Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by evangelist6589, Jul 7, 2016.
What is considered hate speech in england? Do open air preachers get arrested often there?
RU planing on going over there?
In Britain 'hate speech' can be anything that the user of the term doesn't like, but it would tend to mean particularly any suggestion that homosexuals may not enter the kingdom of God.
Several street preachers have been arrested on false accusations, but almost every one has been released without charge, though sometimes after spending a night in jail. Street preachers are strongly advised to record everything they preach because people will lie about what they have said.
One guy was taken to court and found guilty, but was freed on appeal. The police are becoming less eager to arrest preachers these days because there are two organizations that will give legal support to street preachers and because they find that the accusations made are usually false.
I did not know this. I guess England is more hostile towards open air preachers than the US. There may be a day in the US that street preachers will have to record their every sermon for fear of being falsely accused. I have preached against homosexuality many times, but I treat it the same as other sins such as fornication and adultery. Some street preachers elevate it to being more serious, and even more so than the blasphemy of the holy Spirit.
No, but if I could...
If you reserch the current lawsuit against the State of Iowa concerning the gender bathroom issue, you will see that this same issue is already rearing its head here. And Canada already has hate speach laws that have been used to silence pastors.
But not open air street preachers.
Just to be quite clear: the law has not silenced street preachers in Britain. Those who have been arrested have either been released without charge or acquitted.
Unless and until the law is changed, people are free to preach the Gospel in the open air in Britain. It is advised that they record themselves to avoid false allegations of promoting hatred or violence.
This is the most recent case I'm aware of:
But what is and who determines what hate speech is.
If I were to preach against child s*x offenders - does that mean I am guilty of hate speech?
From the Public Order Act of 1986:
5.-(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or be- alarm or r haviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
This is just the general provision of miscellany insults. There are sterner provisions for racial insults in particular and when speech has the potential to result in violence or in crowds. Soccer matches (no, I'm not going to call it football), being what they are, also are covered by specific regulations designed to curb hooliganism (which, as it turns out, is an ethnic slur).
I would agree with threatening words -
But insulting is open to interpertution - for example, If I say a adulter is going to hell - that could be taken as insulting......
Yesterday I told someone flat out he was on the way to the fire that does not stop.
Did you stop there? Or did you finish with "but God gave Himself so that you wouldn't"?
If you encourage people to go out and lynch them then yes, that would certainly be against the law, but you could certainly say that such offenders, and indeed homosexuals, adulterers etc., will not inherit the kingdom of God.
The law in Britain seems to be settled that so long as one is not promoting hatred against someone, one can preach whatever one likes. How long that will continue to be the case is another question.
Before I said that I had tried and tried to reason with him but he refused to hear it, and also refused to take a tract so I ended with that line.
So what were you expecting by telling him he was going to hell? At what point did you tell him God so loved him, that He gave His own life for him?
I had a Jehovah's Witness once knock on my door; told him I was in the military; he asked to come in and talk about Jesus; I told him I wasn't interested; he asked to come in two more times; I refused two more times. He then turned away and said, "well, you're just here to kill people anyway."
Do you think that made me more or less receptive to his message?
Preaching on Hell is very neglected these days and most ignore doing so. Law to the proud and grace for the humble is the biblical method of evangelism. If he had shown humility and interested I would have shown and told him about God's grace. But since he was very very proud I did not.
If all they hear is that they've broken the law, then is it possible they're left with an implication that all they have to do is start obeying the law? And thus, they're left with a works-based gospel?
The message is incomplete without the message that the law is incomplete without God's mercy and grace.
The law tells them how to get into jail. Grace tells them how to get out.
Did Jesus talk about love with the rich young ruler? The woman at the well? No he used the law because they were proud. He showed grace to Zachias because he was humble.
Were the rich young ruler or the woman at the well, or Zachias for that matter, saved because of the law?