Man Arrested in Wales for Preaching Christianity

[Bono]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/5388626.stm

Anti-gay leaflets charge dropped

A Christian campaigner has been cleared of using threatening words and behaviour when handing out leaflets at a gay and lesbian event in Cardiff.

Stephen Green, 55, said he may take legal action after a court case against him was dropped for lack of evidence.

Mr Green, from Carmarthen, is the national director of the evangelical lobby group Christian Voice.

South Wales Police have insisted they were right to arrest Mr Green.

Supporters of Mr Green shouted "Hallelujah!" and clapped at Cardiff Magistrates Court as a legal adviser announced the Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to proceed with the case.

He was arrested when he refused to stop handing out leaflets at the entrance to Cardiff's Mardi Gras gay and lesbian festival in Bute Park earlier this month, which was attended by around 40,000 people.

The leaflets quoted the Bible and that told gays: "Turn from your sins and you will be saved."

He was held in a police station for four hours and was charged with using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress after he refused to accept a caution from the force's Minorities Support Unit.

'Blasphemous'

Mr Green denied the charge, claiming his freedom of speech was being infringed. After the case, he described his arrest as "a big wake-up call to evangelists".

The father-of-one said his treatment on the day of the festival was "disgraceful" and promised he would return to the next festival with even more supporters.

He said: "The police should concentrate on nicking villains instead of people like me going about my lawful business.

"It is important that Christians should be able to stand up for the Gospel and resist any attempt by the police to trample our civil rights.

"I'm quite pleased the CPS had the good sense to drop this case at an early stage. The police should never have arrested me in the first place, let alone charged me."

Mr Green had previously protested at the city's Wales Millennium Centre outside performances of Jerry Springer: The Opera, claiming it was blasphemous.

'Vulnerable'

Mr Green's solicitor, Mark Williams, said he regarded his client's arrest at the Mardi Gras as "an abuse of police powers" and said they would be taking action in the civil courts.

South Wales Police force has defended its handling of the case, saying the CPS decison not to go ahead with the presecution of Mr Green due to insufficient evidence did not "challenge the legality" of his arrest.

It added that the force had a "proven record" of supporting the freedom of expression in facilitating marches and demonstrations over many years.

Deputy Chief Constable David Francis said: "Equally, we are very proud of our stand on supporting and protecting the most vulnerable in our communities, especially those who are the victims of prejudice and discrimination, harassment and even hatred."

[afleitch]

Stephen Green is a nut- he and Christian Voice regularly take actions like this, simply in order to provoke a reaction. He should not have been arrested, but he would have carried on doing this until he was arrested simply in order to get attention.

He has also vociferously campaigned for the teaching of religions other than Christianity in school to be banned.

[John Dibble]

Was he doing this on private property and asked to leave and refused to do so before the arrest? If that's the case arrest is fine. If it was public property he had every right to be there.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh. Stephen Green. Nutter.

Old news anyway.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

They're always so entertaining.

There was one at the College I was at in IL... we got popcorn and watched the show.

[Joe Republic]

Does anybody else see the irony in somebody from a minority group (i.e. an actual Christian in the UK) being arrested by the Minorities Support Unit of the police force?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Does anybody else see the irony in somebody from a minority group (i.e. an actual Christian in the UK) being arrested by the Minorities Support Unit of the police force?

Christians aren't a minority in the U.K. Church-going Christians are o/c, and have been for a very long time; I think, as far as recent centuries go, only in parts of the 19th century did a majority of the population go to Church on more than a few days of the year.

[Joe Republic]

Does anybody else see the irony in somebody from a minority group (i.e. an actual Christian in the UK) being arrested by the Minorities Support Unit of the police force?

Christians aren't a minority in the U.K. Church-going Christians are o/c, and have been for a very long time; I think, as far as recent centuries go, only in parts of the 19th century did a majority of the population go to Church on more than a few days of the year.

I was referring to the church-going variety, i.e. the ones who can criticize elements of social liberalism using the Bible legitimately to do so.  Such as this Stephen Green guy.

[Bono]

Does anybody else see the irony in somebody from a minority group (i.e. an actual Christian in the UK) being arrested by the Minorities Support Unit of the police force?

Christians aren't a minority in the U.K. Church-going Christians are o/c, and have been for a very long time; I think, as far as recent centuries go, only in parts of the 19th century did a majority of the population go to Church on more than a few days of the year.

I disagree. Even not going to church every Sunday, a person can be a Christian, in the sense of the word. however, how many of the people in the UK that claim to be CHristian actually believe any tenets of Christianity? How many of them would indentify with the apostles crede, for instance--which is a good standard? Not many, I daresay. Face it, the Uk is a post-christian nation.

[Joe Republic]

I think we're all essentially agreeing that sincere Christians in the UK are a minority.  That was my original point, by the way.

[Bono]

I think we're all essentially agreeing that sincere Christians in the UK are a minority.  That was my original point, by the way.

I know, I'm agreeing with you. Disagreeing with Al.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

however, how many of the people in the UK that claim to be CHristian actually believe any tenets of Christianity?

Most of them, just not nessessarily in an orthodox or especially structured way.
But if they consider themselves to be Christians, then I, instinctively, dislike disagreeing with them over what they see themselves as. I don't think I have a right to tell someone what they should call themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If asked about that, most people would look confused. This would also have been the case fifty years ago.

The major changes in religion over here over the past few decades is not a decline in religiousness or Christianity as such. The churches, no, it's broader than that, organised religion in general, have declined, and declined markedly.
What could be thought of as religious orthodoxy has also declined as well o/c (but maybe not that much; most people's beliefs were probably rather unorthodox anyway).

A complicating factor as far as people's views on religion go, is the fact that most people here regard religion as something of a private matter and are very uncomfortable when asked questions about it (and when answering surveys, there seems to be a tendency to give the answer that the person asking the question seems to want).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree (but you knew that already).

It is certainly no longer a (small "o") orthodox christian nation, and hasn't been for a long time (o/c there are arguments that the strength of the churches in the 19th century had a lot more to do with social positions than religious ones), but a basic and essentially unorthodox form of Christianity still pervades general culture and society in a way that's actually a lot stronger than a lot of people realise.
You can argue that the U.K is a largely Christian nation or that it never (or at least not for hundreds of years) was a largely Christian nation, but I don't think you can claim that it was one but isn't anymore.

[Jens]

however, how many of the people in the UK that claim to be CHristian actually believe any tenets of Christianity?

Most of them, just not nessessarily in an orthodox or especially structured way.
But if they consider themselves to be Christians, then I, instinctively, dislike disagreeing with them over what they see themselves as. I don't think I have a right to tell someone what they should call themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If asked about that, most people would look confused. This would also have been the case fifty years ago.

The major changes in religion over here over the past few decades is not a decline in religiousness or Christianity as such. The churches, no, it's broader than that, organised religion in general, have declined, and declined markedly.
What could be thought of as religious orthodoxy has also declined as well o/c (but maybe not that much; most people's beliefs were probably rather unorthodox anyway).

A complicating factor as far as people's views on religion go, is the fact that most people here regard religion as something of a private matter and are very uncomfortable when asked questions about it (and when answering surveys, there seems to be a tendency to give the answer that the person asking the question seems to want).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree (but you knew that already).

It is certainly no longer a (small "o") orthodox christian nation, and hasn't been for a long time (o/c there are arguments that the strength of the churches in the 19th century had a lot more to do with social positions than religious ones), but a basic and essentially unorthodox form of Christianity still pervades general culture and society in a way that's actually a lot stronger than a lot of people realise.
You can argue that the U.K is a largely Christian nation or that it never (or at least not for hundreds of years) was a largely Christian nation, but I don't think you can claim that it was one but isn't anymore.

Funny how precisely your description suits Denmark too. The vast majority consider themself Christian but don't follow the orthodox rituals.

That said, I wouldn't really consider this guy a threated minority. White heterosexual males are a minority in most western countries but don't really has any problems

[afleitch]

You can argue that the U.K is a largely Christian nation or that it never (or at least not for hundreds of years) was a largely Christian nation, but I don't think you can claim that it was one but isn't anymore.

I agree with Al on this; I studied religion in Victorian Britain, at the start of her reign, church attendance figures were comparable with figures today and even the oft overhyped 'evangelism' towards the end of the century did little to change those figures, it's only real impact was on economic change and societal embetterment through various programmes and organisations from hospitals to boxing clubs.

Religion has always been a private matter and people, no matter how liberal or how orthodox their religious views seem to dislike religion aired in the public forum (which may also explain reaction to Mulsim) or more importantly the political arena (see the 'euthanasia' storm a few months back in the Lords)

As Alistair Campbell righly said 'We don't do God' or the old joke 'Do you believe in God?' 'Of course not dear, we are CofE'

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How many of them would indentify with the apostles crede, for instance--which is a good standard?

No, I don't think the apostles creed is a good "standard".  I may agree with what is says, but I would not identify myself with it.

[Bono]

How many of them would indentify with the apostles crede, for instance--which is a good standard?

No, I don't think the apostles creed is a good "standard".  I may agree with what is says, but I would not identify myself with it.

Why not?

[Speed of Sound]

They're always so entertaining.

There was one at the College I was at in IL... we got popcorn and watched the show.

I know! What fun they can be! Theyre like an sane persons Sea Monkeys--way too man of them, and always uselessly and repetitively hilarious.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

How many of them would indentify with the apostles crede, for instance--which is a good standard?

No, I don't think the apostles creed is a good "standard".  I may agree with what is says, but I would not identify myself with it.

Why not?

fight fight fight fight fight!!!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How many of them would indentify with the apostles crede, for instance--which is a good standard?

No, I don't think the apostles creed is a good "standard".  I may agree with what is says, but I would not identify myself with it.

Why not?

Because the bible is the only standard of the faith.  So even if I agree with everything in a creed, I would not use a creed as a litmus test for myself or anyone else.

[Bono]

How many of them would indentify with the apostles crede, for instance--which is a good standard?

No, I don't think the apostles creed is a good "standard".  I may agree with what is says, but I would not identify myself with it.

Why not?

Because the bible is the only standard of the faith.  So even if I agree with everything in a creed, I would not use a creed as a litmus test for myself or anyone else.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the Bible is of course the only authority in matters of faith. However, I think a correct creed is a useful instrument for summing up the essential tennets of Christianity. For instance, Jehova's Witnesses believe in biblical authority--or at least the authority of their so called "translation"--but I don't think either of us would consider them Christians. A creed is just a means to an end, but when it accurately reflects scripture, it can be an useful tool, and for statistical purposes it would serve pretty well.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Don't get me wrong, I believe the Bible is of course the only authority in matters of faith. However, I think a correct creed is a useful instrument for summing up the essential tennets of Christianity. For instance, Jehova's Witnesses believe in biblical authority--or at least the authority of their so called "translation"--but I don't think either of us would consider them Christians. A creed is just a means to an end, but when it accurately reflects scripture, it can be an useful tool, and for statistical purposes it would serve pretty well.

But someone who believes adultery is ok could agree to the creed and would still not be a "Christian".

Also, some creeds have disputes rooted in semantics.  For instance, The Athanasian Creed concerning the Trinity uses the concept of "3 persons". which totally confuses me.  I do not believe Jesus is a third of the Godhead, rather I believe the entire Godhead dwelt in the body of Jesus Christ (Col 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.")   So, I don't know how I would split God into three persons when in the body of Jesus dwelt the whole kit n' caboodle.  Jesus himself said that "the Father lives in me" in John 14:10.

So I am not going to attempt to segregate the Father from the Son, for there is no separation.  But my simple unwillingness to adopt the semantics of the phrase of "3 persons" would have gotten me killed by other "Christians" in times past.

And many of these creeds were used as political instruments to do just that - consolidate power and execute anyone who disagreed.

Jesus did not give me a creed to distinguish Christians from the world, but he did leave me this limit test: “You shall know them by their fruits” (Mat 7:16) 

.

[Bono]

Jesus did not give me a creed to distinguish Christians from the world, but he did leave me this limit test: “You shall know them by their fruits” (Mat 7:16) 

.

Unfortunately, that isn't really that practical for statistic purposes. I picked the apostles creed especifically because it is the simplest. Of course, you can simply ask people of they're Christians, but that's not really that good, becasue Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons will tell you they are Christians. In the end, you can't have an accurate statistical measure.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus did not give me a creed to distinguish Christians from the world, but he did leave me this limit test: “You shall know them by their fruits” (Mat 7:16) 

Unfortunately, that isn't really that practical for statistic purposes. I picked the apostles creed especifically because it is the simplest. Of course, you can simply ask people of they're Christians, but that's not really that good, becasue Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons will tell you they are Christians. In the end, you can't have an accurate statistical measure.

First, I don’t know why you need to take a census.  What purpose does it serve?

Second, these creeds do little more than cause divisions.  In fact, their sole purpose is to exclude those that refuse to agree with the semantics.

There is a parable covering this topic:

The Parable of the Weeds
 24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
 27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
 28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
      "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
 29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "
The translation is a little lost in the NIV.  Instead of “weeds” it is really “tares” that look very much like wheat and can be confused as wheat (and wheat can be confused by tares).

The lesson is simple:  stop trying to separate good Christians from bad Christians, for your process of separation will not be perfect and you will end up destroying the good…which is why I don’t like denominations.

---

By the way, one day when I have time, we're going to have a talk about your perfectionist pelagian tendencies.

I had to look that up: "Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did NOT taint human nature"

Don’t know why you think I would believe that, for I have repeatedly stated on this forum that I believe mankind took on a sinful nature when Adam and Eve sinned.  And that sinful nature was passed on to all their descendents.  That is why I believe homosexuality is completely “natural” for it stems from the sinful nature.  I believe all sins are products of our sinful nature.  We are all predisposed from birth to sin as a result of Adam’s transgression.

[Bono]

Jesus did not give me a creed to distinguish Christians from the world, but he did leave me this limit test: “You shall know them by their fruits” (Mat 7:16) 

Unfortunately, that isn't really that practical for statistic purposes. I picked the apostles creed especifically because it is the simplest. Of course, you can simply ask people of they're Christians, but that's not really that good, becasue Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons will tell you they are Christians. In the end, you can't have an accurate statistical measure.

First, I don’t know why you need to take a census.  What purpose does it serve?

Second, these creeds do little more than cause divisions.  In fact, their sole purpose is to exclude those that refuse to agree with the semantics.

There is a parable covering this topic:

The Parable of the Weeds
 24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
 27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
 28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
      "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
 29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "
The translation is a little lost in the NIV.  Instead of “weeds” it is really “tares” that look very much like wheat and can be confused as wheat (and wheat can be confused by tares).

The lesson is simple:  stop trying to separate good Christians from bad Christians, for your process of separation will not be perfect and you will end up destroying the good…which is why I don’t like denominations.

The statistical thing was the original topic. We were talking about aproximately how many people in the UK are christians. And anyways, I just used the Apostles Creed as an example, it was nothing set in stone.

By the way, one day when I have time, we're going to have a talk about your perfectionist pelagian tendencies.

I had to look that up: "Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did NOT taint human nature"

Don’t know why you think I would believe that, for I have repeatedly stated on this forum that I believe mankind took on a sinful nature when Adam and Eve sinned.  And that sinful nature was passed on to all their descendents.  That is why I believe homosexuality is completely “natural” for it stems from the sinful nature.  I believe all sins are products of our sinful nature.  We are all predisposed from birth to sin as a result of Adam’s transgression.

Well, I probably should have siad semi-pelagian. Anyways, note the perfectionist qualifier before. I deleted that sentence because I thought it wasn't rreally warranted here, but since you still quoted it, what I meant is that from your posts I seem to get that you defend--and correct me if I'm wrong in my assertion that you believe this--that you believe that after regeneration--being born again if you will, though I'm not a fan of this term--the christian is capable of avoid sinning completely. I believe that while the amount of sin is going to be decreased, and good works will be brought forth by faith, the saved person will still sin, and sin most serious and grieviously even, because of the weakness of the flesh. However, more than anything, the regenerate has the notion of his sin and the need for repentance.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The statistical thing was the original topic. We were talking about aproximately how many people in the UK are christians. And anyways, I just used the Apostles Creed as an example, it was nothing set in stone.

ok, I understand now.

---

correct me if I'm wrong in my assertion that you believe this--that you believe that after regeneration--being born again if you will, though I'm not a fan of this term--the christian is capable of avoid sinning completely. I believe that while the amount of sin is going to be decreased, and good works will be brought forth by faith, the saved person will still sin, and sin most serious and grieviously even, because of the weakness of the flesh. However, more than anything, the regenerate has the notion of his sin and the need for repentance.

Why take issue with the "born again" term when Jesus used it himself?

As far as being "capable of avoid sinning completely"...yes, I believe born-again Christians have the "capability" through the Holy Spirit to avoid any and every sin.  Does Christ set believers free or does he not?

But no one practices everything they preach or believe, and they will eventually choose to follow their own desires from time to time and will have to repent and come back to Christ.  But I do think it is quite possible to go 24 hours without sinning.  But each 24 hours brings a new day and we must crucify our flesh DAILY:

Luke 9:23 Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."

1Cor 15:31 “I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

So, since we are still in the flesh, we have to deny it daily.

What I striking contrast to the message spoken by TV preachers who tell their audience everything in life will be peaches and cream if they just send in more money.