Pastor gets prison for sermon.

InnerPhyre

Well-Known Member
Nov 13, 2003
14,573
1,470
✟71,967.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Existential1 said:
"A Swedish court has sentenced Ake Green, a pastor belonging to the Pentecostal movement, to a month in prison, under a law against incitement, after he was found guilty of having offended homosexuals in a sermon, according to Ecumenical News International.

Green had described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society" in a 2003 sermon.

Soren Andersson, the president of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender rights, said on hearing Green's jail sentence that religious freedom could never be used as a reason to offend people."

I couldn't google any more origonal material about these events: so I'll just go with the story as stated; as it is genuinely carried in the Ecumenical News International.

Is it good that this man was found guilty of a crime; yes.
These are good and evenhanded laws, posing no difficulty whatsover for genuinely religious and spiritual people.
Was a month in the slammer the appropriate sentence, I do not know.
Such crime is not victimless. Being denied grounding on God, as this pastor was denying to some; has gross impact on others.
Should freedom of speech be absolute; of course not. We all have responsibilities to others (Jesus suggested that we love our neighbours, and in God), and no rights can be allowed to trump these.
I have the licensed right to drive a car: I am not allowed to drive through your fence, and into your garden; nor am I allowed to run over your child. All rights are qualified by these basic decencies; which Jesus suggests shoud extend to loving, and in God.
So, given that this lad appears to have been an evangelical Christian, just where do these decencies start, just where does religious free speech need to be qualified.
IMO religions should no longer be able to run with conceptions such as sin and evil; nor should God be allowed to condemn others, for not sharing some subcription. You might harbour these ideas in your heart, we all have wierd and dark residues in our basements: but witnessing in these terms, outwith licensed private gatherings; should be gathered up as illegal actions.
Religions have to learn to be affirmative. To focus exclusively on the approach to God of the subcribing subject. If in this approach, you need the outrigger of condemning other people: then you have a personal problem of balance and faith; that should be addressed in proper setting.
No Christian should feel threatened by any of this. Jesus, while being clear about what will lead to departure from the narrow way: gives us a clear and affirmative path to follow; where we can deal exclusively with our own approach to God, with our own endeavours to be as children of God. There is aboslutely no need, for any Christian to engage in condemning others: my own suspicion is, that such indiscipline begins when a subject finds that they do not have what it takes, in that moment, to sustain their own faith filled approach to God through Jesus; and in the angst of this, they begin to lash out at others, and are then simply never again able to break the habit.

What the Swedish court has demanded of this pastor, is that he love, and respect his neighbour.
Is it not ironic that a country and institution that so many identify with the secular, and even with antipathy to Christianity; should so rudely drag us back to our first duty; to our neighbours, in Jesus's name, and in God.

Speaking one's mind is now a crime.....Stalin would be proud
 
Upvote 0

MattMMMan17

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,221
73
Los Angeles
✟17,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Sweden passed an equivalent to Canada's Bill C-250 last year -- a "hate crimes" law that forbids criticism of homosexuality. In a WorldNetDaily article, the author quotes from the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, in which the prosecutor in the case, Kjell Yngvesson, justifies the arrest of pastor Green: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible cites on this topic as he (Pastor Green) does makes this hate speech."

Read the related LifeSiteNews.com report:
Catholic League Notes Results of Homosexual Hate Crime Law in Other Countries as Warning to Canada
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/040
43006.html
 
Upvote 0

heathen chemistry

Well-Known Member
Jul 10, 2004
461
24
42
✟716.00
Faith
Anglican
i don't agree with the law. but it is their state and their right as a souvereign nation to implement its laws without outside interference. the pastor, in full awareness of the law, broke it willingly and thus does deserve to be in jail to pay the price for breaking a law. given enough time, such laws will probably be removed from the law books or so i would hope.
 
Upvote 0

Existential1

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2004
1,591
74
Caputh, Perthshire
✟2,128.00
Faith
InnerPhyre said:
Speaking one's mind is now a crime.....Stalin would be proud

Stalin controlled what you thought.
These laws refer to what it is criminal to say.
You may think what you will, freedom of conscience is preserved.
Witness is preserved; you can share whatever you like with a fellow subcriber.
Illegality is courted, when what you say is in open public forum, amd is taken as inciting subcription to a perspective, that involves discrimination against another.
In other words, if you follow Jesus, and love your neighbour as yourself and in God, then you will never fall foul of this law.
Those who will fall foul of this law, are those who are unable to follow Jesus affirmatively: but instead become sidetracked negatively, into attacking others.

We should welcome these laws as a purgative, and perhaps as something of a hair shirt.
Following Jesus, in loving ones neighbour, as ones self, and in God, can be hard: but we should persevere; and welcome anyhting that helps us in this.
 
Upvote 0

Existential1

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2004
1,591
74
Caputh, Perthshire
✟2,128.00
Faith
MattMMMan17 said:
Sweden passed an equivalent to Canada's Bill C-250 last year -- a "hate crimes" law that forbids criticism of homosexuality. In a WorldNetDaily article, the author quotes from the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, in which the prosecutor in the case, Kjell Yngvesson, justifies the arrest of pastor Green: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible cites on this topic as he (Pastor Green) does makes this hate speech."

Read the related LifeSiteNews.com report:
Catholic League Notes Results of Homosexual Hate Crime Law in Other Countries as Warning to Canada
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/040
43006.html

Thank you for this link.

The article lists a number of cases which have involved application of such laws.
Together they seem to show how well the law is working: simply in raising awareness in others, as to how important it is to go the extra mile in faith; not to be distracted into hasty judgmentalism, but to find ways of witnessing ones difference from, and spiritual hope for another, in manner that truly loves that neighbour as ones self and in God, as Jesus intended.
 
Upvote 0

feral

Dostoyevsky was right
Jan 8, 2003
3,368
344
✟12,716.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Green had described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society" in a 2003 sermon.

Someone claiming to be a follower of god made comments like these? That's pitiful. I really don't care whether he was referring to homosexuality or gays as the 'tumors', but would we as a society tolerate it if his comment had referred to other inherent, unchangeable traits? What if he had said darker pigmentations was a tumor on society, nothing against people of African descent, of course? It never ceases to amaze me how people can twist faith in a loving deity into an excuse to mock, hate and attack.

On the flip side, I have to support free speech, and in my country he would have the right to speak his worthless piece so long as he did not use it to incite violence. Personally, it ought to be considered hate speech, because it has the potential to rile people up and cause harm, but free speech, even mindless anti-gay rhetoric, is allowed in the U.S.
 
Upvote 0

SirKenin

Contributor
Jun 26, 2003
6,518
526
from the deepest inner mind to the outer limits
✟9,370.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Personally I don't support homosexual speech.. I don't like the garbage they come out with here in this forum to support their abhorrent lifestyle. I don't like them flaunting their stuff in homosexual parades..

But... The shoe is on the other foot then, isn't it?

The truth of the matter is, if you don't like what someone is saying, plug your ears. Turn the dial.. Walk out of the room. Don't attend their events. I have the right to speak my mind. They have the right to speak their minds. It doesn't matter a darn if you like it or not. If you don't like it, too bad.

YOU DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER ANYONE ELSE. The only person you have control over is yourself.

The sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UberLutheran
Upvote 0
I

I'ddie4him

Guest
MattMMMan17 said:
Sweden passed an equivalent to Canada's Bill C-250 last year -- a "hate crimes" law that forbids criticism of homosexuality. In a WorldNetDaily article, the author quotes from the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, in which the prosecutor in the case, Kjell Yngvesson, justifies the arrest of pastor Green: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible cites on this topic as he (Pastor Green) does makes this hate speech."

Read the related LifeSiteNews.com report:
Catholic League Notes Results of Homosexual Hate Crime Law in Other Countries as Warning to Canada
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/040
43006.html
Thanks MattMM for this, I knew I had seen it and was going to look for it, But, You beat me to it. Nice post.
 
Upvote 0

SirKenin

Contributor
Jun 26, 2003
6,518
526
from the deepest inner mind to the outer limits
✟9,370.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Now, in support of the Law.

The Bible calls us as Christians to obey the Law of the land. If the law of the land says you do not say anything bad about a certain lifestyle or group, we are obligated as Christians to obey that Law, no matter what the Bible may say about that particular lifestyle.

It is my opinion that the preacher could have addressed it differently to comply with the Law. However, he chose not to do that and as such is subject to the penalty associated with that Law, as much as it grieves me to say that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

UberLutheran

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2004
10,707
1,677
✟20,440.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
drfeelgood said:
The truth of the matter is, if you don't like what someone is saying, plug your ears. Turn the dial.. Walk out of the room. Don't attend their events. I have the right to speak my mind. They have the right to speak their minds. It doesn't matter a darn if you like it or not. If you don't like it, too bad.

YOU DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER ANYONE ELSE. The only person you have control over is yourself.

The sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be.

As much as it astonishes me, as I'm sure it will astonish you -- I'm simply going to have to rep you for that comment.

I may disagree with what my opponent says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it.
:bow:
 
Upvote 0

Card42

The Billy Beane of CF
May 8, 2004
384
23
43
✟8,129.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Others
Existential1 said:
IMO religions should no longer be able to run with conceptions such as sin and evil; nor should God be allowed to condemn others, for not sharing some subcription. You might harbour these ideas in your heart, we all have wierd and dark residues in our basements: but witnessing in these terms, outwith licensed private gatherings; should be gathered up as illegal actions.
seriously
i don't believe
i've ever actually read
someone who so carelessly disregards
free speech
i just can't believe
what i'm reading

it seems to me
that u are just taking
ur religious beliefs
and imposing them through laws
how does that make u any better
than the people u want
to silence?
actually,
it makes u worse
they just want to tell others their view
u want to impose ur view
on others
 
Upvote 0

Existential1

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2004
1,591
74
Caputh, Perthshire
✟2,128.00
Faith
modedit.gif
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Existential1

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2004
1,591
74
Caputh, Perthshire
✟2,128.00
Faith
In Europe there is a notion that rights entail responsibilities.
In the USA there seems to be an understanding that the rights have such absolute importance: that any introduction of responsibilities is to be fought off, with all means available.
My concern is that the USA understanding is unworkable and unsustainable: but that domestic determination to keep free speech rights unqualified, sees its costs grossly discounted; such that the USA is often unable to see when it has become uncivilised.
This adjusted form to US society, then sees domestic dynamics drive a perspective to foriegn and international economic policy, where the failings which the USA chooses to ignore, are simply exported abroad.
Some parts of the rest of the world, come to pay the price, for what the USA will not face up to domestically.
It is only through debating with Americans, about what they see as free speech, and their rationalisations for bearing arms, that this has been driven home to me.
Perhaps alone in the West, the United States pursues a mythology of the free person, allowed to say what they will, and secured by their gun.
Their is now a veil between the USA and much of the rest of the world, where as we pass through it, things pass into their opposite.
There is no way that I, simply as a European, can accept the American notion of free speech; and nor can I accept the notion of security secured by the gun. What arises through these American freedoms, so often seems to have dark consequence, that simply goes unheeded.
What is important to me, is that voices be heard: all voices, the meek voices; and the US understanding of free speech, in favouring those strong in opinion and often in hate, does not IMO serve this work of hearing our neighbours voices.
 
Upvote 0

Existential1

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2004
1,591
74
Caputh, Perthshire
✟2,128.00
Faith
ThePhoenix said:
Fundimental rights come with responsibility, yes, but the responsibility does not effect the right. You have the responsibility to not yell fire in a crowded theatre, but if you are simply exercising your right to speak your mind in a private forum there is NO call to censor it.

The responsibilities are to the meek, and the poor, and the lame: those who simply do not have what it takes, to compete in dialogue shaped to the fulfillment of author's agendas.
There is the responsibility to truth, to technical accuracy.
There is responsibility to one who sugested we love our neighbour, as our self, and in God: and there are ways of thinking, feeling and speaking, that while they raise us up well enough; fail in this essential matter of loving your neighbour.

Hate crime legislation is practical Jesus IMO.
It hobbles those fast on their verbal feet, able to spin perspective to persuade others to the vision they want them to have; it makes the articulately fast and strong, take pause, and see if their point can be made another way.

Beyond this is the God arena. The arena where perspectival calls can be made that are all encompassing, all condemning perhaps: where the power of this God perspectivising has proved, like all power, capable of corrupting those who reach for it.
It did not corrupt Jesus: but many who reach for the same nominal perspectival tools as did he, just do not have his compassion, his roundedness, his balance, his absolute faith in God.
That is what these trials are about IMO: not free speech, for if you trully speak for God, you are not going to be stopped by a rule; they are about people going too far, being careless in their convictions, just not being caring enough about the consequence of what they do.
There is no truth you cannot make witness of, where this witness need become cruel. What we should always be about, is manifestation of truth, God's truth: and in following Jesus that truth entails love of neighbours; and that is all these laws require of us.
 
Upvote 0

ThePhoenix

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2003
4,708
108
✟5,476.00
Faith
Christian
The meek, the poor, the lame have the same rights of free speech as anyone else. FDR did not survive as President in a wheelchair by hiding behind legislation. J.D. Rockefeller did not become the richest man of his day (possibly of all time if inflation is taken into account) because people couldn't speak out against the poor. The reponsibility we have as human beings is to love others. The responsibility our government has is to preserve the peace. Speech does not threaten the peace.

Hate crime legilation may be good. Hate speech is a different topic. To judge one speech one way and one another is to create a distinction we do not need. To speak out against hitler is not hate speech, to speak out for him is hate speech. That's simple, right? To speak out for against Kerry is not hate speech, to speak out for him is. Now it becomes infinitely more terrifying.

God can judge and condemn you for your speech. Your listeners can judge and condemn you. But the government cannot. Your laws would ban Jesus, you try and wander around that, try and weasel out of that, but it is impossible to. Jesus would be banned. Moses? Banned. Why have charismatic speakers who don't necessarily agree with government policy (and the government is the one who gets to define hate speech right?) The laws are too easy to twist to evil, they are inherently corrupted. They should not exist.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Card42

The Billy Beane of CF
May 8, 2004
384
23
43
✟8,129.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Others
Existential1 said:
There is no way that I, simply as a European, can accept the American notion of free speech; and nor can I accept the notion of security secured by the gun.
since ur not an american
it's not really up to u
to "accept" it or not
in the same way
i don't care
how u want to run scotland
 
Upvote 0