church charged with hate speech for preaching.

[Bluelion]

Police probe church poster over "burn in hell" message | Christian Concern

 

[GenetoJean]

I am glad the US has different laws then Great Britain.

 

[Ophiolite]

Bluelion, would you clarify for me where it says, to quote your title, that the church was charged with hate speech.

As far as I can see that is most certainly not the case. The police investigated the complaint. Police procedures are required, by law, to place any complaint into a category. This fitted the category of hate speech.

Placing it in that category is not the same as saying it was hate speech. That would be a matter for a court to decide, not the police.

Your suggestion that the church was charged over this is also grossly misleading. I shall assume that was due to a misinterpretation on your part.

The minister of the church removed the poster because, apparently, he recognised that it could be - and indeed had been - misinterpreted and did not wish to cause any more disruption/disagreement in the local community.

Frankly, I think the young man who complained, while entitled to make his point, was being a bit of a provocative prat. I would have left the poster up to be laughed at.

 

[Inkfingers]

"A police spokesman said national guidance required them to investigate the complaint that the poster was offensive and the matter had been recorded as a “hate incident”"



This is what we have to put up with in England - if you preach the Gospel, you WILL be attacked by the State.

"A 20-year-old passer-by complained the sign did not tally with the message “love thy neighbour”."

This is the consequence of a liberal church - it has people believing that "love thy neighbour" means "enable their sin", when it first and foremost means "call all to repent".

 

[Ophiolite]

"A police spokesman said national guidance required them to investigate the complaint that the poster was offensive and the matter had been recorded as a “hate incident”"



This is what we have to put up with in England - if you preach the Gospel, you WILL be attacked by the State.

Bollocks!

In what way was the church, its minister, its congregation, or Christianity being attacked by the State? Arrant nonsense!

A citizen made a complaint. The complaint related to a specific category of offense. The complaint was registered and investigated under that category. No charges were brought. No action was taken by the State. Please tell me how this is an attack by the state?

 

[Inkfingers]

Bollocks!

In what way was the church, its minister, its congregation, or Christianity being attacked by the State? Arrant nonsense!

A citizen made a complaint. The complaint related to a specific category of offense. The complaint was registered and investigated under that category. No charges were brought. No action was taken by the State. Please tell me how this is an attack by the state?

Which part of "recorded as a "hate incident"" did you not read?

 

[Lukaris]

Bollocks!

In what way was the church, its minister, its congregation, or Christianity being attacked by the State? Arrant nonsense!

A citizen made a complaint. The complaint related to a specific category of offense. The complaint was registered and investigated under that category. No charges were brought. No action was taken by the State. Please tell me how this is an attack by the state?

Why did the minister even have to talk to the police? The message is just a preaching and not an incitement; if one does not like it, that is too bad. The offended party can rebuke the church in public forum also.

 

[GenetoJean]

Unfortunately, the story doesnt go into much detail. Someone made a complaint. That complaint, by law, had to be labeled a hate incident. The police investigated(this is where it is really fuzzy, what happend officially after the investigation. The church chose to take down the sign.

 

[Ophiolite]

Which part of "recorded as a "hate incident"" did you not read?

Which part of ". Police procedures are required, by law, to place any complaint into a category. This fitted the category of hate speech." did you not understand.

Recorded in that category does not mean it has been declared as a hate crime, nor judged to be a hate crime. It means it is being investigated as a hate crime. Not as a murder, not as motoring offense, not as a financial fraud, not as a robbery, not as an assault, but as a hate crime.

The systematic approach to justice and policing in the UK requires that any complaint be assigned to a category. Unfortunately there is not a category called "complaint made by time wasting provocative prat", so it goes into the category the complainant was raising it under: hate crime. What's your problem with that?

Why did the minister even have to talk to the police?

Because a complaint has been made. The police are legally obliged to take note of it and must have a very good reason not to carry out an investigation. The minister was then legally obliged to cooperate with that enquiry. As a sound citizen it appears that he did so and, in the interests of community harmony, elected to remove the poster a few days earlier than to would have been routinely replaced.

That looks like a win for the good sense of the police and the minister.

The message is just a preaching and not an incitement; if one does not like it, that is too bad.

It is a matter for a court of law to decide whether or not it was an incitement.

And one could respond, if you don't like provocative prats complaining about it that is also too bad. That attitude gets us nowhere however.

 

[tall73]

Police probe church poster over "burn in hell" message | Christian Concern

Peter addressed churches who were being spoken ill of in I Peter. What the church in the article dealt with was fairly minor, but it is still good to keep in mind.




1Pe 2:19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.
1Pe 2:20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.
1Pe 2:21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.
1Pe 2:22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.
1Pe 2:23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.
1Pe 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.



1Pe 3:13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?
1Pe 3:14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
1Pe 3:15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
1Pe 3:16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
1Pe 3:17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit



1Pe 4:12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.
1Pe 4:13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.
1Pe 4:14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.
1Pe 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler.
1Pe 4:16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.

 

[Bluelion]

Bluelion, would you clarify for me where it says, to quote your title, that the church was charged with hate speech.

As far as I can see that is most certainly not the case. The police investigated the complaint. Police procedures are required, by law, to place any complaint into a category. This fitted the category of hate speech.

Placing it in that category is not the same as saying it was hate speech. That would be a matter for a court to decide, not the police.

Your suggestion that the church was charged over this is also grossly misleading. I shall assume that was due to a misinterpretation on your part.

The minister of the church removed the poster because, apparently, he recognised that it could be - and indeed had been - misinterpreted and did not wish to cause any more disruption/disagreement in the local community.

Frankly, I think the young man who complained, while entitled to make his point, was being a bit of a provocative prat. I would have left the poster up to be laughed at.

ok I will post the article from original source. It was investigate as a hate incident and he was order to take it down, he did not volunteer to take it down..

A baptist church was at the centre of a police probe after a sign which suggested non-Christians would 'burn in hell' was investigated as a 'hate incident'.
The offending sign at Attleborough Baptist Church in Norfolk, pictured burning flames below words which read: 'If you think there is no God you better be right!!'.
Now the church has been forced to remove the sign after a passer-by complained to police that it could 'not be further' from the Christian phrase, love thy neighbour.
Robert Gladwin, 20, said: 'It is my basic understanding that Christianity is inclusive and loving in nature.
'The message being displayed outside of the church could not be further from the often uttered phrase ‘love thy neighbour’.'
Mr Gladwin said he was 'astounded' when he spotted the poster by chance as he was walking home.
He said: 'I was just astounded really. We live in the 21st century and they have put that message - that non-Christians will burn in hell - up to try and scare people into joining their mentality.'
The strongly-worded sign - which was put up next to a notice board which promises that visitors 'can always be sure of a very warm welcome' - was taken down by Pastor John Rose, 69, after police launched an investigation into the complaint.
Mr Rose said he 'regretted' how the poster could have been interpreted.
He said: 'Attleborough Baptist Church offers a variety of ways in which people are able to engage with the Christian message.
'Jesus encourages us to love God and to love our neighbour and we therefore regret that the poster has been seen as inciting hatred.

More...
Church leaders claim bearded drag queen Eurovision winner Conchita Wurst caused the Balkan floods because God 'doesn't want people to join the wild side'
Presbyterian Church ordered to pay $500,000 for 15-year-old schoolboy's drowning death during school excursion
'Indeed, we want to assure all members of our local community that they would be made to feel very welcome at any of the church's activities.'
Mr Rose said he changed the posters on his notice board every two weeks.
The poster has now been replaced by another one with the message : 'God loves you!' and a picture of a meerkat and a speech bubble saying: 'Simples'.
Robert Gladwin, 20, complained to police about the poster after saying it suggesting non-Christians would 'burn in hell'. He said the poster 'could not be further away from the often utter phrase 'love thy neighbour'
+3
Robert Gladwin, 20, complained to police about the poster after saying it suggested non-Christians would 'burn in hell'. He said the poster 'could not be further away from the often uttered phrase 'love thy neighbour'
But despite the sign now being removed, it has still caused controversy in the church's local area.
Chris Copsey, from Norfolk Humanists, branded the sign 'pernicious nonsense'.
He said: 'I believe the people of Attleborough have more common sense than to give this sign any credence.'
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, also defended the church and said police involvement was the equivalent of 'banning the Bible'.
He said: 'Personally I don’t find it offensive. But we did fight a long battle of freedom of speech together with Christian groups because we believe that freedom of speech is essential to a functioning society.
The church has now taken down the poster after being spoken to by police
+3
The church has now taken down the poster after being spoken to by police
'If you don’t give free speech to everybody then it isn’t free speech and as long as they aren’t inciting violence then I think it is acceptable to say whatever you want to say.'
But the Reverand Simon Ward, of the Diocese of Norwich, said: 'I guess they are trying to open a conversation and cause people to think.
'However, I think there are more positive conversations that you could have and more positive reasons for coming to church.'
A Norfolk police spokesman said: 'Norfolk Constabulary received a report regarding a poster outside a church in Attleborough which was deemed offensive by the complainant.
'National guidance required us to investigate the circumstances and the matter has been recorded as a hate incident.
'Having spoken to the pastor of the church, it has been agreed the poster will be taken down.'
The controversy has echoes of a freedom of speech debate sparked in January 2009, after the British Humanist Association launched an anti-religion advertising campaign on London buses.
The campaign was made up of posters disputing the existence of god, which read: 'There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.'
The campaign was originally intended for buses in London, but the appeal spread across the country because it became so popular.


Read more: Police launch probe into church sign that suggested non-Christians will burn in hell after ONE person complained | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

so now i ask you did I say something untrue. i wish people would check facts.

 

[Bluelion]

"A police spokesman said national guidance required them to investigate the complaint that the poster was offensive and the matter had been recorded as a “hate incident”"



This is what we have to put up with in England - if you preach the Gospel, you WILL be attacked by the State.

"A 20-year-old passer-by complained the sign did not tally with the message “love thy neighbour”."

This is the consequence of a liberal church - it has people believing that "love thy neighbour" means "enable their sin", when it first and foremost means "call all to repent".

Amen

 

[Bluelion]

Unfortunately, the story doesnt go into much detail. Someone made a complaint. That complaint, by law, had to be labeled a hate incident. The police investigated(this is where it is really fuzzy, what happend officially after the investigation. The church chose to take down the sign.

I posted the full article i hope this sheds some light on it

 

[Ophiolite]

Read the reports you have quoted. The minister was not forced to take the poster down. He agreed to take it down after talking with the police.

I think I have made it clear in my earlier posts that
a) I think the chap who complained was a prat.
b) I see nothing wrong with the poster being left up.

What I object to is the assertion that "Oh the state is suppressing us and forcing us to remove posters and charging us with hate crime" when none of those things has actually occurred. Bear in mind Exodus 20:16 please.

 

[Andrea411]

What do you think happens in China or a muslim country.... you don't get to post the most hateful thing you can think of outside on a sign... follow the laws of every country in as much as possible

 

[Inkfingers]

Which part of ". Police procedures are required, by law, to place any complaint into a category. This fitted the category of hate speech." did you not understand.

And in requiring by law that normal speaking of the Bible be recorded as "a hate incident".....it is an example of how the State is turning against us here.

 

[Bluelion]

Which part of ". Police procedures are required, by law, to place any complaint into a category. This fitted the category of hate speech." did you not understand.

Recorded in that category does not mean it has been declared as a hate crime, nor judged to be a hate crime. It means it is being investigated as a hate crime. Not as a murder, not as motoring offense, not as a financial fraud, not as a robbery, not as an assault, but as a hate crime.

The systematic approach to justice and policing in the UK requires that any complaint be assigned to a category. Unfortunately there is not a category called "complaint made by time wasting provocative prat", so it goes into the category the complainant was raising it under: hate crime. What's your problem with that?

Because a complaint has been made. The police are legally obliged to take note of it and must have a very good reason not to carry out an investigation. The minister was then legally obliged to cooperate with that enquiry. As a sound citizen it appears that he did so and, in the interests of community harmony, elected to remove the poster a few days earlier than to would have been routinely replaced.

That looks like a win for the good sense of the police and the minister.

It is a matter for a court of law to decide whether or not it was an incitement.

And one could respond, if you don't like provocative prats complaining about it that is also too bad. That attitude gets us nowhere however.

Lets look at the fact it record as a "hate incident" what kind it was speech, they were found to be at fault by the police because the church was force to take it down. No the charge did not go to court because they submitted to the police. Does not change the fact police found it wrong and order them to remove it, so that implies they did in fact find it hate speech even if it was not said in the article.

 

[Bluelion]

Read the reports you have quoted. The minister was not forced to take the poster down. He agreed to take it down after talking with the police.

I think I have made it clear in my earlier posts that
a) I think the chap who complained was a prat.
b) I see nothing wrong with the poster being left up.

What I object to is the assertion that "Oh the state is suppressing us and forcing us to remove posters and charging us with hate crime" when none of those things has actually occurred. Bear in mind Exodus 20:16 please.

what part in bold do you not understand it says the church" was force to take it down". The pastor might have agreed after being threaten with jail and court, but says forced. The pastor did not oh some one complained let me take it down the police said take it down or else so he yes i will. Does it say that directly no, but we can gather that by the information.

 

[Bluelion]

What do you think happens in China or a muslim country.... you don't get to post the most hateful thing you can think of outside on a sign... follow the laws of every country in as much as possible

so I understand you correctly are you saying telling a person the are headed to Hell is the most hateful thing ever?

Also men's "Laws" do not apply when preaching the Word of God.

 

[Ophiolite]

You realise that the words "forced" are in the report from either the Mirror or the Mail, two publications that are allegedly newspapers, but often fail to meet journalistic standards. Even so a careful reading of those reports reveals that the minister agreed to take the poster down.

There is no evidence in the report that he was actually forced to do so, or that the police felt he should take it down. What appears to be much more the case is that the police, obliged to investigate the complaint, had a quiet talk with the minister asked him if he would consider removing it in order to calm the situation. The minister, with considerable balance, reason and humility agreed to do so. A win for the police and the church.

Why you have to adopt this put upon martyred attitude and back it up by self indulgent misinterpretation of reality is beyond me, but it rather sickening to observe.

I've said my part. Feel free to stew in your own misguided perspective.