Baptist pastor refused entry to UK

[Eoghan]

I was horrified to hear amongst a list of al-Kaida (probably spelt wrong) and militant muslims a Baptist Pastor.

The list of people refused entry to the UK, gave the reason for this pastors refusal as his views on homosexuality.

What is this country coming to when moral views (in accord with the word of G-d?) are a reason for refusing entry!

Anyone know more? Was this Baptist pastor advocating executions or mob-lynchings of homosexuals?

 

[ExGentibus]

Could he be Fred Phelps of Westboro? He is a hyper-calvinist who has made his life mission to protest very vocally against homosexuality on every possible occasion.

Anyway, denying entry to a country to anyone because of his ideas is a huge defeat for democracy.

 

[bug]

It is Phelps, and believe me he ain't no baptist, indeed his little 'church' resembles a cult. I won't link it but there is plenty of matreial on the net about him. Nor do I see it as a huge defeat for democracy either, democracies have always operated in this way, weeding out the worst elements for the good of the democracy.

 

[Tim]

This is a good reminder to be winsome and peaceful when confronting and speaking against sinful lifestyles. This does not require compromise or lack of integrity.

Sometimes people have a way of drawing negative attention to themselves and end up paying for it. (I don't know anything about this case, and am only making my comments based on what has been written above).

Of course, there will be times when someone does everything right and still suffers. That is still going to happen sometimes.

 

[JonathanHunt]

Eoghan

This was discussed on the board somewhere when it actually happened.

It is Fred Phelps and family who protest military funerals with slogans like 'God hates fags'. Their entire theology is skewed by their obsession with this one issue.

I wouldn't give the man or his hateful church publicity, and I am in two minds about the denial of his entry to the UK. I entirely oppose what he says (or the way he says it and places a wrong emphasis and insists that he is the ONLY true pastor he knows of in the WORLD) - but I have to defend his right to say it. He does not advocate violence or plan terrorist attacks or anything like that.

So I say that in general terms, as a 'thin end of the wedge', his banning troubles me as it sets a precendent that could be used against even little young me, preaching the truth of the Word of God.

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

The man is, indeed, Phelps. While I am in agreement with what he says (to a certain degree) I am troubled that he never actually mentions the Gospel or repentance. Oh, dont get me started on the "thank God for ieds" and military funeral picketing.

 

[Marrow Man]

Is Fred Phelps going to be barred from the upcoming meeting of the SBC? One can only hope.

 

[Ivan]

Is Fred Phelps going to be barred from the upcoming meeting of the SBC? One can only hope.

If I see him I'll give him a cookie.

 

[DMcFadden]

Cookie? I don't get it.

Just give him an hour of Perez Hilton opining on Miss. California.

Actually, culties like this fellow would never be caught dead in a real church meeting.

 

[turmeric]

We gotta love our enemies, although it's hard to do in Fred Phelps' case!

 

[Hawaiian Puritan]

Phelps, et al. once picketed our church. Guess he and his family were on vacation in Hawaii and just felt like they had to do something fun while they were here.

 

[bug]

It may be worth pointing out that there is a fundemental difference between what a government does in relation to allowing a forienger into their country to propogate their views and to allow freedom of speech in relation to it's own citizens. Democratic governments have always excercised this right to decide who they do and do not allow into the country. Remember during the troubles in NI we not only didn't allow Jerry Adams into the country, we weren't even allowed to hear his voice. This is normal government parctice in the UK, it is nothing new, the only thing that is new is the media senstionalism that accompanies it perticularly in relation to 'insightment to religous hatred.'

So whilst I agree that should this be the thin end of the wedge and the government moves to limit my freedom of speech I will be saddened, however I do not see an inevitable link between these two different situations. But then we have to remeber that we have only had that freedom for around 200 years anyway, and what is the result in most of our churches?

What is also interesting is that no one is commenting on the extremist muslims and jew who are also on the list. When our forefathers in the noncomformist movement battled hard for religious freedom, they battled not just for themselves, but for all. Realising that one rule for them and another for others would not be right, is not the reverse applicable? If we are not to allow extremists into the country, it should be all extremists.

I actually nearly phoned into a national radio chat show yesterday about this very issue, because the media are presenting this men as if he is a baptist and a christain, that really does anger me. Just because he calls himself these things does not mean that he is, if we are to judge him by his fruits then what can we say? The reason then that I nearly rang in was to distance reformed baptists in the UK from such people! That is the danger I see, that people will think I am like him!