Street Preacher arrested for singing and preeching of Jesus

nozzferrahhtoo

NaFirinne wrote: »

Freedom of speach should be defended at all costs.....this is wrong.

The concept of freedom of speech should absolutely be defended. However the first step in defending any such concept should be to learn and understand what the concept is and means. It would appear to me you have not at all done this yet.

NaFirinne wrote: »

He was barred from mentioning the Name Jesus.

That is simply a completely false and misleading statement from you here. That is not at all what happened, nor is it even remotely what the link you used in your OP claims has happened.

NaFirinne wrote: »

Were the apostles wrong to go out into the world preeching the Gospel?

This is a separate question to the thread topic I think..... and actually I think the answer very much depends on who you ask actually.

For example anecdotally I have met many Christian Theists who believe that rejection of the gospel and Jesus is a sin that can lead you to hell. When I asked them about people who never heard the gospels or heard of Jesus.... they told me those people are ok.

So in THAT context I think it would be wrong to preach the gospels. Because by preaching something they might reject, you put their eternal soul in jeopardy. If you do not preach it, and therefore they have no chance to reject it.... they are safe.

Actually one of the most wonderful, coherent, and pleasant Christian Theists I ever had discourse with was a UK 15 year old home schooled daughter of Christian Evangelists who I met on the isgodimaginary forum. Contrary to her parents teaching and efforts she had reached the conclusion that preaching was a bad thing.

She felt her duty to Christ was to lead by example. To live a pure, honest, beautiful life. And if people asked her about her world view and motivation to live in such purity, she would THEN discuss the gospels and their influence on her with them. She was very articulate in talking about how the spread of her faith was not an activity so much as a path she walked, and how she walked it.

One of the lines I have most respect and passion for in the Bible is the one about "By their fruit you shall know them". And I can directly and wholly trace my love of that line back to that pure heart I met on that forum. If every theist on this planet was like her, our world would be a markedly different and more wonderful place. If you want to go read her posts on that forum I can give you her username to go put into the search.

NaFirinne wrote: »

They were arrested in their times for doing so....are we going back to these times...when it's offensive to people to hear the Gospel.

In for a penny in for a pound I guess. There are some people who very much do seem to want us to revert back to "earlier times" in terms of law and morality. On topics such as homosexuality for example.

I for one do not view it as going "forward" or "backwards". I see morality and law as constantly changing and evolving things that should change with the times. And if that change sometimes entails returning to something we had in an earlier time but later abandoned... then that is ok with me if it is justifiable to do so.

Merely accepting, or rejecting, a part of that evolution because it leads to something we had in earlier times... would be a poor approach in my view.

NaFirinne wrote: »

Now I haven't heard this man preech so I don't know if he was actually abusive or just quoting from scriptures. However Preeching the Gospel on the streets should not be a crime.

Agreed entirely.

nozzferrahhtoo

theological wrote: »

Being arrested isn't "free speech". I agree that there may be other consequences. But something isn't "free" if there are legislative consequences. Equally speech isn't free if you can't say anything that is unpopular.

Way to ignore absolutely EVERYTHING I wrote to you in post #91 above and then continue on doing and saying exactly what I rebutted directly in that post.

MrStuffins

theological wrote: »

Being arrested isn't "free speech". I agree that there may be other consequences. But something isn't "free" if there are legislative consequences. Equally speech isn't free if you can't say anything that is unpopular.

Mate give it up! You know that he wasn't arrested for what he said. You kknow he was arrested for being a pest.

You're embarrassing yourself!

Timberrrrrrrr

theological wrote: »

I think it would be your liberty to do so even if I would find it uncivil. In the same way as I would say it would be a freedom to protest outside a church.

Interesting that you've gone to discussing church though. The street is public. It is for us all. It isn't that the street is an entirely godless space dedicated to atheism in the same way that a church building is dedicated to Christianity.

I said outside a church, as in the public street.

Nozzferrahhatoo,

Re post 102. I remember having a similar discussion before, and the reply was that those that never heard the gospel go to purgatory. So, not hell (yay!), but not heaven (boooo!). Which only opened up a lot more questions. Poor aboriginals going around for all eternity being told, 'sucks you were born so far away ye heathen b@stards!.

piplip87

If we tolerate this then our children will be next

Mysterypunter

That man was in Waterford for a few months, the novelty wore off quickly, he was more of a public nuisance than a preacher, he had a worthwhile message but his method of delivery was belligerent, and he often got into petty arguments with passers-by. The area which he frequented tended to attract a strange crowd of hard up down on their luck types, he wasn't the worst of them, but he was the loudest.

omegaodie

This board gone onto the errors of Christian thinking, but this really should be about freedom of expression. Crazies, wrong-thinkers, bigots and wackos are part of our society, they have a right to express themselves in it's public forums, if it's irritating then that is the price we pay for a free society.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

Nozzferrahhatoo,

Re post 102. I remember having a similar discussion before, and the reply was that those that never heard the gospel go to purgatory. So, not hell (yay!), but not heaven (boooo!). Which only opened up a lot more questions. Poor aboriginals going around for all eternity being told, 'sucks you were born so far away ye heathen b@stards!.

The Catholic Church teaches that such people (the genuinely ignorant) may go to heaven:


1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P3M.HTM


Purgatory, should one end up there, is by definition not permanent - it's a purification process.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

The Catholic Church teaches that such people (the genuinely ignorant) may go to heaven:


1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P3M.HTM


Purgatory, should one end up there, is by definition not permanent - it's a purification process.

Therefore preaching puts those that have never heard the gospel in danger. How could anyone with good conscience risk teaching the gospel?

omegaodie

omegaodie wrote: »

This board gone onto the errors of Christian thinking, but this really should be about freedom of expression. Crazies, wrong-thinkers, bigots and wackos are part of our society, they have a right to express themselves in it's public forums, if it's irritating then that is the price we pay for a free society.

Clearly not. One's right to peace of mind is a greater right than to allow some "characters" rant.


I should add someone setting up a stall and inviting people, in a reasonable manner, to hear their views on the gospel is not ranting.

victor8600

NaFirinne wrote: »

How can christians excercise there beliefs privately when they have been asked by Christ to go out and preech the Gospel?
?

PREACH, not preech! Jesus, give me strength!

omegaodie

Deleted User wrote: »

Clearly not. One's right to peace of mind is a greater right than to allow some "characters" rant.


I should add someone setting up a stall and inviting people, in a reasonable manner, to hear their views on the gospel is not ranting.

To me that sounds like "I like freedom of speech but I am not willing to make the smallest compromise of my comfort in it's defence."

dubrov

victor8600 wrote:

PREACH, not preech! Jesus, give me strength!

Amazing decryption skills there

omegaodie

omegaodie wrote: »

To me that sounds like "I like freedom of speech but I am not willing to make the smallest compromise of my comfort in it's defence."

Agreed. Being verbally assaulted is not accepted.

bocaman

The title of this thread is a bit misleading. This individual had previously been charged with public order offences. So he's not a totally innocent party and definitely not some Christian martyr. I can see the far right making hay on the misrepresentation of this case.

He has a right to stand up and proclaim his religion and people have a right to walk the street without being harassed, harangued and abused by him.

CIARAN_BOYLE

I reckon that if he turned off the megaphone he wouldn't be in any trouble.

theological

bocaman wrote: »

The title of this thread is a bit misleading. This individual had previously been charged with public order offences. So he's not a totally innocent party and definitely not some Christian martyr. I can see the far right making hay on the misrepresentation of this case.

He has a right to stand up and proclaim his religion and people have a right to walk the street without being harassed, harangued and abused by him.

What were the public order offences for? If it was for offending someone then I would consider that a problem with the law rather than the other way around.

More definition is required in order to come to a full opinion on this.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

Therefore preaching puts those that have never heard the gospel in danger. How could anyone with good conscience risk teaching the gospel?

Not at all. Those who are not Christians who are saved may be saved in spite of their beliefs, not because of them.

Christ of course instructed his disciples to spread the Gospel - it would be most dishonest of you to engage in a discussion on the basis that the Gospel is true, heaven exists etc. and ignore this commandment of Christ. You cannot honestly, for the purposes of argument, accept that the Gospels are true and can save people, but argue that the chance they will be rejected is too dangerous for people, and then at the same time rubbish Jesus command to spread the gospel.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

Not at all. Those who are not Christians who are saved may be saved in spite of their beliefs, not because of them.

Christ of course instructed his disciples to spread the Gospel - it would be most dishonest of you to engage in a discussion on the basis that the Gospel is true, heaven exists etc. and ignore this commandment of Christ. You cannot honestly, for the purposes of argument, accept that the Gospels are true and can save people, but argue that the chance they will be rejected is too dangerous for people, and then at the same time rubbish Jesus command to spread the gospel.

So, it was Christ endangering people.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

So, it was Christ endangering people.

:rolleyes: Come on, really.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

:rolleyes: Come on, really.

You accept. Hear the gospel and potentially be damned. Dont hear the gospel...


Is a bit of a mind bender.

theological

Deleted User wrote: »

You accept. Hear the gospel and potentially be damned. Dont hear the gospel...


Is a bit of a mind bender.

Is it possible to keep this thread on topic, and perhaps open a new one about the salvation issues? It's an interesting topic but it'd be good to focus on the issues surrounding preaching and freedom to do so.

marieholmfan

Deleted User wrote: »

You accept. Hear the gospel and potentially be damned. Dont hear the gospel...


Is a bit of a mind bender.

Sloth is the wilfull rejection of God's love and God's order, not ignoring some 'lunatic' screaming in the street.

theological

theological wrote: »

Is it possible to keep this thread on topic, and perhaps open a new one about the salvation issues? It's an interesting topic but it'd be good to focus on the issues surrounding preaching and freedom to do so.

The freedom of speech, which you have already accepted is limited (not 4am, off a busy street) is one aspect.

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote: »

Sloth is the wilfull rejection of God's love and God's order, not ignoring some 'lunatic' screaming in the street.

I think you'll find one person's screaming lunatic is another person's gospel inspired preacher.

marieholmfan

Deleted User wrote: »

The freedom of speech, which you have already accepted is limited (not 4am, off a busy street) is one aspect.

There is almost no freedom of speech in Ireland. The notion is an American import.

marieholmfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you'll find one person's screaming lunatic is another person's gospel inspired preacher.

I don't care. I am clarifying the sin of sloth.

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote: »

There is almost no freedom of speech in Ireland. The notion is an American import.

Thats hyperbole.

nozzferrahhtoo

theological wrote: »

Is it possible to keep this thread on topic, and perhaps open a new one about the salvation issues?

What might help there is if you reply to and discuss on topic posts rather than skipping them and ignoring them?

Perhaps not, but it seems like it might work to me? Perhaps try it?

omegaodie wrote: »

To me that sounds like "I like freedom of speech but I am not willing to make the smallest compromise of my comfort in it's defence."

The most important BY FAR words in that sentence above are the first ones "To me". Because everything after those words are your subjective interpretation rather than anything that seems factual or reality based.

I think people not defending YOUR interpretation of what freedom of speech is and means is not the same as them having no interest in it's defence. I am someone who has actively defended my idea of freedom of speech in the real world rather than as a keyboard warrior from the safety of my bedroom.

Debates. Engagement with politicians. Attempts to educate the public. And more. Most notably, but by far not limited to, my work with Atheist Ireland when the took on the Blasphemy Law.

Thinking there is a right time and a place and a methodology for free speech is not the same (contrary to the assertions of Theological above) as removing or curtailing free speech either. For example I am absolutely behind the right to free speech of the user in this UK based video here.

Despite the fact I despise and disagree with every hateful thing he said, and the shouty hateful aggressive manner in which he says it...... I respect his right to say it and I respect him more for finding a venue in which to say it (Speakers Corner specifically rather than accosting people in a shopping street who are merely going about their business).

So much so do I respect his free speech and his choice of venue for it that I actually more than once listened to the entirety of the video, long as it is. I listened to and considered everything he had to say. Whereas if he had come down a shopping street forcing himself through a megaphone on all and sundry I would have ignored him, rejected him, and called the cops on him. Despite him shouting "You are the devil, you are the devil, you are the devil" over and over at one guy for no other reason than the guy is white and that makes him the devil...... I was still willing to listen to him and his ideas because of where he chose to express them.

Rights, like great power, comes with great responsibility. If we want to fight for and use the right to free speech in our society.... then we owe it to that cause... to ourselves.... and to everyone around us.... to use it maturely and responsibly too. With the right to say what we want should also come partly with the right to have to listen to what we want too.

I can CHOOSE to go to speakers corner and listen to that guys hate and have him scream in my face that I am the devil. A teenage girl going shopping in the main street of her town getting accosted and shouted at about her sins through a megaphone..... not so much I'm afraid.

theological

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What might help there is if you reply to and discuss on topic posts rather than skipping them and ignoring them?

Perhaps not, but it seems like it might work to me? Perhaps try it?



The most important BY FAR words in that sentence above are the first ones "To me". Because everything after those words are your subjective interpretation rather than anything that seems factual or reality based.

I think people not defending YOUR interpretation of what freedom of speech is and means is not the same as them having no interest in it's defence. I am someone who has actively defended my idea of freedom of speech in the real world rather than as a keyboard warrior from the safety of my bedroom.

Debates. Engagement with politicians. Attempts to educate the public. And more. Most notably, but by far not limited to, my work with Atheist Ireland when the took on the Blasphemy Law.

Thinking there is a right time and a place and a methodology for free speech is not the same (contrary to the assertions of Theological above) as removing or curtailing free speech either. For example I am absolutely behind the right to free speech of the user in this UK based video here.

Despite the fact I despise and disagree with every hateful thing he said, and the shouty hateful aggressive manner in which he says it...... I respect his right to say it and I respect him more for finding a venue in which to say it (Speakers Corner specifically rather than accosting people in a shopping street who are merely going about their business).

So much so do I respect his free speech and his choice of venue for it that I actually more than once listened to the entirety of the video, long as it is. I listened to and considered everything he had to say. Whereas if he had come down a shopping street forcing himself through a megaphone on all and sundry I would have ignored him, rejected him, and called the cops on him. Despite him shouting "You are the devil, you are the devil, you are the devil" over and over at one guy for no other reason than the guy is white and that makes him the devil...... I was still willing to listen to him and his ideas because of where he chose to express them.

Rights, like great power, comes with great responsibility. If we want to fight for and use the right to free speech in our society.... then we owe it to that cause... to ourselves.... and to everyone around us.... to use it maturely and responsibly too. With the right to say what we want should also come partly with the right to have to listen to what we want too.

I can CHOOSE to go to speakers corner and listen to that guys hate and have him scream in my face that I am the devil. A teenage girl going shopping in the main street of her town getting accosted and shouted at about her sins through a megaphone..... not so much I'm afraid.

I'm not going to respond to all of your posts due to their length, nor am I obliged to.

But you do raise something interesting in this post which is the idea of having to go to a particular place to express free speech.

The question that raises is how do you determine when the subject matter of the conversation mandates you to go to a different place? Or how are you going to police conversations to ensure that their conversations are kosher for the street versus the designated speaking area?

Free speech is also not free if we're saying that it cannot be conducted on public property.

nozzferrahhtoo

theological wrote: »

I'm not going to respond to all of your posts due to their length, nor am I obliged to.

Thankfully no one suggested you are. I was just offering a suggestion that perhaps if you want to keep a certain topic going... then wholesale ignoring the posts on that topic might not be conducive?

theological wrote: »

But you do raise something interesting in this post which is the idea of having to go to a particular place to express free speech.

I raised that in both posts actually. This one and the ignored one. For example people getting banned off this forum often moan about "Free Speech". What they do not understand is that no forum guarantees you any such thing. And this forum banning, or censoring a user is in no way impinging on their rights.

theological wrote: »

The question that raises is how do you determine when the subject matter of the conversation mandates you to go to a different place? Or how are you going to police conversations to ensure that their conversations are kosher for the street versus the designated speaking area?

How do we determine that? I would say together, as a society, we do it by discussing it and deciding a way forward together then implementing and evolving that through trial and error over time. I would give the same answer as that on, for example, the question as to what constitutes morality, and things that are morally good and bad. How do we determine these things? Together, through discourse.

theological wrote: »

Free speech is also not free if we're saying that it cannot be conducted on public property.

Which is the black and white erroneous thinking I already rebutted in the post you ignored. So to reply to your assertion here, I merely refer you back to that post. Your notion that these things are either absolute or compromised entirely is the kind of black and white thinking that is as divorced from reality, and it is from nuance. Your notion of what "free speech" means is not one I recognise as reality. All rights are curtailed and contextual and they should be. Your free right to move your fist, as I said before, ends at my face. That does not mean you have no free right to move your fist.

theological

Ok. So in response I guess a few short things.

The idea of saying that speech is free only to lumber a load of restrictions on it just nullifies the concept. Are you seriously suggesting that people can't handle their feelings to the point of saying that people who have something of any substance to say need to go in a corner?

Secondly - your idea of consensus is flawed. What would happen here is that you'd simply determine that the majority can happily silence the minority which is obviously flawed. Liberty doesn't just apply to the majority but also to minorities.

Thirdly - the analogy of the face and the fist fails because people can happily walk on by. Or are you suggesting that people's lack of restraint is somehow the fault of the preacher?

smacl

theological wrote: »

Ok. So in response I guess a few short things.

The idea of saying that speech is free only to lumber a load of restrictions on it just nullifies the concept. Are you seriously suggesting that people can't handle their feelings to the point of saying that people who have something of any substance to say need to go in a corner?

What you'll find with quite a few human rights, such as free speech, is they come into conflict with other human rights, such as freedom from discrimination. Where such conflicts exist, bounds are placed on what society considers to be the lesser right. In law we see this as criminalising incitement to hatred, incitement to violence etc... This is a curtailment of free speech in order to protect other basic human rights and the safety of minorities.

Secondly - your idea of consensus is flawed. What would happen here is that you'd simply determine that the majority can happily silence the minority which is obviously flawed. Liberty doesn't just apply to the majority but also to minorities.

If you look at how human rights work what you will notice is that they are very much concerned about protecting minorities. At the same they are arrived at by a group consensus where most of that group is not part of the minority. We have significantly less censorship today that we have had in the past and live in a society where minorities do have a voice.

Thirdly - the analogy of the face and the fist fails because people can happily walk on by. Or are you suggesting that people's lack of restraint is somehow the fault of the preacher?

As has been said to you by many other posters already, the issue with the preacher had nothing to do with what he was saying, so much as the aggressive and abusive manner in which he was saying it.

nozzferrahhtoo

theological wrote: »

The idea of saying that speech is free only to lumber a load of restrictions on it just nullifies the concept.

You are not discussing this topic at all are you? I rebutted this, twice, and you are merely restating your original assertion without addressing a single response to it.

It does no such thing. As I explained already twice. You just misunderstand the concept of "free". There is not a single right you have that is not curtailed and mediated by context. Your right to spend money? Try spending it on illegal porn and see what happens. Your right to move? Try moving in a way that knocks another person over and injures them and see what happens? Your right to life, possibly the most axiomatic right we have? Forfeit in war, in conditions of self defence, or in societies with the death penalty. Your right to bodily autonomy? Try being caught by a cop injecting illegal class A drugs into it or try being a woman who rips an 8 month old baby out of her own body in a way that kills it.

The very word "Freedom" itself also does not suggest you are "Free". You can claim all the freedom you want. But you can still not murder or rape anyone. Why? Because saying you have a right or freedom does not state, claim or pretend (outside your head) that that right or freedom is absolute and total.

Yet where are the people saying "The idea of saying freedom only to lumber a load of restrictions on it just nullifies the concept." there huh? There are few to no people saying that, because it is absolutely nonsense and absurd. But that does not appear to stop you here despite it being no less nonsense and absurd.

The only "concept" that is "nullified" is YOUR concept of "free speech" which is a concept that appear to differ entirely from the real one, as in any one I have ever encountered before today.

theological wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that people can't handle their feelings to the point of saying that people who have something of any substance to say need to go in a corner?

"So what you're saying is.....". I said no such thing. Stop the straw.

theological wrote: »

Secondly - your idea of consensus is flawed.

Yes. It is. I would never claim otherwise. Every human concept is flawed and imperfect. Democracy is flawed. Consensus is flawed. Science is flawed. Materialism is flawed. It is all flawed. The question is which concepts have the most utility and the least flaws. And the best concept I can find for deciding things like rights, morality and freedoms is human discourse. It appears to me to be the only tool we have that gets us anywhere useful.

If a better idea or tool comes along I would happily adopt it. Pretence that rights are negated if they are not 100% absolute however.... is not that idea or tool. Rather it is a nonsense absurdity that is a multitude of levels more flawed than anything I have encountered or proposed.

Simply to say something is "flawed" is to say nothing at all.

theological wrote: »

What would happen here is that you'd simply determine that the majority can happily silence the minority which is obviously flawed. Liberty doesn't just apply to the majority but also to minorities.

Which should be part of the aforementioned discourse. And we should together find sensible ways to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. I do not think anarchy, relativistic anarchy, or pretence that rights do not exist if they are not 100% absolute is going to be a path to protecting them however.

That said you would get little argument from me that SOME of the things our society has attempted in order to protect the minority..... such as the aforementioned gender pronoun laws as an example.... are well meant disasters and I hope history looks back on them as such.

theological wrote: »

Thirdly - the analogy of the face and the fist fails because people can happily walk on by.

The analogy does not fail because YOU are applying it to the wrong thing. It has nothing to do with people walking by. The purpose of the analogy is to point out that your rights are ALL curtailed by context. So your arbitrary assertion that one particular right "free speech" is magically exempt, or should be magically exempt, from this is the only thing here that is "flawed" in any relevant way.

As I said above you are not likely to win any battles for free speech by protecting abuses of it, or the nastiest versions of it. If you bothered to watch the video I linked to of the Racist Black Guy in London for example you would find me protecting his free speech with my last blood despite the depths of absolute hatred he was espousing. If he was accosting teenage girls on a busy shopping street however, he would get no protection from me.

Hotblack Desiato

theological wrote: »

Is it possible to keep this thread on topic

Indeed. This man was not arrested because of the content of his speech or because he is a Christian so free speech arguments and religious persecution arguments are entirely irrelevant.

theological

I'm apparently meant to find it impressive that nozzferrahhtoo supports "free" speech provided it is in a small corner of a park in London. The fact that you have mandated it should be in a small corner of a park in London rather than anywhere in public betrays the fact it isn't free.

theological

theological wrote: »

I'm apparently meant to find it impressive that nozzferrahhtoo supports "free" speech provided it is in a small corner of a park in London. The fact that you have mandated it should be in a small corner of a park in London rather than anywhere in public betrays the fact it isn't free.

Did you read the article?
You’re going off on a free speech tangent, and it has nothing to do with this case.

salmocab

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Indeed. This man was not arrested because of the content of his speech or because he is a Christian so free speech arguments and religious persecution arguments are entirely irrelevant.

He was arrested for breaking his court ordered ASBO it’s like people claiming that people were sent to prison for not paying their tv licence. They were sent to prison for breaking a court order.

nozzferrahhtoo

theological wrote: »

I'm apparently meant to find it impressive that nozzferrahhtoo supports "free" speech provided it is in a small corner of a park in London.

Your constant need to ignore me and misrepresent what I said is telling. I said no such thing. What I DID say was that with rights comes responsibility and I have a great respect for people who exercise that responsibility and "a small corner of a park" is one EXAMPLE of that. So at least put on SOME pretence of engaging in good faith with this conversation and stop acting like one single example of what I mean is in fact he totality of my position. You are fooling no one, and letting no one down, but yourself by acting with that level of decorum. And you are showing everyone that the only version of anything I said you can actually rebut, is the version you have made up entirely by yourself.

theological

salmocab wrote: »

He was arrested for breaking his court ordered ASBO it’s like people claiming that people were sent to prison for not paying their tv licence. They were sent to prison for breaking a court order.

The reason is why was the court order issued in the first place? If it is simply volume, then other posters have provided videos of people speaking freely in other countries on the street with amplification.

If the volume was the issue I would hope that other interventions could have been taken by the police first, such as asking the preacher to lower the volume based on clear legislation that there was a decibel limit.

Admittedly I don't know the ins and outs of the case, but the things that people are complaining about shouldn't be illegal.

If someone could explain what exactly was the legal issue surrounding the preaching I would be interested rather than people saying people should go preach in a corner of a park which is obviously not the legal issue because people can speak on the street. So what were the legal issues involved?

salmocab

theological wrote: »

The reason is why was the court order issued in the first place? If it is simply volume, then other posters have provided videos of people speaking freely in other countries on the street with amplification.

If the volume was the issue I would hope that other interventions could have been taken by the police first, such as asking the preacher to lower the volume based on clear legislation that there was a decibel limit.

Admittedly I don't know the ins and outs of the case, but the things that people are complaining about shouldn't be illegal.

If someone could explain what exactly was the legal issue surrounding the preaching I would be interested rather than people saying people should go preach in a corner of a park which is obviously not the legal issue because people can speak on the street. So what were the legal issues involved?

So you don’t know the ins and outs but are happy to presume it’s because he was a bit loud?
This a nonsense story, someone is a pain to locals due to their carry on and somehow it’s turned into a bit of persecution in some peoples heads.
This is disingenuous arguing it’s nothing to do with religion that just happens to be the mans particular thing that he shouts about. I’m sure if he was doing whatever he was doing but talking about basketball it would have had the same outcome.

smacl

theological wrote: »

The reason is why was the court order issued in the first place? If it is simply volume, then other posters have provided videos of people speaking freely in other countries on the street with amplification.

If the volume was the issue I would hope that other interventions could have been taken by the police first, such as asking the preacher to lower the volume based on clear legislation that there was a decibel limit.

Admittedly I don't know the ins and outs of the case, but the things that people are complaining about shouldn't be illegal.

If someone could explain what exactly was the legal issue surrounding the preaching I would be interested rather than people saying people should go preach in a corner of a park which is obviously not the legal issue because people can speak on the street. So what were the legal issues involved?

From the Irish Mirror

Wexford District Court heard an application from Garda Supt Jim Doyle, who sought an order seeking to make Talon subject to a ban. Evidence was given that Tallon had expressed homophobic, racist and anti-abortion views in talks which lasted for hours.

Traders told how they were losing business as customers were turned off by the amplified speeches purporting to convey the word of God.

The judge heard five adult behaviour orders had been served Tallon since the beginning of June to no avail.

This is in clear breach of the Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989. As per my previous post, free speech in this country does not extend to public incitement to hatred of minorities based on race or sexual orientation.

theological

smacl wrote: »

From the Irish Mirror

This is in clear breach of the Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989. As per my previous post, free speech in this country does not extend to public incitement to hatred of minorities based on race or sexual orientation.

I'd be interested to see if there any direct content released the court on it rather than relying on a tabloid. Particularly in respect to what was actually said.

For example. If homophobia means that he simply said that the Bible teaches marriage is between a man and a woman. Then I would argue a) that's not actually homophobia and b) it should be acceptable to argue that Christianity has a different understanding of marriage.

I'm generally of the mind that the American model of free speech is better than the Irish or British model. This doesn't mean I condone all speech. It means that I think people should be at liberty to say distasteful things and people should be at liberty to challenge them. The enlightenment understanding of speech.

marieholmfan

theological wrote: »

I'm generally of the mind that the American model of free speech is better than the Irish or British model. This doesn't mean I condone all speech. It means that I think people should be at liberty to say distasteful things and people should be at liberty to challenge them. The enlightenment understanding of speech.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Theological,

If you want to discuss which country has a better free speech system start your own thread. This thread is about a person who refused a court order not to do as he had before regarding amplified hate speech.

That the hate speech referenced to a deity and his interpretation of theology is irrelevant.

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

If you want to discuss which country has a better free speech system start your own thread. This thread is about a person who refused a court order not to do as he had before regarding amplified hate speech.

Mod warning: All, please avoid telling other posters what to post and leave this to the mods. From here on in, anyone doing this will be carded for back seat moderation. By all means, if you feel any topic is worthy of its own thread, start that thread but do not tell others to do so. Any feed back by PM or to the feedback thread only. Thanks for your attention.

Penfailed

theological wrote: »

The reason is why was the court order issued in the first place? If it is simply volume, then other posters have provided videos of people speaking freely in other countries on the street with amplification.

If the volume was the issue I would hope that other interventions could have been taken by the police first, such as asking the preacher to lower the volume based on clear legislation that there was a decibel limit.

Admittedly I don't know the ins and outs of the case, but the things that people are complaining about shouldn't be illegal.

If someone could explain what exactly was the legal issue surrounding the preaching I would be interested rather than people saying people should go preach in a corner of a park which is obviously not the legal issue because people can speak on the street. So what were the legal issues involved?

Hasn't stopped you posting your uninformed opinion about the whole thing though...

Cabaal

marieholmfan wrote: »

There is almost no freedom of speech in Ireland. The notion is an American import.

Freedom of speech doesn't exist in America,

Don't believe me, next time the cinemas are open try shouting "Fire!" when its crowded. It won't go down well

Cabaal

theological wrote: »

For example. If homophobia means that he simply said that the Bible teaches marriage is between a man and a woman. Then I would argue a) that's not actually homophobia and b) it should be acceptable to argue that Christianity has a different understanding of marriage.

What you've argued above is homophobic, you can try argue that its not....but it is.

Same as if you tried to argue if the bible said a white man shouldn't marry a black woman (or visa versa) wasn't racist. It is racist.

While some people may want to try make excuses for holding and preaching homophobic or racist views by claiming that somehow their religion gives them a free card. Thankfully most reasonable people see the hate for what it is.....so do our courts!