Three Derby men guilty over gay hate leaflets

[CatholicBoy1957]

Yes, eating shellfish is abominable too!

[BIBLEDRB]Leviticus 11:9-12[/BIBLEDRB]

However, the evil of homosexuality is confirmed in 1Cor6:9, while the eating of shellfish is not. Nonetheless, you aren’t eating uncooked shellfish, are you? There is something solid about those OT dietary laws. Have you ever heard of trichinosis?

 

[Geist]

Its amusing, Islam is big on men and boys (they call them “beardless boys”), from the Turks to the Pashtuns.

Plus “hate crime” laws being applied to non-white non-Christians? Did a pig just fly past my window? Possibly away from three gay muslims?

 

[incense]

Not all speech is recognized as a right. A person can be jailed for inciting another to rape or kill. A person can be jailed or fined for libel. If I stand outside of your house shouting obscenities through a bullhorn in the middle of the night, it is not recognized as free speech. There are many instances in which speech can be prosecuted, and rightfully so.

How about if people pass out fliers saying the law should be changed, as in this case?

 

[Tsuwano]

How about if people pass out fliers saying the law should be changed, as in this case?

It would depend on where they are passing the flyers out and if they have whatever license is necessary to pass out flyers in that area. It would also depend on whether the flyers being passed out in that area are libel to incite violence. After all, one may have the right to pass out literature advocating a return to Jim Crow laws in a Black neighborhood in Chicago, but if that action has a high propensity for causing violence, then the police have a right to remove that individual in order to keep the peace. As for the three men in this particular incident who passed out fliers advocating the execution of homosexuals, I would say they do not have the right to pass out these fliers as these fliers may incite violence and place innocent citizens at risk.

 

[FightingFat]

What gave you that idea?

Things like this:

http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2011/07/sharia-law-protest.jpg

This:

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/images/london-muslim-protest-7.jpg

This:



And this:

http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/285x214/211097_1.jpg

 

[FightingFat]

The paralell works. Both the Qur’an and the Bible condemn homosexuality and suggest the death penalty.

Both majority Christian groups and Muslim groups do not condone/agree with that.

However, some Christians and some Muslims believe it should be implemented.

Even extremists like Westborough Baptist Church don’t advocate the death penalty for homosexuality, they suggest eternal condemnation.

Mainstream Christianity-as I see it- means us Catholics (as we are in the majority) and we advocate extreme charity to homosexuals. The only place the Bible suggests the death penalty is in Leviticus, from Greek Λευιτικός, Leuitikos, meaning “relating to the Levites”, the tribe from whom the priests were drawn. It prohibits a long list of sexual contacts and also child sacrifice. The “holiness” injunctions which give the code its name begin with the next section: penalties are imposed for the worship of Molech, consulting mediums and wizards, cursing one’s parents and engaging in unlawful sex. Priests are instructed on mourning rituals and acceptable bodily defects. Blasphemy is to be punished with death, and rules for the eating of sacrifices are set out; the calendar is explained, and rules for sabbatical and Jubilee years set out; and rules are made for oil lamps and bread in the sanctuary. The code ends by telling the Israelites they must choose between the law and prosperity on the one hand, or, on the other, horrible punishments, the worst of which will be expulsion from the land.

As Catholics, we do not isolate passages in the Bible and use them verbatim to justify actions. Rather we rely on the sensus plenior; that is what the whole Bible teaches, and the Old Testament is a pre-figuring of the New.

Al-Qur’an is different. It means, literally, ‘Discourse in Arabic’ or ‘The Recitation’. Muslims believe the *Qur’an *to be the book of divine guidance and direction for humanity and consider the text in its original Arabic to be the literal word of God, a miracle of perfection. Muslims believe in an utterly transcendent diety whose will is what must be done, irrespective of what we consider to be right or wrong. What is important is that you do God’s will (who reveals what God’s will is is another matter entirely). Christians believe that God does not act in an arbitrary manner. We can discern good from evil, and God does not act in an evil way. This disconnection was hi-lighted by the Pope in his infamous Regensburg lecture of 2006.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Can you tell the difference between acts and speech? I’ll give you a hint. When you use action words in your sentence, like “committed” or “killed” that indicates an action. Speech is when someone talks, or in this case writes.

An action can be a crime. Free speech is considered a right.

Our founding fathers put free speech in the constitution because experience taught them how important it is.

Not my “founding fathers”. I have free speech by law too. What’s your point?

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

6Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’

8“‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. 9If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”

This post is not off topic. If you think it is, you must be an outsider.

niv.scripturetext.com/luke/13.htm

 

[incense]

It would depend on where they are passing the flyers out and if they have whatever license is necessary to pass out flyers in that area. It would also depend on whether the flyers being passed out in that area are libel to incite violence. After all, one may have the right to pass out literature advocating a return to Jim Crow laws in a Black neighborhood in Chicago, but if that action has a high propensity for causing violence, then the police have a right to remove that individual in order to keep the peace. As for the three men in this particular incident who passed out fliers advocating the execution of homosexuals, I would say they do not have the right to pass out these fliers as these fliers may incite violence and place innocent citizens at risk.

So was this a predominantly homosexual neighborhood, or are you making up conditions and not sticking to the real situation again?

 

[incense]

Things like this:

Those are scary pictures and need to be published. I think it’s better that we read what they want and what they’re planning on doing and be ready for it, then to make them be silent and then be caught off guard.

 

[Tsuwano]

So was this a predominantly homosexual neighborhood, or are you making up conditions and not sticking to the real situation again?

Look, you asked me if the actions of these three men in this case should be protected as free speech. Since I don’t know the details of the case, I replied that it depends on where they were passing out the literature and gave an example of how speech may not be protected. I’m not making up anything or attempting to make any point except to point out that not all speech is protected by law, as you seem to have implied in a previous post. Was it a predominantly homosexual neighborhood? Since you know the details of the case, you tell me. Also, tell me whether you think the advocating of execution of homosexuals is hate speech and should be protected. My personal opinion, which is not law as far as I know, is that such speech is violent and is does not fall under the banner of free speech any more than yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected as free speech. But whether such speech is legal or not, there is a higher law, one which we as Catholics should adhere to, which should dictate that we remain charitable to all. Advocating death for homosexuals cannot be defined as charitable, in my opinion.

 

[incense]

Look, you asked me if the actions of these three men in this case should be protected as free speech. Since I don’t know the details of the case, I replied that it depends on where they were passing out the literature and gave an example of how speech may not be protected. I’m not making up anything or attempting to make any point except to point out that not all speech is protected by law, as you seem to have implied in a previous post. Was it a predominantly homosexual neighborhood? Since you know the details of the case, you tell me. Also, tell me whether you think the advocating of execution of homosexuals is hate speech and should be protected. My personal opinion, which is not law as far as I know, is that such speech is violent and is does not fall under the banner of free speech any more than yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected as free speech. But whether such speech is legal or not, there is a higher law, one which we as Catholics should adhere to, which should dictate that we remain charitable to all. Advocating death for homosexuals cannot be defined as charitable, in my opinion.

and here is what I asked:

How about if people pass out fliers saying the law should be changed, as in this case?

So there you go, changing the subject, distracting from the issue, raising imaginary claims. Now accusing Catholics of advocating death for homosexuals, when no Catholic has done such a thing. Your words sound like incinerating hate speech to me.

You should have written that the Muslims were calling for death penalties for homosexuals. Since they don’t’ have a Catholic conscience, one wouldn’t expect them to follow it. You really have a problem with getting your comparisons correct.

 

[Tsuwano]

and here is what I asked:

So there you go, changing the subject, distracting from the issue, raising imaginary claims. Now accusing Catholics of advocating death for homosexuals, when no Catholic has done such a thing. Your words sound like incinerating hate speech to me.

You should have written that the Muslims were calling for death penalties for homosexuals. Since they don’t’ have a Catholic conscience, one wouldn’t expect them to follow it. You really have a problem with getting your comparisons correct.

You asked “How about if people pass out fliers saying the law should be changed, as in this case?” I answered it depends on where they are passing the fliers out, whether they have a license to pass the fliers out (if so needed) and whether the fliers are libel to cause violence to an innocent group of people. I haven’t changed the subject at all. I’ve answered your question clearly. I most certainly haven’t accused Catholics of advocating death for homosexuals or anyone else. Your imagination is running wild. The only problem I have is with your failure to understand my posts and your lack of charity in responding to me.