Sunday, Jul 23rd

Last update:05:24:56 PM GMT

You are here: In the News Society and Culture UK Courts Abuse Logic to Hate God

UK Courts Abuse Logic to Hate God

E-mail Print PDF

"Last week’s ruling by a magistrate’s court in Bristol, convicting two street preachers (Michael Overd and Michael Stockwell) of a public order offence, is just another example of the loss of freedom of speech for Christians in the UK. The prosecutor argued that publicly quoting the King James Bible in modern Britain should “be considered to be abusive and is a criminal matter.” During the trial, the prosecutor argued:

To say to someone that Jesus is the only God is not a matter of truth. To the extent that they are saying that the only way to God is through Jesus, that cannot be a truth." (Answers in Genesis, 6 March 2017)

What surprises me about this conclusion is not that they said it, but that lawyers for the defence did not immediately point out the fallacy.

They must have been amazingly lax!! The statement SHOULD have read “The belief that Jesus is God, and that He is the only way to salvation, is a belief that may, or may not, be true.” That is the closest any legal argument can get! They certainly cannot say it “ cannot be truth”! To give such a conclusion is to abuse logic and proper argument. “It cannot be truth” SHOULD read, then, “It may, or may not, be truth”.

To sentence someone on the basis of such a juvenile and inappropriately illogical belief is nonsense and very unjust. The judges are really saying “I hate your beliefs and if you don’t agree, I will NOT give your ball back!”

So, to find someone guilty because of false argumentation is itself a matter of the beliefs of the judges, NOT to do with any actual evidences. There should be a big outcry and a retrial!

It is also completly inconsitent that Jurors and Witnesses still use the Bible to be sworn in or give evidence under oath in courts. (BBC, October 2013).

It is also completely inconsistent that Jurors and Witnesses still use the Bible to be sworn in or give evidence under oath in a court, when the prosecutor has said that quoting the Bible should “be considered to be abusive and is a criminal matter.” (BBC, October 2013).