Call for Crackdown on Gays Enclosed in Right to Free Speech?

[thomas t]

Hello fellow members,

 

a Christian recently called for homosexuals to be arrested (read the last four paragraphs of this Christian Post article).

And now a non-profit organization called Liberty Counsel is currently defending him on court pleading his right to free speech.

 

I think that sexuality belongs to one's identity. The right to free speech is to be as open within the constraints prediscribed by the protection of others from discrimination. In my opinion, a call for someone to be arrested for his or her identity is discriminatory.

 

Thomas

[Qnts2]

Hello fellow members,

 

a Christian recently called for homosexuals to be arrested (read the last four paragraphs of this Christian Post article).

And now a non-profit organization called Liberty Counsel is currently defending him on court pleading his right to free speech.

 

I think that sexuality belongs to one's identity. The right to free speech is to be as open within the constraints prediscribed by the protection of others from discrimination. In my opinion, a call for someone to be arrested for his or her identity is discriminatory.

 

Thomas

I looked at the first article and saw that this occurred in the States. The right of free speech is a very important fundamental right. To take that right away is to gag a person or a group of people because what they said is not popular. Take away the right to verbally express and opinion, and then the majority can call for the arrest of the minority because the majority doesn't like to hear the differing opinion and wants to make the less popular belief illegal to express.

 

So, in the U.S., a person should be able to say, homosexuality, the sexual act, should be illegal. It was once, and is still on the books in some states but not inforced. To allow neo-nazis to demonstrate in a Jewish neighborhood is also legal, because that is free speech. To allow Christians to share the gospel on a public street is also free speech. To allow conservatives to carry posters expressing their dislike of abortion is free speech, and to allow liberals to display a fish with feet and Darwins name in it, is also free speech. And to allow the Chanukah Menorrah to be displayed is also free speech.

 

Not all opinions expressed are liked by every person, but once we start to limit speech, it is the majority who will tell the minority what is acceptable to say. Christians will not longer be allowed to share the gospel. Jewish people will no longer be able to display the Chanukah Menorrah. Those who oppose Gay marriage will be silenced. Those who oppose abortion will be silenced. Free speech is very special, and to preserve our own rights to express what we believe, we do need to protect everyones free speech, even if what they say is disgusting to us.   

[Prodigalson123]

What I have observed about this ( and unfortunately many other topics as well) is that we as a Christian community seem to think that we have an obligation to legislate our ethics/morality/ethos whatever you want to call it, and that will somehow make someone realize the "error" of their ways. We (Christians) aren't to condone sin, we aren't to take part in it, but we (The US) aren't exclusively a Christian society, and we aren't a theocracy (although I wish we were). So how are we to interact with those who don't share our outlook? And how are we to act when we don't have a majority vote? Remember someday we will be the minority (Revelation says so) and if we are showing so little respect for a differing opinion then you shouldn't be surprised when the table will be turned and we will be called to be "arrested" for our thoughts. 

[nebula]

Hello fellow members,

 

a Christian recently called for homosexuals to be arrested (read the last four paragraphs of this Christian Post article).

And now a non-profit organization called Liberty Counsel is currently defending him on court pleading his right to free speech.

 

This is a strange case because an American has involved himself in Uganda legislation. So, did the man violate American law on Ugandan soil? Or did he violate Ugandan law?

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

Now I'm not very good at articulating myself, and probably could have put this better I suppose, so please forgive me. But I don't understand a Christian wanting a worldly court to arrest someone who practices what it has given its stamp of approval on. After all its not the world (or the kingdoms of it)  that will have so much of a problem with those both in it (and of it) practicing certain things God might not always approve of. 

 

Its the Kingdom of God that is not inherited.

 

I sort of see the world as a certain kind of playing field. Having both those who are in the world (and of it) alongside of those who are also in it (but not of it) under rulers which make the rules within each sphere they reside over. Some being just and others unjust. And for now (and for the most part) we have the freedom to speak (with no man forbidding). But not all freedom of speech (take John the Baptist) for example will be met with an open reception. Marvel not that the world hates you. So its typically not going to decide to cast someone who might do what is unlawful (in Gods sight) into prison, especially if (in their sight) they are not harming others. Whereas on the contrary, it was John who was cast into prison for speaking up against what was unlawful in Gods sight (not mans). John rattling his conscience. But neither do I see John insisting Herod be cast into prison for his unlawful moral conduct (before God) but pointing it out (in warning him) that he might repent. So he was warning him as a messenger of God. But insisting they go to prison for such things isn't really going to change anything as far as it pertains to the practice or in respects to entering the Kingdom of God, where a change of mind (even repentance) over steel bars would. So I don't understand what would be accomplished in sending homosexuals to prison has in this mans thoughts. I mean it doesn't mean folks should not be warned, even of consequences but those pertain more to not entering the Kingdom of God. Not to temporal prisons sentences for unbelievers who are both in and of this world.

 

The consequences pertain more to the world to come (by our King) not so much to this one (and its rulers). I mean, try to exercise what you might believe is your right (here) to free speech before Him (concerning His Kingdom). Because He has rules of His own for entering His Kingdom. So good luck trying to convince Him (our King) that He has no right to discriminate against the same along with every other thing the world might allow for (without temporal consequences) when it comes to who He denies an entrance into His Kingdom.

 

To be fair revilers aren't entering the Kingdom of God either, and our freedom of speech is not dictated to that degree. So if someone insists homosexuals be imprisoned, then they should take the whole list of what's not entering the Kingdom of God and apply it equally. Not that I am advocating that. Because I don't think there is anything wrong with not agreeing with it (or being a partaker of it) or even warning others of the judgment to come. But I cant find where we are called to pressing charges against them before unbelievers (and their courts) and insisting on having them all locked up in prison. I just cant wrap my brain around that one.

 

[Sevenseas]

 

 

What I have observed about this ( and unfortunately many other topics as well) is that we as a Christian community seem to think that we have an obligation to legislate our ethics/morality/ethos whatever you want to call it, and that will somehow make someone realize the "error" of their ways. We (Christians) aren't to condone sin, we aren't to take part in it

 

 

Just so.  It didn't work when Constantine 'implemented' Christianity and the effects of laws against sin only increase sin all the more according to Paul.

 

 

Its the Kingdom of God that is not inherited.

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

So if someone insists homosexuals be imprisoned, then they should take the whole list of what's not entering the Kingdom of God and apply it equally. Not that I am advocating that. Because I don't think there is anything wrong with not agreeing with it (or being a partaker of it) or even warning others of the judgment to come. But I cant find where we are called to pressing charges against them before unbelievers (and their courts) and insisting on having them all locked up in prison. I just cant wrap my brain around that one.

 

 

I can understand far better why Christians might be arrested and imprisoned as they oppose the kingdoms of this world and the power of the ruler of the air.  

 

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 

 

Ephesians 2

[thomas t]

 

I looked at the first article and saw that this occurred in the States. The right of free speech is a very important fundamental right. To take that right away is to gag a person or a group of people because what they said is not popular. Take away the right to verbally express and opinion, and then the majority can call for the arrest of the minority because the majority doesn't like to hear the differing opinion and wants to make the less popular belief illegal to express.

 

So, in the U.S., a person should be able to say, homosexuality, the sexual act, should be illegal. It was once, and is still on the books in some states but not inforced. To allow neo-nazis to demonstrate in a Jewish neighborhood is also legal, because that is free speech. To allow Christians to share the gospel on a public street is also free speech. To allow conservatives to carry posters expressing their dislike of abortion is free speech, and to allow liberals to display a fish with feet and Darwins name in it, is also free speech. And to allow the Chanukah Menorrah to be displayed is also free speech.

Good day Q,

 

however, this particular opinion I spoke of, was about calling for other people to get arrested solely for their identity.

Free speech as a right is to be weighed up against the human rights of others when it comes to offending them or even call for them to be arrested, in my opinion.

 

You evoked racism ("neo-nazis") in your post, so let me point to another story in which free speech was involved and weighed up against other things: Germany recently was rebuked by the UN anti-racism committee for not having punished a former politician who spoke disrespectfully against what he called "the Turks", people who actually are Germans but may have Turkish anscestors.

I personally agree with the committee. Dispersing racism is not the same as displaying religious symbols or sharing the gospel of Christ.

Have a good day

Thomas

 

 

[thomas t]

 

This is a strange case because an American has involved himself in Uganda legislation. So, did the man violate American law on Ugandan soil? Or did he violate Ugandan law?

Good morning Neb,

 

this one is about using the Alien Tort Statute in the US. A Ugandan organiazation invokes US law to prosecute a citizen of the US in America.

 

Best wishes,

Thomas

[Qnts2]

 

 

I looked at the first article and saw that this occurred in the States. The right of free speech is a very important fundamental right. To take that right away is to gag a person or a group of people because what they said is not popular. Take away the right to verbally express and opinion, and then the majority can call for the arrest of the minority because the majority doesn't like to hear the differing opinion and wants to make the less popular belief illegal to express.

 

So, in the U.S., a person should be able to say, homosexuality, the sexual act, should be illegal. It was once, and is still on the books in some states but not inforced. To allow neo-nazis to demonstrate in a Jewish neighborhood is also legal, because that is free speech. To allow Christians to share the gospel on a public street is also free speech. To allow conservatives to carry posters expressing their dislike of abortion is free speech, and to allow liberals to display a fish with feet and Darwins name in it, is also free speech. And to allow the Chanukah Menorrah to be displayed is also free speech.

Good day Q,

 

however, this particular opinion I spoke of, was about calling for other people to get arrested solely for their identity.

Free speech as a right is to be weighed up against the human rights of others when it comes to offending them or even call for them to be arrested, in my opinion.

 

You evoked racism ("neo-nazis") in your post, so let me point to another story in which free speech was involved and weighed up against other things: Germany recently was rebuked by the UN anti-racism committee for not having punished a former politician who spoke disrespectfully against what he called "the Turks", people who actually are Germans but may have Turkish anscestors.

I personally agree with the committee. Dispersing racism is not the same as displaying religious symbols or sharing the gospel of Christ.

Have a good day

Thomas

 

 

I do not believe that people are born with the right not to be offended. So often, people are way too easily offended, and if offense is included in a law, people will feign offense and outrage to keep others from opposing their view. So, I view the UN law or any law which includes such a subjective statement as, you can not speak in a way which is offensive to others.

 

If a person thinks homosexuals should be jailed for the sexual orientation, that is a persons thoughts. We are unable to forcefully alter a persons thoughts, and as scripture says.

Matt 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

 

So, not allowing a person to have free speech doesn't change the heart. And not allowing a person to have free speech restricts our own freedom. Scripture says a man laying with a man, like men lay with women is a sin. Not allowing free speech also could result in us not being allowed to verbally quote scripture because someone might be offended. Wow. Scripture says the Jesus is an offense to those who are perishing.  

 

Nope, we do not have the right to not be offended. As a matter of fact, it really is a choice to be offended, we do not have to be offended.

[Sevenseas]

 

 

He did not call for any punitive measures against homosexuals at all.  And nothing he said had anything to do with free speech.  Sexual behavior is not a matter of free speech.

 

 

Must have been lost in the translation....LOL!

 

If a person does not have an identity beyond and outside their sexuality, that is a person with some severe problems.  I have never felt the need to go around telling people how straight I was or that my whole identity was wrapped up in my straightness  Our sexuality should be a very small facet of our identity since it entails a very small percentage of our life.  And since anything having to do with our sexuality should be confined solely between our partner and ourselves, no matter what our sexual orientation is, we should not be sharing our "sexual identity" with the public at all in any way, shape or form.  And if someone feels the need to do so, repeatedly and militantly, they have some severe identity problems.

 

 

Well, we could always organize a Hetro Pride Week or how about a Girl Meets Boy Day or a Normal and Not Ashamed Parade....