link
A police force was caught up in a freedom of speech row after its officers arrested an anti-gay campaigner for handing out leaflets at a homosexual rally.
South Wales police admitted evangelical Christian Stephen Green was then charged purely because his pamphlets contained anti-gay quotations from the Bible.
...
The action against Mr Green came after he and a fellow member of his evangelical group, Christian Voice, tried to distribute leaflets at the gay Mardi Gras event in Cardiff.
Several thousand people attended the event, which included a gay rugby tournament and a 'top gayer motor show', and which was addressed on the importance of tolerance by Liberal Democrat council chief Rodney Berman.[/url]
link2
Author Lynette Burrows received a warning from the Metropolitan Police merely for suggesting that gay people did not make ideal adoptive parents....
An elderly evangelical preacher, Harry Hammond, was convicted of a public order offence after he held up a poster calling for an end to homosexuality, lesbianism and immorality.
Although he had been the victim of a physical attack when a crowd poured soil and water over him, he alone was prosecuted.[/url]
Now, in a previous thread, I raised the question of which principle should win if they should come into conflict, sexual liberty, or religious liberty. Few in that thread were willing to accept that such a conflict will ever exist... yet here we are, or at least the Brits have reached the point...
So, questions for debate:
1) Would you characterize these incidents as 'free speech' issues, religious freedom, or both?
2) When they come into conflict, which should prevail, sexual or religious liberty?
Edited to fix links -Jaime
A police force was caught up in a freedom of speech row after its officers arrested an anti-gay campaigner for handing out leaflets at a homosexual rally.
South Wales police admitted evangelical Christian Stephen Green was then charged purely because his pamphlets contained anti-gay quotations from the Bible.
...
The action against Mr Green came after he and a fellow member of his evangelical group, Christian Voice, tried to distribute leaflets at the gay Mardi Gras event in Cardiff.
Several thousand people attended the event, which included a gay rugby tournament and a 'top gayer motor show', and which was addressed on the importance of tolerance by Liberal Democrat council chief Rodney Berman.[/url]
link2
Author Lynette Burrows received a warning from the Metropolitan Police merely for suggesting that gay people did not make ideal adoptive parents....
An elderly evangelical preacher, Harry Hammond, was convicted of a public order offence after he held up a poster calling for an end to homosexuality, lesbianism and immorality.
Although he had been the victim of a physical attack when a crowd poured soil and water over him, he alone was prosecuted.[/url]
Now, in a previous thread, I raised the question of which principle should win if they should come into conflict, sexual liberty, or religious liberty. Few in that thread were willing to accept that such a conflict will ever exist... yet here we are, or at least the Brits have reached the point...
So, questions for debate:
1) Would you characterize these incidents as 'free speech' issues, religious freedom, or both?
2) When they come into conflict, which should prevail, sexual or religious liberty?
Edited to fix links -Jaime
QUOTE
1) Would you characterize these incidents as 'free speech' issues, religious freedom, or both?
This issue has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with free speech. This man was arrested because of what he was communicating, period. That's wrong, and undemocratic, and goes against everything that liberal democracies should stand for but this has absolutely, 100% nothing to with religious liberties.
QUOTE
2) When they come into conflict, which should prevail, sexual or religious liberty
Put me down in the corner with those "unwilling to accept" that this conflict is occuring, I don't see any evidence of it at all. In fact, I don't even see how the two can possibly conflict with each other, at least based on the United States' Constitution. As for worldwide, again, I would have to see evidence of such a conflict for me to answer the question in a global context.
CP
Assuming everything here is accurately portrayed, this definitely is a free speech issue, and I don't accept the argument that this represents a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, since nobody's sexual liberty was being threatened here.
Absent further information which may change my mind, I so far don't see it as a religious freedom issue, because the law under which these people were charged seems to be religiously neutral, even if it is a bit on the anal-retentive side.
Absent further information which may change my mind, I so far don't see it as a religious freedom issue, because the law under which these people were charged seems to be religiously neutral, even if it is a bit on the anal-retentive side.
Some perspective on whether or not this is a religious freedom issue:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Let me say first of all that I strongly defend the right of Stephen Green and others to express their religious opinions in a peaceful manner, although I absolutely disagree with them. Unless there is some evidence that the anti-gay protesters were behaving in a disruptive manner (and I see nothing that suggests that this was the case), I have to assume that the police had no business interfering with them. There are many lessons to be learned from this incident.
The power of law enforcement must always be restricted to avoid abuses of this kind.
Laws against "hate speech" are a very bad idea.
The strict separation of church and state is not only good for secularists like me, but it is also good for persons of faith. One only has to look at Europe to see that the best way to weaken religion in a society is to make it official.
To address the question at hand, this is clearly a case of free speech being restricted without just cause. The fact that the speech was religiously inspired is a secondary issue. Religiously inspired speech is entitled to exactly the same protections as any other form of speech, and no more. (It should be noted here that we are talking about the free speech of the individual. Government entities do not have the right to issue official opinions on matters of faith, just as they are rightly restricted in many other ways.)
I'm a little baffled by the concept of a conflict between sexual freedom and religious freedom. Like the freedom of speech, these are both good things, witha few very limited and necessary restrictions. It's hard to imagine how the sexual freedom of anyone can threaten the religious freedom of anyone. (If I try to prevent someone from expressing a religious opinion about sexual behavior, I am not practicing sexual freedom; I am attacking religious freedom, which is clearly unacceptable.) It is easier to come up with examples of how religious opinions have led some people to try to restrict the sexual freedom of others, which is also unacceptable.
I am in favor of as much freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of sexuality as possible for the individual, with only the absolute minimum of restrictions necessary to protect the freedom of other individuals.
The power of law enforcement must always be restricted to avoid abuses of this kind.
Laws against "hate speech" are a very bad idea.
The strict separation of church and state is not only good for secularists like me, but it is also good for persons of faith. One only has to look at Europe to see that the best way to weaken religion in a society is to make it official.
To address the question at hand, this is clearly a case of free speech being restricted without just cause. The fact that the speech was religiously inspired is a secondary issue. Religiously inspired speech is entitled to exactly the same protections as any other form of speech, and no more. (It should be noted here that we are talking about the free speech of the individual. Government entities do not have the right to issue official opinions on matters of faith, just as they are rightly restricted in many other ways.)
I'm a little baffled by the concept of a conflict between sexual freedom and religious freedom. Like the freedom of speech, these are both good things, witha few very limited and necessary restrictions. It's hard to imagine how the sexual freedom of anyone can threaten the religious freedom of anyone. (If I try to prevent someone from expressing a religious opinion about sexual behavior, I am not practicing sexual freedom; I am attacking religious freedom, which is clearly unacceptable.) It is easier to come up with examples of how religious opinions have led some people to try to restrict the sexual freedom of others, which is also unacceptable.
I am in favor of as much freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of sexuality as possible for the individual, with only the absolute minimum of restrictions necessary to protect the freedom of other individuals.
1) Would you characterize these incidents as 'free speech' issues, religious freedom, or both?
Free speech, without a doubt. Speech, unless threatening " I am going to kill gays" = should be allowed. Helvétius might be summed up: ‘How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,”
2) When they come into conflict, which should prevail, sexual or religious liberty?
I think there is no religious liberty issue here- but a free speech issue. It becomes a religious vs sexual if laws are passed banning gays based on religious reasons- like the Taliban on gays or the Republicans on gays in the US- no rational reason for banning it- just religious ones- that would be a religious vs sexual fight- this is strict free speech issue- so, bad question I guess- I think religious freedom should lose every time to sexual, always, and everytime. As long as the issue is restricting something through religous ideation- yes, religion should lose, as long as the behavior on church ground is allowed to be forbidden- no gay sex in the church legislated by law.
Free speech, without a doubt. Speech, unless threatening " I am going to kill gays" = should be allowed. Helvétius might be summed up: ‘How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,”
2) When they come into conflict, which should prevail, sexual or religious liberty?
I think there is no religious liberty issue here- but a free speech issue. It becomes a religious vs sexual if laws are passed banning gays based on religious reasons- like the Taliban on gays or the Republicans on gays in the US- no rational reason for banning it- just religious ones- that would be a religious vs sexual fight- this is strict free speech issue- so, bad question I guess- I think religious freedom should lose every time to sexual, always, and everytime. As long as the issue is restricting something through religous ideation- yes, religion should lose, as long as the behavior on church ground is allowed to be forbidden- no gay sex in the church legislated by law.
1) Would you characterize these incidents as 'free speech' issues, religious freedom, or both?
It's a freedom of speech issue, there's no doubt. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that two British police forces have taken the prevailing zeitgeist too far; they always have done. Two decades or more ago, when racism was still widely acceptable (it's still practised, but no longer acceptable in public) police forces in the UK routinely mistreated blacks and Asians. While such mistreatment still goes on, victims can expect the establishment to side with them these days, and not with the miscreants.
Which leads me to my next point - if this goes the way I expect, Mr Greene's appearance in court will exonerate him and criticise the police for heavy-handedness and their restriction on freedom of speech. Which then makes the whole case an example of over-enthusiastic enforcement - hardly a first in global policing.
If the dooomsayers of the Christian Right and the Daily Mail* are right and this is an example of the abandonment of freedoms (which the British have never explicitly had anyway - our freedoms have always been based on being allowed to do anything which isn't illegal), Mr Greene will go to trial and be found guilty. I believe (and hope) that this is not likely, and so this will be a storm in a teacup, albeit a disturbing one.
*Melanie Phillips is widely known in the UK as a reflexive Chicken Licken. The sky is always falling, and it's always the fault of the 'liberal establishment'. She has some valid points to make, but since her solutions would result in an extreme Thatcherite dictatorship where any criticism of the USA, Christianity or Israel would be illegal and Muslims would be treated the way Catholics were in the 17th Century as some sort of fifth column, you should take her comments with a hefty pinch of salt.)
2) When they come into conflict, which should prevail, sexual or religious liberty?
Sexual, always. Any legal activity that is frowned on by one sect or another needs to be defended from their attempts to outlaw or outcast those that practise it. In the UK, it's more than likely that this is the way things will be - we are dramatically more secular than Americans. It's one of the biggest gulfs in national character and culture between us.
Some say it makes us vulnerable to extremism, particularly Muslim extremism. I'm not so sure. My hunch is that the British don't mind being manipulated as long as they don't feel manipulated, and even then they don't like to dramatically change the way they do things. And they HATE being hectored or told what to think; proselytising religions of all stripes tend not to be any good at all at subtle persuasion, and Islam especially wants vast change from the hedonistic and selfish tendencies of modern Brit culture. Despite our often cowardly indulgence towards Islamic extremism (one of the articles linked mentions that had the people handing out the anti-gay leaflets been Muslim, it's unlikely they'd have been arrested & charged, and there's an element of truth in that), the oft-repeated accusation that Britian will end up as a Muslim state under Sharia law just demonstrates how little the accusers know the British. It will only happen if Islam and Sharia adapt to fit the British, not the other way around -that's the way things have happended here for four millennia and I see no reason to think it won't continue that way for the next four.
It's a freedom of speech issue, there's no doubt. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that two British police forces have taken the prevailing zeitgeist too far; they always have done. Two decades or more ago, when racism was still widely acceptable (it's still practised, but no longer acceptable in public) police forces in the UK routinely mistreated blacks and Asians. While such mistreatment still goes on, victims can expect the establishment to side with them these days, and not with the miscreants.
Which leads me to my next point - if this goes the way I expect, Mr Greene's appearance in court will exonerate him and criticise the police for heavy-handedness and their restriction on freedom of speech. Which then makes the whole case an example of over-enthusiastic enforcement - hardly a first in global policing.
If the dooomsayers of the Christian Right and the Daily Mail* are right and this is an example of the abandonment of freedoms (which the British have never explicitly had anyway - our freedoms have always been based on being allowed to do anything which isn't illegal), Mr Greene will go to trial and be found guilty. I believe (and hope) that this is not likely, and so this will be a storm in a teacup, albeit a disturbing one.
*Melanie Phillips is widely known in the UK as a reflexive Chicken Licken. The sky is always falling, and it's always the fault of the 'liberal establishment'. She has some valid points to make, but since her solutions would result in an extreme Thatcherite dictatorship where any criticism of the USA, Christianity or Israel would be illegal and Muslims would be treated the way Catholics were in the 17th Century as some sort of fifth column, you should take her comments with a hefty pinch of salt.)
2) When they come into conflict, which should prevail, sexual or religious liberty?
Sexual, always. Any legal activity that is frowned on by one sect or another needs to be defended from their attempts to outlaw or outcast those that practise it. In the UK, it's more than likely that this is the way things will be - we are dramatically more secular than Americans. It's one of the biggest gulfs in national character and culture between us.
Some say it makes us vulnerable to extremism, particularly Muslim extremism. I'm not so sure. My hunch is that the British don't mind being manipulated as long as they don't feel manipulated, and even then they don't like to dramatically change the way they do things. And they HATE being hectored or told what to think; proselytising religions of all stripes tend not to be any good at all at subtle persuasion, and Islam especially wants vast change from the hedonistic and selfish tendencies of modern Brit culture. Despite our often cowardly indulgence towards Islamic extremism (one of the articles linked mentions that had the people handing out the anti-gay leaflets been Muslim, it's unlikely they'd have been arrested & charged, and there's an element of truth in that), the oft-repeated accusation that Britian will end up as a Muslim state under Sharia law just demonstrates how little the accusers know the British. It will only happen if Islam and Sharia adapt to fit the British, not the other way around -that's the way things have happended here for four millennia and I see no reason to think it won't continue that way for the next four.
1) Would you characterize these incidents as 'free speech' issues, religious freedom, or both?
Free speech. I guess this allows gay people to hand out leaflets at religious rallies too. I don't think either practice is very smart. It's asking for trouble and could come under the riot control laws. Not sure how the UK handles this.
2) When they come into conflict, which should prevail, sexual or religious liberty?
I don't get this question. One must make a conscious decision to join any particular religion, whereas sexual orientation isn't such a conscious decision, if there is one at all.
If a person joins XYZ religion, and that religion preaches that homosexuality is evil, then that person must put aside whatever homosexual tendencies he or she might have. If that engages conflict, then the individual must resolve the conflict.
If a person joins XYZ religion, and that religion preaches that people outside the religion are evil, then the religion is really a cult. This is a common cult practice, and if it infringes on the freedoms of people outside the cult, the cult is wrong.
So the question should be: "Which should prevail, civil or religious liberty?" No religion should dictate the behavior of non-members. That comes under civil law.
Free speech. I guess this allows gay people to hand out leaflets at religious rallies too. I don't think either practice is very smart. It's asking for trouble and could come under the riot control laws. Not sure how the UK handles this.
2) When they come into conflict, which should prevail, sexual or religious liberty?
I don't get this question. One must make a conscious decision to join any particular religion, whereas sexual orientation isn't such a conscious decision, if there is one at all.
If a person joins XYZ religion, and that religion preaches that homosexuality is evil, then that person must put aside whatever homosexual tendencies he or she might have. If that engages conflict, then the individual must resolve the conflict.
If a person joins XYZ religion, and that religion preaches that people outside the religion are evil, then the religion is really a cult. This is a common cult practice, and if it infringes on the freedoms of people outside the cult, the cult is wrong.
So the question should be: "Which should prevail, civil or religious liberty?" No religion should dictate the behavior of non-members. That comes under civil law.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 10 2006, 07:57 AM) 
2) When they come into conflict, which should prevail, sexual or religious liberty?
I don't get this question. One must make a conscious decision to join any particular religion, whereas sexual orientation isn't such a conscious decision, if there is one at all.
I don't get this question. One must make a conscious decision to join any particular religion, whereas sexual orientation isn't such a conscious decision, if there is one at all.
Sexual activity most certainly is a conscious decision. You can always say that anything people do might be the result of some inborn or otherwise deeply ingrained tendency that they might not have consciously chosen for themselves, but that doesn't mean they have any less control over their actions as a consequence. If we all did everything we were "born" to do, civilization could hardly exist at all.
Not that the above paragraph really does much to answer the question, though. The term "religious liberty" has never been understood to include licence to exercise coercive governmental powers over non-members, so religious liberty could never come into conflict with sexual liberty (or civil liberty).
QUOTE
Sexual activity most certainly is a conscious decision.
Blackstone,
I don't think so. Sexual activity will manifest itself in some form or another, regardless of conscious intent. On the other hand, without a good amount of training, religious activity won't manifest itself other than through the fundamental questions from childhood:
Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? And sometimes, where am I going?
These questions have been answered by religious means for a long time; however, since the Age of Reason, these questions are also being answered by means of science. This shows that religious activity is not as much an inherent human drive as sexual activity is.
We know through science that the sex drive is regulated by hormones. Do we know the same thing about religious drive? I don't think so. There's no "Get Thee Religion" hormone.
Let's put it into another form: You don't have to teach teenagers to want sex. You do have to do this regarding religion, and starting at a pretty young age at that. It's called religious training.
We really don't have any sexual training to speak of. Don't do it, and if you do, be careful. That's about it.
Another contrast: Trying to not have sex is a discipline. Trying to not have religion is easy, even fun!.
Reversed: Trying to have sex is fun! Trying to have religion is a discipline.
And finally, no cult has ever had to brainwash people into having sex. Brainwashing is a necessary step to get cult followers to obey, even to the point of mass suicide/murder.
I think it's safe to conclude that sex is basic nature, while religion is not. All mammals have sex. Not all mammals have religion.
QUOTE
1) Would you characterize these incidents as 'free speech' issues, religious freedom, or both?
To me, it's a free speech issue in it's entirety. In the first article, it's clear that the man who handed out pamphlets didn't do anything provocative or in any way, infringed upon the rights of others around him. This is clearly a case where his free speech rights were attacked.
QUOTE
2) When they come into conflict, which should prevail, sexual or religious liberty?
Neither, only free speech liberty should prevail. You have a right to not have the government force religion down your throat. You also have the right to practice whatever religion you so desire. You even have the right to be of a sexual minority practice wise and attempt to influence government to give yourself more rights. You don't have a right to not hear unpopular opinions in public.
And yet another non-skirmish in the nonexistent conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, once again in the UK.
Last night the Liberal Democrats called for Miss Kelly, who is also in charge of Government policy on promoting equality, to resign on the grounds that her personal beliefs are incompatible with advancing gay rights.
Move along folks, nothing to see here, there is no conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, aka "gay rights." Move along....
Last night the Liberal Democrats called for Miss Kelly, who is also in charge of Government policy on promoting equality, to resign on the grounds that her personal beliefs are incompatible with advancing gay rights.
Move along folks, nothing to see here, there is no conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, aka "gay rights." Move along....
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Oct 17 2006, 01:25 AM)
And yet another non-skirmish in the nonexistent conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, once again in the UK.
Last night the Liberal Democrats called for Miss Kelly, who is also in charge of Government policy on promoting equality, to resign on the grounds that her personal beliefs are incompatible with advancing gay rights.
Move along folks, nothing to see here, there is no conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, aka "gay rights." Move along....
Well, she wasn't released due to her religious views. She was released because she didn't do her job in protecting her fellow citizens from beign discriminated against.
QUOTE
The regulations would ban discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexuality in a similar way to the rules on sex and race discrimination.
Interestingly enough, straights could not be banned from gay only facilities or events. The sword of liberty cuts both ways. Had she been a paper-pushing clerk who was relieved of her job due to her religion, that would be one thing, and you would be in the right. However, she refused to enforce civil rights rules and thus, got kicked out. It's very convenient for her to claim it's due to religious reasoning. If her religion prevents her from giving equal treatment to other members of society, then she should resign. If she can bite her lip about it and just believe they will go to hell or ask for a transfer to a different department, then that would've worked. She wrote her own ticket. You don't have a right to discriminate in a public position against a person because of your own personal beliefs within that public institution.
1) Would you characterize these incidents as 'free speech' issues, religious freedom, or both?
Free speech and religious freedom. Religious freedom because of the oh so wonderful free exercise clause in the First Amendment.
Free speech because, like it or not, it's not infringing on anyone else's personal freedoms or liberties. Thanks to our freedom of speech, we can say hateful and unpopular things </sarcasm>.
2) When they come into conflict, which should prevail, sexual or religious liberty?
Sexual, every time. Please do not tell me what to do with my God given body. I'm perfectly capable of making my own (ill)informed decisions, thank you. I do not need a religious doctrine governing my political liberties.
Free speech and religious freedom. Religious freedom because of the oh so wonderful free exercise clause in the First Amendment.
QUOTE
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Free speech because, like it or not, it's not infringing on anyone else's personal freedoms or liberties. Thanks to our freedom of speech, we can say hateful and unpopular things </sarcasm>.
2) When they come into conflict, which should prevail, sexual or religious liberty?
Sexual, every time. Please do not tell me what to do with my God given body. I'm perfectly capable of making my own (ill)informed decisions, thank you. I do not need a religious doctrine governing my political liberties.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.