fined-for-calling-homosexuality-an-abomination-10141768.html

[mikey4444]

jackthehat...well said...the voice of common sense, rare on here sometimes !

[anotheoldgit]

mikey4444

/// Typo and poor grammar on my part Naomi...the Judge disagreed with AOG was what I meant to say. ///

I wasn't even in court.

[naomi24]

Jack, that depends upon what each individual deems offensive. For example I’m utterly sickened every time I hear preachers tell their audience that every child is born a sinner. The point is, the bible is held in high esteem not least by courts of law – and this judge, by ruling that one bit is offensive and another is not, has undermined it.

Mikey, by constantly telling anyone who agrees with you that they possess the voice of common sense you imply that everyone else is stupid. They’re not. They simply disagree with you – and in many instances, this one included, rightly so – in my opinion.

[anotheoldgit]

mikey4444

/// jackthehat...well said...the voice of common sense, rare on here
sometimes ! ///

Don't you mean another one that agrees with your agenda.

But stating that what you say is "common sense" and anyone with an opposing viewpoint does not voice common sense, is in the least being rather pompous.

[sandyRoe]

Did Easu use Immac?

[ukanonymous]

God is great and there is no truer word than God.

[sandyRoe]

Or maybe they meant 'smooth' in the sense of glib, silver tongued? These old texts are always open to different interpretations.

[mikey4444]

Say what you like but Jack was speaking good old fashioned common sense, and I defend my right to say so ! Everybody else aren't necessarily stupid, although some may be !

[anotheoldgit]

jackthehat

/// It is quite possible to preach about God's 'love' in public without having to resort to those passages likely to cause offence to passers-by. ///

Just reading the bible out could in fact offend almost any one.

The adulterer, those who drink alcohol, the blasphemer etc, etc, in fact according to the Holy Book we are all sinners of one kind.

So why do homosexuals feel they have a special right not to be offended?

[mikey4444]

AOG...I and the Judge have already answered your last question, but here is the answer again :::

The judge said Overd “knew full well the power of words to hurt” and claimed he could have used other less offensive parts of the Bible to quote from on the issue of homosexuality.

[naomi24]

Mikey, //Say what you like but Jack was speaking good old fashioned common sense,//

...and completely missing the point, as you are.

[jackthehat]

Mike Overd has a history of preaching against homosexuality.
As I have said, he seems to use the Bible as a tool to back up his preaching. There are plenty of other aspects he could use if he wants to 'bring more people to Jesus.'

I cannot comment on how the other groups you mention have been affected by listening to his 'sermons'.

[jackthehat]

I'm not actually missing any points, naomi...

[naomi24]

Jack, //I'm not actually missing any points, naomi... //

I think you are. This isn’t an argument about the perceived rights or wrongs of homosexuality – it’s an argument about the perceived veracity of the bible and the esteem in which it is generally expected to be held.

From ukanonymous at 09.04. //God is great and there is no truer word than God.//

^That is what one would presume the courts thought until now.

[andy-hughes]

As I see it - the difficulty occurs when someone uses the power of free speech to cause offence, and break the law.

It comes back to the hoary old chesnut - free speech does not entitle a man falsely to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.

So it would appear that it is not the bible text that is causing the issue, it is quoting it through a megaphone in a street, which runs foul of Public Order legislation.

It appears a thorny legal problem, but since a High Court Judge has ruled on it, we must assume that he is more familiar with the law as it stands than any of us on here.

[jackthehat]

It's not a matter of the veracity of the bible.....it is the matter of choosing specific parts of the Bible, to preach out loud, to reinforce an agenda.

Mike Overd wasn't prevented from evangelising, despite there being long-standing concerns over him doing so, from the Police, etc. He has, on numerous occasions, used the same message; he was prosecuted in 2012 and the case went in his favour.

You and I both agree that the Bible and many of it's teaching are dangerous pernicious nonsense and I, for one, would like to see an end to *all* street-preachers, or whichever kidney. I can see no reason why the Bible should be held in any esteem...and the Court system now allows people to 'affirm' according to their own conscience.

[andy-hughes]

I am not a Christian, but I am sure there is a piece that mentions that Christians should pray quietly and in private, not prattle on street corners like the heathen who believes that the more noise he makes, the better he is heard.

How do street preachers reconcile that bit of the bible?

[Khandro]

The fact that this guy uses the bible as support for his belief seems to me to be irrelevant, the point is that he is asserting, is that he considers homosexuality to be abhorrent, and in a free country he should have the right to say so. He isn't after all saying "Let's go and burn homosexuals at the stake", which would be against the law as it would be inciting violence.

[naomi24]

Jack, //I can see no reason why the Bible should be held in any esteem..//

Neither can I – but it is. That’s the point. On principle if the judge was right in this instance, then the courts should fine anyone who reads anything in public from the bible that upsets someone else - and the law should abandon its use of the bible completely. Homosexuals don’t hold a monopoly on sensitivity.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // On principle if the judge was right in this instance, then the courts should fine anyone who reads anything in public from the bible that upsets someone else - and the law should abandon its use of the bible completely. //

I don't think it's a matter of 'upsetting' someone, it's a matter of transgressing the legal boundaries of what you can and cannot say in public.

I am sure that had this gentlemen read from the original Noddy books that referred to golliwogs as villains, he would be in trouble under the same law.

It appears that the text is not the issue, it is the use of it that contravenes the law here.