Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Ah, Britain; against the law to say homosexuality is a sin?

My distant (very distant, geographically speaking) pastor friend Gary Benfold alerts us to this chilling interchange:



Gary knows Andy, says he's a humble, genuine Christian man with a very challenging ministry.

It would be interesting to ask President Perversity-Pretense-and-Mutilation Pride what he thinks of this exchange.

15 comments:

Jay said...

"Evangelical Christians dare not respond with a claim of moral superiority as if we are not ourselves sinners. But we must be clear that we cannot find pride in sin, whether these are our own sins or those of others. The Gospel of Christ simply does not allow us to see sin -- any sin -- as a matter of pride."

Gotta love Mohler, sometimes.

CR said...

The guy says he needs freedom of speach, but does the UK have a freedom of speech amendment protection like the USA?

The Squirrel said...

CR:

The UK doesn't have a written constitution. Technically they're still a monarchy, and the Queen still runs things. (I've often wondered what would happen if she refused to seat a parliament.)

And, when you consider how often our written constitution is ignored, distorted, and outright defied by our own government, we're really not that far behind our cousins across the pond.

~Squirrel

CR said...

Tis true. Tis true.

Sir Aaron said...

What's really disturbing is that he said he didn't even mention homosexuality in his preaching. So the complaints were just lies to begin with.

The Squirrel said...

"What's really disturbing is that he said he didn't even mention homosexuality in his preaching. So the complaints were just lies to begin with."

Wow, sinners lying in there opposition to the Gospel! What is this world coming too?

(I'm not mocking you, Sir Aaron. I just saw the irony in your comment.)

~Squirrel

The Squirrel said...

*their

Sir Aaron said...

LOL, Squirrel. The point wasn't about the sinners but that the police seemed ready to take action on something that wasn't true. Free speech aside, he simply didn't say what he was accused of.

then again, maybe the police were just trying to end what they thought was a nuisance to them and wouldn't have actually done anything if pushed.

Herding Grasshoppers said...

The whole discussion, on the part of the police, seemed completely subjective.

They had no specific violation to enforce, they were acting on people's feelings allegedly being hurt.

How ridiculous.

Julie

The Squirrel said...

"They had no specific violation to enforce, they were acting on people's feelings allegedly being hurt."

Welcome to the Brave New World. What ever happened to, "Sticks and stones..."?

~Squirrel

Mike Riccardi said...

It's really a phenomenal thing, this double standard that exists.

I'm grossly offended if I see two men walking down the street holding hands romantically and kissing each other. That is offensive, and would cause me "alarm and distress." Would section 5 of Britain's public order act require that homosexuality itself, then, based on my offense taken, is illegal?

Have people just stopped thinking? Or is it that they're actually thinking quite hard about how to suppress the Truth in unrighteousness?

Gary Benfold said...

Mike, it's the latter - they're thinking quite hard. Last year the Gay Police Association (there is such a thing!) published a full-page colour advertisement in a Sunday newspaper showing a Bible with blood seeping from it, and a caption that clearly indicated that Bible believers were responsible for violence against gays. I protested about that under the category 'hate crime' but was told, in effect, that it's wrong to stir up hatred against gays (even with the truth) but it's OK to stir up hatred against Christians, even with lies. Of course, nobody puts it quite like that...

DJP said...

Gary and Mike, my thought through the video was that I was offended that his free-speech rights as a Christian were being threatened. Why shouldn't he be able to lodge a counter-claim? What's more, even if he had mentioned homosexuality as a (duh) sin, he hadn't targeted any individual, nor any individual's civil rights. But his were deliberately targeted. That's not offensive?

Gary Benfold said...

Sadly, Dan, that's rather the point. We no longer have free speech in this country if what we say can be categorised (even by a very, very big stretch) as encouraging violence, especially towards gays and Muslims. It's defined as a hate crime. There is currently a fairly weak provision in the law that makes an exception if we can claim that it is legitimate religious comment; but the government is currently trying to withdraw that exception. Saying that Mohammed is a false prophet will be categorised as a hate crime; even pointing out the physical health dangers of homosexual practice will be illegal if someone feels threatened by it. As I understand it, that very subjective element ('I feel threatened') is a crucial part of the legislation. It's not without precedent: I understand that pornography is defined by its likelihood to corrupt, and 'I don't feel corrupted by it' is a defence!
It's very likely that spelling out what the exclusive claims of Christ mean, even from our own pulpits, will leave us open to prosecution. It's a very British way of persecuting. ('I say old chap, that's a bit strong isn't it? Of course I wouldn't persecute you for your beliefs, but I really can't let you go around saying that sort of thing you know!')
What is interesting, as you will have noticed (being astute, as you are) is that there's an interesting conflict: what happens if a Muslim says that homosexuality is wrong?

Sir Aaron said...

I just hope that when the tires hit the pavement here in America, that I get to share a jail cell with one of you guys here.