Is it appropriate to read the Bible out loud in public?

[Josh]

Not according to the UK government's prosecutors:

Fears raised about freedom of expression as prosecutors say ​​​​​​​it is ‘no longer appropriate’ to quote parts of the Bible in public​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
A statement by the UK's main prosecution service that it is "no longer appropriate" to read parts of the Bible aloud in public has been dubbed "ill-judged" and "concerning".

While pressing their case against him though, the CPS presented the following argument, in writing, to the defence:

"Whether a statement of Christian belief or not, the court is being asked to consider whether the language has the potential to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

"This document is not the forum for religious debate, but the bible contains other material recognising slavery (Exodus 21:7), the death sentence (Exodus 35:2 and Leviticus 24:16) and cannibalism (Deuteronomy 28:27).

"There are references in the bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public."

[Bootstrap]

Following the link above, this seems to be the issue:

Mr Dunn was charged with using "threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".

It was alleged he shouted that the women would "burn in hell" and called one of them a "devil woman".

Mr Dunn denied this, though his lawyers at the Christian Legal Centre said he acknowledged telling them: “It says in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God”.

So this is not about reading the Bible out loud in public. This is about picking out people and shouting that they are going to hell or calling them devils.

Ultimately, the case was withdrawn.

But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Do we want to insist that the government let other people harass Christians like this in public? If not, maybe we shouldn't insist on the right to do this to them.

[nett]

Following the link above, this seems to be the issue:

Mr Dunn was charged with using "threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".

It was alleged he shouted that the women would "burn in hell" and called one of them a "devil woman".

Mr Dunn denied this, though his lawyers at the Christian Legal Centre said he acknowledged telling them: “It says in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God”.

So this is not about reading the Bible out loud in public. This is about picking out people and shouting that they are going to hell or calling them devils.

Ultimately, the case was withdrawn.

But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Do we want to insist that the government let other people harass Christians like this in public? If not, maybe we shouldn't insist on the right to do this to them.

you completely ignored the argument that CPS made. Which Josh directly quoted. And Dunn admitted to telling women that homosexuals would not make it to heaven, do you consider that harassment?

Why do you always downplay and distract? It's very misleading as best, and downright dishonest at worst.

[Bootstrap]

Following the link above, this seems to be the issue:

Mr Dunn was charged with using "threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".

It was alleged he shouted that the women would "burn in hell" and called one of them a "devil woman".

Mr Dunn denied this, though his lawyers at the Christian Legal Centre said he acknowledged telling them: “It says in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God”.

So this is not about reading the Bible out loud in public. This is about picking out people and shouting that they are going to hell or calling them devils.

Ultimately, the case was withdrawn.

But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Do we want to insist that the government let other people harass Christians like this in public? If not, maybe we shouldn't insist on the right to do this to them.

you completely ignored the argument that CPS made. Which Josh directly quoted.

I don't think so. I think I put it in context. Josh's post sounded almost like someone was innocently reading the Beatitudes and got arrested. That's not what happened. If Dunn had not been directly harassing someone, telling them they were going to hell, there would have been no issue. Dunn was not charged with reading the Bible.

So let's call a spade a spade. When is it appropriate to point out people and tell them, in public, that they are going to hell? Because that's the issue here. Was Dunn even reading the Bible at the time?

Why do you always downplay and distract? It's very misleading as best, and downright dishonest at worst.

Downplay and distract? I think I'm pointing out the central facts of the case. No, this isn't about reading the Bible in public and getting in trouble for it. That's simply not what happened.

[Ken]

Following the link above, this seems to be the issue:

Mr Dunn was charged with using "threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".

It was alleged he shouted that the women would "burn in hell" and called one of them a "devil woman".

Mr Dunn denied this, though his lawyers at the Christian Legal Centre said he acknowledged telling them: “It says in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God”.

So this is not about reading the Bible out loud in public. This is about picking out people and shouting that they are going to hell or calling them devils.

Ultimately, the case was withdrawn.

But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Do we want to insist that the government let other people harass Christians like this in public? If not, maybe we shouldn't insist on the right to do this to them.

you completely ignored the argument that CPS made. Which Josh directly quoted. And Dunn admitted to telling women that homosexuals would not make it to heaven, do you consider that harassment?

Why do you always downplay and distract? It's very misleading as best, and downright dishonest at worst.

I'm a school teacher. Can I use my freedom of speech and freedom of religion to tell my Christian students that they are going to hell and will burn in eternal damnation because they do not believe in the Five Pillars of Islam?

What about outside of school? Can I stand outside the school and scream at them every day when they come out? Would this be considered harassment?

I frankly think that most religious fanatics you encounter on the street are best ignored. But I can understand how some might find it to be a form of harassment.

[MaxPC]

Not according to the UK government's prosecutors:

Fears raised about freedom of expression as prosecutors say ​​​​​​​it is ‘no longer appropriate’ to quote parts of the Bible in public​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
A statement by the UK's main prosecution service that it is "no longer appropriate" to read parts of the Bible aloud in public has been dubbed "ill-judged" and "concerning".

While pressing their case against him though, the CPS presented the following argument, in writing, to the defence:

"Whether a statement of Christian belief or not, the court is being asked to consider whether the language has the potential to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

"This document is not the forum for religious debate, but the bible contains other material recognising slavery (Exodus 21:7), the death sentence (Exodus 35:2 and Leviticus 24:16) and cannibalism (Deuteronomy 28:27).

"There are references in the bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public."

Socialism is intolerant of faith groups. UK has had a socialistic culture and government for decades which has contributed to the silencing of the public voice of faith groups. Being a part of the EU exacerbated that aspect.

There has also been an overt effort to discredit faith groups by both the government and private sectors. One infamous example was the derogatory “documentary” about Bruderhof in the UK. It was less of a documentary and more of a tabloid type effort.

A similar effort in the US was pushed about 15 years ago in which a network did an alleged “reality show” on the Hutterites; frankly it was a hit piece and it stopped when the Hutterites hired legal help. I am told that the same network contacted some of our Plain Catholics who, knowing the nature of dishonest programming, promptly turned the network down.

God’s teachings in the Bible will cause the sinful world to cringe as their hearts are convicted of those behaviors. It will rebel, persecute and try to silence God. Nevertheless some will convert and become new men. It is for that reason that we will continue to elevate God’s teachings.

[Josh]

I will repeat the government’s own words:

"There are references in the bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public."

At question here is if the Bible in its entirety can be read in public or not. The government’s position is that it can’t be.

[Bootstrap]

I will repeat the government’s own words:

"There are references in the bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public."

At question here is if the Bible in its entirety can be read in public or not. The government’s position is that it can’t be.

To put that in context, if I start shouting at you that you are going to hell, in front of other people, making a scene, that can be considered offensive even if I quote phrases from Scripture while doing so.

And no, nobody was "reading the Bible in its entirety". He was taking phrases out of context, using them as invectives, harassing someone. This wasn't a Bible reading.

Suppose a Muslim were to do this to you or your children. Wouldn't you find that offensive? Even if they used phrases taken from the Quran?

[MaxPC]

I will repeat the government’s own words:

"There are references in the bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public."

At question here is if the Bible in its entirety can be read in public or not. The government’s position is that it can’t be.

Knowing my own UK as I do, this is the legal thin wedge to outright banning of any Bible reading. Church is a public place. Theological discussions take place in public. Socialism is an extreme in and of itself, especially where religion is concerned.

[temporal1]

I will repeat the government’s own words:

"There are references in the bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public."

At question here is if the Bible in its entirety can be read in public or not.
The government’s position is that it can’t be.

To put that in context, if I start shouting at you that you are going to hell, in front of other people, making a scene, that can be considered offensive even if I quote phrases from Scripture while doing so.

And no, nobody was "reading the Bible in its entirety". He was taking phrases out of context, using them as invectives, harassing someone. This wasn't a Bible reading.

Suppose a Muslim were to do this to you or your children. Wouldn't you find that offensive? Even if they used phrases taken from the Quran?

PLENTY goes on that is offensive, but, deemed legal.
Example: i’m extremely offended at blasphemous gaudy flags constantly waved in my face, the faces of my family, and the world.
i consider them intentional violence. THEY HURT. on gov property, they may be .. (treason?? or some serious gov offense.)

yet. there they are. offending without restraint.

i believe it was forum member RuthG in England awhile back who was retired from courtroom child advocacy who described/warned about their current legal system taking a view that Christian families were less worthy than others.

This is quite a turn just in my lifetime when, in the recent past, being Christian was viewed as a positive in courts.
Wow. Great work, people! What an improvement! What else can we do while we’re at it?! ..

P.39 / Canada has plenty of fun ideas
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... &start=380

There really is no serious argument that Christianity isn’t under attack. [Lots of denial.]
Esp enthusiastic denial by those who literally vote for these policies - but don’t want to admit it (to themselves or others).
These are eager to minimize/deny potential negatives, or even promote arguments there are positives. “True believers.”

Law schools teach this: How to defend (the defenseless). Defense law is a major money-maker.
Arguing for the sake of arguing is a popular passtime.

i really-really understand the power of denial. it’s huge. “we deceive ourselves” 1 John 1:8

for example, the heartfelt denial of a mother of a murderous son. there can be no denying she cannot believe his guilt!!
even in the face of overwhelming hard evidence. it’s just too much. i get it. it’s tragic. i grieve with these mothers.

their deeply loving hearts do not undo murder.