No go zones for beliefs

According to the PSPO an offense has been comitted, namely praying. You are now suggesting it might have been. You are dreaming again.
I am speaking generally. Whether an offence has been committed in this case has yet to be determined. That's the function of the courts.
 
No such thing as the woke left.
The issue here is that freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, just like all other freedoms and rights, have limits. You don't like the limits, which are placed there by law to protect the privacy and wellbeing of of other people, also a freedom and a right. Your right to freedom of expression ends when it interferes with my right to go about my personal business without being harassed. That applies to those whose personal business is attending a church just as much as to those attending an abortion clinic.
This is an example of breach of human rights for freedom of belief and expression.
In your previous errors with breaches of the law, you made a fool of yourself, now where the law is breached you are saying it might be.
Other people have different views from yours Temujin, something you need to.learn.
Offering help, including financial support if needed is not harrasing or harming people.
It certainly doesnt need some mentally deranged and hateful ideology, which cant even tell what a woman is, and supportd the killing of offspring, sticking its hateful opinion in to the issue.
 
I am speaking generally. Whether an offence has been committed in this case has yet to be determined. That's the function of the courts.
You are speaking false rubbish. The arrest and charge was 4 counts of breaching the PSPO. The police need to be able to state what exactly they have arrested her for.
Praying IS an offense in the PSPO.space, and there is a difference between what she has been arrested for and charged with, and the determination of whether a crime has been committed. You dont understand the law.
 
This is an example of breach of human rights for freedom of belief and expression.
In your previous errors with breaches of the law, you made a fool of yourself, now where the law is breached you are saying it might be.
Other people have different views from yours Temujin, something you need to.learn.
Offering help, including financial support if needed is not harrasing or harming people.
It certainly doesnt need some mentally deranged and hateful ideology, which cant even tell what a woman is, and supportd the killing of offspring, sticking its hateful opinion in to the issue.
Meaningless drivel.
 
You are speaking false rubbish. The arrest and charge was 4 counts of breaching the PSPO. The police need to be able to state what exactly they have arrested her for.
Praying IS an offense in the PSPO.space, and there is a difference between what she has been arrested for and charged with, and the determination of whether a crime has been committed. You dont understand the law.
People are arrested when the arresting officer has reasonable grounds that an offence has been committed or to prevent one being committed. Following arrest, an investigation will determine if there's sufficient evidence to charge. Following a charge, the CPS determine if there's a high probability of conviction and if it is in the public interest to do so. If so they will prosecute and the matter will be heard in court. Only then will guilt or innocence be determined.

In this case the court date is early February. That's when the notion that silent prayer when the clinic is closed is contrary to the PSPO will be tested. Until then, you are speculating.

It's interesting that during the Parliamentary debate on PSPOs for this purpose, a Tory MP posed the hypothetical case of someone silently praying outside a closed clinic being liable to conviction. Lo and behold, shortly afterwards a woman is arrested for doing precisely this, in the presence of someone else ready to video the interaction with the police. One wonders who called the police. One wonders if this woman is deliberately trying to subvert justice or is merely testing the limits of what is legal and what is not legal. But that too, is just speculation. The outcome of the court case will be interesting.
 
People are arrested when the arresting officer has reasonable grounds that an offence has been committed or to prevent one being committed. Following arrest, an investigation will determine if there's sufficient evidence to charge. Following a charge, the CPS determine if there's a high probability of conviction and if it is in the public interest to do so. If so they will prosecute and the matter will be heard in court. Only then will guilt or innocence be determined.

In this case the court date is early February. That's when the notion that silent prayer when the clinic is closed is contrary to the PSPO will be tested. Until then, you are speculating.

It's interesting that during the Parliamentary debate on PSPOs for this purpose, a Tory MP posed the hypothetical case of someone silently praying outside a closed clinic being liable to conviction. Lo and behold, shortly afterwards a woman is arrested for doing precisely this, in the presence of someone else ready to video the interaction with the police. One wonders who called the police. One wonders if this woman is deliberately trying to subvert justice or is merely testing the limits of what is legal and what is not legal. But that too, is just speculation. The outcome of the court case will be interesting.

So here is a Barrister's explanation.

Deals with your misunderstandings, most notably that whether silent prayer is unlawful in this PSPO, as the barrister points out, it is, obvious to anyone outside of the imaginary woke world you are in.

Note also that a judicial review may be necessary to make this incident unlawful.
 
A good point
I would point out that Christian and Abortion supporter are not mutually exclusive stances.
Um, yeah, they are. They are, in fact, oxymorons. That point needs to be understood. Being Christian and supporting abortion is like saying "I am Christian and atheist."

Abortion and Jesus Christ are polar opposites. No discipline of Christ would ever support something as evil and vile as abortion. There is nothing on this earth that is as evil and vile than abortion, save perhaps racism.

Could a person be Christian and racist from your view? If not, why do you think they can be Christian and pro-abortion? Note by the way: there are racists who claim to be Christian too. As I said, people can claim anything they want. Claiming it does not make it so.
There are Christians who support abortion and atheists who are pro-life.
There is nothing in atheism that would require someone to support or not support abortion. Atheism in and if itself would be morally neutral to the question. Atheism itself has no religious values or moral values. The only thing atheism requires, is, by definition, the atheist not believe in a God or gods.

The Christian religion, however, is NOT morally neutral to the question of abortion. Sure there are Catholics and Christians who CLAIM or otherwise ALLEGE to be Catholic or Christian yet pro-abortion, but people can claim anything they want. Claiming something does not make it true.

Quite frankly, I have never understood WHY someone would want to be Catholic or Christian if they support abortion. Why would a person want to be part or a religion that is so antithetical to their views?
I for one would not support abortion activists demonstrating outside a church. I agree with you that this would be as objectionable as pro-life supporters demonstrating outside a clinic. I suppose the issue is whether demonstrations go beyond objectionable into abusive, threatening or harassing. That's dependent on the circumstances of the individual case.
On this we agree--or--at least I keep an open mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
No such thing as the woke left.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
The issue here is that freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, just like all other freedoms and rights, have limits.
Right! And the woke left wants to take those freedoms away from us!

If it were up to them, any minister who teaches biblical teaching regarding human sexuality and gender would be arrested for hate speech. They want to force Christian bakers to produce and create messages that they find morally abhorrent. They want to force Christian colleges to follow their ideology regarding gender and allow biological males to use bathrooms for biological females. I could go on and on!

The woke left is not about freedom. They are about control. The woke left does not seem to get that a person's freedom to be them is not an obligation on me to condone, agree with, or be a part of it in any way. If Susie Doe wants to dress like a man, fine. if Susie Doe wants to "identify" as Joe Doe, she can do whatever she wants. But the woke left wants force me to play along with her mental delusions, allowing her to use the male restroom, etc.
You don't like the limits, which are placed there by law to protect the privacy and wellbeing of of other people, also a freedom and a right.
I am all for rights, as I said, so long as they go both ways. A person is free to promote gay marriage. I am free to speak out against that. A person is free to promote gender mental delusions where men can get pregnant, etc. I am free to disagree and speak out against it. In your house, in your business, if you agree with wokeism, you may run your business and house according to the religion of wokism. But I should be free to run my house and my business according to my principles too. You run your business as you see fit, I run my business as I see fit. That is what those of us on the right want.
Your right to freedom of expression ends when it interferes with my right to go about my personal business without being harassed.
No reasonable person is interested in harassing people who promote principles they disagree with. What we want is for the government to leave us alone and get out of our homes, religion, and businesses. You run your home, religion, and business according to the principles you agree with, we do the same.
That applies to those whose personal business is attending a church just as much as to those attending an abortion clinic.
Sure does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Which is the more important to you?
Your right to protest, or your desire (not right) not to be protested to?
In general, I would say for me, the right not to be protested to.

The problem with abortion is that it isn't just another political issue--like--say--the death penalty, climate change, immigration, poverty etc.

That is why I am conflicted. If it involved any other issue I would say the right not to be protested to is more important. The problem with abortion is that----a person is murdered every time a woman has an abortion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
In general, I would say for me, the right not to be protested to.
That's not a right; you would have to lobby to make it so.

But you would rather abrogate your right to protest outside Planned Parenthood than see pro-choicers outside your church?
The problem with abortion is that----a person is murdered every time a woman has an abortion.
Not according to the legal definition of murder.

"Abortion is murder" will never succeed with pro-choicers that don't mean by murder what you mean by it.
 
That's not a right; you would have to lobby to make it so.
You asked a question and I answered it, sir.
But you would rather abrogate your right to protest outside Planned Parenthood than see pro-choicers outside your church?
I am not sure. That is the point. I am conflicted.
Not according to the legal definition of murder.
What does that have to do with abortion?

Abortion does not become not murder just becasue we choose not to call it murder, anymore than a woman becomes a man simply becasue she identifies as a man and even has surgery to make herself look like a man and legally we are forced to treat her as a man and otherwise play along with her mental delusion.
"Abortion is murder" will never succeed with pro-choicers that don't mean by murder what you mean by it.
The reason we say that is to try and open the eyes of abortion supporters.

Abortion supporters like you seem to believe that simply becasue the legal definition of murder does not include abortion, it therefore follows that abortion is not murder.
 
Abortion does not become not murder just becasue we choose not to call it murder
Actually, it does - murder is a legal term, and people decide the law.

When people decide that X is not illegal, they decide - by extension - that X is not murder, because all murder must be illegal, by definition.
The reason we say that is to try and open the eyes of abortion supporters.
How do you think this would work, given that

"If it's legal, it can't be murder"

is the obvious - and correct - response?
Abortion supporters like you seem to believe that simply becasue the legal definition of murder does not include abortion, it therefore follows that abortion is not murder.
... and I'm right.

"Murder, but not in the legal sense" isn't worth the paper it's printed on, if there are no consequences for it.
 
So here is a Barrister's explanation.

Deals with your misunderstandings, most notably that whether silent prayer is unlawful in this PSPO, as the barrister points out, it is, obvious to anyone outside of the imaginary woke world you are in.

Note also that a judicial review may be necessary to make this incident unlawful.
It may well be. I can certainly see circumstances where crowds of people staring at you "praying" would be intimidating and harassing. I cannot see that prayer is the issue, or what is going on in someone's head. Apart from anything else, it is unprovable. The issue is presence in the PSPO and one's intentions and motivation for being there. As I said, there's a lot of legal argy bargy before anyone knows anything for sure.
 
Um, yeah, they are. They are, in fact, oxymorons. That point needs to be understood. Being Christian and supporting abortion is like saying "I am Christian and atheist."

Abortion and Jesus Christ are polar opposites. No discipline of Christ would ever support something as evil and vile as abortion. There is nothing on this earth that is as evil and vile than abortion, save perhaps racism.

Could a person be Christian and racist from your view? If not, why do you think they can be Christian and pro-abortion? Note by the way: there are racists who claim to be Christian too. As I said, people can claim anything they want. Claiming it does not make it so.

There is nothing in atheism that would require someone to support or not support abortion. Atheism in and if itself would be morally neutral to the question. Atheism itself has no religious values or moral values. The only thing atheism requires, is, by definition, the atheist not believe in a God or gods.

The Christian religion, however, is NOT morally neutral to the question of abortion. Sure there are Catholics and Christians who CLAIM or otherwise ALLEGE to be Catholic or Christian yet pro-abortion, but people can claim anything they want. Claiming something does not make it true.

Quite frankly, I have never understood WHY someone would want to be Catholic or Christian if they support abortion. Why would a person want to be part or a religion that is so antithetical to their views?

On this we agree--or--at least I keep an open mind.
Well, that certainly reduces the number of Christians in the world by a considerable margin. Leaving aside the fact that there are many atheists who are pro-life, I don't think that you have the authority to declare that anymore who supports abortion disqualifies themselves from being a Christian. Certainly, being racist doesn't, as history attests. That your personal interpretation of your faith tradition makes abortion unacceptable, I can quie accept. But there are others in your faith, and some I know personally including the mother of my grandson, who would disagree with you and would reject your views as intolerant and abhorrent in the eyes of Christ. The same can be said of all the major Christian traditions. Abortion is nowhere described as a salvic issue, except here perhaps.
 
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Right! And the woke left wants to take those freedoms away from us!

If it were up to them, any minister who teaches biblical teaching regarding human sexuality and gender would be arrested for hate speech. They want to force Christian bakers to produce and create messages that they find morally abhorrent. They want to force Christian colleges to follow their ideology regarding gender and allow biological males to use bathrooms for biological females. I could go on and on!

The woke left is not about freedom. They are about control. The woke left does not seem to get that a person's freedom to be them is not an obligation on me to condone, agree with, or be a part of it in any way. If Susie Doe wants to dress like a man, fine. if Susie Doe wants to "identify" as Joe Doe, she can do whatever she wants. But the woke left wants force me to play along with her mental delusions, allowing her to use the male restroom, etc.

I am all for rights, as I said, so long as they go both ways. A person is free to promote gay marriage. I am free to speak out against that. A person is free to promote gender mental delusions where men can get pregnant, etc. I am free to disagree and speak out against it. In your house, in your business, if you agree with wokeism, you may run your business and house according to the religion of wokism. But I should be free to run my house and my business according to my principles too. You run your business as you see fit, I run my business as I see fit. That is what those of us on the right want.

No reasonable person is interested in harassing people who promote principles they disagree with. What we want is for the government to leave us alone and get out of our homes, religion, and businesses. You run your home, religion, and business according to the principles you agree with, we do the same.

Sure does.
No-one is taking rights away. The limits are subject to change. The current fashion is such that your views are unpopular. The way you wish to exercise your rights and freedoms is such that it interferes with the rights and freedoms of other people. On balance, it is seen to be more reasonable to curtail yours than theirs. You have the right to complain, and you can always break the law and take the consequences. The notion that this is all the result of a small coterie of leftist activists determined to destroy the Rights of Man, is frankly nonsense m
 
Abortion does not become not murder just becasue we choose not to call it murder,
Correct. It never was murder, isn't murder and never will be under a sane jurisdiction. Murder is a legal term with a precise legal definition, which though it varies from place to place, has never included abortion in your country or mine. What you FEEL about it, is your business, but doesn't affect reality.
Abortion supporters like you seem to believe that simply becasue the legal definition of murder does not include abortion, it therefore follows that abortion is not murder.
Also correct, because it's true. It isn't just abortion supporters who know this to be true. Anyone who knows what the word murder means and what the word abortion entails, knows that it is true also.

It's not the only reason that abortion is not murder, but it is sufficient.
 
Well, that certainly reduces the number of Christians in the world by a considerable margin.
Too right you are!

What did the Master say? "Wide the path that leads to destruction, narrow the path that leads to life. Few find it." (Matthew 7:13)

The first thing you need to understand about Christianity is that it is not a numbers game, nor a popularity contest. Christian's don't care whether Megan Markle approves of their religion.

The truth of Christianity does not depend on how many Christians there are. There will be a lot of surprises on the day of judgement, that is for sure. Joe Bible Thumper who spent his life bullying Catholics, Mormons and JW's, may find himself out in the cold while he sees Carol Catholic, who believed in the IC of Mary admitted into heaven. On the other hand Joe Catholic who supported abortion all his life, even after warnings from Church authorities yet used his influence to help the poor, have a generous immigration policy will be told to depart from the Lord's presence, while Bob the Muslim who though was not able to make an explicit proclamation of Christ as Lord and Savior, yet lived a humble life as Christ lived will be admitted to heaven.

Indeed, there will be a lot of surprises on Judgement Day. Between you and I--I think the Christian fundamentalists will be the ones who are the most shocked to find that---they aren't the only ones in heaven---but also shocked to find that many of their number did not make the cut. And by the way--I hope to see you in heaven. You may disagree me; that does not mean I judge you. Judgement is up to God.

In other words---what I am getting at is that rea; Christianity is a way of life. It is not in memorizing Bible verses, a profession of perfect theology, etc. Real Christianity is in one's ACTIONS. (This is something fundamentalists do not seem to get.)
Leaving aside the fact that there are many atheists who are pro-life, I don't think that you have the authority to declare that anymore who supports abortion disqualifies themselves from being a Christian.
You are right: I don't have that authority. But I do not need a formal proclamation from someone in authority to declare what is true. Right and wrong and declaring what is right and wrong do not depend on whether I have "formal authority" (whatever that means) to declare it. You can tell me all about gravity. Me asking you if you have a PhD in physics, and telling you that without being formally studied in Physics you have no authority to declare the laws or gravity to me does not negate the laws of gravity.

In other words, sir, I do not need to be the pope, or the Dalai Lama to know right and wrong when I see it, nor to declare it, anymore than you need a PhD in physics to be able to tell me about gravity.
Certainly, being racist doesn't, as history attests. That your personal interpretation of your faith tradition makes abortion unacceptable, I can quie accept.
It isn't my personal interpretation, sir. Religion is not "personal interpretation" anymore than Science is, sir. Religion is just as objective as science.
But there are others in your faith, and some I know personally including the mother of my grandson, who would disagree with you and would reject your views as intolerant and abhorrent in the eyes of Christ.
So what? Of course they would disagree! They do not want to change their views on abortion becasue that would be too hard. It is easier for them to deny the truth than change their views. They want to support abortion. When their religion is against it, it is easier for them to bury their heads in the sand and go "La, la, la, I can't hear you" and or act as if the one who tells them that their beliefs are not compatible with the religion they claim to believe is the one who is the problem rather than them, and or claim that it is the religion that needs to change rather than them.

So yeah--of COURSE they would disagree with me and act as if I am the problem, not them. I point you back to the Master: "Wide the path to destruction."

Truth is truth, sir. It does not depend on how the mother of your grandson feels about it. And you can quote me!
The same can be said of all the major Christian traditions. Abortion is nowhere described as a salvic issue, except here perhaps.
Lot's of things are not specifically described as a salvific issue. Racism is nowhere described as a salvific issue. Does it follow racism is compatible with Christianity?

By the way--when I say is or is not Christian, I am talking about the objective beliefs and actions--what I can see. I am not judging the heart. In other words-I make no judgement about one's salvation. Only their objective actions and beliefs. In other words--the mother of your grandson if she supports abortion yet calls herself Christian--is flat out wrong. She is not Christian if she supports abortion. What that means about heaven or hell---is God's business, not mine.

Support for abortion places one on the path to death just as smoking places one on the path to cancer. Whether one gets cancer---is another story, just like whether the abortion supporter goes to hell is up to God.

The most a medical doctor can do is warn people of the risks of smoking. The most I can do is warn people of the risks of supporting things not compatible with their religion.
 
Last edited:
Correct. It never was murder, isn't murder and never will be under a sane jurisdiction.
You aren't listening, are you? THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT NOT MURDER.

This is like saying "Well, legally, we do not recognize the law of gravity, therefore there is no law of gravity."
Murder is a legal term with a precise legal definition, which though it varies from place to place, has never included abortion in your country or mine. What you FEEL about it, is your business, but doesn't affect reality.
I don't understand what this has to do with anything. Abortion is murder. This is not based on my "feelings" any more than whether gravity exists is based on how you feel about it.
Also correct, because it's true. It isn't just abortion supporters who know this to be true. Anyone who knows what the word murder means and what the word abortion entails, knows that it is true also.
They are WRONG. This is my point.
It's not the only reason that abortion is not murder, but it is sufficient.
This does not mean abortion isn't murder. All it means is there are a lot of blind people-----who cannot think critically.
 
Back
Top