Sat 1st Nov 2014 | Last updated: Fri 31st Oct 2014 at 16:19pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

Latest News

Vatican cardinal urges British Catholics to make friends with people of other faiths

By on Monday, 17 June 2013

Cardinal Tauran meets Sikh leaders in Birmingham (Photo: Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk)

Cardinal Tauran meets Sikh leaders in Birmingham (Photo: Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk)

A Vatican cardinal has urged British Catholics to make friends with people of other faiths.

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, president of the Pontifical Council of Inter-religious Dialogue, said in a pluralistic society Catholics should be “consciously cultivating friendly relationships” with people of different religions.

The cardinal was speaking during vespers at St Chad’s Cathedral in Birmingham while on a five-day trip to England. During his trip he met Sikhs, Hindus and Jains.

Cardinal Tauran said: “Our society today is increasingly becoming a multi-religious one. Think of the demography of this Archdiocese of Birmingham, what it was some years ago and what it is today.

“Think of the place where you live. Years ago, perhaps the people living next door were those who shared your faith, your culture. But it is not so any more. The families that live next to that of yours either ‘side by side’ or ‘face to face’ are ones that probably belong to other faiths. A good number of your colleagues in the schools, colleges where you learn or teach, the Government or the private offices or the factories, firms that you work in are those who profess a faith that is different than that of yours.

“In this pluralistic situation, we have no other option than consciously cultivating friendly relationships with all of them based on mutual respect and understanding that eventually could lead to mutual collaboration for the common good, for peace and harmony towards the development of the society. This is all what interreligious dialogue is about: Being rooted in our own faith, cultivating, despite differences, harmonious relationships among believers of diverse religions and collaborating with them for the good of humanity with shared values and convictions.”

  • cestusdei

    I’m stubborn? When you try to change my opinion and then claim you are not trying to change my opinion? LOL! Just a few weeks ago a woman was arrested for protesting the murder of a soldier in the street. She dared to say it was an act of Islamic terrorism. She was elderly. Don’t you read your own newspapers? The point remains that we are not all like Westboro and that you benefit immensely from Christianity every time you listen to Bach. So don’t try to shut us down with such tripe.

  • $20596475

    Yes you are extremely stubborn and are now being quite rude. I have told you, in precise and unmistakable terms, that I am not trying to change your opinion and why that is. I am sorry that you cannot understand that but it doesn’t stop it being true and to suggest otherwise is to call me a liar.

    The woman who confronted the murderers of the soldier lives quite close to me. As a consequence she has received a lot of local publicity so I know quite a lot about her. She is not elderly and, although she is Catholic, that fact had little or nothing to do with why she acted as she did. It is though typical that some Catholics wanted their faith to take the credit. She was just outraged and tried to stop further bloodshed. I hope we would all do the same.

    Once again. I have never suggested that you are all like Westboro. I just suggested that one policy, from one contributor, sounded like them. It is a very different claim, but it is typical of the persecution complex which infects so many Catholics that you choose to see it as a blanket condemnation.

    No-one benefits from Christianity when listening to Bach. What complete and utter nonsense. Composers all get their inspiration from a great variety of sources so for anyone else to attribute it to just one really is tripe. Have you spoken to Bach about this? Would he actually know if you did? I don’t want to “shut you down” but I will express an alternative view, and then let others decide which is right.

  • cestusdei

    Rude lol? You are here trying to convince us we are wrong and then claiming that you aren’t trying to do just that. Then when I point it out to you I am being “rude?” The woman’s faith obviously had an effect on her life, but you won’t even admit that. I guess it is too much a threat to your ideology. Given how Christians can be arrested in the UK if they say something that isn’t PC we have every reason to be afraid. Bach’s music is informed by his faith. If you listen to it you benefit too. Look, just be honest and admit all of this. You’ll feel better.

  • $20596475

    Now you are switching from claiming I am trying to change your personal opinion, to suggesting it’s “us” who is the target. Who are “us”? I certainly want some readers here to think about what I am saying and find some sense in it, but whether they change their mind is their business. However you no more speak for them that I do. The point is I am not trying to change “YOUR” mind and after me saying so many times to continue to allege I am is both stubborn and rude.

    You no more know whether the woman’s faith affected her life, and more particularly her response to the situation, than I know it didn’t. It is though typical of those with a religious conviction to assume that anything good has to spring from such a conviction. Religion is good. Atheism is bad. End of story. It is, of course, complete nonsense. I don’t have the ideology. You do!

    More nonsense, and persecution complexes, at play when you suggest that “Christians can be arrested for saying something that isn’t PC”. Give some examples and I will swiftly demolish them for the rubbish they are likely to be. Bach may well have drawn inspiration from his faith. He might also have drawn inspiration from nature, just as Elgar did. Who knows or cares. What matters is what you personally draw from it. If it strengthens your faith I am happy for you, but don’t wish it on me, anymore than I seek to deny you your inspiration.

  • cestusdei

    You want us to “think about what you say?” Why? Because you want us to change our minds and adopt your views! Would you PLEASE stop this prevaricating? Look in the mirror. You are what you claim I am. This woman acted in a Christian manner and you can’t even deal with that. Are you so ideological that you can’t admit that religion has created good things? Listen to one of Bach’s Masses or St. John’s Passion. Do you seriously think they had no religious inspiration? This is why I find atheists so disingenuous.

    You want an example? Okay here is one. Now you may thing homosexuality is great, but in this case just saying what Christianity teaches got this man arrested. He didn’t DO anything. He just SAID something.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

  • $20596475

    The more you write the deeper your hole gets. I have told you in
    specific, and undeniable words, that I am not trying to change your mind. What part of that statement do you not understand?

    Neither of us know the motivations of the woman in question. I have read the local news reports. You have made assumptions. Neither of us have met her, or discussed things with her. It is therefore sad that you attribute her actions as you do. Many people act with compassion whether or not they are inspired by a religious belief.

    When have I ever denied that religion has not created good things? All I have pointed out is that not ALL good things are the result of a religious belief. Of course Bach may well have drawn inspiration from his belief. I have never denied it. All I have said is that he might also have drawn inspiration from other sources. We just don’t know, and I really don’t care. It is just plain stupid to pretend that you know and pretty ironic to claim that atheists are disingenuous when that is precisely what you are being.

    It tells me all that I need to know about the “case” you have trawled up that it was supported by the “Christian Institute”. It has been this organisation which has behind all the various spurious attempts to turn up the heat within the Christian community. They were involved in the “right to wear religious symbols” case, the “guest house and homosexual couple” case, the “foster parents and church case”, the midwifes in Liverpool case” etc, etc. They are trouble makers looking for any opportunity to add to the persecution complex.

    If the report is correct, and who ever fully trusts newspaper reports, it seems that there was probably wrong on both sides. That the police acted to avoid a public order offence seems a sensible act.

    If he acted within the law then he would not have been found guilty, for just expressing religious views in public does not constitute an offence. However, if he used language intended to offend he would have been committing an offence. It therefore depends on exactly what was said. I don’t know what he said, or if he was found guilty. Do you?

    What I am quite sure about is that no Christian has any need to fear expressing religious views in public. They just cannot use offensive language. There is a big difference.

  • cestusdei

    Okay, let me make it clear:
    1. You say you are not trying to change my mind.
    2. Yet you want me to change my mind because we do not agree.

    What does that tell us? That you don’t believe in the principle of non-contradiction? That you are not very bright? Or that you are so blinded by your ideology that you simply can’t see that every post you write IS an attempt to change my/our mind?

    1. You argue that this woman and Bach “might” have been motivated by other things.
    2. Yet this woman is a Christian and so was Bach. This informed what they did.

    Do you serious argue that Bach’s St. John’s Passion was not inspired by Christianity? Really? Are you so fearful of admitting that you would be impoverished without the contributions of Christianity? Again you ideology simply won’t permit you to admit what is manifestly true.

    1. You demand evidence for attacks on Christians.
    2. I provide said evidence from the Daily Telegraph.

    You don’t deny it happened, but question the source. So now it is your turn to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it didn’t happen. The fact is that this man was arrested for saying something that 20 years ago would have been non-controversial. He did nothing to anyone. He expressed his opinion. So to you he is a trouble maker. In other words you JUSTIFY his persecution. It was precisely his expression of religious views that got him arrested. That is the point. You define our faith as offensive language and therefore legalize the criminalization of Christianity. THIS is why we should be afraid. We both know if this man were arrested for offending Christians you would be screaming your head off. Where do we see atheists arrested when the Pope visited the UK and they shouted insulting things? There is a big difference eh?

    So what have we discovered? That you are blinded by ideology, justify hateful attacks on Christians, and are a hypocrite. Now, do I need to draw you a picture or will you finally admit the truth?

  • $20596475

    You are unbelievable! I have no interest at all in trying to change your mind over anything. Even that I am not trying to change your mind.

    What I care about is correcting a lie. When someone questions my motives and posts an inaccurate statement, then it has to be rebutted. Not for your benefit, but for mine in the eyes of other readers. The ONLY person who knows my motivation is me, so please stop this intransigence.

    Of course Bach might (even probably was) have been inspired by his faith when writing his piece. But he also might have been inspired, in some ways, by other things. You don’t KNOW any more than I do.You just assume it must be true, and want to claim the credit for his faith. The same applies to the woman. You make assumptions. I don’t.

    I am not fearful of anything. Indeed it seems to me that you are fearful to consider that non believers are capable of doing any good things and want to reserve them all to believers.

    I don’t question that the man was arrested and charged. What I question is why. I don’t trust newspaper reports, which often sensationalise. I also don’t trust the”Christian Institute” who feed spun stories to lazy journalists which then get reported inaccurately. You might swallow this story hook line and sinker but I would need a lot more convincing that this guy really was only speaking about his faith. Faith is NOT offensive so no-one has anything to fear by expressing it. Encouraging hatred is an offence so unless we know exactly what was said, and not what was claimed in the report, I think we need to suspend judgement.

    Hate speech applies to all, just as freedom of speech does. If anyone did anything to encourage hatred during the Pope’s visit then I have no doubt at all that they would have been arrested.You are just trying to see offence where none exists. Persecution complex in play again I am afraid.

    There is the truth for you, but I have no expectation that you will be able to see it, or any wish that you change your mind over anything.

  • cestusdei

    But you are! That’s why we are still arguing! You want to “correct” me! Either you are blind or stupid.

    So Bach writes a piece based on St. John’s gospel and was “probably” inspired by his faith? Read that again. Now how does that look? Insane? Yep.

    If you don’t trust the reports then why not post the real story? Because you already know I am right and don’t want to admit it. There are other such stories, I just picked that one. We both know that or you are seriously uninformed about your own country. Our faith teaches what that guy said and he got arrested for saying it and you defended it. I won’t “suspend judgment” on a clear civil rights violation. Your side wants to define “hate speech” to include our doctrines. That sets up persecution. None of the anti-Catholic’s were arrested. They got a free pass. Gee, i wonder why?

    At the very end you say “or any wish that you change your mind over anything.” So you do admit that you are trying to change my mind, after you denied it. LOL

  • $20596475

    Insults and rudeness do not constitute debate. Nor do they, so far as I am aware, represent Christian charity. All I wish to correct is a blatant lie about my own motivation. This is something which any person with a modicum of self respect would seek to do. I thought you as a Catholic respected the truth.

    If I was a composer I could write a piece about the St John’s gospel, but I would not be inspired by any faith. Bach might well have been, but might also have drawn some inspiration from other sources. Who knows? I don’t and nor do you, because he isn’t around to ask. It is not a complicated, nor even a very important point. I don’t expect you to agree. I am not trying to change your mind. I am just expressing my opinion.

    I was not aware of Dale McAlpine, or his activities, before you drew my attention to him. He is NOT a Catholic. He is a Baptist who regularly preaches in the street in his home town. I have now done some research, which largely confirms what I thought. He was arrested to stop a public order offence being committed, and in response to a complaint. The Police have a duty to respond in such circumstances. Although he was charged, those charges were dropped by the CPS, which is exactly what their role is if an over zealous Police Officer decides to press charges. This is part of the BBC report on the same incident:-

    ” Veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell condemned the arrest and urged the home secretary to issue new guidelines to the police.

    He said: “Although I disagree with Dale Mcalpine and support protests against his homophobic views, he should not have been arrested and charged. Criminalisation is a step too far.”

    Chf Supt Steve Johnson, police commander for West Cumbria, said: “We would like to reassure the public that we respect, and are committed to upholding, the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

    “We are just as committed to maintaining the peace and preventing people feeling alarmed or distressed by the actions of others in public places.

    “Our officers and staff often have to make difficult decisions whilst balancing the law and people’s human rights, this is not easy especially when on occasions opinions and interpretations differ.””

    So even the most prominent gay rights campaigner in the UK does not think he was doing anything wrong. I trust that satisfies you.

    I don’t know if anyone else was arrested, but if they weren’t that would only be because they had not committed any offence and not because they didn’t believe.

    You really do have a bad persecution complex don’t you? I suggest you seek treatment for it, and recommend that you spend some time with decent non believers to gain confidence that they are not bad people.

  • cestusdei

    So you ARE trying to correct me and change my mind. The very thing you deny you are trying to do. I do respect the truth which is why I am point out that you ARE lying when you claim you are not here to change anyones mind. You even are so obtuse that you doubt that Bach was motivated by his faith when composing music about his faith! The man was a Christian and arrested for expressing his faith. So expressing his faith is now a public order offense. This is happening with more frequency. Here is another example:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2006/sep/06090703

    I don’t have to look hard for this kind of thing. You don’t seem to find it hard to defend this persecution. Is there a treatment for that?

  • $20596475

    I am beginning to worry about your state of mind and capacity to understand straightforward English. No matter how clearly I say something you continue to challenge it. I did not say I was not here to change anyone’s mind. I said I was not trying to change YOUR mind. However I am also not really trying to change other minds either, for that is their decision. All I do is express opinions and then let people decide for themselves. Do you really not grasp the difference?

    We just don’t know what motivated Bach. You might make assumptions but I don’t. You might be right, but equally you might not be. I am not saying I know any better. All I am doing is expressing the doubt that surrounds any uncertainty. Do you really not grasp the difference?

    I have explained in some detail why your assumption that the reason for the man’s arrest was not as a consequence of his religious belief, but because of the danger of a public order offence and a complaint. Do you really not grasp the difference?

    I fully accept that there is plenty of evidence of the persecution complex being displayed by a certain type of Christian. The further example you cite falls exactly into this category. It is not holding religious views and speaking about them, which is in issue. It is the words that are used and how they are delivered which matter. In this case the man was arrested to avoid further trouble, refused a caution so was charged. It was a preventative action. This though is not evidence of any actual persecution. Do you really not grasp the difference?

  • cestusdei

    I challenge it because we don’t agree. Because we don’t agree you are trying to change my mind. While claiming you are not trying to change my mind. It is actually quite funny. And yes you want to change the minds of all of us religious types. That’s why you are here. Just admit it and move on. If you don’t know what motivated Bach then I suggest you listen to his music. Perhaps that might help you. There is no doubt that his faith influenced his work and to say otherwise is simply insane. I posted another story of a Christian being arrested for…being a Christian. Yet somehow that doesn’t penetrate. You basically admit that freedom of speech doesn’t apply to Christians who say what we believe. That is the “type” you don’t mind persecuting, the ones who speak their mind. This doesn’t happen to atheists who speak their minds. It is so interesting that you justify oppression and the denial of basic human rights to those you don’t agree with. Do you not grasp the irony?

  • $20596475

    We can agree about one thing. I really is quite funny that you are completely unable to grasp what is quite a simple thing. Which is that when you debate something it is not always with the purpose of trying to change your opponents mind. Especially when that someone has an obviously fixed opinion. The debate is continued so that others can be informed and then reach their own conclusions. That is not changing particular minds. It is contributing to the debate.

    This is precisely what I am doing, whether you can understand it or not.

    Once again you assume you know what someone else thinks. You do it with me, and again with Bach. A little arrogant don’t you think? You can be sure that YOU get your inspiration from Bach, but not where he drew his. You can have a strong impression, which might well be correct, but you do not KNOW.

    The man was NOT arrested for being a Christian. Don’t be silly. He was arrested for saying what he said in a way that was deemed offensive and had been complained about. That you see persecution where none exists is the major problem here, not that society is attacking Christians. Society shows admirable tolerance towards those with specific views, and so do I.

    Of course an “atheist” would be arrested if they committed a public order offence. Why on earth would they not be? I am quite sure many do every day. Many EDL and BNP members hold intolerant views, and get arrested for speaking in a hateful way. I am sure they are not all Christians!

  • cestusdei

    It is very simple. You are not Catholic and come to a Catholic site to convince us that we are wrong. Many of you guys do that. So of course you are trying to change our minds. That is the point. The ONLY reason you deny it is because you don’t like being caught evangelizing when you think evangelization is wrong. That is of course hypocrisy.

    So when Bach composes a piece based on his religious faith you still don’t think it has anything to do with his religious faith? I shake my head in wonder at your obtuseness.

    The man WAS arrested for being a Christian. What he said was offensive precisely because it WAS Christian. To you that isn’t persecution, but if you were arrested for what you have said to me because I was offended I bet you would “change your mind.” Or probably not since you can lead a man to truth, but you can’t make him think. However, no atheists have been arrested. Only Christians. The EDL and BNP are immaterial. Oddly though Muslims can shout “kill the Jews” and get away with it. I guess you secularists have a healthy sense of self-preservation. You know that Christians are an easy target.

    To sum up: I know what you are about, have proven it, and it doesn’t matter how you squirm…your are caught. Game, set, match.

  • $20596475

    I have speaking about YOU, the person. For as far as I know you have no authority to speak for others, or the Catholic Church, although you often seem to claim the right to speak for the whole of Christianity.

    I don’t speak for others, so cannot answer for their motivations. I speak for mine alone and know that you are wrong. It is not a question of “changing your mind”. It is a question of me knowing mine.

    Your stubborness seems boundless. I patiently explain why it is not possible to be certain of anyone’s inspiration, unless you are that person yourself and you then accuse me of denying that Bach might have received his from his faith. Of course he might, Indeed he probably did, but that isn’t the point. Neither of us knows. We just have opinions.

    Yes the man was a Christian but he was NOT arrested because what he said was based on his faith.He was arrested for the particular words he used and the particular way he delivered them. Would you accept a system in which a person could say whatever he liked, in whatever way he chose, and then be allowed to escape arrest just by claiming he said it because it was based on his Christian belief? If we tolerate the hate speech coming from Westboro then I think the lie of what you claim is fully exposed.

    You display evidence of paranoia and it concerns me. Please take a step backwards and deep breath before sending any more replies.

  • cestusdei

    And I am speaking about YOU. You stubbornly try to change our minds while saying you are not trying to change our minds lol. When Bach writes about Christ’s passion he was being inspired by…Christ’s passion lol! I think the problem is that you have never been trained to think. I guess it gets in the way of your pc ideology.

    He was arrested for the particular Christian thoughts and words he used…meaning he was arrested for his Christian faith. If you said there is no God and were arrested for it I suspect you would not be so accepting about it. I live in a system where, for now. I can say whatever I like, in whatever way I choose, and escape arrest. It is people like YOU who are tying to end that liberty. In my nation even Westboro has freedom of speech. No one has the right to never be offended. My paranoia is bolstered by your ease with the persecution of Christians.

  • $20596475

    Let me give a piece of friendly advice. Sometimes, when there is a danger that people might think you are an idiot, it is better to stop pontificating rather than continue and eliminate all doubt.

    When someone has repeatedly assured you that they have no wish to change your mind, but that their contribution is only to ensure that their own opinion is correctly understood, to continue to challenge that statement is idiotic.

    Any artist is likely to draw his inspiration from a variety of sources. That Bach might have done is all I have been pointing out and to continue to make a big deal about it is idiotic.

    The man was arrested by a policeman, who I assume wasn’t you. I wasn’t there, and so far as I am aware nor were you. We are therefore both relying on what was reported to have happened. I have researched further than just the report you referenced and have explained what really happened. He was NOT arrested because he is a Christian, or because what he said was based on Christian values. He was arrested for the particular words he used, the way he said them, the disturbance he was causing and that a complaint had been made. Those facts might not suit you, or the “Christian Institute” who jump in on every potential occasion when a slur might be spun to the media. In every case that I have investigated, and there have been many, it was quickly established that they were nothing of the sort. This organisation are playing politics and seeking to stir up the vulnerable in the faithful. It looks as those they have succeeded with you.

    Freedom of speech is a complete right here in the UK every bit as much as it is in the USA and who-ever suggests otherwise is a liar. Westboro would be allowed to hold their views here and to preach them in public. What they would not be able to do is interfere with the legitimate rights of others to perform legally allowed tasks, or to incite hatred.

  • $20596475

    My friend, I am assuming you are neither British, nor have ever lived here. We have laws here about “public order” and “acting in ways likely to cause a breech of the peace”. People can hold whatever views they like, and they can express them in public, but there are limits on everyone about how they can behave.

    We don’t single out Christians, but we don’t exclude them either from such requirements. No-one can just behave in an way which causes offence to others and then claim immunity because of their belief.

    If an “atheist” behaved in a similar way then they would be just as much at risk of arrest as anyone else and to try to claim anything different is just nonsense. Just this last weekend a member of the EDL (a right wing ant-immigrant group) was arrested. I have no idea if they believe, or not, but the arrest was not for preaching Christianity.

    These are facts I am placing before you. You change your mind if it is open enough to accept them.

  • cestusdei

    I am afraid my first response was deleted. Very odd. Public order is a great way to justify the suppression of Christianity and Christian speech. Only Christians seem subject to such rules. When Muslims cry out for the death of their enemies the police are strangely tolerant. My point remains that it is hypocritical to argue that freedom of speech is subject to politically correct censorship. So, have you finished trying to change my mind while claiming that you are not trying to change my mind?

  • $20596475

    Public order is not used to justify the suppression of anything. Don’t be so paranoid. The law applies to all and is blind to belief. It depends on how things are said and what is likely to happen as a consequence. It is definitely not correct to suggest that freedom of speech is subject to political censorship. In fact that you do is simply more evidence of your persecution complex.

    Whether you change your mind or not is of no consequence to me, especially as it seems really unlikely given your track record.

    My purpose in posting has nothing to do with you. It is to correct untruths for the benefit of other readers, who can then make up their own minds what they think.

  • cestusdei

    That’s exactly what happened! I am not paranoid, but you must be blind. The guy was arrested for expressing Christian beliefs! We don’t see that happening to any other group or you would have posted about it. I don’t think the other readers care one bit about your “correction” or as it is better known “trying to change my mind while claiming you are not trying to change my mind.” I think you are giving yourself far too much credit. The fact we are still arguing about this tells me some interesting facts about you.

    If anyone else is following this little conversation please post here and let us know.

  • $20596475

    You must be in some kind of denial. I have patiently explained how things work in the UK, yet you insist you know better. You have no evidence at all for that, other than a newspaper report, which was spun to them by a politically active interest group. We all know how unreliable such reports are. I have actually bothered to research the incident in more detail and, as I anticipated, the guy was not arrested for expressing his beliefs but for causing a breech of the peace. That he was preaching Christianity at the time was co-incidental. He could have been talking about the price of fish. It was how he behaved and not what he said, which caused it.

    You go on believing your own distortions if you wish. I doubt if anyone else does.

  • cestusdei

    I have been the patient one. I showed you your own newspapers. Expressing his beliefs was labeled “breech of peace.” It is a semantic game played by the PC crowd. “Oh you don’t agree with gay marriage? Then you are guilty of a hate crime.” We see this increasingly used to silence Christians, which doesn’t seem to bother you. No one else is still reading this, so I guess you don’t have as big a following as you thought. No more need to get me to change my mind while claiming you aren’t trying to change my mind.

  • $20596475

    Expressing his own beliefs was not so labelled. Don’t be silly. Just imagine if someone was strongly “anti-Catholic”. They would be allowed to explain their reasoning in public and not be arrested. If, however they argued that all Catholics were evil and should be rounded up and executed then they would be guilty of a hate crime, likely to cause a breech of the peace.

    There are no semantics involved.

  • cestusdei

    So the man expressed Christian beliefs that your ilk think are hateful and was then arrested for a hate crime. In other words Christianity is a hate crime and you use that as a pretext to persecute. Got it. In fact even if someone said all Catholics are evil they should not be arrested. That is the point of freedom of speech! Hate crime laws are used to silence and punish Christians because they are Christians. It is your side that is anti-Catholic and uses this to persecute us. Thank you for illustrating my point. Couldn’t have done a better job.

    I am going away for a few weeks on vacation starting tomorrow. I won’t be able to post for awhile. Do you really want to continue to embarrass yourself? It might be best if you chose a tactful silence and withdrew, but I am betting you won’t. I think you imagine that someone else out there is hanging on your every word. You have not changed my mind and you won’t because I am right.

  • $20596475

    No. He was arrested for what he said and the way he said it. Christians are just as capable of expressing hatred as anyone else. Of course, someone who thinks all Catholics are evil is permitted to say so. What they are not permitted to say is that they should be rounded up and executed. See the difference? Maybe not, because you appear blind to common sense.

    To repeat. The guy was NOT arrested for being Christian, or for preaching his beliefs. He was arrested for acting in a way likely to cause a breech of the peace. We pride ourselves in the UK on being tolerant, and allowing freedom of expression, and the record needs to be put right.

    You go away and have a good think about what truth really is. Sometimes blind prejudice can lead you into believing things to be true that simply aren’t so. I wish you well in that, and hope that your narrow mind broadens a little.

  • cestusdei

    Exactly! He was arrested FOR WHAT HE SAID. Freedom of speech means you can express hatred. That’s why it is freedom. He made no threats to anyone. Breech of peace is simply another way to arrest Christians and pretend it isn’t a violation of their rights. It is a pretext and you agree with it. You allow freedom of expression only when you agree with it. It is you who are prejudiced and narrow minded. You can’t take the truth so you arrest us and justify it. You are the one who is blind or maybe not, perhaps you do understand what I am saying and this is all a pretense to cover your real hatred for us. I have set the record right.

  • $20596475

    But he was NOT arrested for preaching his faith! Freedom of speech is balanced here in the UK by other rights. Which include the right to go about your daily lives without being verbally attacked with offensive language. Rights have to be achieved with responsibility. They are not open ended.

    Whoever acts in a way likely to cause a breech of the peace risks arrest. Being Christian makes you no more, but also no less, susceptible to that. If I stood on a street and shouted abuse at Christians I too would risk arrest. It matters not a jot what your beliefs are. All that matters is your behaviour.

    I don’t hate anyone, but I do hate misrepresentation and a claim to know the truth when it is blindingly obvious that you don’t.

    Your record is one of twist and turn. It is about as straight as a corkscrew.