Voicing Christian beliefs should not be a crime

[Mike Davis]

See short video at:
https://citizengo.org/en-gb/rf/202838-voicing-christian-beliefs-should-not-be-crime

The latest recipient of this kind of persecution is Finnish
parlimentarian Päivi Räsänen who is facing jail for posting a Bible
verse on her personal Twitter account.

Simply because Räsänen expressed her sincerely held beliefs publicly,
the police launched an investigation and subjected her to a four-hour
interview. Räsänen now faces a maximum penalty of two years’
imprisonment for the crime of so-called “ethnic agitation.”

It all began in June 2019 when the church board of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church of Finland announced its official partnership with the
LGBT event “Pride 2019”. Räsänen questioned her church’s leadership on
this decision on social media, attaching an image of a Bible passage.

The prosecution has also dug up a secondary charge which finds fault
with a pamphlet she wrote in 2004 “Male and female He created them –
Homosexual relationships challenge the Christian concept of humanity”.

The third charge stems from Räsänen’s views on a Finnish Broadcasting
Corporation radio station on the topic of “What would Jesus think about
homosexuals?”.

(From CitizenGo website)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Timreason]

I don't want to get dragged into discussion on this specific subject
again, but I will make the wider comment that I do not personally
believe in totally unrestrained free speech.

I think it is right that here in the UK, antisemitic (for example)
comments or speech can lead to prosecution.

There are so many people who present their views, understanding and
interpretation of biblical passages as being the 'Only Correct Biblical
View'. It would be very easy to select biblical passages to support
antisemitism, but would that be a 'True Understanding Of The Bible'?

So, if it should be 'Anything Goes', then presumably antisemitic or
strongly racist speech should be allowed?

Tim.

[Jason]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 11:44:00 +0000, Mike Davis wrote:

> See short video at:
> https://citizengo.org/en-gb/rf/202838-voicing-christian-beliefs-should-
not-be-crime
>
> The latest recipient of this kind of persecution is Finnish
> parlimentarian Päivi Räsänen who is facing jail for posting a Bible
> verse on her personal Twitter account.

In general I agree with you and voicing (and indeed holding) one's
religious beliefs should not be a crime. As with that "Gay Cake" story a
year or two ago even the LGBT activist Peter Tatchell thought it was
wrong to try and force the bakery to put a message on a cake that they
profoundly disagreed with. In other words, we should be completely free
to hold our own views, accompanied by a freedom of speech to voice and
discuss them. I haven't read the original tweets, but from the article
posted above I completely agree with the lady in the video.

That said, of course, it is not a black-and-white issue, and as with just
about everything, there is a grey area in the middle. Just think of all
the strife and conflict driven by religious fervour across the world and
throughout the centuries, all of which can be justified by both sides by
quoting texts from their chosen holy book.

In short, I think people should the clear right to voice their religious,
political, and other views, but always through the lens that with rights
come responsibilities.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/01/2022 13:20, Jason wrote:

> In general I agree with you and voicing (and indeed holding) one's
> religious beliefs should not be a crime. As with that "Gay Cake" story a
> year or two ago even the LGBT activist Peter Tatchell thought it was
> wrong to try and force the bakery to put a message on a cake that they
> profoundly disagreed with.

And, apparently, the case was thrown out by the Supreme Court, so the
bakers have won. (Admittedly, I believe it was a technicality, but it
was still thrown out.)

> That said, of course, it is not a black-and-white issue, and as with just
> about everything, there is a grey area in the middle. Just think of all
> the strife and conflict driven by religious fervour across the world and
> throughout the centuries, all of which can be justified by both sides by
> quoting texts from their chosen holy book.

Like the imam before the courts this week who declares that "armed jihad
is a duty taught by the Qur'an". A pity nobody isn't here to try to
explain it away.

> In short, I think people should the clear right to voice their religious,
> political, and other views, but always through the lens that with rights
> come responsibilities.

Indeed - and anything which calls for violence against property or
persons is wrong. Seeing as society is content to allow LGBTQPZEIL to
flourish, I am quite happy to leave homosexuals and others to God's
judgement.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/01/2022 12:44, Timreason wrote:

> I don't want to get dragged into discussion on this specific subject
> again, but I will make the wider comment that I do not personally
> believe in totally unrestrained free speech.

I agree and thank you for your support that anything promotes or
encourages homosexuality should be banned.

[Timreason]

I find it strange that you, who *supported* the legalisation of
consentual same-sex acts in private, should say such a thing.

I *opposed* 'Section 28' or whatever it was called, so your claim that I
would ever support such evil discriminatory legislation is beyond me.

Of course I do NOT support such a ban, and of course it has NOTHING to
do with protecting groups from discrimination, such as Jews or people
with autism or disabilities or... or... etc., which is what I was
talking about.

You're like a leopard, you can't change your spots. I suppose you're a
typical Australian, you fit the stereotype so well! Aussie bigotry
rules, OK.

Tim.

[Stuart]

In article <srsiu4$2op$1...@dont-email.me>,

Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Indeed - and anything which calls for violence against property or
> persons is wrong. Seeing as society is content to allow LGBTQPZEIL to
> flourish, I am quite happy to leave homosexuals and others to God's
> judgement.

Quite so.

Rom1:26

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

Basically "Ok, if that's what you're going to do, I'm not going to stop
you (we are all given free choice) but you will pay the consequences.

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/01/2022 20:40, Timreason wrote:

> Of course I do NOT support such a ban

And yet you would support banning the opposite! Which is the point of my
comment: if you can call for anti-homosexual speech to be banned, why
can I not call for pro-homosexual speech to be banned?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/01/2022 21:15, Stuart wrote:

> Basically "Ok, if that's what you're going to do, I'm not going to stop
> you (we are all given free choice) but you will pay the consequences.

Certainly - both in this life and in the next.

The question of tolerance and freedom is a very nice one. Should
tolerance tolerate intolerance? Should tolerance tolerate those things
which are clearly evil - and by whose standard is evil to be determined?

For the Christian the answers are "Yes", "No", and "by God's standard".
For the non-Christian the answers are "Ummm", "No" and "don't know".

[Timreason]

(I'd like to generalise the issue for this debate here, since we are
both already fully aware that we differ over the Inclusive Church issue.)

Keeping it general, then:-

So, yes you do have a point. But then, I believe, so do I. You
(apparently) seem to believe in totally unfettered free speech, and I do
not. So, can we (keeping it as a general discussion, please) discuss in
a friendly manner the merits or otherwise of having some limitations.

Let's consider wider issues, such as racism and discrimination
generally. As I pointed out, rightly or wrongly we do NOT have free
speech as such, here in the UK. Use of certain words such as the 'P'
word or the 'N' word, for example, are no longer permitted. Personally,
until recently, I had no idea that the 'P' word was so offensive, but
Mohammed (who you like to refer to as 'nobody') very kindly sent me a
helpful and detailed email as to why it's unacceptable.

The Labour Party was recently called out for antisemitism. But then, if
'Anything Goes', what's wrong with that? They're only expressing an opinion!

Yes, I suppose it is a minefield, now. Any of us could inadvertently use
a word or expression deemed 'offensive'. But I think the alternative, an
'Anything Goes' approach (such as they appear to have in the USA) seems
very ugly.

I think we, as Christians, are called to be kind and considerate, and to
have humility. (Reminding ourselves ALWAYS that we are, ourselves,
sinners is a good start. The speck-and-plank thing.)

My understanding is that limits on free speech are about preventing
discrimination, but like all these things, it gets complicated when we
get conflicting issues. That, IMO does not mean we shouldn't try to
prevent discrimination, on whatever grounds. That means having some
limits on what can be said.

A friend of mine had an example of discrimination, when he asked about
taking his kids to a local church childcare nursery. The questions went:
"Are you Christians?", "Yes", "Ah, but are you Evangelical
Christians?", "No". "Then you're not welcome".

So, being Christian wasn't enough, he had to be the 'Right Type' of
Christian!

Tim.

[John]

On 14/01/2022 20:40, Timreason wrote:

Ken just likes to push the buttons, so don't let him trigger you.

That Ken can't debate sensibly with views that disagree with his own, is
his problem, not yours.

[John]

On 15/01/2022 11:15, Timreason wrote:

> I think we, as Christians, are called to be kind and considerate, and to
> have humility. (Reminding ourselves ALWAYS that we are, ourselves,
> sinners is a good start. The speck-and-plank thing.)
>
> My understanding is that limits on free speech are about preventing
> discrimination, but like all these things, it gets complicated when we
> get conflicting issues. That, IMO does not mean we shouldn't try to
> prevent discrimination, on whatever grounds. That means having some
> limits on what can be said.

Well said.

[Timreason]

On 15/01/2022 12:09, John wrote:
> On 14/01/2022 20:40, Timreason wrote:
>> On 14/01/2022 19:25, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>
>> You're like a leopard, you can't change your spots. I suppose you're a
>> typical Australian, you fit the stereotype so well!  Aussie bigotry
>> rules, OK.
>
> Ken just likes to push the buttons, so don't let him trigger you.
>

I know. The trouble is, I really don't think a Christian should be doing
that, anyway.

> That Ken can't debate sensibly with views that disagree with his own, is
> his problem, not yours.
>

Thank you, John.

[Mike Davis]

On 15/01/2022 11:15, Timreason wrote:
>

> Yes, I suppose it is a minefield, now. Any of us could inadvertently use
> a word or expression deemed 'offensive'. But I think the alternative, an
> 'Anything Goes' approach (such as they appear to have in the USA) seems
> very ugly.
>
> I think we, as Christians, are called to be kind and considerate, and to
> have humility. (Reminding ourselves ALWAYS that we are, ourselves,
> sinners is a good start. The speck-and-plank thing.)
>
> My understanding is that limits on free speech are about preventing
> discrimination, but like all these things, it gets complicated when we
> get conflicting issues. That, IMO does not mean we shouldn't try to
> prevent discrimination, on whatever grounds. That means having some
> limits on what can be said.

I think that's very well put, Tim.

I posted the original petition, as it was relevant to our charter (OK -
not UK - yet!) and because it was an attempt to express Christian views
(values) in a multicultural society that she is being 'criminalised' for.

The distinction - as I see it is that:-
1. All people are entitled to their views.

2. Views may be 'offered' for consideration by others.

3. Views should not be a form of attack on others.

4. In the case of disagreement - it is the *views* that are under
discussion, not the people that hold them.

> A friend of mine had an example of discrimination, when he asked about
> taking his kids to a local church childcare nursery. The questions went:
>  "Are you Christians?", "Yes", "Ah, but are you Evangelical
> Christians?", "No". "Then you're not welcome".

How sad! (And, IMO, how unChristian - the view, of course.)

> So, being Christian wasn't enough, he had to be the 'Right Type' of
> Christian!

So much for evangelisation! How on earth do they ever get new members?
What do they think the Church's job is??!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Timreason]

On 15/01/2022 18:25, Mike Davis wrote:
> On 15/01/2022 11:15, Timreason wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I suppose it is a minefield, now. Any of us could inadvertently
>> use a word or expression deemed 'offensive'. But I think the
>> alternative, an 'Anything Goes' approach (such as they appear to have
>> in the USA) seems very ugly.
>>
>> I think we, as Christians, are called to be kind and considerate, and
>> to have humility. (Reminding ourselves ALWAYS that we are, ourselves,
>> sinners is a good start. The speck-and-plank thing.)
>>
>> My understanding is that limits on free speech are about preventing
>> discrimination, but like all these things, it gets complicated when we
>> get conflicting issues. That, IMO does not mean we shouldn't try to
>> prevent discrimination, on whatever grounds. That means having some
>> limits on what can be said.
>
> I think that's very well put, Tim.
>
> I posted the original petition, as it was relevant to our charter (OK -
> not UK - yet!) and because it was an attempt to express Christian views
> (values) in a multicultural society that she is being 'criminalised' for.
>
> The distinction - as I see it is that:-
> 1. All people are entitled to their views.
>
> 2. Views may be 'offered' for consideration by others.
>
> 3. Views should not be a form of attack on others.
>
> 4. In the case of disagreement - it is the *views* that are under
> discussion, not the people that hold them.
>

Yes. I agree with number 1. She is just as entitled to hold her view as
I am mine. It's all about how views are expressed, I think.

Number 2 above is the thing. She presents A view, not necessarily THE
view. I try to be careful to phrase things such that it is clear that
I'm presenting what I *believe*, rather than making it sound like I
know, or that my view is the only valid one.

Number 3 is also important, and maybe that's the crux of this issue. She
could perhaps word her expression of her view in such a way that it does
NOT come across as an attack on others. Anyhow, if some people would not
be welcome in the church she is associated with, that's not much of a
problem, there's another one just down the road.

Number 4 is important here. I realise that some in this group consider
my views to be wrong, and likewise I consider some of their views to be
wrong. In some instances, even ridiculous. But I wish we could be nice
to each other here, even when we drastically disagree.

>> A friend of mine had an example of discrimination, when he asked about
>> taking his kids to a local church childcare nursery. The questions
>> went:   "Are you Christians?", "Yes", "Ah, but are you Evangelical
>> Christians?", "No". "Then you're not welcome".
>
> How sad! (And, IMO, how unChristian - the view, of course.)
>

Ironically, I was passing that church a few weeks ago, and saw a sign
outside, "All are welcome". Something I now know to be untrue, sadly.

>> So, being Christian wasn't enough, he had to be the 'Right Type' of
>> Christian!
>
> So much for evangelisation! How on earth do they ever get new members?
> What do they think the Church's job is??!

They're an odd church, anyway. A little hut a few yards from where I
live. (I went there on one occasion, with my wife, about 20 years ago.
We both didn't think much of it.) There's a Methodist church not far
from it, if I really wanted somewhere local, I'd definitely prefer that.

Tim.

>
> Mike

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/01/2022 11:15, Timreason wrote:

> The Labour Party was recently called out for antisemitism. But then, if
> 'Anything Goes', what's wrong with that? They're only expressing an
> opinion!

So far as I recall, Labour's offense was not words but actions - Jewish
members of the party were jostled, heckled, attacked even.

When it comes to antisemitism, I am totally against lies or repeating
canards such as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" rubbish. Telling
the truth, even though it paints Israel or the Jews generally in a bad
light, is an entirely different kettle of fish.

I believe it was the reporter Billy Russell who was attacked by Lord
Cardigan during the Crimean War over some of his reporting. His reply
was succinct: "If you don't like it being reported, m'lord, don't do
it!" (Or words to that effect.)

> Yes, I suppose it is a minefield, now. Any of us could inadvertently use
> a word or expression deemed 'offensive'. But I think the alternative, an
> 'Anything Goes' approach (such as they appear to have in the USA) seems
> very ugly.

I agree with calls for self-restraint and politeness. I am dubious about
restraint by others.

> My understanding is that limits on free speech are about preventing
> discrimination, but like all these things, it gets complicated when we
> get conflicting issues. That, IMO does not mean we shouldn't try to
> prevent discrimination, on whatever grounds. That means having some
> limits on what can be said.

If you prevent me saying "X" that does not stop me thinking "X" - or,
indeed, saying "X" where you can't hear or in ways that you won't
recognise. The only way to deal with "X" is to debate the issue.

For example, if I think and say that blacks are less intelligent than
whites (I don't think that, by the way), gagging me will not cause me to
change my mind or improve my attitude. The only solution is to
demonstrate that the statement is false.

> A friend of mine had an example of discrimination, when he asked about
> taking his kids to a local church childcare nursery. The questions went:
>  "Are you Christians?", "Yes", "Ah, but are you Evangelical
> Christians?", "No". "Then you're not welcome".
> So, being Christian wasn't enough, he had to be the 'Right Type' of
> Christian!

A very short-sighted attitude. Presumably the nursery was intended to
foster evangelicalism? Welcoming non-evangelicals and teaching them to
pray while holding one hand up in the air is the way to go.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/01/2022 20:11, Timreason wrote:

> They're an odd church, anyway. A little hut a few yards from where I
> live.

Is it still a little hut?

[Timreason]

On 16/01/2022 08:41, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 15/01/2022 20:11, Timreason wrote:
>
>> They're an odd church, anyway. A little hut a few yards from where I
>> live.
>
> Is it still a little hut?
>

Yes. But the nearby Methodist church seems to be doing better nowadays,
bucking the trend.

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 16/01/2022 09:04, Timreason wrote:

> Yes. But the nearby Methodist church seems to be doing better nowadays,
> bucking the trend.

I'm glad to hear both bits of news.

[Jason]

The answers as usual are not nearly so clear cut as you are suggesting.

> Should tolerance tolerate intolerance?

I would argue that 'ummmm' is a much better (and more Christian) answer
than 'yes'. For example, suppose some state is intolerant towards
Christians, leading to persecution and incarceration. Should we all
tolerate that viewpoint?

> Should tolerance tolerate those things which are clearly evil

Again, this is not so clear cut, not least because "clearly evil" is not
well defined. Is blasphemy clearly evil? If so, does it apply to any
deity, or just the one you happen to believe in?

> and by whose standard is evil to be determined?

Not clear cut either, not least because even amongst Christians, some
groups turn a blind eye to particular topics, or claim those topics were
only for a particular people, group or timeframe. Again, it comes down
to what is meant by 'clearly evil', or do you simply carefully select
something (murdering your own mother??) that everyone can get on board
with? As an example, is it "evil" to have more than one wife? What does
God say? What does (the general UK) society say?

[Jason]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 11:15:40 +0000, Timreason wrote:


> My understanding is that limits on free speech are about preventing
> discrimination, but like all these things, it gets complicated when we
> get conflicting issues. That, IMO does not mean we shouldn't try to
> prevent discrimination, on whatever grounds. That means having some
> limits on what can be said.

[snipped lots of good stuff]

100% agree with everything you have said.

[Jason]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 20:54:25 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 16/01/2022 09:04, Timreason wrote:
>
>> Yes. But the nearby Methodist church seems to be doing better nowadays,
>> bucking the trend.
>
> I'm glad to hear both bits of news.

Are you glad that the "little hut" church still exists, or glad that it
has failed to grow into a 10,000 seat mega-church? :-)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 17/01/2022 13:11, Jason wrote:

> Are you glad that the "little hut" church still exists, or glad that it
> has failed to grow into a 10,000 seat mega-church? :-)

I am glad that it has failed to grow and glad that the Methodists (who
are relatively normal) have grown.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 17/01/2022 13:09, Jason wrote:

>> Should tolerance tolerate intolerance?

> I would argue that 'ummmm' is a much better (and more Christian) answer
> than 'yes'. For example, suppose some state is intolerant towards
> Christians, leading to persecution and incarceration. Should we all
> tolerate that viewpoint?

I think we are in agreement that tolerance should have limits.

>> Should tolerance tolerate those things which are clearly evil

> Again, this is not so clear cut, not least because "clearly evil" is not
> well defined. Is blasphemy clearly evil? If so, does it apply to any
> deity, or just the one you happen to believe in?

I agree that it is not clear cut - which is why I tend towards free
speech. (Someone here appeared to decry that attitude!) The only trouble
is that free speech without limits - as America shows - is not
necessarily a good thing.

Personally I would like to see a robust debate in society as to what
limits should be placed on free speech: for example, no advocating of
violence or anything illegal, no child porn, "normal" porn kept from
children, criminal deception banned. (Which immediately runs foul of
certain groups which would class religion as deception!)

[Graham Nye]

On 2022-01-17 20:21:00, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>
> ... the Methodists (who are relatively normal) ...

Well, thanks, I guess.


--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk