NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/132/12.0.html

A Swedish court sentenced a Pentecostal pastor to one month in prison after finding him guilty of offending homosexuals in a sermon. The case was the first trial test of the national law against incitement as applied to speech about homosexuals.

Last year during a sermon delivered in the east coast town of Borgholm, Ake Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." He called homosexuals "perverts, whose sexual drive the Devil has used as his strongest weapon against God."

So, thoughts on the issue might be divided. Right, wrong, just or unjust?

Poll coming.

So, thoughts on the issue might be divided. Right, wrong, just or unjust?


Hate speech fueled by prejudice if I ever saw it.

This is old news, it has been discussed before in another huge thread. The man was aquitted on appeal and the case is now before the Swedish supreme court. A ruling is expected within two weeks.

Merge thread?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/132/12.0.html

So, thoughts on the issue might be divided. Right, wrong, just or unjust?

Poll coming.

1. It's Sweden. It's Swedish law. Pretty clear that he broke the law in Sweden.

2. We don't have laws like that in the US. We have the good old "neo-liberal" US Constitution, written by neo-liberals like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who would probably say that, while objectionable and offensive, the speech should be protected.

3. But the event happened in Sweden, not the US.

Old news anyone? The article says "2004", and as far as I know, Ake Green has been acquited by now.

1. It's Sweden. It's Swedish law. Pretty clear that he broke the law in Sweden.

2. We don't have laws like that in the US. We have the good old "neo-liberal" US Constitution, written by neo-liberals like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who would probably say that, while objectionable and offensive, the speech should be protected.

3. But the event happened in Sweden, not the US.

All of the above are true, of course. But there's a larger question: is it right for Sweden to have a law such as this?

My opinion is that he ought to be allowed to say the things he did. However, if he has said in addition that therefore homosexuals should be attacked and beaten, then he should have been arrested. Hate speech that merely states hatred should be allowed, but hate speech that incites violence should be illegal.

:p

All of the above are true, of course. But there's a larger question: is it right for Sweden to have a law such as this?

My opinion is that he ought to be allowed to say the things he did. However, if he has said in addition that therefore homosexuals should be attacked and beaten, then he should have been arrested. Hate speech that merely states hatred should be allowed, but hate speech that incites violence should be illegal.

:p

*applauds*

The whole concept of democracy is that however much you hate somebody's opinion you must allow them to hold it.

All of the above are true, of course. But there's a larger question: is it right for Sweden to have a law such as this?

My opinion is that he ought to be allowed to say the things he did. However, if he has said in addition that therefore homosexuals should be attacked and beaten, then he should have been arrested. Hate speech that merely states hatred should be allowed, but hate speech that incites violence should be illegal.

:p
Wierd I agree lol

Though a sticky point with me is I am all for freedom
Should sweeden have the freedom to determine what they want to allow and not?

The whole concept of democracy is that however much you hate somebody's opinion you must allow them to hold it.exactamente

All of the above are true, of course. But there's a larger question: is it right for Sweden to have a law such as this?

My opinion is that he ought to be allowed to say the things he did. However, if he has said in addition that therefore homosexuals should be attacked and beaten, then he should have been arrested. Hate speech that merely states hatred should be allowed, but hate speech that incites violence should be illegal.

:p

As an American, I don't feel it's my right to tell Swedes what laws are right in their country.

I also don't believe that people from other nations have the right to tell the US government what is right or wrong in the US, either.

*applauds*

The whole concept of democracy is that however much you hate somebody's opinion you must allow them to hold it.He didn't get tried and later acquitted for hating homosexuals. It was for preaching it and the words he chose...

It was a large matter here, and the law has been greatly attacked in newspapers, but the law is the law, and he must follow it.

And had those things been said in the bible or any other holy book to which the person abides, he would have been protected against the charges by the freedom of religion.

But there's a larger question: is it right for Sweden to have a law such as this?
Is it right for the US to not allow gays to marry?

*applauds*

The whole concept of democracy is that however much you hate somebody's opinion you must allow them to hold it.
I thought the whole concept of democracy was that the people elect officals to represent their wishes.

And had those things been said in the bible or any other holy book to which the person abides, he would have been protected against the charges by the freedom of religion.

Quite. He has to be professing his religion's beliefs before he can claim the right for freedom of religion.

Quite. He has to be professing his religion's beliefs before he can claim the right for freedom of religion.Quote where it says in the bible that homosexuals are a cancer to society.

I thought the whole concept of democracy was that the people elect officals to represent their wishes.True...

so let me put it this way:

The whole concept of Freedom-of-Speech is that however much you hate somebody's opinion you must allow them to hold it.

The way I see it...Sweden does not have freedom-of-Speech.

Do not get me wrong...I still respect the "Their Land..their Laws" principle.

If they do not care for freedom of speech...It is their choice...It is their country...they run it any way they want.

I thought the whole concept of democracy was that the people elect officals to represent their wishes.
You mean mob rule? You see, there's this little thing called "rights" that seems to get in the way of mob rule . . .
Quote where it says in the bible that homosexuals are a cancer to society.
Actually, homosexuality was banned in the old testament not as a sin, persay, but because it was used in certain pagan rituals, and they were worried about paganism spreading its influence into what was supposed to be their pure society.

So in a sense, you could say that the Bible makes a case for homosexuality as the representation of a spreading plague on moral values.

Quote where it says in the bible that homosexuals are a cancer to society.

That's my point.:rolleyes:

You mean mob rule? You see, there's this little thing called "rights" that seems to get in the way of mob rule . . .
I believe my point was that freedom of speach != democracy.

True...

so let me put it this way:

The whole concept of Freedom-of-Speech is that however much you hate somebody's opinion you must allow them to hold it.

The way I see it...Sweden does not have freedom-of-Speech.

Do not get me wrong...I still respect the "Their Land..their Laws" principle.

If they do not care for freedom of speech...It is their choice...It is their country...they run it any way they want.
Meh, I usually like to let people say whatever they want, but I can see the value in refusing to allow hate-speech. Especially if people are trying to incite hatred and possibly violence against a certain group, like this pastor seems to have been doing.

Actually, homosexuality was banned in the old testament not as a sin, persay, but because it was used in certain pagan rituals, and they were worried about paganism spreading its influence into what was supposed to be their pure society.

So in a sense, you could say that the Bible makes a case for homosexuality as the representation of a spreading plague on moral values.

Oh, damn, you nearly had a point there before you undermined the modern anti-homosexual argument to justify the ancient, irrelevant one!

Assuming you were right in your textual interpretation, which you aren't, but assuming you are: If it's no longer used in malicious pagan rituals and that's the only reason someone back then would have done it, why ban it now when ordinary, nice, loving people do it as well?

The Bible is anti-homosexual. There is no point trying to interpret your way out of it. It's anti-homosexual because of the yuck factor on the part of the writers and because the only homosexual acts the men who wrote it would have come across was the prostitution of young boys to sweaty old rich men. This does not change the fact that without very seriously reinterpreting certain words into unlikely meanings you cannot work your way out of it. If you're gonna take it at face value, you have no choice but to accept it's anti-gay.

Accept the truth, on the other hand, with the mitigating circumstances mentioned above, and you understand that it was a very relevant prohibition on something dangerous and perverted at the time, but now that we A) have other, punitive, methods of preventing paedophilia, B) understand the sexual organs very differently than they did and C) have methods of disease prevention they didn't have back then the prohibition is no longer useful.

So in a sense, you could say that the Bible makes a case for homosexuality as the representation of a spreading plague on moral values.

Kinda like how Sodom was destroyed because it's people were cruel and inhospitable?

Kinda like how Sodom was destroyed because it's people were cruel and inhospitable?

If there is a spreading plague on society it's the ignorance of the apostrophe and its uses.

(Teasing ;))

Freedom of speech = spreading of hatred = good how?

There are limits that shouldn't be crossed.

Assuming you were right in your textual interpretation, which you aren't
That homosexuality was banned in the old testament to undermine pagan rituals? Show me why my interpretation is wrong.
but assuming you are: If it's no longer used in malicious pagan rituals and that's the only reason someone back then would have done it, why ban it now when ordinary, nice, loving people do it as well?
I never said we should "ban homosexuality", so stop inferring my political/moral beliefs from my objective reasonings.

I was responding to: "Quote where it says in the bible that homosexuals are a cancer to society." Which I did. The fact that the argument for it being so is irrelevant today makes absolutely no difference as to whether it is in the Bible or not.

Calm down. Your knee-jerk reactions can't be healthy.

That homosexuality was banned in the old testament to undermine pagan rituals? Show me why my interpretation is wrong.

I never said we should "ban homosexuality", so stop inferring my political/moral beliefs from my objective reasonings.

I was responding to: "Quote where it says in the bible that homosexuals are a cancer to society." Which I did. The fact that the argument for it being so is irrelevant today makes absolutely no difference as to whether it is in the Bible or not.

Calm down. Your knee-jerk reactions can't be healthy.

Your inference is ridiculous. The behaviour was prohibited because it was dangerous and yucky (not that it is; in actual fact, it's quite fun, but that's beside the point). Yes, you're right about temple prostitution amongst some of the other cults and religions the Israelites wanted to distance themselves from, but to claim that's the only reason when you've got "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination" staring you in the face is naïve.

Moreover, I am inferring nothing about your beliefs. That was meant to be the indefinite-you, for which I make no apologies other than sorry, our language sucks, no hard feelings.

Edit: Okay, so it looks harsher than was intended. That's actually due to a lil' editing >.>

If there is a spreading plague on society it's the ignorance of the apostrophe and its uses.

(Teasing ;))

Do educate me.

Do educate me."Its", when indicating possession, has no apostrophe. :) You can remember it because it's like "his or "her."

Do educate me.

This (http://tranchant.plus.com/notes/apostrophe) may help, but one thing it doesn't mention is that there's an exception:

To contract "it is", use "it's".
To say something belongs to "it", you don't use "it's" like you'd say "Jane's" or "the boys'"; instead you say "its".

It was a large matter here, and the law has been greatly attacked in newspapers, but the law is the law, and he must follow it.

Just like the blacks should've sat at the back of the bus, since it was the law and all?

If a person thinks a law is unfair, there is this thing called civil disobedience. Christ himself suggested it....

And had those things been said in the bible or any other holy book to which the person abides, he would have been protected against the charges by the freedom of religion.

I'm sorry? Since when do all religious beliefs come straight out of a book? Even if someone bases their religion on a given book, their interpretation of what things mean will be very different from the next guy.

Is it right for the US to not allow gays to marry?

Nope. And that's why we're fighting against it over here.

Your inference is ridiculous. The behaviour was prohibited because it was dangerous and yucky (not that it is; in actual fact, it's quite fun, but that's beside the point). Yes, you're right about temple prostitution amongst some of the other cults and religions the Israelites wanted to distance themselves from, but to claim that's the only reason when you've got "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination" staring you in the face is naïve.
Eating shellfish is also an abomination. (I know, I know, the translated word "abomination" is different; I'm just being picky)

Just remember: Never, EVER wear clothes made from two different types of fibers or shave your beard. Were those are obviously dangerous and yucky too? Or were they merely expressing a desire to stop certain practices that would closely align Israel with certain pagan practices?
Moreover, I am inferring nothing about your beliefs. That was meant to be the indefinite-you, for which I make no apologies other than sorry, our language sucks, no hard feelings.
Fair enough.

Anyway, I was just pointing out that a case can be made for finding "homosexuality as a cancer" in the Bible. In a case where you lock a man up solely because the views he was expressing were neither yours, nor the religion he was preaching, someone should pay closer attention to the religion.

Thanks guys!:D

True...

so let me put it this way:

The whole concept of Freedom-of-Speech is that however much you hate somebody's opinion you must allow them to hold it.
-snip-

Thanks for clarifying my point. I phrased it in a very imprecise way and for that I apologise.

Is it right for the US to not allow gays to marry?

Well, no, in my opinion, and I support changing such laws. Though there are many other threads on yje forum that discuss that particular question, so I'd suggest we not get too far into it here.

When I earlier asked if it was right for Sweden to have a law such as the one under discussion, I really meant to ask if it is right for any nation to have such a law. The hate speech law I proposed is my ideal law for any nation, not just Sweden or the US. My view of basic human rights is that they are universal, and therefore I think that the laws protecting such rights should be essentially the same everywhere.

:p

Eating shellfish is also an abomination. (I know, I know, the translated word "abomination" is different; I'm just being picky)

Just remember: Never, EVER wear clothes made from two different types of fibers or shave your beard. Were those are obviously dangerous and yucky too? Or were they merely expressing a desire to stop certain practices that would closely align Israel with certain pagan practices?

Nope, they were based on a very strong tradition - which, come to think of it, probably has something to do with the homosexual-banning, too - of keeping a "natural order". You'll notice most of those prohibitions are on the mixing of two things together? And yeah, okay, a lot of it's about shifting from the pagans' practices, too.

As for the shellfish, hell, Jews manage it because God tells them not to; why can't you? ;) I'm just playing Devil's Advocate (and that, back then, was most definitely a safety-based law) here, but any Fundamentalist worth his salt will tell you of the distinction between moral and ceremonial laws: Jesus absolved mankind of the ceremonial ones, such as not mixing meat and milk (another safety precaution) and the thing with the fabrics, but not the moral ones; being moral, they have a tendency to be permanent and immutable. I personally don't know how they define which as which, but I imagine St. Paul's pretty strong condemnations mark out Lev 18:22 and... 20:13 (?) as definitely lasting after Jesus.

All of the above are true, of course. But there's a larger question: is it right for Sweden to have a law such as this?

My opinion is that he ought to be allowed to say the things he did. However, if he has said in addition that therefore homosexuals should be attacked and beaten, then he should have been arrested. Hate speech that merely states hatred should be allowed, but hate speech that incites violence should be illegal.

:p
I agree, but than I am American. With value freedoms more than security because Ben Franklin said if you value security more than you deserve neither :p

No sir, I don't like it.

While I hate the legislature and crimes against gay people I don't care for this. Not sure who said this but : "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

This law does not stop free speech, Victoria has a similar law
He is free to disagree with homosexuality, say "It is against my faith and the bible condemns it'.
He is not free to say 'Homosexuals are evil', or villify homosexuals.
I can live with that

I'm sorry? Since when do all religious beliefs come straight out of a book? Even if someone bases their religion on a given book, their interpretation of what things mean will be very different from the next guy.
Problem with that is, you can't just say "No, my religion says so. Where? Well, it isn't written, but that's the way it is." I doubt it would be seen as a legal defense.

Edit: The full sermon, in english, can be read here: http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/ake_green_sermon.htm