jfish1936 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/revd-dr-alan-clifford-referred-to-the-cps/ Apparently, Rev Dr Alan Clifford sent two email messages to homosexuals, telling them that Jesus could save them from their sins. He was visited by police, who informed him that he had committed an offence by sending homophobic messages. He argued that they were not homophobic, and was answered that the definition of "homophobic" was that the person receiving it thought that it was! I object to this concept that anything can be deemed offensive (at least to the level of criminal prosecution) if the recipient is determined to be offended. Maybe a "reasonable person" test would be appropriate BTW, I am an atheist, so I'm not writing this to support Calvinist doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannilady Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/revd-dr-alan-clifford-referred-to-the-cps/ Apparently, Rev Dr Alan Clifford sent two email messages to homosexuals, telling them that Jesus could save them from their sins. He was visited by police, who informed him that he had committed an offence by sending homophobic messages. He argued that they were not homophobic, and was answered that the definition of "homophobic" was that the person receiving it thought that it was! I object to this concept that anything can be deemed offensive (at least to the level of criminal prosecution) if the recipient is determined to be offended. Maybe a "reasonable person" test would be appropriate BTW, I am an atheist, so I'm not writing this to support Calvinist doctrine. It depends if the e mails were only sent to people of specific sexual orientation..ie homosexuals. If it was emails he sent to various people regardless of sexual orientation then I don't see the problem. Outside most churches are placards proclaiming that "Jesus Saves" are we then to assume that only homosexuals need saving ? Or that everyone who believes in Jesus can be saved.If he only targeted homosexuals with his e mails then I think they have a right to be offended. Sounds a right Plonker to me ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natjack Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 People have the 'right' to be offended, but not necessarily the right to have the person they feel is offensive visited by the police and with a possible charge of criminal behaviour to follow. I don't buy the 'I find it offensive, so therefore you obviously intended to offend me' attitude. Grow a thicker skin and don't take things so personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 It depends if the e mails were only sent to people ............. I believe it was an "open" e-mail sent to the organisers of Norwich Pride and copied to the press and council. The Reverend has had confrontations with Norwich Pride over the years and I guess that the organisers now had an opportunity to get back at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I don't think Dr Clifford should be facing legal action. It would probably have been far more useful for the recipients of the emails to have had a public correspondence with him. On the other hand I can understand the offence caused - it amounts to Dr Cifford saying that homosexuality is a disease. If I were gay I'd find that annoying I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natjack Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 This was another link on the comments on that story ... if you're homosexual just be glad you don't live in Canada. http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/08/stoning-is-good-for-you/#more-30400 I wonder if the local plod called round and tried to fine him? ---------- Post added 31-08-2013 at 10:21 ---------- I don't think Dr Clifford should be facing legal action. It would probably have been far more useful for the recipients of the emails to have had a public correspondence with him. On the other hand I can understand the offence caused - it amounts to Dr Cifford saying that homosexuality is a disease. If I were gay I'd find that annoying I think. Annoying is one thing, you could annoy me but I don't want plod round your gaff intimidating you. Do you think causing that sort of 'offence' should be liable to being criminalised? It basically comes down to certain minority groups being in a position to ride roughshod over any other opinions or beliefs. I'm not a member of a mainstream religion, but if that is part of the tenets of his religion, he can attempt to put his point of view across? If he really believes he's risking hellfire and damnation by not doing it? It's only words, after all, he's not trying to stop them being part of society or advocating killing people for their sexual orientation. I thought religion in the UK today trumped all other interests in the hate crimes league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I don't think Dr Clifford should be facing legal action. It would probably have been far more useful for the recipients of the emails to have had a public correspondence with him. On the other hand I can understand the offence caused - it amounts to Dr Cifford saying that homosexuality is a disease. If I were gay I'd find that annoying I think. This was another link on the comments on that story ... if you're homosexual just be glad you don't live in Canada. http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/08/stoning-is-good-for-you/#more-30400 I wonder if the local plod called round and tried to fine him? All this amounts to is the idiocy and danger of religion. Some idiots think that being ***** is a disease so I don't see why it should fall short at homosexuality. If sexuality can be attacked based on the teachings of sky pixies then yes I'd see it as homophobic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I think he's homophobic ,extremely offensive and not a good example of Christian morality tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted August 31, 2013 Author Share Posted August 31, 2013 I think he's homophobic ,extremely offensive and not a good example of Christian morality tbh. Let's have a clear definition of "homophobic". By derivation of the word, it should mean an unreasonable fear of homosexuals. I don't think he's afraid of them. By usage, it means intolerance of them. He seems to be tolerant of them , but feel that they are doing wrong, for which he reproves them. In extreme use, it means he doesn't actively support and advocate homosexuality; in that meaning, he's clearly guilty. Are any of the rest of us? In Calvinism, there's a doctrine that "God" has selected some people to be "saved" and all others to be "condemned". In Methodism the view is that "God" made salvation available to everyone. So I can't agree with his "Christian morality" on that point. But note that he has not called for their prosecution, or for violence to be used against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Let's have a clear definition of "homophobic". By derivation of the word, it should mean an unreasonable fear of homosexuals. I don't think he's afraid of them. By usage, it means intolerance of them. He seems to be tolerant of them , but feel that they are doing wrong, for which he reproves them. In extreme use, it means he doesn't actively support and advocate homosexuality; in that meaning, he's clearly guilty. Are any of the rest of us? In Calvinism, there's a doctrine that "God" has selected some people to be "saved" and all others to be "condemned". In Methodism the view is that "God" made salvation available to everyone. So I can't agree with his "Christian morality" on that point. But note that he has not called for their prosecution, or for violence to be used against them. Opinions can incite violence which in turn could lead to death, even if those opinions are not calling for violence. You can't govern thoughts but you can actions, even if it is only an opinion which may cause a breach of the peace.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.