I saw on an internet news thread that UK has named some of the people they have banned from entering UK for inciting hatred. One was a 79 year old Baptist pastor who was banned for speaking out about homosexuals.Were they right? Was the pastor wrong to do that?

It is hard to answer that question. They have the right to ban whoever they choose, but it is sad that one of those banned should be a christian minister. I don’t know anything about the person concerned, but if he was inciting hatred then yes perhaps he should have been banned.

It really depends on what he said and how he said it, but yes they have the right to ban him if they think he will cause a problem.

The only hatred that truth incites is hatred towards the speaker.

shopharim - 07 May 2009 08:07 AM

The only hatred that truth incites is hatred towards the speaker.

I have thought hard about your words, but I don’t think I agree with you. The preacher involved may have been certain that what he said was true but it still had the potential to incite others to express hatred (in various ways) toward homosexuals.

I agree justontime, I think shopharim is incorrect on this one. Even if your words are true, it is important to think of how you present your beliefs and the effect of your words on others.

I did not make reference to the preacher.  I don’t know what he said or didn’t say.  But,  if he spoke truth, it would not incite hatred toward people who practice homosexuality.

I also did not make reference to beliefs.  I am only speaking of truth.

shopharim - 07 May 2009 08:38 PM

I did not make reference to the preacher.  I don’t know what he said or didn’t say.  But,  if he spoke truth, it would not incite hatred toward people who practice homosexuality.

I also did not make reference to beliefs.  I am only speaking of truth.

I think it could still incite hatered, and anyway who decides what the truth is? In this case the homosexual people are entitled to live within the civil law without harrasment.

Even if what is said is true the speaker has a responsibility for what he says and how he says it. . It can still incite hatred.

I have concern about two aspects of the premise here: (1) What does it mean to incite; (2) what is hatred?

As to truth, I side with Yeshua/Jesus, as quoted in John 17:17: “Your word is truth.”  Truth begins and ends with the LORD our GOD.  His instruction about the practice of homosexuality is clear—it is called an abomination.  Besides that, it is obvious to any objective observer that the practice is not life-giving, that is, though one engages the reproductive aspects of our anatomy, reproduction is not possible.

There is nothing about those statements inciting or hateful.  They are factual statements.  They are truth.

shopharim - 08 May 2009 01:50 PM

I have concern about two aspects of the premise here: (1) What does it mean to incite; (2) what is hatred?

As to truth, I side with Yeshua/Jesus, as quoted in John 17:17: “Your word is truth.” Truth begins and ends with the LORD our GOD. His instruction about the practice of homosexuality is clear—it is called an abomination. Besides that, it is obvious to any objective observer that the practice is not life-giving, that is, though one engages the reproductive aspects of our anatomy, reproduction is not possible.

There is nothing about those statements inciting or hateful. They are factual statements. They are truth.

Jesus also acknowledged the authority of government ‘Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser’s’. We live in a secular society ,and in UK as elsewhere there are laws that protect the rights and the freedom of homosexuals (and various other groups). Therefore publicly speaking out against them and using words such as abomination would be inciting hatred and would be an offense.

Let’s view this from the UK perspective, where religion plays a much less prominent role in the culture and people of the cloth are not automatically assumed to be completely sincere in all their views. They would surely stop a Muslim cleric who encouraged what we consider insane violence from entering their country. Would they be correct in doing so? What I’m trying to point out here is that to the UK cultural sensibilities a fundamentalist protestant minister and a fundamentalist anything-else are equally suspect.

@kernow, http://www.m-w.com defines hatred as, “prejudiced hostility or animosity.”  Hearing a declaration of abomination may incite prejudice, however, hostility and animosity are not derived necessarily from hearing such a thing.

@heretoday, if a protestant minister encouraged insane violence, I would support a ban as well.  justontime did not provide detail as to what was said.  That is why I generalized my comments to statements of truth.

If a country has a law to prevent inciting hatred on grounds of sexual orientation, the meaning of the terms used will be very clearly defined. The definition will then be tested in court if there is a prosecution. In the case of foreign nationals the country has a right to exclude them based on their previous behaviour.

deltic - 09 May 2009 06:06 PM

If a country has a law to prevent inciting hatred on grounds of sexual orientation, the meaning of the terms used will be very clearly defined. The definition will then be tested in court if there is a prosecution. In the case of foreign nationals the country has a right to exclude them based on their previous behaviour.

Absolutely.

The Baptist preacher has a right to his opinion, but if he intends to encourage others to join him to take action against homosexuals, he is wrong.

It is his intent that is in question, from what I gather.

A country has the right to ban those who would inspire hatred against a segment of an otherwise peaceful society.