Brickbats

Brickbat: Daddy Was an Old-Time Preacher Man

|

London, England police, arrested street preacher John Sherwood outside Uxbridge Station after someone claimed he made homophobic remarks during a sermon. Sherwood was handcuffed and held overnight at a police station but released without charges. "I wasn't making any homophobic comments," said Sherwood. "I was just defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. … When the police approached me, I explained that I was exercising my religious liberty and my conscience. I was forcibly pulled down from the steps and suffered some injury to my wrist and to my elbow."

NEXT: Cult Country

Brickbats Religion Free Speech England Gay Marriage LGBT

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

59 responses to “Brickbat: Daddy Was an Old-Time Preacher Man

  1. Straight privilege ?

      1. USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than DC regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

    1. The Puritans wanted a place where THEY could be in charge.

  2. Coming soon to a country near you, just as soon as we can clarify that free speech does not include hate speech.

    1. The whole point of free speech is to protect speech that the government and most regular people do NOT approve of. Protecting speech that, in the the prevailing culture, few if any people would find any problem with, has never been necessary.

      I’ll never forget learning in high school about some ACLU case that sought to allow new-Nazis to stage a rally in Illinois. The teacher read us part of the statement from the ACLU lawyer. The guy was a Holocaust survivor or his parents were, I forget which. He HATED Nazis. But that was not the reason he took the case. He said that, if we
      don’t defend the basic rights of even neo-Nazis, eventually the rights of all groups, will disappear. That “when they eventually come after you, no one will be left to speak up at that point.”

      I wish this kind of lesson was still taught in public high schools.

      1. I kinda wish this was taught to the modern day ACLU.

      2. Dude, the ACLU’s modern stance is to not defend that sort of thing any more.

        Free speech dies when gen x does.

        1. My knees rattle and my joints hurt. It won’t be long now.

      3. To be fair, the Left needs Nazis, real or created, as bogeymen. They don’t need conservatives or Christians, or maybe even Jews.

        1. I thought conservatives and Christians were Nazis.

        2. But if there are no Nazis handy they’ll just call Conservatives and Christians Nazis.

      4. >learning in high school about some ACLU case that sought to allow new-Nazis to stage a rally in Illinois.

        You were lucky. I had to learn about this by watching the Blues Brothers.

  3. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  4. England? Meh…

    CB

  5. “Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat”

    1. I’ll take things most black kids don’t say for $400, Alex.

      1. Actually, I heard that in Junior High in the 1960s. One of the Black kids came back to the US from Ghana, where his family had gone on mission.
        Not good to be Black in the US in 1960, but much worse in Africa.

        1. “Not good to be Black in the US in 1960, but much worse in Africa.”

          Could say the same thing of 1860. Or 1760.

          1. Hey sarc, it’s getting kinda creepy how much you post about me and that you’ve muted me. Especially yesterday when I wasn’t even on the site.

            You really need to move on with your life. Maybe stick to talking about ideas, instead of people, like you claim you do?

            1. He mostly talks about people, because his ideas are bad.

              1. Welcome to my mute list.

                1. Lol, sarc already threatened to mute Don’t look at me a week ago.

  6. In the progressive mind, opposition to gay marriage is homophobia, opposition to abortion is misogyny, opposition to either affirmative action or reparations is racism, and support for a border wall is xenophobia. In the progressive mind, the legitimate purpose of government is to rid the public square of anyone who believes these ideas and, ultimately, to purge ideas like these from people’s minds.

    Using the government to police people’s thoughts, however, is the practical distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, and support for the practical application of totalitarianism isn’t just horrible for obvious reasons. It’s also another reason why progressives are America’s most horrible people, and it’s so important that they know people think they’re horrible. In their minds, silence implies acceptance.

    1. Puritans gotta purify.

    2. You’re not going to get many fans by saying “The other guys are totalitarians, but they guys I support are merely authoritarians!”

      That’s like Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich.

      And the reason I stopped voting.

      1. It’s hard making difficult choices!

      2. Recognizing the distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism isn’t my original work. It’s Kirkpatrick Doctrine.

        “According to Kirkpatrick, authoritarian regimes merely try to control and/or punish their subjects’ behaviors, while totalitarian regimes moved beyond that into attempting to control the thoughts of their subjects, using not only propaganda, but brainwashing, re-education, widespread domestic espionage, and mass political repression based on state ideology. Totalitarian regimes also often attempt to undermine or destroy community institutions deemed ideologically tainted (e.g., religious ones, or even the nuclear family), while authoritarian regimes by and large leave these alone. For this reason, she argues that the process of restoring democracy is easier in formerly authoritarian than in formerly totalitarian states, and that authoritarian states are more amenable to gradual reform in a democratic direction than are totalitarian states.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkpatrick_Doctrine

        It should be noted that she made these observations before an authoritarian like Pinochet held a referendum on his own rule and stepped down when he lost the referendum. I don’t suppose totalitarians like the Kims staying in power surprised her at all.

        If not enough people understand the difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, maybe you should help spread the word! And make sure to point out that progressives share some of the important characteristics of totalitarianism, especially their focus on controlling and punishing people’s beliefs rather than their actions.

    3. Seriously. Your message seems to be “Vote Authoritarian! Because Totalitarian is worse!”

      1. Putting aside the idea that Republicans aren’t championing the cause of individual freedom in various ways, do you mean to suggest that totalitarianism isn’t worse than authoritarianism?

        “There are, however, systemic differences between traditional and revolutionary autocracies that have a predictable effect on their degree of repressiveness. Generally speaking, traditional autocrats tolerate social inequities, brutality, and poverty while revolutionary autocracies create them.

        Traditional autocrats leave in place existing allocations of wealth, power, status, and other re- sources which in most traditional societies favor an affluent few and maintain masses in poverty. But they worship traditional gods and observe traditional taboos. They do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope, as children born to untouchables in India acquire the skills and attitudes necessary for survival in the miserable roles they are destined to fill. Such societies create no refugees.

        Precisely the opposite is true of revolutionary Communist regimes. They create refugees by the million because they claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands for change that so violate internalized values and habits that inhabitants flee by the tens of thousands in the remarkable expectation that their attitudes, values, and goals will “fit” better in a foreign country than in their native land.

        —-Jeane Kirkpatrick

        “Dictatorships and Double Standards” (1979)

        https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/gna/Quellensammlung/11/11_kirkpatrickdictatorshipsdoublestandards_1979.html

        She could have written much of that about progressives. They’re totalitarian in ideology and objective, they just haven’t put their plans fully into effect yet. And even IF IF IF the Republicans weren’t champions of personal liberty in areas like gun rights, taxes, healthcare, and, yes, free speech, now, what makes you think that totalitarians aren’t worse than authoritarians?

        Let’s see, the USSR under Stalin, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea under the Kims, Germany under Hitler, . . . which authoritarian regime (using Kirkpatrick’s distinction) was worse than any regime on that list of totalitarians at any point in history?

        What makes you think that totalitarianism isn’t worse than authoritarianism?

        1. “What makes you think that totalitarianism isn’t worse than authoritarianism?”

          Oh I dunno, what makes you think being starved to death is better than being poisoned?

          1. So you simply don’t accept the distinctions between authoritarianism and totalitarianism as valid–despite all evidence to the contrary?

            1. Your implication is that if I don’t beg authoritarians to rule over me then I want totalitarians to rule over me?

              I’m not going to beg to be ruled by either.

          2. If you think life under Pinochet was just as bad as life under Pol Pot–because they both killed people–you’re being irrational.

            And, yes, progressives share distinctive characteristics with totalitarians like the Khmer Rouge.

            Ever hear “Holiday in Cambodia” or “California Uber Alles”? Progressives have shared similar ideological tenets with totalitarians for a very long time, and I’m not the only person who’s noticed.

            1. I’m not disagreeing with you about the distinction between authoritarians and totalitarians.

              I’m saying that you can’t convince me to beg authoritarians to control my life because totalitarians are worse.

              1. One of the distinctions between totalitarians and authoritarians is that totalitarians use the state to control what people think. Totalitarians, meanwhile, “claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands for change that so violate internalized values and habits that inhabitants flee”, according to Kirkpatrick.

                I’m not begging anyone to support authoritarianism, but I am advocating that we reject the hate-filled, elitist stink of progressive totalitarianism. And totalitarian is exactly what progressive are. They want to use the government to control what we think and punish what we think in various ways. Whataboutism really isn’t a valid response to that.

                1. I reject both.

                2. I’m not begging anyone to support authoritarianism, but I am advocating that we reject the hate-filled, elitist stink of progressive totalitarianism.

                  That’s not what I see in your posts. I see you selling authoritarianism on a stick, because totalitarianism is worse.

  7. The religious:
    And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32
    The fascists:
    You can’t handle the truth!

    1. The progressives:
      We will tell you what the truth was and is.

      1. …and will be.

    1. Well, his side lost, didn’t they? Sour grapes.

    2. You can take the prince out of the royalty but you can’t take the royalty out of the prince.

      1. Must suck to be the bastard stepchild in the royal bloodline and have to kneel to filthy commoners and Americans because you dressed like a Nazi once.

    3. It is rather ironic, that a [now former] British Prince is now living in the United States, and instructing us as to how inappropriate it is for us to have a fundamental right, when that very right was one of the fundamental reasons for separating from Great Britain in the first place.

      1. meant to say foundational reasons…but I’m not going to complain about the lack of an edit button, because I think the mute button has proven so beneficial toward encouraging meaningful and civil discourse here.

        1. Mute User has made the comments civilized. The mean girls are just a bunch of grey smudges. Sooooooo nice.

      2. I don’t think it’s ironic. I find it supremely douche and insulting. The clown needs to shove his head back up his butt where it came from and take his whore wife with him. How stupid do you have to be to give up being second in line for the throne for a reality star trailer trash? I’m sure he’s got lots of good advice.

        1. Edward VIII abdicated to marry a woman. People are gonna people.

    4. I dunno, seems like he’s integrating into the culture quite well. Surprisingly quickly I’d say.

      1. His black wife is so oppressed here though. Lets not talk bout the fact that she would be hard pressed to pass for “black” even in 1880. What’s is she, a quadroon? Whiter than a turk, and theyre technically caucasian.

        Were old timey racists really that dedicated to their craft that they could call out an octoroon on less? Seems very unlikely, esp considering how swarthy many non nordic europeans are.

  8. That’s what you get for preaching the gospel in an Islamic nation like England.

    1. Well done. To be fair, preaching pro homosexuality in Islamic countries can lead to far worse than arrest.

  9. Now, now, Brits! That is no way to treat the comic relief! Why not instead have a duelling preacher telling the story of David and Jonathan or the triangle with King Saul.