Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Not a Parody
As far as I can tell, this is not a delayed April Fools’ Day prank, a parody, or a joke but a straight news story. (If I’m wrong, correct me–please.)
TAUNTON, UK, April 2, 2015 – A judge has convicted and fined a street evangelist for quoting one verse of the Bible that condemns homosexuality on the streets of Taunton, Somerset — instead of quoting another verse.
It continues:
Judge Shamim Ahmed Qureshi of Bristol Crown Court fined former paratrooper-turned-Christian-evangelist Mike Overd £200 ($297 U.S.), and ordered him to pay £1,200 ($1,780) in costs which included £250 ($371) compensation to the homosexual activist who lodged the complaint.
Judge Qureshi also told Overd that he should not have quoted a passage from the 20th chapter of the Old Testament Book of Leviticus, which calls for the death penalty for Israelites who engage in sodomy. Qureshi said that Overd should instead have used Leviticus 18:22, which merely describes homosexual practice as an “abomination.”
“I am amazed that the judge sees it as his role to dictate which parts of the Bible can and can’t be preached,” the evangelist said.
That street corner evangelist isn’t the only one who’s feeling amazed.
This would surely have been a parody 50 years ago, but in the upside down world of today it’s just a common example of the sick society Great Britain has become.
There’s no First Amendment in the UK if I’m not mistaken.
Obviously, this is abominable, but it seems to be legal.
It certainly appears to be genuine. From the Telegraph piece on the story:
Now, I certainly imagine how one theoretically could quote Leviticus 20 in a way that was threatening, perhaps even legally so if accompanied by other threatening behavior. That doesn’t seem to be even remotely the case here, which is really unsettling.
Relatedly, this seems to be at least the second time Overd’s been charged over this sort of thing.
Given that someone has been arrested there for quoting Winston Churchill, this is not too surprising.
Anyone other than me notice the name of the judge?
I caught that.
It’s probably good to introduce yourself and develop a bit of rapport before you tell someone he “will burn in Hell.” No great evangelist, this one.
But it’s no worse than the things Muslims often say publicly to Jews and write on “protest” signs in England. So, whatever this is, it isn’t enforcement of basic civility.
I wasn’t aware that the biblical authors were even aware of Taunton, let alone familiar enough with the town to single it out as a hive of street-level homosexuality.
;-)
I’ve never understood why people who do not believe in Hell would care if somebody thinks they will go there (or, conversely, why people who do believe in Hell would question the biblical qualifications for entry).
What would you care if some street-preacher says yer gonna go to Hell if you don’t believe in Hell?
(I realize that wasn’t the point of this particular court ruling, so there’s no need to point it out. ;-)
If that was a factor, he’s gonna be in trouble for this part of the ruling:
Hey, they’re called prophets for a reason…
If this judgment is legally correct, then much of the Koran is one large hate crime under British Law. Somehow I suspect this judge would reach a different conclusion if the preacher were Muslim.
Me too . . .
Still, there was this part of the story:
“He acquitted the former paratrooper, who regularly preaches on the streets of Taunton, Somerset, of a separate charge for suggesting that the Prophet Mohammed was a ‘paedophile’.”
A real muslim judge would have sentenced him to death.
What do you expect from a town named after the polar kangaroo in Empire Strikes Back?
Yeah, because if it’s legal, then its ok.
This does not surprise me. I have long suspected that by and large the United Kingdom had no sympathy for Christianity any longer. I suspect that a Muslim preaching some Koranic verse calling for a beheading would get more sympathy than a Christian or Jew reading from the Bible.
To be fair to the judge, whom it appears is doing his job in enforcing British law—however idiotic: a real Sharia judge would have sentenced him to death.
Good point!
The courts banning parts of the Bible is awful, but sadly not surprising. Having the court offer alternative verses is a bit odd.
“Try this one instead, because let’s be honest, you church boys never follow through on that ‘stoning’ stuff anyway.”
And you thought they smelled bad on the outside…
Well I think this settles the whole need for independence question from 239 years ago.
On the other hand, a gay person can temporarily enslave a baker in America just by asking for a cake. There are different kinds of Liberty!
Touché Tuck.
You’re wrong, Peter.
This is a parody indeed.
Section Five of the Public Order Act
Not technically a blasphemy law, however that appears to be how it is being employed in this particular case.
Hmm… “disorderly behaviour”, “alarm or distress”? That is all vague enough that I imagine it means whatever the magistrate wishes it to mean.
Remember these gems from England?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/4606022.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8475965/Pub-singers-racism-arrest-over-Kung-Fu-Fighting-performance.html
Next on the list to be forced down our throats is the Transgendered and Polygamy/Polyandry.
My oh my.
I wonder how all these arrests break down. There’s a significant story here.
And thank God for a written Constitution and Bill of Rights which put limits on the ability of such high handed magistrates to arbitrarily curtail our liberties.
I worry that we may be just one SCOTUS justice away from the same result in the US, despite the First Amendment. Actually, maybe not even one — maybe we’re already there, as Justice Kennedy may be on the other side. See the dreadful 2010 decision in CLS v. Martinez.