But working on it.
The Church regards gambling as a sin. I don't gamble, not for any religious reason but because I'm no good at it. I cannot recall any mention of gambling as sinful in the Bible.
Smoking is also not mentioned at all in the Bible. Drink is mentioned, as in turning water into wine and Noah getting plastered when the Ark hit land, and who could blame him? Drinking isn't banned, only drunkenness is frowned on.
Adultery, yes, there is a very specific commandment about that. And killing, and stealing, and coveting. Definite rules there. Gambling though? Smoking? No mention as far as I know.
There are seven deadly sins. Lust, avarice, gluttony, pride, anger, sloth and the other one. Well, it's late. Few of these feature in biblical texts, they were made up by the Catholics to boost the guilt levels of their population.
One thing that is very clear in the Bible is that God doesn't like gays. On the first set of stone tablets that Moses smashed, it didn't say 'No graven images'. That was added later to replace the 'No poofters' line. Oh, this is no bull, not even a golden one. All through the Bible there are places where it says 'You're not welcome' to gays, to the extent that I have been frequently baffled as to why anyone gay wants to join any religion that says, quite clearly, it doesn't want them. Certain other religions are even more restrictive in this regard, you know.
So when a Christian preacher says that homosexuality is a sin, he is saying what he genuinely believes. I don't have to agree because I am neither homosexual nor Christian so neither standpoint affects me at all. All the same, he believes it and to my mind, he can say what he believes. Nobody is forced to listen. He is not saying 'push a wall on top of them' or 'throw them off a mountain', he is just saying he believes it to be sinful in the eyes of his God. Having read that book, yes, that's definitely what it says in there. More than once.
This man did not call for any hatred or violence against gays. He merely said that in his view it was sinful. He does not want them hanged from cranes or buried under rubble, he just wants gays to go straight.
Well that's not going to happen. Even so, all he's saying is that he'd like it to happen. I'd like booze and tobacco to be handed out for free but that's not going to happen. I'd like to have a government instead of an EU admin department but that's not very likely either. It is not wrong to wish for those things, as long as the wishing is words and not violent action. Nowhere in the Bible does it say 'Thou shalt not think' although there is legislation in parliament to that effect, and it's an absolute requirement for MPs.
If someone says to me 'I don't like smoking or drinking', I can only respond 'Well, don't do those things.' If they come back with 'I don't want you do do them either,' I have to say 'That's unfortunate, because you are not going to get what you want'. That's the end of it.
Unless they come back and say 'You will live your life as I direct or I will make you suffer.' Then it's war.
This preacher did not declare war. He said 'I disapprove' and that's all. He was arrested. By a gay PCSO, so no conflict of interest there, eh? Consider what would happen if a straight PCSO arrested a gay activist for proclaiming that gayness was normal, and that the straight PCSO was weird for not accepting his view?
There is no fan on the planet that could cope with the amount of shit that would have hit it. All the lefties would have been baying for blood. Homophobia! Difference of opinion? No! Homophobia! They would shriek for harsher punishments than even those they want for smokers. Burn the heretic!
In this case, the preacher was eventually compensated with taxpayer's money. So common sense did not win after all. It never does. If a racist official does something to attack Asians, those Asians are compensated with taxpayer's money. If a misogynist official attacks women, the women are compensated with taxpayer's money. If a gay official attacks someone who doesn't like his lifestyle, that person is compensated with taxpayer's money. What does the official pay? Nothing at all.
If the official is proven to discriminate against drinkers, smokers or fat people, he/she/it will get a promotion.
And this is the point. Not the preacher's opinion, not the PCSO's personal use of a law he made up to suit himself. Accountability.
The public sector has none. Not one jot. You can say 'the police were sued' or 'the council were sued' but no, they weren't. In every case, the taxpayer was sued. None of the individuals pay a penny. They screw up and go to court, we pay their fines and costs. They lose nothing. All they do is crank up our taxes to cover the cost.
All that compensation comes from taxes. If I was convicted of something and told to pay compensation, I would be the one paying it. If I took a council official to court, won, and was granted compensation... I would be the one paying it through taxes. In my case I'd have a criminal record. In the council case, the nameless official would not. It would be a mark against me in the first scenario, a mark against a faceless, fluid entity called 'the council' in the second.
This is socialism. If you're not part of the Collective you are alone. If you are part of the Collective you are protected but you have no identity, no individuality. Will the Coagulation change this? Excuse me while I dissolve into hysterical laughter for a moment.
There are no individuals in the Coagulation. There are none in Government. The Coagulation is merely the currently dominant segment of the Collective. They are all part of the Collective and all subservient to the EU. They all have the Nuremberg defence of 'I vos only obeyink orders' to fall back on. None of them are individually accountable and they know it.
Until they are, they will never act as human beings.
They will always act like the ultimate in socialism. The Borg.
And you think you might be a sinner?