Waldo Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 They should have just publicly responded with a friendly offer to help cure him of his mental illness (i.e. his Christian religion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 It only becomes an offence if your behaviour is interpreted as incitement to hatred. CPS have clear guidelines that mere statement of opinion or dislike is not such incitement. The police overstepped the mark by assuming that they were entitled to issue a fixed penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 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. I hear what you say natjack...but what about radical Muslims burning poppies or berating our homecoming troops? Should we insulate ourselves from the offence they create? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 They should have just publicly responded with a friendly offer to help cure him of his mental illness (i.e. his Christian religion).So his Christian religion is responsible for his "mental illness" is it. Try telling that to this organisation.> http://www.lgcm.org.uk/ They're are plenty of homophobic atheists, what's their excuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Sarah 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. The Rev is and idiot for believing people can be cured from being gay but the gays are even worse. They are trouble causing just because they can. The coppers are a joke for even giving this the time of day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 The Rev is and idiot for believing people can be cured from being gay but the gays are even worse. They are trouble causing just because they can. The coppers are a joke for even giving this the time of day. Even worse? They were the recipients of an offer to cure them with God pills. How does that make them worse? ---------- Post added 31-08-2013 at 13:41 ---------- They're are plenty of homophobic atheists, what's their excuse? Do they propose curing them with an atheist pill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Sarah Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Even worse? They were the recipients of an offer to cure them with God pills. How does that make them worse? Ive already explained why i think they are even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Ive already explained why i think they are even worse. Have you?..you mean this >> "just because they can". Maybe homosexuality can be defined by a non belief in God..how come my dad isn't a homosexual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 So his Christian religion is responsible for his "mental illness" is it. I don't know. I'm not suggesting that he is mentally ill, or that anyone is a sinner. I'm just making a point; that equating homosexuality with sin (and offering to fix the afflicted), could be just as offensive as equating religious belief with mental illness (and offering to fix the afflicted). If the offended party had offered to help fix his mental illness / religious belief, that could help him to see how he himself was being offensive. Does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman 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. So if there is nothing to be afraid of, what is there to cure them of? What do they need salvation from? Infidelity,abuse - i'm sure there will be more people in is congregation worthy of being cured by his God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.