That being said. It is a public forum. Whoever comes here is free to read without being persecuted.

Back to the conversation, how is the above pamphlet “harassing”? I would think anyone who disagrees with the views expressed would be hard pressed to say it was “harassing”; challenging maybe but certainly not harassing.

Since any whino is always keen to cry harassment, what legal definition should be given to harassment that duly protects free speech while also sheltering certain individuals from undo harm?

As for philosophical world views, many people don’t have those particularly because they have lost all sense of wonder. And having a sense of wonder is mandatory to calling any old world view philosophical!

I would say that the religion of sexual orientation, which it is, is an anti-philosophical worldview because it attempts to explain away the mysteries of human sexuality with trite references to “natural inclination,” references that everyone knows to remain under some degree of intelligent moral reaction.

The point of the blogosphere is converation, not proving one’s moral salt in every sphere of life. But in converation, taking pride in the capacity to CONVERSE, is proof enough.

Life is short. Do whatever you think will make it worthwhile for you.

As for this thread, once again, why don’t you CONVERSE on the actual point of CONVERSATION: the egregious assault on free speach in the UK by police arresting the said man for distributing the linked to pamphlet.

Go for it, I’d love to see their impotent reactions.

The truth hurts, no?

Did you read the following links? The first one is an interesting defence of the pamphlet and the man charged by one who does not agree with his views. The second is the pamphlet. The third, a commentary on basic standards of decency were determinants of action by the state, not questions of advocacy, at least in the US.

Do you have anything constructive to say about the case in point? or are you just being an earnest cry baby again?

“The charge against Mr Green is that he used ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby’, contrary to the Public Order Act 1986….

Colin Hart of the Christian Institute think tank said: ‘This was a very gentle leaflet. There was no use of words like “perversion”. I have to wonder if churches, bishops and archbishops are now vulnerable to arrest for their views on homosexuality….’ “

And I only consider triple double dares.

This confusion confounds the civil liberties question!

No longer recognising sex for what it is, while totally ignoring the question of virtue, we hive people off into two groups, both pathologically fixated on their desires for physical intimacy with either the same or the opposite sex. Morality is totally ignored in favour of supposed “natural inclination.” People have sexual “needs,” wouldn’t you know it! And in the footsteps of the twentieth century, where entire peoples were murderously persecuted for being born of a particular race, when arbitrary sexual inclinations by nature become co-equal with race, it is easy to construe opposition to sexual immorality as irrational hate.

Christians need to stop stewing over homosexuals and stick to opposing sexual immorality, sodomy first off, applied to both “gays” and “straights.” They need to stay on message about how men and women are different, but all made to know God relationally, and be ruthlessly critical of perverse dehumanising acts, not entire subgroups of those they say they want to reach.

At the end of the day, gays and straights are all mortal creatures, men or women.