NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051129/ap_on_re_eu/sweden_pastor_gays

The Swedish pastor who was prosecuted for "hate speech" in Sweden for practicing his right of freedom of religion was found not guilty by the highest court in Sweden. A victory for freedom of religion and a bow against government censorship?

Good for them.

Censorship=Bad

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051129/ap_on_re_eu/sweden_pastor_gays

The Swedish pastor who was prosecuted for "hate speech" in Sweden for practicing his right of freedom of religion was found not guilty by the highest court in Sweden. A victory for freedom of religion and a bow against government censorship?

It deeply saddens me when I see fellow Christians speak out in such a despicable and openly hateful way. Although I agree that homosexuality is a bad practice (and a sin), it seems to me that this fellow forgot the command of Christ to love others more than to love one's self. Furthermore, I think the saying of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' was neglected and, because of this, does nothing to glorify God, as we're called to do in our daily routines and lives.

It deeply saddens me when I see fellow Christians speak out in such a despicable and openly hateful way. Although I agree that homosexuality is a bad practice (and a sin), it seems to me that this fellow forgot the command of Christ to love others more than to love one's self. Furthermore, I think the saying of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' was neglected and, because of this, does nothing to glorify God, as we're called to do in our daily routines and lives.
Though I fully agree, I'm glad to see the Swedes are willing to support free speech.

As long as it's in his church, he can have it. The rest is in the hands of the church-goers how to take it, and it might be awful, but it's fair.

I loathe hate-speech. And when it comes from the mouth of someone claiming to be Christian it's even more bitter to me.

However, he has his right to speak freely on his views. On the opposite end, I have every right not to listen to him.

I refer you to the Keegstra Case:
( http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/128mile.asp )

It's okay if you believe gays or jews are the devil or whatever, but it's not okay to use your position as a pastor, or teacher, or someone else with influence over people, to convince others of the same. It's the sort of thing that starts wars. We'll probably continue this way. I am afraid of the future.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051129/ap_on_re_eu/sweden_pastor_gays

The Swedish pastor who was prosecuted for "hate speech" in Sweden for practicing his right of freedom of religion was found not guilty by the highest court in Sweden. A victory for freedom of religion and a bow against government censorship?
A victory for free speech. I didn't like what he had to say, but I liked the unnecessary government censorship even less.

I refer you to the Keegstra Case:
( http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/128mile.asp )

It's okay if you believe gays or jews are the devil or whatever, but it's not okay to use your position as a pastor, or teacher, or someone else with influence over people, to convince others of the same. It's the sort of thing that starts wars. We'll probably continue this way. I am afraid of the future.
Oh come on, this is Sweden we're talking about. How much influence do you think one pastor who occasionally mentions gays negatively (it's not like he's making a career of homophobia á la Fred Phelps) actually has over people?

It deeply saddens me when I see fellow Christians speak out in such a despicable and openly hateful way. Although I agree that homosexuality is a bad practice (and a sin), it seems to me that this fellow forgot the command of Christ to love others more than to love one's self. Furthermore, I think the saying of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' was neglected and, because of this, does nothing to glorify God, as we're called to do in our daily routines and lives.

I concur. People like him give Christians a bad name. It's those that say they most represent Christianity who are actually the worst.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051129/ap_on_re_eu/sweden_pastor_gays

The Swedish pastor who was prosecuted for "hate speech" in Sweden for practicing his right of freedom of religion was found not guilty by the highest court in Sweden. A victory for freedom of religion and a bow against government censorship?
I remember him. I saw his statements on TV. One must wonder how preachers of messages such as love thy neighbour and respect all your fellow men can actually spew out such vile poison.

What a lovely, Nationstatesy position we're all agreeing to - hate the content, but think he should be allowed to spout his nonsense as he pleases. Nice to see a non-controversial thread once in a while :p

I agree! Good for Sweden for standing up for what's right(read rights). Now, I hope someone kicks his homophobic ass! :D

I agree! Good for Sweden for standing up for what's right(read rights). Now, I hope someone kicks his homophobic ass! :D
He will become a pariah amongst more liberal theologists and perhaps even lose some of his flock. This publicity though is dangerous. If he is censored, he might come off as a martyr, and we do not need martyrs.

I loathe hate-speech. And when it comes from the mouth of someone claiming to be Christian it's even more bitter to me.

However, he has his right to speak freely on his views. On the opposite end, I have every right not to listen to him.

Well said

I loathe hate-speech. And when it comes from the mouth of someone claiming to be Christian it's even more bitter to me.

However, he has his right to speak freely on his views. On the opposite end, I have every right not to listen to him.

BINGO!

THere is sense in this world after all...

And FireAntz, I agree, Yay Patton and Schwarzkopf. :)

I loathe hate-speech. And when it comes from the mouth of someone claiming to be Christian it's even more bitter to me.

However, he has his right to speak freely on his views. On the opposite end, I have every right not to listen to him.

Doesn't Sweden have blasphemy laws?

I vaguely remember Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" being banned in Sweden for being blasphemous and getting billed in Norway as "the film that was banned in Sweden." Or do I have that backwards?

I would think that hatred in the name of Jesus would qualify as blasphemy.

There is a fine line between freedom of expression and preaching hate.

I am not sure of the laws in Sweden or the EU, but preaching homosexuality as a cancerous tumor, could be seen as attempting to invoke widespread violence against homosexuals.

There is a fine line between freedom of expression and preaching hate.

I am not sure of the laws in Sweden or the EU, but preaching homosexuality as a cancerous tumor, could be seen as attempting to invoke widespread violence against homosexuals.

Hate crime/hate speech laws are some of the worst on the books, simply because of the sheer vagueness of them, as well as the wide-open ability to abuse them.

Let him preach that the homosexuals need to die, for all I care. Let the public run him out of the town, afterwards.

Pastors "anti-gay" preaching is protected speech.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051129/...en_pastor_gays

The Swedish pastor who was prosecuted for "hate speech" in Sweden for practicing his right of freedom of religion was found not guilty by the highest court in Sweden. A victory for freedom of religion and a bow against government censorship?

I would say it is a victory for freedom of speech, and for freedom of religion. This is one of those cases in which I don't like what the person has to say, but I will defend his right to say it.

It deeply saddens me when I see fellow Christians speak out in such a despicable and openly hateful way. Although I agree that homosexuality is a bad practice (and a sin), it seems to me that this fellow forgot the command of Christ to love others more than to love one's self. Furthermore, I think the saying of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' was neglected and, because of this, does nothing to glorify God, as we're called to do in our daily routines and lives.

I agree with most of this - that I am saddened by fellow Christians saying such things and openly disregarding many of the teachings of Christ. I would point out, however, that homosexuality is not a practice, and saying it is a sin is like saying that menstruating is a sin. Homsexuality is a sexual orientation. It is not chosen, and thus can be a sin only if all sorts of involuntary responses are sins. Now, if you believe that homosexual sex is a sin, that is your perogative, but ask yourself how much sense that really makes?

I agree with most of this - that I am saddened by fellow Christians saying such things and openly disregarding many of the teachings of Christ. I would point out, however, that homosexuality is not a practice, and saying it is a sin is like saying that menstruating is a sin. Homsexuality is a sexual orientation. It is not chosen, and thus can be a sin only if all sorts of involuntary responses are sins. Now, if you believe that homosexual sex is a sin, that is your perogative, but ask yourself how much sense that really makes?

A lot, actually. The mere existance as a homosexual does not constitute sin -- IMO, it is a genetic disorder -- but engaging in homosexual acts is sinful.

I like by the way how you put the words "anti-gay" into inverted commas in the title.

Saying that gay people are a tumour and rape little kids...well, I don't know...seems pretty clear-cut anti-gay to me.

Hate crime/hate speech laws are some of the worst on the books, simply because of the sheer vagueness of them, as well as the wide-open ability to abuse them.

I agree with this, mostly. They are quite vague and and uncertain, but that is what courts are for. They interpert the law and apply it to the cases.

Let him preach that the homosexuals need to die, for all I care. Let the public run him out of the town, afterwards.

I might tend to agree with you, however, the problem is that if the public or part of the public (be it even 10 people) agree with him and decide to take action... there is a problem. If 10 people agree with him and go on a killing spree of homosexuals because of what he preached... he should certainly be tried and punished to the fullest extent that the law allows.

I agree with this, mostly. They are quite vague and and uncertain, but that is what courts are for. They interpert the law and apply it to the cases.

And if the courts become corrupted (which is highly likely)....

I might tend to agree with you, however, the problem is that if the public or part of the public (be it even 10 people) agree with him and decide to take action... there is a problem. If 10 people agree with him and go on a killing spree of homosexuals because of what he preached... he should certainly be tried and punished to the fullest extent that the law allows.

I don't see why not at the moment (if I wasn't dead tired, I might argue this point, but who knows, my opinions change as much as the weather), but he shouldn't be tried simply for speaking it.

A lot, actually. The mere existance as a homosexual does not constitute sin -- IMO, it is a genetic disorder -- but engaging in homosexual acts is sinful.
Hmmm genetic disorder, why that's quite harsh. I do not believe its a disorder, nor that it is genetic. Indeed, we are born gay. So then, to avoid sinning, should we sleep with women? Even if we are not and cannot be attracted to them? Furthermore, how would that make a woman feel, knowing that her partner isn't even attracted to her.

And if the courts become corrupted (which is highly likely)....

Well that is just losing all faith in men. Hell - if the courts become corrupted, we are all screwed and revolutions will follow.

That would be one hell of a corruption.

I don't see why not at the moment (if I wasn't dead tired, I might argue this point, but who knows, my opinions change as much as the weather), but he shouldn't be tried simply for speaking it.

He isn't just simply speaking it... he is inciting the violence. He is telling people to, asking people to, hurt homosexuals.

It is the same principle with murder for hire (albeit without the money). Person A tells Person B to kill Person C for them. Person B kills Person C. Person A can still be tried in the court of law for murder.

It deeply saddens me when I see fellow Christians speak out in such a despicable and openly hateful way. Although I agree that homosexuality is a bad practice (and a sin),


I second that.

beside... like what Foamy said.... Gay people are always talking bout freedom of speech, when truly they are trying to shhs our freedom of speech...

bastard.

Well that is just losing all faith in men. Hell - if the courts become corrupted, we are all screwed and revolutions will follow.

That would be one hell of a corruption.



He isn't just simply speaking it... he is inciting the violence. He is telling people to, asking people to, hurt homosexuals.

It is the same principle with murder for hire (albeit without the money). Person A tells Person B to kill Person C for them. Person B kills Person C. Person A can still be tried in the court of law for murder.
Indeed, the incitement of hatred and violent actions should enjoy less protection.

I second that.

beside... like what Foamy said.... Gay people are always talking bout freedom of speech, when truly they are trying to shhs our freedom of speech...

bastard.
You say religion is the root of all evil in another thread, yet here you agree with a clearly religious view, that homosexuality sinful (I assume you do as you seconded his opinion). How peculiar.

You know what?

God doesn't give a shit. Jesus reckoned everyone should live as good as they can.
Jesus also said making money, charging interests and all that is a bad thing. No one cares - indeed, Financial Magnates are our idols.

I don't believe in any of this stuff, so I don't believe in the concept of "sin". I know too much about how these religions came about to see anything other than people bullshitting to get other people to do as they want.

But even if you believed in all this, and even if you believed a man went to hell for looking at another man - it still is absolutely, 100%, none of your business.

Concentrate on your own life, live like a "good Christian" should - and let other people f*ck each other up the butt all they want.

It is not your responsibility to make other people go to heaven!

You know what?

God doesn't give a shit. Jesus reckoned everyone should live as good as they can.
Jesus also said making money, charging interests and all that is a bad thing. No one cares - indeed, Financial Magnates are our idols.

I don't believe in any of this stuff, so I don't believe in the concept of "sin". I know too much about how these religions came about to see anything other than people bullshitting to get other people to do as they want.

But even if you believed in all this, and even if you believed a man went to hell for looking at another man - it still is absolutely, 100%, none of your business.

Concentrate on your own life, live like a "good Christian" should - and let other people f*ck each other up the butt all they want.
Ah yes, the eternal self-contradiction of the Christian Church. Jesus says love and respect all, his faithful say homosexuals are the sinful and wrong, and some of these advocate prosecuting them. I agree with you completely.

Ah yes, the eternal self-contradiction of the Christian Church. Jesus says love and respect all, his faithful say homosexuals are the sinful and wrong, and some of these advocate prosecuting them. I agree with you completely.

Same here.

I second that.

beside... like what Foamy said.... Gay people are always talking bout freedom of speech, when truly they are trying to shhs our freedom of speech...

bastard.

Not at all... you are grosely ill informed and your comments are mind numblind prejudice and poorly thought out.

First of all you are generalizing. Second of "gay people", as you group them together, rarely talk about freedom of speec. They talk about freedom of expression. They are not trying to silence your freedom of speech (though as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a
panic."). All they are trying to do is get equal rights and recognition under the law.

I remember him. I saw his statements on TV. One must wonder how preachers of messages such as love thy neighbour and respect all your fellow men can actually spew out such vile poison.

People give to the world that which they have in abundance. If you are filled with vile poison, that's what you give to the world. The corollary would be you can't give that which you do not posess, so I would think that such a person would not have any love or compassion to share with others.

I might tend to agree with you, however, the problem is that if the public or part of the public (be it even 10 people) agree with him and decide to take action... there is a problem. If 10 people agree with him and go on a killing spree of homosexuals because of what he preached... he should certainly be tried and punished to the fullest extent that the law allows.

If he doesn't ask them to take action, how is it his fault? It isn't. It is the fault of the idiots who decide to actually go out and harm others.

If I were to say, "I hate all men. All men should die," that is certainly hate-speech. But I am not saying, "Go, go out and kill all men." The person who actually decides to do the killing is the one at fault.

. I know too much about how these religions came about to see anything other than people bullshitting to get other people to do as they want.

Though I agree with most of what you say (including the above quoted phrase), I would like to add that this is not always a bad thing.

If someone started a religion in which the sole belief was that god wanted the end of all war. And in the end that religion gained so much popularity with the population of the world, that wars really did end forever... would it really be such a bad thing?

All Jesus was saying is treat your fellow man with equal respect. The bullshit about homosexuality was invented much later on to create a reason that homosexuals were sinners.

People give to the world that which they have in abundance. If you are filled with vile poison, that's what you give to the world. The corollary would be you can't give that which you do not posess, so I would think that such a person would not have any love or compassion to share with others.
Traits you would expect a priest to possess.

Though I agree with most of what you say (including the above quoted phrase), I would like to add that this is not always a bad thing.

If someone started a religion in which the sole belief was that god wanted the end of all war. And in the end that religion gained so much popularity with the population of the world, that wars really did end forever... would it really be such a bad thing?

All Jesus was saying is treat your fellow man with equal respect. The bullshit about homosexuality was invented much later on to create a reason that homosexuals were sinners.
Yes, as a social policy tool. The Bible is useful in this regard.

What I find funny is how many modern television series, such as Passions, seem to suggest that burning a person for practising witchcraft is perfectly fine, even in this day and age. One must wonder where these people draw the line. :rolleyes:

Pastors "anti-gay" preaching is protected speech.

Protected from who? (whom??)

Matthew Shepard's being homosexual was protected, but apparently not from Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson.

Protection is fleeting. Nothing is stopping some fanatic from brutalizing this preacher.

If he doesn't ask them to take action, how is it his fault? It isn't. It is the fault of the idiots who decide to actually go out and harm others.

If I were to say, "I hate all men. All men should die," that is certainly hate-speech. But I am not saying, "Go, go out and kill all men." The person who actually decides to do the killing is the one at fault.

It doesn't matter if he explicitly says "Kill Gays!" It is implied in his speech if he says, "Homosexuals are a cancerous tumor on our soceity and they need to be dealt with. We need to get rid of the homosexuals."

You may not like it... but he would be held responsible in the US. He could be tried for numerous accounts of conspiracy to commit murder.

It doesn't matter if he explicitly says "Kill Gays!" It is implied in his speech if he says, "Homosexuals are a cancerous tumor on our soceity and they need to be dealt with. We need to get rid of the homosexuals."

That all depends on exactly what he means. Does he think, as some do, that homosexuals can be "cured"? Does he think they should be exiled? Does he think that "good Christians" should avoid them Or does he really think they should be killed?

You may not like it... but he would be held responsible in the US. He could be tried for numerous accounts of conspiracy to commit murder.

No, he actually wouldn't. Fundamentalists have said things like this and much worse on TV in the US time and time again. They haven't even been charged, much less convicted of anything.

That all depends on exactly what he means. Does he think, as some do, that homosexuals can be "cured"? Does he think they should be exiled? Does he think that "good Christians" should avoid them Or does he really think they should be killed?
Exile in the form of deportation is also unacceptable. When referring to illegal immigrants, we shudder at the thought of deporting them. Yet when it comes to homosexual people, who may be well contribute to the economy and so on, some would think this is acceptable.

That all depends on exactly what he means. Does he think, as some do, that homosexuals can be "cured"? Does he think they should be exiled? Does he think that "good Christians" should avoid them Or does he really think they should be killed?

It doesn't actually matter what he thinks... what matters is the result of his hate speech.

A lot, actually. The mere existance as a homosexual does not constitute sin -- IMO, it is a genetic disorder -- but engaging in homosexual acts is sinful.

So you believe that even if a homosexual was the most kind and benevolant person in the world he or she would still be diminished by simply being homosexual?????????? now that doesn't make sense to me

Not at all... you are grosely ill informed and your comments are mind numblind prejudice and poorly thought out.

First of all you are generalizing. Second of "gay people", as you group them together, rarely talk about freedom of speec. They talk about freedom of expression. They are not trying to silence your freedom of speech (though as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a
panic."). All they are trying to do is get equal rights and recognition under the law.


Eventually I'm baise in this type of debating.. but I mistaken the freedom of speech thing with the freedom of expression.. that what i was trying to say.

Protected from who? (whom??)

Matthew Shepard's being homosexual was protected, but apparently not from Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson.

Protection is fleeting. Nothing is stopping some fanatic from brutalizing this preacher.


Ignored! w00t!

Eventually I'm baise in this type of debating.. but I mistaken the freedom of speech thing with the freedom of expression.. that what i was trying to say.

Even so... "gay people" aren't trying to limit anyone's freedom of expression. Just because they want equal rights and recognition doesn't mean they are trying to stop you from expressing yourself.

No right in the constitution is absolute.

Exile in the form of deportation is also unacceptable. When referring to illegal immigrants, we shudder at the thought of deporting them. Yet when it comes to homosexual people, who may be well contribute to the economy and so on, some would think this is acceptable.

I never said it was acceptable. However, people can state that they want the government to do all sorts of things. Some believe the government should set up a state-religion and punish those who do not follow it. They can say that. Some think that all illegal immigrants should be punished severely, and they can say that. Some think that the government should be communist, and they can say that.

I am not supporting his viewpoint - simply his right to express it.

It doesn't actually matter what he thinks... what matters is the result of his hate speech.

That is patently incorrect. There is this crazy thing in the law called "intent". If he did not intend for others to go out and kill someone, he is not responsible for it happening. The crime would fall squarely on the shoulders of the criminals who committed it. Only if he asked them to do it would he be culpable.

That is patently incorrect. There is this crazy thing in the law called "intent". If he did not intend for others to go out and kill someone, he is not responsible for it happening. The crime would fall squarely on the shoulders of the criminals who committed it. Only if he asked them to do it would he be culpable.

Intent doesn't make you not liable - in fact it is usually used in sentencing, not the trial.

If intent was what mattered then drunk drivers wouldn't go to jail for manslaughter. Of course they didn't mean to kill the person but that is what happens what they drink and drive.

Maybe you didn't mean to pull the trigger on the gun... maybe you were just trying to scare them - but if the bullet is fired and they die... you are responsible.

Intent doesn't make you not liable - in fact it is usually used in sentencing, not the trial.

It generally makes you less liable, hence the different classifications of manslaughter and murder.

If intent was what mattered then drunk drivers wouldn't go to jail for manslaughter. Of course they didn't mean to kill the person but that is what happens what they drink and drive.

Maybe you didn't mean to pull the trigger on the gun... maybe you were just trying to scare them - but if the bullet is fired and they die... you are responsible.

There are major differences here. In both cases, the action of the criminal directly puts the lives of others in danger - and knows they are doing so. They *intentionally* endanger others, even if killing is not the intent of their actions.

A drunk driver has committed manslaughter because the very description of the law makes you liable if a reasonable person would think that their actions could cause harm to or kill another.

No reasonable person thinks that stating their hatred for a given group is going to make other reasonable people go out and murder someone.

No reasonable person thinks that stating their hatred for a given group is going to make other reasonable people go out and murder someone.
Even if they are preachers whose words have the power to sway minds?

It generally makes you less liable, hence the different classifications of manslaughter and murder.

And yet they still go to jail and they are still liable.

There are major differences here. In both cases, the action of the criminal directly puts the lives of others in danger - and knows they are doing so. They *intentionally* endanger others, even if killing is not the intent of their actions.

A drunk driver has committed manslaughter because the very description of the law makes you liable if a reasonable person would think that their actions could cause harm to or kill another.

No reasonable person thinks that stating their hatred for a given group is going to make other reasonable people go out and murder someone.

Are you kidding... I don't even know how to respond to that. Do you really think that if you stand on a pulpit in front of hundreds of people that look to you for inspiration and guidance, and then start preaching that homosexuals need to be wiped off the face of the earth, that you don't know you could be inspiring violence?

Any reasonable person thinks that preaching their hatred to a group of followers could make people go out and commit acts of violence.

Am I the only one who finds defining hate speech as freedom of religion to be a bad thing?

Am I the only one who finds defining hate speech as freedom of religion to be a bad thing?
No, I agree with you. When speech has the intention to incite hatred, then it should no longer enjoy protection.

I loathe hate-speech. And when it comes from the mouth of someone claiming to be Christian it's even more bitter to me.

However, he has his right to speak freely on his views. On the opposite end, I have every right not to listen to him.

I agree completely...except that thinking of someone in a position of influence speaking out like this reminds me of another who once placed blame for all of the problems of another European nation on another group of people...I believe that some of you may see what I'm getting at. Hate speech, just on general principle is wrong. Having influence over others and using hate speech is even worse. When someone in a position of influence uses hate speech, it gives power to it, and often people are swayed by it. Millions died as a result of the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler... Jews, gypsies, and yes, homosexuals. How do you think the inverted pink triangle became a symbol of gay pride? Because homosexuals were forced to wear them just as Jews were forced to wear the Star of David.

I am all for Freedom of Speech, it is Freedom of HATE, that scares me!!

Am I the only one who finds defining hate speech as freedom of religion to be a bad thing?

That has pretty much been my whole argument - that there is a line between freedom of expression/freedom of religion and preaching hate.

No, I agree with you. When speech has the intention to incite hatred, then it should no longer enjoy protection.
Well, plus describing it as freedom of religion degrades that religion. It's like if someone were to claim that suicide bombers or Osama bin Laden were expressing their freedom of religion by harming others.

I agree completely...except that thinking of someone in a position of influence speaking out like this reminds me of another who once placed blame for all of the problems of another European nation on another group of people...I believe that some of you may see what I'm getting at. Hate speech, just on general principle is wrong. Having influence over others and using hate speech is even worse. When someone in a position of influence uses hate speech, it gives power to it, and often people are swayed by it. Millions died as a result of the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler... Jews, gypsies, and yes, homosexuals. How do you think the inverted pink triangle became a symbol of gay pride? Because homosexuals were forced to wear them just as Jews were forced to wear the Star of David.

I am all for Freedom of Speech, it is Freedom of HATE, that scares me!!
Well said.

I agree completely...except that thinking of someone in a position of influence speaking out like this reminds me of another who once placed blame for all of the problems of another European nation on another group of people...I believe that some of you may see what I'm getting at. Hate speech, just on general principle is wrong. Having influence over others and using hate speech is even worse. When someone in a position of influence uses hate speech, it gives power to it, and often people are swayed by it. Millions died as a result of the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler... Jews, gypsies, and yes, homosexuals. How do you think the inverted pink triangle became a symbol of gay pride? Because homosexuals were forced to wear them just as Jews were forced to wear the Star of David.

I am all for Freedom of Speech, it is Freedom of HATE, that scares me!!

Yes very well said indeed. This was one of the points I was raising in another thread on a different (albeit slightly related) thread.

Doesn't Sweden have blasphemy laws?

I vaguely remember Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" being banned in Sweden for being blasphemous and getting billed in Norway as "the film that was banned in Sweden." Or do I have that backwards?

I would think that hatred in the name of Jesus would qualify as blasphemy.

No, Sweden does not have "blasphemy laws." The Life of Brian is very popular here, and it was here, not in Norway, (http://www.answers.com/topic/monty-python-s-life-of-brian) it was billed "the movie that is so funny it was banned in Norway." So, you did get it the other way around. Don't ask me if Norway still has that silly law.

Even if they are preachers whose words have the power to sway minds?

They only have that power if the people in question give them that power. There is no physical imperative to agree with your preacher. And there is no legal one either. If someone listens to him and then goes out and murders someone, it is entirely of their own volition.

Are you kidding... I don't even know how to respond to that. Do you really think that if you stand on a pulpit in front of hundreds of people that look to you for inspiration and guidance, and then start preaching that homosexuals need to be wiped off the face of the earth, that you don't know you could be inspiring violence?

It depends on the rest of the sermon. If you aren't specifically advocating violence, chances are high that you don't expect it.

Meanwhile, people decide whether or not to accept your inspiration and guidance. Do you really think that people are mindless drones that have no choice but to do whatever comes to mind after their preacher speaks?

Any reasonable person thinks that preaching their hatred to a group of followers could make people go out and commit acts of violence.

So the followers have no personal responsibility? They will do anything, even something way beyond what the preacher says, and it is the preacher's fault? Good to know that you think all religious people are nothing but sheep.

When someone in a position of influence uses hate speech, it gives power to it, and often people are swayed by it. Millions died as a result of the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler... Jews, gypsies, and yes, homosexuals.

Surely you can see the difference between, as Hitler did, ordering the killing of others, and as the preacher did, suggesting that others are a danger to the world. And of course, there is the difference between the orders of a dictator, and the speech of a preacher who people choose voluntarily whether or not to follow...


I am all for Freedom of Speech, it is Freedom of HATE, that scares me!!

How exactly do you suppose we catch and punish people for hating each other? Are we going to institute government mind control rays and prosecute people for thought crimes now?

They only have that power if the people in question give them that power. There is no physical imperative to agree with your preacher. And there is no legal one either. If someone listens to him and then goes out and murders someone, it is entirely of their own volition.

A priest as influential as him doesn't know that there are those out there who might act on his words? Could he not reasonably expect this?

It depends on the rest of the sermon. If you aren't specifically advocating violence, chances are high that you don't expect it.

Meanwhile, people decide whether or not to accept your inspiration and guidance. Do you really think that people are mindless drones that have no choice but to do whatever comes to mind after their preacher speaks?

No, they are not drones but they are inspired and do believe in much of what their priest or pastor tells them. I am not saying the entire congegration will get up and find pitch forks and torches but one or two people might.



So the followers have no personal responsibility? They will do anything, even something way beyond what the preacher says, and it is the preacher's fault? Good to know that you think all religious people are nothing but sheep.

Of course the followers have responsibility - thats why they would be tried and convicted of murder in the second degree, a harsher penalty than conspiracy of which the priest would recieve.

I am not saying all people are sheep - you are mixing up my words and making what you think out of them. All I am saying is there might be a sheep or two in the bunch that follows what the priest says and hunts down homosexuals.

Exile in the form of deportation is also unacceptable. When referring to illegal immigrants, we shudder at the thought of deporting them. Yet when it comes to homosexual people, who may be well contribute to the economy and so on, some would think this is acceptable.

Which is a real shame, too. I'd rather have homosexuals in the nation than illegal immigrants.

At least most of the homosexuals try to actually contribute to society.

Wasn't he the guy who said homosexuality was a cancer tumour of society?

That's more like free hate speech to me.

Which is a real shame, too. I'd rather have homosexuals in the nation than illegal immigrants.

At least most of the homosexuals try to actually contribute to society.

Are you kidding. Do you really think illegal immigrants don't contribute to soceity at all? Do you really think they come over here and then just sit on their asses?

I am willing to bet they work much harder than you for a lot less pay.

Are you kidding. Do you really think illegal immigrants don't contribute to soceity at all? Do you really think they come over here and then just sit on their asses?

I am willing to bet they work much harder than you for a lot less pay.

Some do, some don't. Regardless, they don't pay taxes.

And some probably do, considering I can't get a job, due to A) my age and B) time constrictions

Hmmm genetic disorder, why that's quite harsh. I do not believe its a disorder, nor that it is genetic. Indeed, we are born gay.
Surely being born gay proves that it is genetic? :rolleyes:

Am I the only one who finds defining hate speech as freedom of religion to be a bad thing?
Your posting history indicates that you have a problem with religious expression. (you appear to think that Christianity is right-wing for some reason)

Well, plus describing it as freedom of religion degrades that religion. It's like if someone were to claim that suicide bombers or Osama bin Laden were expressing their freedom of religion by harming others.
Are you seriously comparing some idiot ranting against gays with mass murder?

First, the sermon (http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/ake_green_sermon.htm).

Second, I found this here: (http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2590&date=20051129)
"The Christian Democratic Party's leader Göran Hägglund welcomed the verdict, saying that it is not the role of the courts to decide how the Bible should be interpreted.

But Liberal MP Birgitta Rydberg, a Christian, said that Åke Green would probably go to hell when he dies.

"That's where you go if you call yourself a Christian and defy the Christian message of love."

Well spoken, I say.

Anyway, this verdict means that none will ever be convicted for saying anything bad, anisematic or racist comments in church, which means that the law has taken a severe blow. It is still a law, and I do believe laws are to be followed.

Surely being born gay proves that it is genetic? :rolleyes:
Then if you are gay and you have a child, chances are it will be gay. No. Its not that simple. Sorry. Genes are passed on. If there was indeed a "gay gene" it would work no differently. Scientists are still at work to understand why people are born gay. Its not as simple as standard genetics, and its not hormonal, nor is it a matter of choice. Research is still inconclusive.

No, they are not drones but they are inspired and do believe in much of what their priest or pastor tells them. I am not saying the entire congegration will get up and find pitch forks and torches but one or two people might.

....which would tell you that there was something seriously wrong with those one or two people.

I am not saying all people are sheep - you are mixing up my words and making what you think out of them. All I am saying is there might be a sheep or two in the bunch that follows what the priest says and hunts down homosexuals.

(a) The priest didn't say to hunt down homosexuals. If he had, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

(b) If someone decides to act as a "sheep" and interpret his comments in that way, it is their own fault, no one else's, unless they are mentally retarded or insane, in which case they would not be held fully responsible for their actions anyways.


Surely being born gay proves that it is genetic?

Not necessarily. Epigenetic factors could play a role. In animals, hormone balance in the womb has been pretty conclusively shown to play a role in sexuality, and there is no reason to believe it can't be the same for human beings.

A trait as complex as sexuality is most likley the result of a combination of factors, including genetics, hormones, early childhood experiences, and other as yet undetermined factors.

Then if you are gay and you have a child, chances are it will be gay. No. Its not that simple. Sorry. Genes are passed on. If there was indeed a "gay gene" it would work no differently. Scientists are still at work to understand why people are born gay. Its not as simple as standard genetics, and its not hormonal, nor is it a matter of choice. Research is still inconclusive.

You are vastly oversimplifying genetics. First of all, to assume that something as complex as sexuality would involve a single gene is absolutely ludicrous. There is plenty of evidence that sexuality is partially determined by genetics, but that does not mean that there is a single "gay gene" (or "straight gene"). Even something like skin color is directly affected by no less than 5 separate genes. What on earth would make any educated person suggest that sexuality would only be affected by one?

And your suggestion that "If it is genetic, then gay people would most likely have gay children," is also silly and a huge oversimplification. Even if it were a single gene, it could be recessive. Thus, the child of a gay person being gay would be dependent upon the other parent either being gay or being a carrier of the gene. Of course, as I have said, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that sexuality is affected by only one gene. Indeed, if such a gene existed, we most likely would have isolated it by now.

Not necessarily. Epigenetic factors could play a role. In animals, hormone balance in the womb has been pretty conclusively shown to play a role in sexuality, and there is no reason to believe it can't be the same for human beings.

A trait as complex as sexuality is most likley the result of a combination of factors, including genetics, hormones, early childhood experiences, and other as yet undetermined factors.
Here I will agree. Research is indeed inconclusive so far. At any rate, very few people of those who are homosexual choose to be gay. It is by no means exclusively genetic though, or at least so current research has found.