To those who support Danmark...

[Ave Maria]

Stop lying:
"[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Anyone delivering an anti-gay speech based on the [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]famous six "clobber" passages in the Bible or similar passages from the holy texts of other religions is immune from prosecution. This immunity would also apply to lay members of any religion."[/FONT]

Wrong! Sorry but I just had to resurrect this old thread. But what she said is true. The Canadian laws do allow for the arrest of those who speak out against the mortal sin of homosexuality which is an abomination to the Lord (and I'd shout that from the roof tops in Toronto, Ontario if the Lord lead me to do so.. I could care less if they arrest me). And people have been arrested for violating the hate speech laws in Canada which specifically protect the disease known as homosexuality. Here are some excerpts:

In Canada and France legislators have been fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality.

In Canada a printer was fined several years ago for refusing a pro-homosexual printing contract that he said violated his traditional Christian beliefs.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't expect your liberal Democrat mind to accept this as true even though it is factual but it came from Conservapedia. Here is the article:

Homosexuality and Religious Liberty - Conservapedia

It is sourced so that is proof that it is true.

 

[LightHorseman]

Wrong! Sorry but I just had to resurrect this old thread. But what she said is true. The Canadian laws do allow for the arrest of those who speak out against the mortal sin of homosexuality which is an abomination to the Lord (and I'd shout that from the roof tops in Toronto, Ontario if the Lord lead me to do so.. I could care less if they arrest me). And people have been arrested for violating the hate speech laws in Canada which specifically protect the disease known as homosexuality. Here are some excerpts:

In Canada and France legislators have been fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality.

In Canada a printer was fined several years ago for refusing a pro-homosexual printing contract that he said violated his traditional Christian beliefs.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't expect your liberal Democrat mind to accept this as true even though it is factual but it came from Conservapedia. Here is the article:

Homosexuality and Religious Liberty - Conservapedia

It is sourced so that is proof that it is true.

None of the examples you cite have people being arrested for preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.

As I expected before I looked them up.

Why? Because after three years of reading hysterical posts from people about how preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality has lead to arrests... not a single demonstrable case of this happening exists.

If your conservapaedia article is factual, you should be able to present the untainted reference on which the article is based.

 

[LightHorseman]

It is sourced so that is proof that it is true.

I have a bridge I'd like to sell... Brooklyn Bridge For Sale It is sourced, so that is proof this is a genuine offer.

 

[Montalban]

Why? Because after three years of reading hysterical posts from people about how preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality has lead to arrests... not a single demonstrable case of this happening exists.

Like this?
Christian faces court over 'offensive' gay festival leaflets

By STEVE DOUGHTY

Last updated at 08:48 06 September 2006

Christian faces court over 'offensive' gay festival leaflets | Mail Online

Though that was four years ago

 

[LightHorseman]

Like this?
Christian faces court over 'offensive' gay festival leaflets

By STEVE DOUGHTY

Last updated at 08:48 06 September 2006

Christian faces court over 'offensive' gay festival leaflets | Mail Online

Though that was four years ago

Mr Green faces a court appearance today charged with using 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour' after his attempt to distribute the leaflets at the weekend 'Mardi Gras' event in Cardiff.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-403815/Christian-faces-court-offensive-gay-festival-leaflets.html#ixzz0nGXDtuBu

I don't see a charge mentioning preaching against homosexuality anywhere there.

Time and place dude. If you want to preach against homosexuality in your church to people who give 5/8ths of a rat's, then knock yourself out, and no one will stop you. Go and make a nuisance of yourself at some one else's event, handing out material you KNOW is going to iffend the people you're handing it too, not in any manner attempting to "preach", but rather, to borrow a phrase, "forcing your beliefs down other people's throats", then you deserve all you get. Throw away the key. Not for hatecrime, but for being a moron.

I'd say the same thing about homosexuals showing up and acting like offensive pratts at a Christian event too.

 

[peaceful soul]

Thanks alot for your comment. I do agree that wise reaction is required all the time. however, there are some exceptions. we can not keep silencince when someone abuses our noble prophet.

Peace

I do take it that when you say "abused", you are not really using the term correctly. What you are trying to silence is any opposition to your prophet and religion by imposing your religious will onto others. Basically what you are saying is that you will stop others from disagreeing with Islam. You are not really interested in protecting those who don't believe in Islam. It is a one way street that only supports Islam.

I think that you are the hypocrite. You want to be able to stop people from abusing (I am using your definition) your prophet, but you don't want non Muslims from doing the same that you do to their prophets. You abuse (your definition) Apostle Paul but don't think that we can't take the same actions that you want to. Now, that is a hypocrite!

If you want to silence those who "abuse" your prophet, then you must be willing for us to take measures and protect ours. If you are willing to do that, then I would think that you would be more open and fair; although an 'eye for eye' never really solves anything.

The reality is that free speech allows for dissenters. Without dissenters, we are closer to totalitarianism, communism, and other cultic like ideologies. Could you imagine that you lived in a non Islamic area and were "abused" for believing in your prophet? Would you agree with that? If your answer is 'No', then why would you want to do it to others? Why not allow them the freedom to not like your prophet?

 

[humblemuslim]

Speak out against the deed? Fine, that is freedom of speech.

Resort to violence? That is oppression. Believers are supposed to fight against oppression, not cause it. Take heed any who may fall into believing such excessive retaliations are acceptable.

Believers are not responsible for what the disbelievers do. GOD will deal with them equitably. If anyone is to respond, it should be in equivalent and equitable terms.


[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.
[2:194] During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe GOD and know that GOD is with the righteous.

[8:39] You shall fight them to ward off oppression, and to practice your religion devoted to GOD alone. If they refrain from aggression, then GOD is fully Seer of everything they do.

 

[Montalban]

I don't see a charge mentioning preaching against homosexuality anywhere there.

It's in the headline. He was made to face court - unless you think he's being compelled to go to court to act as a witness, or it's a Royal Commission

Time and place dude. If you want to preach against homosexuality in your church to people who give 5/8ths of a rat's, then knock yourself out, and no one will stop you. Go and make a nuisance of yourself at some one else's event, handing out material you KNOW is going to iffend the people you're handing it too, not in any manner attempting to "preach", but rather, to borrow a phrase, "forcing your beliefs down other people's throats", then you deserve all you get. Throw away the key. Not for hatecrime, but for being a moron.

I'd say the same thing about homosexuals showing up and acting like offensive pratts at a Christian event too.

So you're saying that people who believe homosexuality is a sin have no right to express their deep-seeded beliefs in public.

When has the public arena been a place for only certain views?

Would I be allowed to talk against homosexuality in public if my moral concerns weren't based on religion?

funny the hypocisy of the 'free thinkers'!


In my book...
Hatecrime = the hate of crime

 

[LightHorseman]

It's in the headline. He was made to face court - unless you think he's being compelled to go to court to act as a witness, or it's a Royal Commission

Yes, he was made to face court. But not for "preaching against homosexuality". For being an offensive git.

So you're saying that people who believe homosexuality is a sin have no right to express their deep-seeded beliefs in public.

Of course they do. However that doesn't mean they have a right to force their views on people who don't want to hear them

When has the public arena been a place for only certain views?

Beats me. Ask David Irving or Keith Winschuttle.

Would I be allowed to talk against homosexuality in public if my moral concerns weren't based on religion?

I guess. Where are we talking? But again, time and place, you know? If you want to set up your own private lecture tour about the evils of homosexuality, I can't imagine anyone trying to stop you. If you go to Mardi Gras on Oxford street and block the parade route to hand out fliers about the "evils of homosexuality", then I hope they through the book at you. Again, not for hate speech, but for being an offensive idiot.

funny the hypocisy of the 'free thinkers'!

No that I'm being hypocritical here.

In my book...
Hatecrime = the hate of crime

And that, with $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

 

[Montalban]

Yes, he was made to face court. But not for "preaching against homosexuality". For being an offensive git.

Why was he deemed to be an 'offensive git'?

Of course they do. However that doesn't mean they have a right to force their views on people who don't want to hear them

How are they forcing this?

Beats me. Ask David Irving or Keith Winschuttle.

What are David Irving's views?
How have you heard about them?

If you can answer both then you're probably refuting yourself

I guess. Where are we talking? But again, time and place, you know? If you want to set up your own private lecture tour about the evils of homosexuality, I can't imagine anyone trying to stop you. If you go to Mardi Gras on Oxford street and block the parade route to hand out fliers about the "evils of homosexuality", then I hope they through the book at you. Again, not for hate speech, but for being an offensive idiot.

No that I'm being hypocritical here.


And that, with $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

What? 'Cause it's a legal gathering they can't?

 

[LightHorseman]

Why was he deemed to be an 'offensive git'?

I paraphrase. But he was charged for such, not for what he said, but rather how he said it.

How are they forcing this?

Showing up at someone's mardi gras and handing out anti gay literature to people who don't want it... text book, I'd say. And I know you're about to say "well they didn't have to take it if they didn't want it"... and I'll say thats a stupid response. As stupid as saying something similar about funeral attendants not having to read Fred Phelps placcareds if they don't want, or white supremicists not having to take fliers from Black Panthers outside their meeting, or Holocaust Survivors Association members not having to take fliers from Neo Nazis outside THEIR meetings. Having a right to freedom of speech doesn't translate as having a right to be a pratt.

What are David Irving's views?
How have you heard about them?

If you can answer both then you're probably refuting yourself

Ever been to a David Irving lecture in this country? If not, then apparently the public arena is only for some people.

What? 'Cause it's a legal gathering they can't?

There's letter of the law and spirit of the law. I'm not going to be drawn into a semantic tapdance competition about how technically one isn't breaking the law when one knows one's behaviour is offensive, and one is intentionally setting out to be so.

Legally, I COULD walk back and forth on a zebra pedestrian crossing for 13 hours. There's no law against it, and I'd be using the crossing in a legally allowable fashion. It would still be a pratt thing to do, and I bet the drivers in the increasing long line of traffic jam I was creating would cheer when the police showed up to move me on.

 

[Montalban]

I paraphrase. But he was charged for such, not for what he said, but rather how he said it.

I read this in the article
"South Wales police admitted evangelical Christian Stephen Green was then charged purely because his pamphlets contained anti-gay quotations from the Bible."

Christian faces court over 'offensive' gay festival leaflets | Mail Online

Note 'because'

Legally, I COULD walk back and forth on a zebra pedestrian crossing for 13 hours. There's no law against it, and I'd be using the crossing in a legally allowable fashion. It would still be a pratt thing to do, and I bet the drivers in the increasing long line of traffic jam I was creating would cheer when the police showed up to move me on.

If you were causing a public nuisance, then that could be an arrestable offence.

 

[LightHorseman]

I read this in the article
"South Wales police admitted evangelical Christian Stephen Green was then charged purely because his pamphlets contained anti-gay quotations from the Bible."

Christian faces court over 'offensive' gay festival leaflets | Mail Online

Note 'because'

If you were causing a public nuisance, then that could be an arrestable offence.

And here we are in subjective territory... who decides what constitutes a "public nuisance"? Personally, I think MOST people who take it upon themselves to preach the Bible in public places are a nuisance, and often noise polluters to boot. So if I had the police round up the local JWs who sit around down town with their placards (some of which are pretty offensive, into the bargain) and had them charged with public nuisance, you'd be cool with that?

 

[Montalban]

And here we are in subjective territory... who decides what constitutes a "public nuisance"?

In the case of walking back and forth and blocking traffic, we have the law, and judges to do that

Personally, I think MOST people who take it upon themselves to preach the Bible in public places are a nuisance, and often noise polluters to boot. So if I had the police round up the local JWs who sit around down town with their placards (some of which are pretty offensive, into the bargain) and had them charged with public nuisance, you'd be cool with that?

I am in favour of free speech. You seem to think that if a 'mardis gras' goes on that makes it a 'free speech free area'

 

[LightHorseman]

In the case of walking back and forth and blocking traffic, we have the law, and judges to do that


I am in favour of free speech. You seem to think that if a 'mardis gras' goes on that makes it a 'free speech free area'

But what if what you claim is free speech is in fact causing a public nuisance?

 

[Montalban]

But what if what you claim is free speech is in fact causing a public nuisance?

Well then there's the law. Depends what we're using. I for one don't see the law as my ultimate guide to what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Montalban]

We've moved a long way from dealing with the Holocaust (in the OP)

 

[tanzanos]

So long as one does not advocate the use of violence, hatred, prejudice, racism, and amongst other things that would be considered detrimental to social equilibrium; Then I believe one should be free to voice their opinions.
After all its all about power and money!

 

[LightHorseman]

Well then there's the law. Depends what we're using. I for one don't see the law as my ultimate guide to what is right and what is wrong.

I see.

So, I'm guessing when someone is being a nuisance, but doing something you agree with, like hasseling homosexuals under the guise of "freedom of speech", that should be protected, but my zebra crossing protest should be prosecuted, because you don't personally support my issue.

Am I close?

 

[Montalban]

I see.

So, I'm guessing when someone is being a nuisance, but doing something you agree with, like hasseling homosexuals under the guise of "freedom of speech", that should be protected, but my zebra crossing protest should be prosecuted, because you don't personally support my issue.

Am I close?

I don't have a stake in your issue of crossing the zebra crossing. I simply stated that you doing so is not necessarily legal - as you made out - that using a crossing to cross is legal, but you're not just doing that; in your example. I think you are wrong in that sense. Now you're asking me if you are morally wrong.

I believe in God, and I can not ignore his Will. His Will is clear on some issues, such as homosexuality. It is impossible for me to divorce myself from my beliefs - at large. Although if I were, say, employed as a public servant than my duty as a public servant is to act without fear or favour.

So it's all complicated. But God's Will is my over-arching belief system