Free Speech What Do Grans Think?

We are every one of us sinners according to the Bible. The reason Christ came was to take our sins upon himself. Christian or not, we all sin. Homosexuals are sinners along with everyone else.

Freya5

Riverwalk

Responding to images of Pride parades organised by LGBT groups at the end of last month, he wrote: “When did pride become a thing to celebrate? Because of pride, Satan fell as an archangel. Pride is not a virtue but a sin. Those who have pride should repent of their sins and return to Jesus Christ. He can save you. #PrideMonth #Pride23 #PrideParade.”

He's equating gay people with sin - which is not a very kind thing to do.

He's free to say it, and various organisations are free to say they don't want to be associated with him and his thoughts.

Sticks and stones,etc.

It's a difficult one.

Pride is the actual sin as far as Christians believe, which is as described in the Bible, the original sin.

However, perhaps he is blurring the lines and in so doing is leading people to believe that being gay is sinful.

Riverwalk

^Responding to images of Pride parades organised by LGBT groups at the end of last month, he wrote: “When did pride become a thing to celebrate? Because of pride, Satan fell as an archangel. Pride is not a virtue but a sin. Those who have pride should repent of their sins and return to Jesus Christ. He can save you. #PrideMonth #Pride23 #PrideParade.”^

He's equating gay people with sin - which is not a very kind thing to do.

He's free to say it, and various organisations are free to say they don't want to be associated with him and his thoughts.

Sticks and stones,etc.

Siope, thanks for bringing your personal experience and views to this discussion. The legal framework is important and without the HRA we would all be worse off but your comments bring the concerns about this councillor to life.

Social attitudes towards so called minority groups have changed and improved over our lifetimes. Our family recently celebrated our first wedding involving two men. It’s possible to separate personal belief from public work. Possible but it doesn’t always happen. From what little I’ve read, I’m not convinced this man is able to do that.

As one of those ‘minorities’ who has been directly affected by bigots and bigotry, up to and including violence, I learned early that freedom of expression was often a useful cover for those who hated me for what I am.

I am proud to have not been cowed or intimidated into stopping campaigning and lobbying for changes of hearts, minds and laws. I’m not daft enough to think that there will never be bigots, but I am delighted when they say that society has changed so much that they don’t feel comfortable openly expressing their racism, homophobia or other prejudices.

Of course, freedom of expression is important - vital even - but nobody ever said freedom of expression = freedom from consequences. Feel free to speak your truth, feel free to express your views, feel free to stand up for what you believe, provided that you are happy to accept, as I have done for so long, that there will be consequences.

Which is, of course, exactly what has happened in the case in the OP. Nobody has stopped Mr Lawal expressing his opinion, one organisation has merely said there are consequences.

DiamondLily

Councillors are there to ensure provision of local services. That is their remit.

I don't believe in God (any God), but I pay my Council Tax, and I'd just like things to be done - such as potholes, pavements, rubbish collection etc.

I don't care what religion anyone is - leave the preaching to the place of worship, and just do what you're paid to do - serve the locals.,🙄

If people want to be "sinful", then providing it's nothing illegal, they are allowed to do so. Unless it adversely affects others, or stamps all over their rights etc, it's nothing to do with anyone else.

As for the rest - debate, disagreement and opinions are fine, even healthy in a democracy - just don't say or do anything that might incite violence.

This sums up my thoughts on the matter, DL.

Ailidh, what's the Biblical view of mildew?

We are not free to express our opinions any more unless they are what is believed to be politically correct. We all have to be careful these days. If I expressed some of my views on this site I would be banned that's for sure

This is probably equally true of me!

I am not Chistian but I have friends who are. I respect their right to hold the views they do even if I strongly disagree with some of them. I also have no problem with the Pride movement so long as they dont parade every day past my front door. Its a big thing here in Manchester and brings a lot of money into the city. Gay people are taxpayers too.

What I do abhor is the undeniable fact that you cannot express free speech in this country without offending someone who is "in the business" of being offended.

As far as "homosexuality" in the Bible is concerned, the best book I've read is "Dirt, Greed and Sex" by William Countryman.

In Old Testament times there was no concept of "homosexuality" as an inherent way of being. A man having sex other than for procreation was seen as a waste of seed, so Onanism (variously interpreted as masturbation or coitus interruptus) was punishable by death, as what we would now call homosexual sex.

Other tribes practised cultic male prostitution, so it became a badge of differentiation for the children of Israel Not to do so. It was originally not a moral question, just one of declaring one tribe to be different to the others, And of trying to make sure that the tribe's numbers continued to increase.

There are more references in the OT to the problem of mildew than to gay sex.

I'm a practising Christian, who wouldn't dream of imposing my beliefs within the context of a secular job, or even declaring them, unless asked for. If a job did not align with those beliefs, I wouldn't take it. Maybe not so much if not align but certainly if it ran contrary to my beliefs.

I don't have any problems with mildew.

Councillors are there to ensure provision of local services. That is their remit.

I don't believe in God (any God), but I pay my Council Tax, and I'd just like things to be done - such as potholes, pavements, rubbish collection etc.

I don't care what religion anyone is - leave the preaching to the place of worship, and just do what you're paid to do - serve the locals.,🙄

If people want to be "sinful", then providing it's nothing illegal, they are allowed to do so. Unless it adversely affects others, or stamps all over their rights etc, it's nothing to do with anyone else.

As for the rest - debate, disagreement and opinions are fine, even healthy in a democracy - just don't say or do anything that might incite violence.

Re. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. Yes, it is designed to protect Freedom of Expression, but it " may be restricted for health reasons, or if it affects other human rights such as privacy or fair trial." Article 14. The Right Not to be Discriminated Against can also limit the unhindered application of Article 10 , so it really is an extremely difficult balancing act, and each case will no doubt bring its own challenges and complexities. I can't see that Human Rights lawyers are ever likely to be short of business.

People using their positions of power to force others to listen to their opinions is literally everything wrong with the world

Twitter is dying because it's being run like a dictatorship and you have to pay to be heard which puts too many people at a disadvantage against those with money and power

Taking away people's rights to not have someone in power over them tell them they are going to hell leads to things like women being unable to obtain abortions

Galaxy

But even the inciting violence thing is very easily misused. Look at the way suicide is being used in debate.

Oh yes, people will manipulate and twist things, and find ways to make passive threats. It’s human nature I suppose, and it’s all but impossible to legislate against that, as they/we will find ways around it.

But even the inciting violence thing is very easily misused. Look at the way suicide is being used in debate.

We can share ideas, but the State will interfere if those ideas incite civil unrest. It’s one thing to write a letter to the paper (or tweet a point of view) but another to rabble-rouse on a street corner.

Even on here, whilst we can express different opinions on all sorts of things, if someone oversteps the mark their posts are pulled, and whole threads go when speech is not considered acceptable. The alternative in some cases would be that GN could be closed down for breaking libel laws, and in others that the tone of the site would change from the one preferred by those providing it. We can’t just say what we like, however much we may think we are right.

Germanshepherdsmum

Yes we have Skydancer. A time when we as heterosexual people born and bred here were in the majority, a time when we didn’t have to kowtow to those who were not, and to people whose sexual preferences are in the minority.

Wow. Well that confirms things.

There’s a difference between “kowtowing” and accepting and celebrating difference and diversity. Goodness knows, if you opened your mind a bit you might learn something.

The law

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act protects a right that's fundamental to our democracy – our freedom of expression is fundamental to our democracy. It means we're free to hold opinions and ideas and to share them with others without the State interfering.

So the cleric is perfectly entitled to hold and express his views as I am mine which means that I disagree with him.

Now whether the Tories actions were sensible, intelligent or acceptable is the real debate.

Cross post. I agree that it is difficult, and that one freedom can erode another, but that’s why we have laws. We should have the right to debate the changing of those laws, but not, IMO to incite violence against others.

I am beginning to wonder why the councillor needs as a Christian to sit in moral and theological judgment on a group of people who may or may not be Christian. The bottom line is that the councillor needs to work out his own behaviour and moral principles . He can’t then demand that other groups especially if non Christian follow the same rules.
As a local councillor his remit is quite narrow and he could do some very good practical work - pavements being my topic of the month. Perhaps the councillor could do a course in theology if that’s where his main interests lie. He seems a bit confused.

Making a case (eg for acceptance of minorities) is one thing, but calling people sinful is different, surely? Not in church, necessarily, but how far should ’sin’ be relevant in civil (or secular) society?

No you are right I probably didnt doodledog. My view is that it is very difficult to control speech without it spiralling into restrictions which impact the minorities that people are trying to protect. I still remember listening to the Jewish man who advocated for the freedom of those who were anti semitic to express their view as the alternative for Jewish people would be much worse.
As for the balance it's incredibly complex and as I am scared of those who say with confidence what the 'balance' is, I just dont know.

That could take some time WW and in the meantime he is in charge. It is always minorities who suffer when speech is controlled. At one point it would have been seen as hurtful and offensive to say gay men should be able to marry, minorities rely on speech to campaign for their rights, we should be wary of any restrictions we place on speech.

With respect, I don’t think you are answering my question, Galaxy. Is it ok to advocate stoning adulterers and/or homosexuals? Should those doing so be stopped?

I don't know enough about the details of this specific case to be able to comment, but the challenge to promote and protect freedom of speech is always a balancing act. Unrestricted freedom risks the promulgation of extreme, anti-social views, or the radical promotion of hatred and violence. This presents a real threat to both the safety and the civil rights of others, so it simply isn’t true to suggest that any restriction on freedom of speech is a threat to democracy, as quite the opposite applies.
Nevertheless, the right to fearlessly say what others may not want to hear remains at the heart of our democracy, and it is essential that we all continue to have the freedom to campaign for a better world, in which equality and justice can prosper. We should also jealously guard the right to speak out against all that we see as divisive, discriminatory, and unjust.
Finally, in any exchange of views, we should always be mindful of the wisdom of the person who first said : “I may strongly disagree with your views, but nevertheless, I will die in a ditch defending your right to continue to express them”.

Galaxy

That doesnt answer the question though. Elon musk is currently putting controls on what is said on Twitter, with enormous reach, is that ok.

People will vote with both their feet and cash. His advertising revenue has plummeted by at least 59%.

Of course. Had no coffee yet.