Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Could you be arrested for putting an atheist poster in your window?

Robust debate is a freedom to be celebrated, not feared.

By Nelson Jones Published 22 June 2012 8:31

A poster in your window could cause you serious trouble. Photograph: Getty Images

"Religions are fairy stories for adults" is scarcely the most incendiary slogan ever devised. It might be a question on an old-style A-level paper ("discuss"). A pensioner from Boston in Lincolnshire was, however, advised by the police that he risked falling foul of the Public Order Act 1986 if he put the message in his window. He might even face arrest. Well, sort of.

John Richards' "defiant" stand – the word comes from the original report in the Boston Standard – has attracted the support of, among others, the National Secular Society. Their president Terry Sanderson described the police reaction as "completely over the top", adding that "people have got to learn to get a thicker skin." Pavan Dhaliwal of the British Humanist Association commented that the case "shows how subjective the law is, and how it has the real potential to stifle free speech."

Also supportive is Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute, the pressure group responsible for highlighting several free speech cases involving Christians. Calvert proclaimed that "It is no business of the criminal law to impinge on such moderate expressions of belief... What possible justification could there be for officers to tell a man he cannot insult religion with a tiny poster in his own window?"

It's important to be clear about what actually happened in this case. First of all, Richards' poster has not, as yet, attracted any complaints. When I spoke to him he told me that the only reaction he had received came in the form of an anonymous letter which supported both the message and his right to display it. Nor were Lincolnshire police acting on their own initiative in warning him of the possible consequences were complaints to be made. They only discovered the existence of the sign because he wrote to them, informing them of his intention and enquiring if it might constitute a criminal offence. In setting out the circumstances in which it might they were, he thinks, "just covering themselves".

Richards, a retired journalist who is also chairman of the Apostrophe Protection Society, denies that the story is a publicity stunt. He contacted the police, he says, because he was worried about the legal position and wanted to protect himself. Nor did the police response cause him to take the sign down – or, indeed, to do anything except contact the Boston Standard. Nevertheless, however trivial, the story does highlight a genuine issue.

Section 5(b) of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence to "display any writing... which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby". The section is notoriously subjective – previous instances in which police have used it as a reason to intervene (and occasionally to bring charges) have involved Christian preachers inveighing against homosexuality, members of Outrage! protesting against the persecution of gay people by Islamic governments, a teenager holding up a sign describing Scientology as "a dangerous cult" and a student who described a police horse as "gay".

Peter Tatchell has argued that it is "sweeping, draconian and has a chilling effect", especially as there is no requirement to prove intent to cause harassment or distress. He is one of many people currently urging that Section 5 be repealed or at least modified by removing the word "insulting". The campaign is spearheaded by an alliance of convenience between the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society, who said in a joint statement earlier this year:

With such a low threshold, it is too easy for police – and thin-skinned activists – to fall back on when there is controversy and one side claims to feel offended. At the same time there are plenty of other, more targeted, offences available to tackle genuine cases like harassment, incitement and breach of the peace.

"Breach of the peace", however, is at least as much a catch-all as the word "insulting" in the Public Order Act. The real problem may be one of attitude rather than the precise wording of legislation: the existence of an official mindset that sees robust debate as potentially threatening to the tranquility of the public space, as a threat to be managed rather than as a freedom to be celebrated.

The other issue is that of the chilling effect, something that is only increased by the publicity given to unusual or exaggerated cases like that of John Richards.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Atheism

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

50 comments

Sun, 2012-07-22 09:33 — Michaelangelo (not verified)

Hello again,

Do serious weeklies do irony? The earliest use of the phrase "Fairy tales for grown ups" I have found is from CS Lewis, speaking of his speculative fiction trio of novels which have Elwin Ransom as a central character. [CS Lewis is better known for his "back of the wardrobe" tales, set in "Narnia". I beleive these are an alternative telling of the Christ story. ]

CS Lewis also referred to JBS Haldane as representative of the scientific materialists of the day, modelling one of the wicked experiementers (and his gruesome experiment) in the "Ransom" books on Haldane, who was a renowned genticist, and some work he claimed to winess. Could it be that Mr Richards of Boston, Lincs, is more of an intellectual than he is depicted as? I doubt there is a single copper who might go knocking on his door who would "get" the ironies in this - but then, I don't see much humour on the part of the "other side", either.

Haldane, who took an open leftist stance, took nearly 10 years to write a measured refutation of a piece of Soviet pseudoscience called "Lysenkoism". TD Lysenko had given the authorities what they wanted to hear regarding food production. It was not dropped until after many had starved. Haldane may not have been as critical as he might have been over certain medical experiemnets in the USSR, either.

"Fairy tales" have their place as satire on the existing situation; we even have remnants of this in pantomime and nursery rhymes - a sound British instinct. When they limit or even curtail lives, we must outgrow them.

Fri, 2012-07-20 14:19 — Michaelangelo (not verified)

I've come to this late due to immersion in something equally concerning: my apologies. I think that "Calgodot" (see above) gets an important point in focus:

"Claiming another persons views are ridiculous is NOT an attack on the person - it is an attack on their views."

Otherwise, should we not like a friend, because he chews sweets we don't like? However, I am NOT sure that it's only religion that reacts virulently to having beliefs challenged, having worked with academics.

The really dangerous thing here is that anyone can shout "I am offended" any time, and call in the cops to chill open discussion, if not arrest a victim. It's like a PC shouting at you to "CALM DOWN" when he has succeeded in annoying you; you are "trumped" in conversation - and this is one more power to shut us up.

What is to stop me wandering around at Speakers' Corenr inviting PCs to arrest left right and centre just for fun, by waving the Trump Card of "Offence"? Why should I not protest, Mary Whitehouse style, at every other TV show - a programme about the riots, for example? Why whould I not invite local Police to have a little word with the church on the corner, next time they "insult" and "threaten" me with eternal burning (how does that work when the carbon has all gone, by the way)?

The answer is, of course, that the police will choose the side of right, and I won't be on that side.

I do not ask the state to "protect" me from irritating or disgusting views, nor do I expect it to shove a dirty palm across my mouth. Such law will inevitably used as one more power to prevent dissent, or even to speak at all.

Fri, 2012-07-20 14:19 — Michaelangelo (not verified)

I've come to this late due to immersion in something equally concerning: my apologies. I think that "Calgodot" (see above) gets an important point in focus:

"Claiming another persons views are ridiculous is NOT an attack on the person - it is an attack on their views."

The answer is, of course, that the police will choose the side of right, and I won't be on that side.

Wed, 2012-07-04 15:49 — freedemocrat (not verified)

Well, as an atheist who has never commited a crime I certainly find it deeply insulting when walking on a city pedestrian shopping centre and one of those gruesome bible-thumping christian fundamentalists shouts at me, and everyone else passing him, that we are quote " evil sinners" when he knows nothing of our characters, beliefs and actions.
May I suggest that reasonable decent atheists shoud have the right to throw religious proslyetisers into a cesspit after they have shouted that those who reject the christian god quote "will be thrown into a firey lake of boiling blood and tortured by demons for all eternity". My suggest is surely mild compared to their desire and threat.

Wed, 2012-07-04 15:49 — freedemocrat (not verified)

Thu, 2012-06-28 06:57 — maseriterLK (not verified)

Hi there! This post couldn’t be written much better! Reading through this article reminds me of my previous roommate! He always kept preaching about this. I most certainly will forward this post to him. Fairly certain he’ll have a good read. Thank you for sharing!

Mon, 2012-06-25 04:36 — Daniel Beasley (not verified)

Isn't it an extension of the Freedom of Speech? But still, some old "laws" need to be rethought to better fit today's society. Not all are relevant in this day and age.

Daniel Beasley
Miami plastic surgeon

Sun, 2012-06-24 09:20 — chris forward (not verified)

The law is a real "catch all " and can be used as an "act of attainder"
You could argue that Salman Rushdie commited an offence agaist the Public Order Act

Sun, 2012-06-24 14:46 — antisylphid (not verified)

Anything can be USED. The point is not to do that and try to find other, better options (do things the right way). [b]Stupidity[/b] is usually seeking ways to cover for itself, stupidity is also petty sometimes, that's why 'faries' go into social limbo, it's a good option which protects public (and not only public) money. For every argument there will always be contrargument, now freedom of speech. Hopefully stupidity can be forgiven; I don't feel good myself being an atheist seeing such 'fair_y' level of public discussion, it makes people think that all atheists are plain stupid.
*No push no hold* is usually a good way to go in times of doubt. Not everybody has the knowledge about that option, but 'I didn't know that [name and place any offence here] this was an offence' does not protect you from consequences.

You know how it goes, *with the stupid you loose twice as much*.

Sat, 2012-06-23 04:39 — joe woods (not verified)

Can I be arrested for putting a a picture in my window saying: THE PROPHET MOHAMMED HAD ANAL SEX WITH CAMELS.?

Sat, 2012-06-23 19:10 — jankaas (not verified)

if you really wanted to i bet you would not dare. that makes you a coward.

Fri, 2012-06-22 22:12 — antisylphid (not verified)

@Cal
'Claiming another persons views are ridiculous is NOT an attack on the person - it is an attack on their views.', if any believer saw the poster and felt offended, then they should go to courts. Religion cannot go to courts itself.

Law isn't subjective (and the letter of law isn't perfect), interpretation of the law can subjective. 'Section 5(b) of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence to "display any writing... which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".'- it's clear here.

Thirdly, if Section 5(b) holds regarding religion views manifestation in this case, isn't the issue a person against the Crown actually? Public prosecution?

Fri, 2012-06-22 13:50 — rohanbxz (not verified)

Glad that the police are finding something to do to stop crime. Bravo for their courage.

Sat, 2012-06-23 23:00 — Raymond Ingrey (not verified)

To coin an American phrase
Like shooting fish in a barrel

Fri, 2012-06-22 13:39 — Keir

"Religions are fairy stories for adults" is scarcely the most incendiary slogan ever devised.'

True, but it is insulting. It's also untrue, juvenile and self-defeating. A fairy story is, or rather was, in England, a story deliberately invented by adults for Victorian children, for purposes of entertainment. The modern equivalent is the cartoon, of which there is an abundance; and adults like them, too. But even children know that they are not really true. That must apply to most religions, also, but one cannot be certain that it applies to all of them.

It's fine to say, "Religions are false beliefs." It's not very compelling, though, unless a reason precedes or follows. Supply of a reason seems to be the difficulty, which is why resort is made to insulting the intelligence of those who see the issue differently.

I don't wish to be insulting, but, as I have written several times previously, it really is a matter of growing up.

Sat, 2012-06-23 22:52 — Raymond Ingrey (not verified)

Therefore you are quite happy with Religions are just Myths & Legends, I suppose?
Seems a bit nit picking to me.

Sat, 2012-06-23 22:52 — Raymond Ingrey (not verified)

Therefore you are quite happy with Religions are just Myths & Legends, I suppose?
Seems a bit nit picking to me.

Fri, 2012-06-22 16:11 — Paul Hurst (not verified)

Fairy stories were also used to gain compliance from children. 'Do what we tell you, or the bogeyman will get you.' Sound familiar? Is this sign really more 'untrue, juvenile and self-defeating' than a theist sign telling me that I will burn forever for not believing? It is certainly far less offensive.
Interesting that you urge others to grow up. Yes, religion has provided a comfort to many through the dark days before enlightenment. But now surely it is time to 'put away childish things'. Reason and humanity can more effectively serve us for the future.

Fri, 2012-06-22 19:53 — Keir

'a theist sign telling me that I will burn forever for not believing?'

It might be a true sign. When that much is accepted, we will perhaps have grown up.

Sat, 2012-06-23 23:04 — Raymond Ingrey (not verified)

Only if you are your second childhood.

Sat, 2012-06-23 19:14 — jankaas (not verified)

isn't the grown-up thing to do to review all claims and judge them on their merits? if so a claim that 'non-belief would lead to eternal burning' could not be allowed too much validity. unless of course there is substantial evidence it is possible.

Sat, 2012-06-23 11:14 — Paul Hurst (not verified)

Part of growing up is learning to think for ourselves, to look at the facts and make up our own minds on what seems reasonable without being unduly influenced by others. Children may accept something 'because I say so', adults should have developed the cognitive ability to make rational judgments. Morals pre-date religion, and are quite independent of them. As an adult, I can read the bible and decide that it is really nasty in places, and certainly not a suitable guide to modern living.

It is said that the stock market works on fear and greed - also the two big motivators used by any religion that accepts the existence of a 24/7 celestial monitoring of our every thought and action. No disent, no questioning is allowed - only absolute compliance with the rules (usually interpreted for us by the men in power) will not only save us from absolute torment but reward us with total joy. Both for eternity. Actually, it does sound a bit like a fairy story, doesn't it?

I respect and defend your right to hold a faith, and practice it in a way that does not hurt others. Please respect my rights. Don't park your tanks on my lawn with such an objectional view as suggesting that all non-believers will burn in a hell when you are unhappy with the pretty mild sign displayed by Mr.Richards.

After all, to many, you are also a heathen/heretic/unbeliever and doomed along with me to suffer whatever inventive tortures they have dreamed up for us when we meet their god(s) instead of yours. Why is your scenario more likely than theirs? Intolerence of thought is only a short step away from wanting to also control the physical actions of others - from contraception, down to reading matter and Sunday shopping.

Sat, 2012-06-23 18:00 — antisylphid (not verified)

PH, imho you are absulutely right in what you wrote, but the point is not in it. The point is in law. I can say you're right, Because I'm an atheist, but we all, believers and non-believers, share public space. To avoid the necessity of leaving our homes without swords every time we go out, we have law. Believers though, certainly are not going to appreciate remarks about fairy tales regarding their religion (and I'm not surpridsed, because it is belittling). This is not up to you or me to judge if Mr. Richards offended anyone, it's up to them, believers.

I like very much how Simon Calvert commented on this: "''What possible justification could there be for officers to tell a man he cannot insult religion with a tiny poster in his own window?''", comment on a very appropriate level to "Religions are fairy stories for adults.""

Tanks tend to park on lawns because there are quicksands underneath the grass, address your issues clearly, openly, and on appropriate level to the person you have in mind, veiled speech doesn't make it better, on the contrary, it also exposes aggression. Part of growing up is taking responsibility for own's actions as well.

Sun, 2012-06-24 11:11 — Paul Hurst (not verified)

Antisylphid
No need to support the necessity for laws, that has not been contested. This issue seems to be about equality, tolerance and interpretation. Do you agree that theists and non theists have equal rights? If so, we can move on to the question of tolerance.
Free speech means having to listen to the views of others as well. Yes, I fully agree with you about insulting and belittling signs - whoever puts them up. They are neither nice nor constructive. But it has to be all or nothing, if a sign suggesting there are no gods is not to be permitted, then all the ones stating the opposite have to come down as well. And then the argument will probably move on to religious symbols, no display of crosses, crescents, green men or little green men because that may also offend someone.
And here’s the big problem. Having studied elements of law, served for over three years in county courts as an executive officer and then been involved with discussing the impact of a badly worded Statutory Instrument on two of my companies, I have experienced the drafting, implementation, enforcement and consequences of legislation. Theologists may debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, lawyers will argue what colour underwear they have on.
It’s babies and bathwater time. In general, better to keep state interpretation to a minimum. I’ll happily debate any views I object to, and expect to be extended the same courtesy. Start trying to keep everyone happy, and the puritans creep out of the woodwork – ‘You can’t watch that because I’m offended by it.’ ‘Have you seen it’? ‘No, but that’s not the point – I just know I’ll be offended.’
I think the wheels (tracks?) may have come off in your attempt to develop the ‘tanks’ metaphor. I was suggesting that a statement along the lines of (and I improvise here) ‘demonic imps will merrily skip round the flames eternal whilst toasting your dangly bits and chitterlings on toasting forks’ is aggressive and in my face. The tanks shouldn’t be there in the first place, so I don’t see the relevance of the ‘quicksand’, sorry if I’m being thick.
Again, unsure of the ‘taking responsibility’ bit. May just be me, but sort of implies a veiled threat in this context. Are you saying he should be singled out for prosecution? Quite agree about taking responsibility though. Those of us without a faith have no one else to blame anyway. We can’t say and devil made us do it, expect divine intervention or any post mortem recompense for wrongs done.

Sun, 2012-06-24 15:06 — antisylphid (not verified)

'No need to support the necessity for laws, that has not been contested.', why, it's worth consideration, especially when people don't know what they are doing, it's always worth considering PRIOR to actions (we'd skip 'fairy' embarrassement).

'But it has to be all or nothing, if a sign suggesting there are no gods is not to be permitted, then all the ones stating the opposite have to come down as well.' -wrong, the 'sign' was about fairies.

'Those of us without a faith have no one else to blame anyway.' - I beg your pardon???!!! Are you trying to create universal rule here? Or is it something that speaks about you only?

There's responsibility for actions, and that's one thing. Blame is quite another, but since you are rising it, are you feeling guilty about something (?) Perhaps, if you do feel guilty, you are guilty.

Sun, 2012-06-24 16:27 — Paul Hurst (not verified)

You do rather seem to be contradicting yourself now. “To avoid the necessity of leaving our homes without swords every time we go out, we have law”, your words. I think you’ve missed the comma and misread my ‘has’ for ‘have’ – you may like to check. I agreed with this point, that laws in general are required. But specific laws can be challenged – I have already done so during a consultation period, when two sections of a SI were in direct contradiction. The official response was ‘yes, we thought that as well, so we’re waiting for a test case’. I made sure the case wasn’t Regina V Hurst.
You are crossing two variables here. The contrast was between a sign denying the existence of a god/ gods and one stating there is/are. The counter with the ‘fairytale’ sign (more offensive) would be the one telling me I’ll burn in hell. If you read again, you’ll see I was citing the first pair, but the argument applies equally to either pairing. Please don’t get confused between the two - they are not the same.
'Those of us without a faith have no one else to blame anyway.' - I beg your pardon???!!! Are you trying to create universal rule here? Or is it something that speaks about you only?” Again, you are either misled or being misleading. Cause and effect, my meaning was that if we don’t have a supernatural deity to pass the buck onto, then we must logically accept the consequences of our own actions – or do you disagree? How is this different from “Part of growing up is taking responsibility for own's actions as well”.
This rather leaves your final point stranded. For it to make sense, I’ve assumed you mean ‘raising’ rather than ‘rising’ but am happy to be corrected if this is not the case. In any event it veers away from debate into insinuation and so does not warrant a reply.

Sun, 2012-06-24 17:31 — antisylphid (not verified)

'But specific laws can be challenged – I have already done so during a [...]', well, I'm talking about 'Could you be arrested for putting an atheist poster in your window?', you - I don't know what about.

Anyhow, I fully accept your point of view regarding... yourself of course. I take it as my own from now on (happy it turned out that way - a lot better, a lot more beneficial to me). You were right and I was wrong!

Mon, 2012-06-25 07:21 — Paul Hurst (not verified)

I think I’ve been clear enough. I’ve certainly responded to every point you’ve raised, even though the same courtesy has not been extended to me. In any event, agreement or sarcasm resolves a debate, both leading to the same conclusion.

Sat, 2012-06-23 16:04 — Gareth

Thank you Paul for the respect that you show in your comment. We need a lot more of it from all sides in these sorts of debates. I hope that I can respond to your post with similar courtesy. I've tried to argue in a few posts in this thread that my Christian faith is not based on an acceptance of a "because I say so". As you point out, most people do think for themselves, examine facts and determine what they consider reasonable. It is for this very reason that a faith that tolerated neither dissent nor questioning would not convince me. There is plenty of room for committed Christians to wrestle with difficult issues. Indeed, the Bible shows Psalmist, Job, Elijah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, Paul and many figures in the gospels doing so, even Jesus himself in the garden of Gethsemane. A faith can only endure and deepen if it gives room for questions to be asked and then allows answers to be found.

It is, however, possible for facts to point different people towards different conclusions. You mention the nasty parts of the Bible and conclude that it therefore has no place in the modern world; I consider that any honest account of human nature has to account for its extreme depths as well as its sublime highs. There has been every bit as much greed and conflict in the past century as is found in the Bible. I find the Biblical diagnosis, that we are all in some way flawed, to be profoundly accurate, certainly of myself.

If you'll allow me to make one further point: Christianity is emphatically NOT about "compliance with the rules". Its entire premise is the inability of human beings to live up to the (good and beneficial) standards we were intended to. Hence Paul writes in Romans 3 that all “fall short of the glory of God". For a Christian, it is purely God's actions in the cross of Christ that begin to deal with this imperfection: "but because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions —it is by grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2). I fully respect anyone's right, including yours, to agree with, disagree with, or disregard this diagnosis. But I would gently suggest that perhaps the faith against which you have argued might be a little different to the one to which I and many other Christians hold.

Sun, 2012-06-24 10:25 — Paul Hurst (not verified)

Gareth
Thank you for your kind words. I agree that intelligent, reasoned and respectful debate is the way forward. ‘Yar boo sucks’ insults are counter-productive and childlike. I’m also sorry if the more robust stance I felt obliged to take implied I lumped all people of faith in together, I don’t. As well as having friends and family who are devout Christians, it is hard not to be impressed by the quiet humility and dedication of the vast majority of believers – it’s the fanatics on both sides who ruin it for the rest of us. At least the very fact we can have this debate without either of us ending up lashed to a stake and knee-deep in kindling shows how far we have all progressed.
Let’s see if we can find more common ground. I think you agree with me about the nasty and in some cases downright evil bits in the Bible. If not, we can have that debate – I won’t go for cheap points by listing them now. In turn, I’m happy to concede there are good bits there as well.
But surely progress (and growing up, for that matter) is all about keeping the good and deleting the bad? Medical teachings are constantly updated to reflect current knowledge, psychology has progressed far beyond the concepts of phrenology and ‘feeling the bumps’. A car workshop manual that contains errors is of far less use than the corrected edition.
I think we can agree that life involves a struggle to improve ourselves, and that blind compliance without thought is wrong. So why then not update the Bible to reflect this? If we can agree that parts are no longer acceptable, take them out – and replace them with something better! Draw from other faiths, from philosophers and from fiction (obvious cheap jibe avoided). On balance, the works of Jo Rowling probably offer far better moral guidance than the whole of the Old Testament.
It would be ‘optimistic to the point of foolishness’ to expect any religious hierarchy to accept this. The different “good books” are all ‘product’, and to be protected accordingly. In their eyes, they must be accepted in entirety as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Michael Gove’s vanity project involved just distributing the book he believes in, and he has an absolute right to do so as an individual, it wasn’t with public money. But he did this in his political capacity, and as such is not only promoting the bad bits equally with the good, but also excluding those with other faiths, and with none, from the debate. Badly done, Michael, badly done.
If those at the top are biased and inflexible, it doesn’t prevent the rest of us from having a go. Would you agree that, starting from scratch, you could come up with a better – and far more relevant ‘ten commandments’ for modern life? You’ve clearly demonstrated both willingness and ability to question dogma and engage in reasoning. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours; they may not be that different. Society no longer consists of Bronze Age wandering tribes, if we allow ourselves to accept that and move on, think how much we could achieve.
There we go – a letter and a response with no name calling, no insults or threats and a polite request for possible debate – even co-operation.

Fri, 2012-06-22 17:12 — Gareth

I take Keir's reference to "growing up" as a call for a deeper standard of discussion than is often proffered in these forma; this should challenge commentators on both sides of the Christian/atheist spectrum, as well as proponents of other religions and world views.

It's of little help and of no great persuasion to claim that another person's views are self evidently ridiculous, naive or childish, partly because it attacks the person rather than the opinion, and partly because they do not challenge anyone who gives a modicum of intelligent consideration to their standpoint. Critiques of a caricatured Christianity which misrepresents what most Christians actually believe may convince people who know little about the faith, but for those who know the Bible in detail, the attacks are often on something so distant from what we believe that they pose no real threat to our faith. (I suggest that caricatures of atheism and of other faiths would hit equally far from the mark.)

In this light, there is value is considering, among other questions, the extent to which reason can account for the human need for dignity and purpose, and the basis on which humanity has been successful in overriding the innate human flaws which we all exhibit. In my (deeply and intelligently) considered view, the Biblical account of these questions is at least as credible as those advanced by non believers.

Fri, 2012-06-22 18:54 — Cal Godot (not verified)

Claiming another persons views are ridiculous is NOT an attack on the person - it is an attack on their views.

Granted, more than insults would be necessary for any substantial discussion or debate. But conflating an insulting attack on a person's opinion with attacking that person is exactly the false accusation made by the religious when their views or policies are criticized.

Suggesting the Biblical account is "credible" at all of course reveals you to be one of those religious people who claim reasonable criticisms of your illogical, unreasonable, and historically destructive beliefs amounts to personal persecution.

Try harder. I've read your Bible: Your God would not be impressed.

Fri, 2012-06-22 19:58 — Gareth

I merely argue that an effective critique would need to describe someone's belief accurately, and then to reference at least one of its aspects, for it to hold any degree of persuasion for someone who held that view. Statements such as "you obviously haven't really thought about it", which are made from time to time during these sorts of discussions (by people on all sides of the debate), are demonstrably false for anyone who has given the issue thought, whatever conclusion they have drawn from their deliberations.

The same would be true of the assertions that Christians do not know the Bible well (there are many of us who have studied it deeply over many years), or that we must be illogical or somehow immune to reason (my church is filled with perfectly intelligent students, graduates, academics and professionals).

In this sense, I feel there IS a relevant distinction between a critique of a world view and criticism of the person advancing that opinion. I'm not overly offended if somebody does think that I am stupid, but I hope that a dispassionate observer would detect, from the manner in which I write, at least a certain degree of thoughtfulness and intelligence. My suspicion is that while you may have determined that the Christian faith lacks credibility, it's probably more difficult to provide a coherent explanation as to why someone else may draw a different conclusion about its validity. In this light, it's perhaps more convenient to label Christians such as myself as "childish" (or something similar) than it is to have to account for (to quote 1 Peter 3) "the reason for the hope [I] have". But unless you're willing to attribute such naivety to all Christians, it might be worth reflecting on the possibility that my faith may be based on a reasoning that you have hitherto overlooked.

Fri, 2012-06-22 13:52 — rohanbxz (not verified)

Seems to me you are the one that believes in Fairy Stories and invisible woo.

Fri, 2012-06-22 12:49 — Angela_K (not verified)

So will the police arrest the religious fundamentalists who put up signs declaring that some bloke - of whom there is no evidence - died for my sins. No thought not. The religious want to be free to express their bigotry and distorted World view and silence their critics.

Sun, 2012-06-24 16:10 — ELAINE K (not verified)

You are speaking my mind. Because I eat bacon sandwiches and married out of the religion I must go to hell. Thats nice. My privacy is evaded by people who want to encourage me to go to their faiths. The Church bells evade my privacy when I wish to sit in my garden and read my book in peace.
Ithought we lived in a free country, yes religion can be preached so can atheism in the same way and not be pennalised.

Fri, 2012-06-22 15:31 — Gareth

Let's be clear: no one, whether Christian or otherwise, has made any sort of complaint or request for the poster to be removed. The enquiry came from the exhibitor of the poster himself.

I think that most Christians are as concerned to preserve free speech as you are, not least because we would want the freedom to argue that your characterisation of Christians is perhaps inaccurate. There's no benefit to either of us if we are prevented from having this discussion.

Fri, 2012-06-22 18:59 — Cal Godot (not verified)

If Christians are so concerned about "free speech," why are so many Christians committed to preventing doctors and nurses from discussing all available options for birth control and pregnancy?

If Christians are so concerned about "free speech," why are so many Christians in favor of laws which prevent evolution from being taught in schools?

If Christians are so concerned about "free speech," why are so many Christians supportive of laws or "mob pressure" which inhibits the free expression of non-Christian religions such as Islam?

If Christians are so concerned about "free speech," why are so many Christians involved with attempts to edit history textbooks and remove facts that do not color early American Christians in the favorable, traditional mythic fashion?

If Christians are so concerned about "free speech," why are so many Christians working against free speech?

Fri, 2012-06-22 22:22 — antisylphid (not verified)

@Cal
'If Christians are so concerned about "free speech," why'

I don't think that's the point, the point is to stay balanced, let people believe whatever they want to believe and expect from them that other views, lack of belief for example, are respected. And this is universal. Tolerance is universal. Insulting each other is not the way to go, though there are debates on many levels, including the lowest one.

Fri, 2012-06-22 20:02 — Gareth

I'd be as critical of anyone who was as you are! But you shouldn't think that all Christians are as you describe, far from it!

Sun, 2012-06-24 14:23 — antisylphid (not verified)

Your choice G., although 'an eye for an eye' is not the best option imho.

There Are people who value JUSTICE, so don't you worry, have hope in humanity, stay positive and those who you care about won't fail you, because they won't be failed themselves by own f-a-u-l-t-y thinking. You're covered. By justice.

Fri, 2012-06-22 12:48 — Angela_K (not verified)

Fri, 2012-06-22 11:00 — GordonHide (not verified)

I suspect that defence of freedom of expression is going to fall to a few stalwart individuals who suffer hardship including incarceration before the law is corrected.

Fri, 2012-06-22 08:58 — Tesco Shelf Stacker (not verified)

Section 5 was written by New Labour and the PC Brigade wasn't it?
It should be repealed - its a slippery slope to 1984-style thought control.

Fri, 2012-06-22 09:53 — ContraMundum (not verified)

No, Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 was not written by New Labour. It was written in 1986. That is why it is called the Public Order Act 1986.

Fri, 2012-06-22 08:58 — Dan Eastbourne (not verified)

Erm, so "Athiest displays poster, contacts police, they suggest it may be offensive but don't insist he takes poster down" is probably the non-news story of the year.

I suppose if we're honest, much worse has happened to religious individuals, enforced to remove religious symbols and not express their faith in public places.

Fri, 2012-06-22 10:06 — Paul Hurst (not verified)

Lincolnshire police have confirmed that an arrest will be made if a complaint is made, an officer feels "that a reasonable person would find the content insulting" and Mr. Richards refuses to remove the sign from his window (see their website). Surely, this must be a cause for concern? Individual police officers can hardly be expected to nationally maintain a constant - or even independent - policy on this. It will all come down to a personal judgment, and very selective decisions.
You cite "religious individuals, enforced to remove religious symbols and not express their faith in public places". Which particular cases do you have in mind please? Don't forget, this case is about a private individual, expressing his own views from his own home.

Fri, 2012-06-22 15:48 — Benny D (not verified)

You missed the first line:

"LincolnshirePolice have not advised Mr Richards that he faces arrest for the specific posters he is displaying and he is not committing any offences by doing so." (http://www.lincs.police.uk/News-Centre/News-Releases-2012/Atheist%20Post...)

The rest of the press release explains the law in general terms. The opening line makes it pretty clear that Mr Richards is NOT breaking the law.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Fri, 2012-06-22 16:31 — Paul Hurst (not verified)

Benny
You are quite right, the clarification seems to cover this case, although I think we should all - whatever our views - still be concerned regarding the wording of an act considering views "which may cause another person harassment, alarm or distress...the key point is that the offence is committed if it is deemed that a reasonable person would find the content insulting."

The days of the 'Clapham Omnibus' passenger are long gone, and the current diversity of of a multi faith, multi cultural society is going to make this question a bit of a toughie. I, for one, would rather not rely on the police to make such subjective judgments.