PDA

View Full Version : Pastors and the hate crime laws


Chris F
04-13-2009, 06:50 PM
Clergy in the crosshairs

Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 4/13/2009 4:00:00 AM

A Texas congressman who is a former judge warns that the "hate crimes" legislation reintroduced in the U.S. House could potentially lead to the arrest of Christian pastors who speak out against sexual immorality.

Representatives John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) are sponsoring the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1913), also known as the "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act." The bill would add sexual orientation to the list of categories covered under federal hate crime law. When Democrats passed the bill in 2007, they were divided over whether to add "gender identity and expression" to the list.

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) says under the legislation, pastors, rabbis, or imams could be charged with encouraging or inducing a "hate crime" if they preach against homosexuality.

"Every preacher of the gospel, unless you cut out parts of it; every imam who mentions anything with regard to sexual immorality -- they could be pursued, and in other countries they have been," says the Texas lawmaker.

Gohmert shares information he received from abroad. "I was talking to a guy from Norway who was telling me that people are even afraid to say Mary was a virgin, because just bringing up sexuality at all can raise problems with law enforcement," he says.

Gohmert believes the Conyers-Kirk bill is also unnecessary because hate-motivated crimes are not a major national epidemic. He notes that during his time as a judge, he found that people who commit crimes out of anger and hate have a better chance of being rehabilitated than those who simply commit crimes randomly.

NateR
04-13-2009, 06:57 PM
Just another example where Liberals are trying to strip everyone of their civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution. This is a blatant violation of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech.

Who cares if it's hurtful? Saying that you have freedom of speech, as long as you don't offend anyone or hurt their feelings, is basically saying that you don't have freedom of speech at all.

Crisco
04-13-2009, 07:04 PM
It's a very scary time to be an American.

Chris F
04-13-2009, 07:20 PM
This law passes some left wingers have already vowed they will sue and press charges to all ministers and Christians who violate this. It is a very scary time to be in America. Our freedoms are being sold to the highest bidder. This is exactly why our founders did nto want a democracy. And guess what we have become. The Constitution is nothing more then a historical document now, because no one is truly obeying it any longer.

Miss Foxy
04-13-2009, 07:41 PM
Just another example where Liberals are trying to strip everyone of their civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution. This is a blatant violation of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech.

Who cares if it's hurtful? Saying that you have freedom of speech, as long as you don't offend anyone or hurt their feelings, is basically saying that you don't have freedom of speech at all.
Nate you got a Republican in on it too!! Whats up with that? How did that get past you?:angry:

NateR
04-13-2009, 07:45 PM
This law passes some left wingers have already vowed they will sue and press charges to all ministers and Christians who violate this. It is a very scary time to be in America. Our freedoms are being sold to the highest bidder. This is exactly why our founders did nto want a democracy. And guess what we have become. The Constitution is nothing more then a historical document now, because no one is truly obeying it any longer.

Well, Paul, Peter, John and most every early Church leader spent some time in prison for teaching the truth; so it's not like we won't be in good company. :)

I think the American Church is experiencing GOD's judgement for those misguided Southern Church leaders who supported segregation and opposed the Civil Rights movement.

NateR
04-13-2009, 07:47 PM
Nate you got a Republican in on it too!! Whats up with that? How did that get past you?:angry:

Which Republican?

Honestly if the Republican party doesn't get back to it's conservative roots, then the part is doomed. I'm tired of seeing Republicans acting like Democrats.

Miss Foxy
04-13-2009, 07:50 PM
Which Republican?

Honestly if the Republican party doesn't get back to it's conservative roots, then the part is doomed. I'm tired of seeing Republicans acting like Democrats.
It says Mark Kirk? I can't believe this its just ridiculous and its getting worse and worse with politics...

rearnakedchoke
04-13-2009, 07:58 PM
It says Mark Kirk? I can't believe this its just ridiculous and its getting worse and worse with politics...
yeah, nate probably voted for that guy too .......

NateR
04-13-2009, 08:16 PM
yeah, nate probably voted for that guy too .......

Unless he's an Illinois Senator, I doubt it.

rearnakedchoke
04-13-2009, 08:21 PM
Unless he's an Illinois Senator, I doubt it.
Mark Kirk (R-Illinois)

J.B.
04-13-2009, 08:59 PM
People are jumping the gun on what this Act is really all about.

Actually there is a... "Rule of Construction" which specifically provides that "Nothing in this Act... shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act

This is no more about taking away people's right to free speech as the case against Westboro Baptist Church was.

CAVEMAN
04-13-2009, 08:59 PM
It's a matter of time. I'll be surprised if we have any freedoms left after this administration is through!

Crisco
04-13-2009, 09:36 PM
People are jumping the gun on what this Act is really all about.

Actually there is a... "Rule of Construction" which specifically provides that "Nothing in this Act... shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act

This is no more about taking away people's right to free speech as the case against Westboro Baptist Church was.

I suppose it makes sense when you read it there.

I'm just wondering how far the leftists will take it. I think it should be hate crime to hurt someone because their gay. Granted all crimes should be considered hate crimes so the whole point is moot.

I think this is a step to trying to legitimize the gay lifestyle as normal and just like any other ethnicity. It can definately lead to a slippery slop is applied poorly.

NateR
04-13-2009, 10:14 PM
Mark Kirk (R-Illinois)

Well, I won't be voting for him again.

NateR
04-13-2009, 10:17 PM
People are jumping the gun on what this Act is really all about.

Actually there is a... "Rule of Construction" which specifically provides that "Nothing in this Act... shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act

This is no more about taking away people's right to free speech as the case against Westboro Baptist Church was.

That's just what the liberals want you to think. :tongue0011:

Honestly, if you really believe that the left-wing Liberals are NOT going to try to use this to shut down churches that take a stand against homosexuality, then you are really fooling yourself.

J.B.
04-13-2009, 10:50 PM
That's just what the liberals want you to think. :tongue0011:

Honestly, if you really believe that the left-wing Liberals are NOT going to try to use this to shut down churches that take a stand against homosexuality, then you are really fooling yourself.

Seriously Nate, let's not go down the road of conspiracy theories. It starts sounding as loony as the far-left zealots who say Bush planned 9/11.

When you actually look at what act is going to do it is CLEAR that it will in no way effect people's right to free speech. What it mainly does is extend the CURRENT hate crime laws we already have to include crimes aimed at people because of their gender or sexual orientation, and it puts more money into research and data collecting on those crimes. That's it. Besides, it's not like this is new info. This has been in the works for about 10 years.

This is NOT a free speech issue.

NateR
04-13-2009, 10:58 PM
Seriously Nate, let's not go down the road of conspiracy theories. It starts sounding as loony as the far-left zealots who say Bush planned 9/11.

When you actually look at what act is going to do it is CLEAR that it will in no way effect people's right to free speech. What it mainly does is extend the CURRENT hate crime laws we already have to include crimes aimed at people because of their gender or sexual orientation, and it puts more money into research and data collecting on those crimes. That's it. Besides, it's not like this is new info. This has been in the works for about 10 years.

This is NOT a free speech issue.

:rolleyes:

This is the big liberal thing now to declare anyone who opposes their legislation as conspiracy theorists. It's a dishonest accusation and I thought someone like you would be too smart to stoop to those tactics.

Clearly you are a Christian who is afraid to take his head out of the sand.

You act like Satan is not actively and relentlessly trying to destroy Christianity. Also, if you read about how these kinds of laws are being enforced in other countries, it's clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Chris F
04-13-2009, 10:59 PM
Well, Paul, Peter, John and most every early Church leader spent some time in prison for teaching the truth; so it's not like we won't be in good company. :)

I think the American Church is experiencing GOD's judgement for those misguided Southern Church leaders who supported segregation and opposed the Civil Rights movement.

Amen!

Chris F
04-13-2009, 11:04 PM
Seriously Nate, let's not go down the road of conspiracy theories. It starts sounding as loony as the far-left zealots who say Bush planned 9/11.

When you actually look at what act is going to do it is CLEAR that it will in no way effect people's right to free speech. What it mainly does is extend the CURRENT hate crime laws we already have to include crimes aimed at people because of their gender or sexual orientation, and it puts more money into research and data collecting on those crimes. That's it. Besides, it's not like this is new info. This has been in the works for about 10 years.

This is NOT a free speech issue.

JB- You must not have spent much time in politics. If you judge a bill by its description you would be fooled all the time. You must follow the money and follow the squeaky wheel. This is a free speech issue. In states with similar laws they have arrested pastors. The appeals courts have over turned but it only takes one Judaical vote to make it a law. How else would you explain the mass murder known as abortion.

J.B.
04-13-2009, 11:07 PM
I suppose it makes sense when you read it there.

I'm just wondering how far the leftists will take it. I think it should be hate crime to hurt someone because their gay. Granted all crimes should be considered hate crimes so the whole point is moot.

I think this is a step to trying to legitimize the gay lifestyle as normal and just like any other ethnicity. It can definately lead to a slippery slop is applied poorly.

Well, no offense bro, but we are already there. Being Gay may not be a completely accepted activity by most people, but in almost ALL social settings homosexuals are tolerated and left alone nowadays.

I understand your point about "hate crimes", but the idea of making a special set of laws focused around specific "hate crimes" is to help act as a deterrent. How well that works is arguable, but that is beside the point. If you read about Matthew Shepard, the guy who they named the act after, you see how a brutal act of violence can generate worldwide attention to issues like this.

The same thing happened when a bill sponsored by Bill O'Reilly called "Jessica's Law" got national attention after a little girl in Florida was kidnapped, raped, and murdered by her pedophile neighbor. That bill was much stricter in nature than this one in that it proposed mandatory minimum sentences of 25 years for violence or sexual crimes against young children. Many states have since passed that into law even though a few hardcore liberal states have held back.

That is the problem.The political posturing is in our country right now is ridiculous. People need to stop making everything a left wing and right wing issue and start using common sense to decide what is right. There is nothing in this act that is going to hinder our freedom of speech. That is just right wing lunacy. Sure, anything can be a slippery slope when applied poorly, and thats what the left wing nuts were screaming when Bush wanted to tap some phone calls to the Middle East without a warrant. Now it's the same type of crap coming from the other side just gift wrapped with different paper.

Everybody needs to CHILL. :frantics:

Tyburn
04-13-2009, 11:10 PM
Who cares if it's hurtful? Saying that you have freedom of speech, as long as you don't offend anyone or hurt their feelings, is basically saying that you don't have freedom of speech at all.
This isnt about being hurtful...its about inspiring others to committ hate crimes

I dont think any Church really does that. Firstly...they would have to be preaching outside of a Church, and secondly...they would have to be advocating the use of force against homosexuals

Tell me...which Minister has ever told you to go beat up a homosexual???

It just doesnt happen :blink: At least not in Christianity. Sure, some churches are frightfully mean about homosexuals...but they arent like Islam...in that they dont tell their congregation to go find their nearest Homosexual and hang them :laugh:

J.B.
04-13-2009, 11:18 PM
:rolleyes:

This is the big liberal thing now to declare anyone who opposes their legislation as conspiracy theorists. It's a dishonest accusation and I thought someone like you would be too smart to stoop to those tactics.

Clearly you are a Christian who is afraid to take his head out of the sand.

You act like Satan is not actively and relentlessly trying to destroy Christianity. Also, if you read about how these kinds of laws are being enforced in other countries, it's clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You do sound like a conspiracy theorist. Sorry. Don't act like I am doing the "big liberal thing" by saying it either. I have watched you do it on this forum to others, and I have done it too.

Afraid to take my head out of the sand? I think not. I am just not as pessimistic as you are when it comes to every single thing that Obama or liberals support. You will pick anything apart in debate if it comes from the other side. There is very little sway with you.

I know damn well that Satan is real and working his powers, you can see him and hear him in this world everyday. However, that was not what we are talking about. We were talking about freedom of speech in the USA, not any other countries either.

Tell me again because I know it has been discussed but I forget, what was your stance on the people from Westboro Baptist Church?

Chris F
04-13-2009, 11:49 PM
JB- If you think the bill as it read now will be the same that passes I got some ocean front property in OKlahoma I want to sell you. That bill will be amended to death.

NateR
04-14-2009, 01:04 AM
Tell me again because I know it has been discussed but I forget, what was your stance on the people from Westboro Baptist Church?

Those people are despicable. They're heretics and have no knowledge of Christianity.

HOWEVER, if we pass laws that can silence one church, then it's just a matter of time before that same law will be used to silence all churches.

The government has no right to step in and censor anybody no matter how hateful their speech is. That's why the KKK is still allowed to congregate.

In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting soldiers' funerals, just have the police turn their backs and lets the soldier's family members and veterans groups in the area take care of them. :punch: There's nothing unconstitutional about that.

Allowing the government the ability to legislate what speech is protected under Freedom of Speech and what isn't, is essentially erasing Freedom of Speech completely.

J.B.
04-14-2009, 01:23 AM
JB- If you think the bill as it read now will be the same that passes I got some ocean front property in OKlahoma I want to sell you. That bill will be amended to death.

What is your point?

It's still completely hypothetical to assume that this bill is going to be used to shut down Churches for simply preaching against homosexuality in their Church. Show me some links to where pastors have been arrested for peacefully preaching the gospel in their church, because I have never heard of that.

It's easy to understand why we have laws on the books that define hate crimes and dish out suitable punishments for them. It's also easy to understand why homosexuals should be included in that definition. Arguing about hidden agendas that may or may not exist is just silly. It's the same type of argument people used against George W. Bush time and time again. If something makes sense to do we should not be worried about fighting against it under "hypothetical" pretenses simply because we don't always like the political side of the spectrum it comes from.

J.B.
04-14-2009, 01:29 AM
Those people are despicable. They're heretics and have no knowledge of Christianity.

HOWEVER, if we pass laws that can silence one church, then it's just a matter of time before that same law will be used to silence all churches.

The government has no right to step in and censor anybody no matter how hateful their speech is. That's why the KKK is still allowed to congregate.

In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting soldiers' funerals, just have the police turn their backs and lets the soldier's family members and veterans groups in the area take care of them. :punch: There's nothing unconstitutional about that.

Allowing the government the ability to legislate what speech is protected under Freedom of Speech and what isn't, is essentially erasing Freedom of Speech completely.


Thats the catch, we never silenced their church, and I agree that we cannot just take their right to speak their opinion away. However, in cases were they are causing a public commotion with a negative and hateful overtone then we should be able to force them to disperse.

Allowing those kind of people to do that is just wrong, no matter what the constitution says. The founding fathers may have wanted everybody to be able to speak their mind freely, but I am almost sure our Father in Heaven would not mind if we made some heathens and false prophets shut their mouths from time to time.

Chris F
04-14-2009, 01:58 AM
What is your point?

It's still completely hypothetical to assume that this bill is going to be used to shut down Churches for simply preaching against homosexuality in their Church. Show me some links to where pastors have been arrested for peacefully preaching the gospel in their church, because I have never heard of that.

It's easy to understand why we have laws on the books that define hate crimes and dish out suitable punishments for them. It's also easy to understand why homosexuals should be included in that definition. Arguing about hidden agendas that may or may not exist is just silly. It's the same type of argument people used against George W. Bush time and time again. If something makes sense to do we should not be worried about fighting against it under "hypothetical" pretenses simply because we don't always like the political side of the spectrum it comes from.

My MY aren't we naive of the political process. Why should ones choice be protected by laws. Next all fat people should get free gym memberships because they are discriminated against. Or how about we federally protect all lazy people by giving them a paycheck for doing nothing. Wait we already do that never mind.

Homosexulaity is a choice. They have no right to have additional protection that every other citizen does not have. That is insane.

NateR
04-14-2009, 02:19 AM
Allowing those kind of people to do that is just wrong, no matter what the constitution says. The founding fathers may have wanted everybody to be able to speak their mind freely, but I am almost sure our Father in Heaven would not mind if we made some heathens and false prophets shut their mouths from time to time.

There are plenty of things that the people of that area can do to shut up the Westboro Church. I just don't want the Federal government getting involved. It's a local matter that should be dealt with locally.

The Constitution is only meant to restrict the Federal government. There is nothing that says that a neighborhood or a family must respect someone's Freedom of Speech.

I've heard of biker gangs who surround the Westboro protests and rev their motors so that no one can hear them. That's perfectly legal. As would be pelting them with rotten fruit, eggs or paint.

J.B.
04-14-2009, 02:46 AM
My MY aren't we naive of the political process. Why should ones choice be protected by laws. Next all fat people should get free gym memberships because they are discriminated against. Or how about we federally protect all lazy people by giving them a paycheck for doing nothing. Wait we already do that never mind.

Homosexulaity is a choice. They have no right to have additional protection that every other citizen does not have. That is insane.

Thats exactly the problem, you are incapable of seeing it for what it is without spinning it into a "where does it end" scenario. That is no different than what far left loons did for eight years. Also, you have no basis to call me naive of the political process. Every point I have raised is completely valid.

We already have laws on the books that distinguish hate crimes. The reason we have those is to deter crazy people from going out and hurting people solely based on race, religion, etc. Those laws should include homosexual people. Religion is a choice too, but we protect that under hate crimes laws. It only makes sense.

You can sit and make hypothetical arguments about what COULD happen if the bill was misused, but it does not change the fact that having homosexuals included in the hate crimes laws is fundamentaly the right thing to do. This is not on the same level as gay marriage. This is a pretty black and white issue. We should not tolerate people acting out violently against other people solely based on bigotry and hatred, no matter what group is targeted. Stiff laws should be in place to deter such behavior, and since a lot of that has happened to homosexuals over the years it only makes sense that we should include them in those laws.

If you believe that allowing that to be law is going be the end of Church as we know it in America then you are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.

J.B.
04-14-2009, 02:55 AM
There are plenty of things that the people of that area can do to shut up the Westboro Church. I just don't want the Federal government getting involved. It's a local matter that should be dealt with locally.

The Constitution is only meant to restrict the Federal government. There is nothing that says that a neighborhood or a family must respect someone's Freedom of Speech.

I've heard of biker gangs who surround the Westboro protests and rev their motors so that no one can hear them. That's perfectly legal. As would be pelting them with rotten fruit, eggs or paint.

See, I get what you are saying about letting the locals work it out. I totally do. Sometimes that is the best kind of justice.

However, what you are saying about biker gangs blaring their engines and people pelting them with fruit, eggs, and paint, while I find it very hilarious and totally awesome, that is FAR from LEGAL activity. In fact, that is why we have police forces in every state, county, and city. To enforce the law and to keep the peace. Rather than let things get out of hand, it would be much easier if there was a set of standards that our law enforcement could follow to handle certain situations like that. Basically give them the power to tell some of these groups to just STFU from time to time without fear of a headline on the prime-time news and a lawsuit from the ACLU.

NateR
04-14-2009, 03:46 AM
See, I get what you are saying about letting the locals work it out. I totally do. Sometimes that is the best kind of justice.

However, what you are saying about biker gangs blaring their engines and people pelting them with fruit, eggs, and paint, while I find it very hilarious and totally awesome, that is FAR from LEGAL activity. In fact, that is why we have police forces in every state, county, and city. To enforce the law and to keep the peace. Rather than let things get out of hand, it would be much easier if there was a set of standards that our law enforcement could follow to handle certain situations like that. Basically give them the power to tell some of these groups to just STFU from time to time without fear of a headline on the prime-time news and a lawsuit from the ACLU.

The simple fact is that Westboro Baptist Church is an anomaly and you can't write legislation for the exceptions to the rule. That's just not good government.

So, excluding Westboro Baptist, why in the world do you think that this would be a good idea? How would you, personally, define "hate speech."

J.B.
04-14-2009, 04:03 AM
The simple fact is that Westboro Baptist Church is an anomaly and you can't write legislation for the exceptions to the rule. That's just not good government.

So, excluding Westboro Baptist, why in the world do you think that this would be a good idea? How would you, personally, define "hate speech."

I never said we should write legislation for one small exception to the rule, and that is not what this legislation is going to do.

I simply said that in events where there are public displays that turn disruptive or hateful our police should be able to make the groups stop without fear of repercussion from groups like the ACLU. That goes for all groups, be it Westboro or some gay militant group.

How would I define "hate speech"? That is a tricky question, but I will bite...
I would say, generally anything that falls along the lines of being overtly demeaning, or nasty, or just outright rude with an intent to deeply offend or insight violence when generalizing a specific group or groups of people.

Does that work?

NateR
04-14-2009, 04:26 AM
How would I define "hate speech"? That is a tricky question, but I will bite...
I would say, generally anything that falls along the lines of being overtly demeaning, or nasty, or just outright rude with an intent to deeply offend or insight violence when generalizing a specific group or groups of people.

Does that work?

That's way too general. Any lawyer could twist that to use against anybody.

Read this:

Swedish Pastor Sentenced for 'Hate Speech'
By Dale Hurd
CWNews


September 10, 2004


CWNews.org –A lot of people think of Sweden as a 'tolerant' nation. But lately it's starting to show intolerance towards Christianity. A pastor there has been sentenced to jail for preaching against homosexuality and other sexual sin.

This place is probably not where you'd expect to find a man like Ake Green. In the little village of Borgholm, in southern Sweden, this quiet Swedish pastor of a small Pentecostal church decided to stand against what he says is his nation's 'embrace' of homosexuality.

But because of what he preached, Pastor Green has been sentenced to a month in jail under a 'hate speech' law.

Pastor Green said, "I was watching television, reading the newspaper, listening to high profile people - actors, singers - glorifying the homosexual lifestyle. And I was worried, and was concerned, and I felt a deep burden in my heart to speak on that topic."

Green prepared the sermon last year, on what the Bible says about homosexuality, with the intention that the townspeople of Borgholm come to hear him. But attendance was disappointing.

So Ake Green had his sermon published in the local newspaper. In it, he compared the sin of Sweden to the sin of Sodom.

He warned, "Our country is facing a disaster of great proportions! Of that we can be sure. God said the land would vomit out its inhabitants. Our country is facing a disaster."

But it was how he described sexual practices like homosexuality that brought the charge against him: Green told us, "What I said was that sexual abnormality was like a cancer of the society." In more precise English, a "cancerous tumor."

He ended his sermon speaking of God's grace and with respect for those living in sexual sin.

He said, "What these people need, who live under the slavery of sexual immorality, is an abundant grace. It exists. Therefore we will encourage those who live in this manner to look at the grace of Jesus Christ. We cannot condemn these people. Jesus never belittled anyone. He offered them grace."

But his ending didn't matter. The printed sermon was seen by local homosexuals and the district prosecutor, and Green was convicted in a district court and given a month in jail.

A sentence he has not yet served because he is appealing the conviction. Green's defense attorney is Percy Bratt, the Chairman of the Swedish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights.

Bratt said, "The very basic question that is raised in this matter is: to what extent it is criminal to teach from the words in the Bible, so to say."

The hate speech law used to convict Green was first intended to protect Jews and other ethnic minorities from Nazi sympathizers. But in more recent times the law was amended to also protect 'sexual orientation.'

Bratt said, "The wordings of this provision are very general, so the area that shall be criminalized is up to the courts."

The district prosecutor in the case refused to speak with CBN News. But we were able to speak with Sweden's national gay and lesbian organization in Stockholm, the RFSL, which supports Green's conviction.

The RFSL spokesperson said, "Hatred and defamation is not to be accepted, just because it's based on religious beliefs or religious scriptures. You have some limits when it comes to the freedom of speech."

But the Ake Green case is becoming an embarrassment for a nation which prides itself on its tolerance. It may also be a catalyst.

Josef Östby is a noted Missionary and Pastor in Sweden's Pentecostal Movement. He said, "I felt it's like a prophetic message - for our time -in Sweden."

Östby also hopes God is using an unknown preacher from a small town to awaken a nation.

Östby said, "A kind person like Green, silent, is working in a small church. [Then he spoke up.] And today, the whole country is talking about it, and [even other] countries are touched by his simple message."

But support for Green among some Swedish evangelical leaders has been surprisingly lukewarm. Green blames them for acquiescing to the homosexual agenda. He said he draws his inspiration from the Old Testament prophets.

Green said, "We have read about Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, and Amos. They were living in times of spiritual decline. I believe we are dealing with a spiritual dimension here. The Evangelical churches don't want a confrontation with what's going on in Swedish society, and that makes them silent."

Green's attorney says the case will now go to an appeals court, and if necessary, to Sweden's Supreme Court, and even to the European Court, if necessary. He says the district judge misapplied the law.

Bratt said, "The court must, when applying this provision, make a balancing act between the right of homosexuals and the right of the freedom of religion and the right of the freedom of expression. And we say that the court has not made a proper such balancing."

But other nations are moving in the same direction or already have similar laws, including Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.

Östby calls Green's conviction a tragedy for democracy in Sweden. He said, "We cannot, in Sweden, be known for things like putting a pastor in jail for a sermon! This is impossible!"

But the spokesman for Sweden's national gay and lesbian organization said one month in jail is not long enough for Green. It hopes a higher court will impose a longer sentence.

The RFSL spokesperson said, "The district attorney has said 6 to 8 months would be more appropriate when it comes to this crime and we cannot do anything else but to agree with that."

Ake Green says he's not afraid to go to jail. Green added, "I am not a criminal, I don't feel like a criminal, but this new law makes us preachers 'as criminals' if we speak up."

Some say Pastor Green has awakened Swedish evangelicals on the issue of homosexuality. He's certainly created an uncomfortable dividing line for church leaders, whether to speak boldly what the Bible says about homosexuality, or not.

An otherwise overlooked pastor has done something to grab the attention of a nation. Ake Green says he was "only obeying God."

J.B.
04-14-2009, 04:37 AM
Thats why I said that is a tricky question to answer. It's kinda like a congressman said about pornography many years back, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it".

Of course the answer is somewhat general. However, I still don't subscribe to the ideology that because Sweden does something we are going to end up doing it too. That just would not fly over here, at least not at this point of our society.

In my opinion, that Pastor should not have called them a "cancer" in a public newspaper, that is just poor taste, but I also don't think he should be jailed for it either. Regardless, that is Sweden, not America. The bigger point of this is simply that allowing homosexuals to be defined under the current US laws we have against hate crimes is a sound idea. However, "hate speech" is not crime, but being violent or disrupting the peace IS.

NateR
04-14-2009, 04:58 AM
Regardless, that is Sweden, not America.

Wow, you're head really is buried in the sand.:laugh:

Okay, a little closer to home:

Iowa Grandmother, Donna Holman, Jailed for Discouraging Abortion (judge ordered a Psych. Test)
Christian Newswier ^ | 01-18-08 | Kevin P. McVicker
Posted on January 18, 2008 6:59:17 PM CST by Coleus

In March, 2007, Donna Holman was convicted of a charge of "harassment" as she engaged in "sidewalk counseling" to discourage women from entering a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Iowa City, Iowa. Judge Karen Egerton found Mrs.Holman guilty on the hearsay testimony of Planned Parenthood employees. The woman Mrs. Holman allegedly harassed did not even show up for the hearing. Despite being unable to confront her accuser and offer exculpatory evidence, the Iowa Supreme Court declined to review the case.

"While murderers and rapists run free, a harmless 72-year-old Christian grandmother, Donna Holman, must languish in jail for having the temerity of speaking out on behalf of the unborn," said Dr. Gary Cass, Chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. "The double standards of justice used against pro-life Christians are staggering. If Donna Holman had been a union or homosexual activist she would have been released and the trumped up charges dropped. Donna is only guilty of caring for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. The courts are guilty of aiding and abetting the abortion industry as it plies its bloody trade on bodies of innocent babies while harming unsuspecting women. It is especially troubling that she is beginning this ordeal on the eve of the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Grandmother sues McCain for hate speech
David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster
Published: Friday October 17, 2008

A Kansas City grandmother is suing John McCain and Sarah Palin for promoting hate speech. Mary Kay Green told KSHB that some statements at McCain campaign rallies terrify her as much as the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

"I know the secret service is on this case, but John McCain and Sarah Palin can stop some of this by a statement that they abhor these death threats and will not tolerate them," said Green.

The 66-year-old civil attorney, a lifelong Democrat, claims in the suit that the McCain campaign has intentionally and recklessly portrayed Barack Obama as a terrorist.

Green said, "You have to take these things seriously."

Green believe that Palin has been working crowds into a frenzy. There have been reports from McCain campaign rallies with words like "kill him," "off with his head," and "Muslim terrorist."

According to Green, her father managed the Nebraska campaigns of John and Robert Kennedy. After both were felled by assassins, her father died "of grief."

"I think John McCain and Sarah Palin have no understanding of what we went through as a nation," she said. "[The lawsuit] will be dismissed as soon as I hear public statements from these two candidates that they abhor these death threats and that they will not tolerate these intruders in their audiences."

You can watch the video of her here:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Grandmother_sues_McCain_for_hate_speech_1017.html

Just examples of how easily "hate speech" legislation can be perverted here at home.

J.B.
04-14-2009, 05:20 AM
Wow, you're head really is buried in the sand.:laugh:

Okay, a little closer to home:





You can watch the video of her here:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Grandmother_sues_McCain_for_hate_speech_1017.html

Just examples of how easily "hate speech" legislation can be perverted here at home.

Those are horrible examples for your case considering one is lacking detail and the other is a fringe example that resulted in nothing.

If some lady wants to preach outside a planned parenthood clinic, she should understand that there is a chance she will be asked to leave and could be arrested if she breaks the law. That is cut and dry. Also, not to say the source is not credible, but without more info and another source I am not taking that one at face value.

As for the lady who tried to sue John McCain, I am sure that got really far...:laugh: Which makes that point moot. Our court system see loads of BS lawsuits that get tossed all the time, that don't mean anything. Also, it was more likely a lawsuit under the guise of defamation, not "hate speech" seeing as we really have no laws on "hate speech" in the context of which we are discussing.

Here, this is what Wiki says for laws concerning "hate speech" in America.

The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[36] and incitement to riot.[37] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement only qualify as criminal if the threat of violence is imminent.[38] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

"Hate Speech" in U.S. Professional and Educational Contexts

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[39] See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).

Both public and private educational institutions in the United States frequently adopt rules prohibiting stigmatization on the basis of attributes such as race, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or national origin. In the 1980's and 1990's, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[40] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995). Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[41]

NateR
04-14-2009, 05:36 AM
Those are horrible examples for your case considering one is lacking detail and the other is a fringe example that resulted in nothing.

If some lady wants to preach outside a planned parenthood clinic, she should understand that there is a chance she will be asked to leave and could be arrested if she breaks the law. That is cut and dry. Also, not to say the source is not credible, but without more info and another source I am not taking that one at face value.

As for the lady who tried to sue John McCain, I am sure that got really far...:laugh: Which makes that point moot. Our court system see loads of BS lawsuits that get tossed all the time, that don't mean anything. Also, it was more likely a lawsuit under the guise of defamation, not "hate speech" seeing as we really have no laws on "hate speech" in the context of which we are discussing.

Here, this is what Wiki says for laws concerning "hate speech" in America.

My point was to demonstrate how the seeds of abuse, by the left-wing, of hate speech legislation are already being planted.

Of course the courts are used to throwing out BS lawsuits, but remember those same courts did award a woman millions of dollars for spilling McDonalds coffee in her own lap. So, all it takes is for one case to slip through the cracks and fall into the lap of some activist judge looking to make a name for himself.

J.B.
04-14-2009, 06:18 AM
My point was to demonstrate how the seeds of abuse, by the left-wing, of hate speech legislation are already being planted.

Of course the courts are used to throwing out BS lawsuits, but remember those same courts did award a woman millions of dollars for spilling McDonalds coffee in her own lap. So, all it takes is for one case to slip through the cracks and fall into the lap of some activist judge looking to make a name for himself.

Point well taken, and I never disagreed that there are going to be people who try to abuse the law. However I do disagree with the notion that our Churches are going to start getting shut down for promoting hate speech against homosexuals because of including them into the pre-existing laws on hate crimes. It's two different things, yes closely related, but still different. If that did happen on any sort of scale, there would be outrage and it would not stand. We are granted freedom of speech and religion right in the constitution.

The Mcdonald's coffee incident was completely different. That woman ended up getting less that $600,000 and there was a plethora of evidence that showed McDonalds had already settled a bunch of lawsuits for serving their coffee WAY too hot and without proper warnings. The only reason that even made such headlines was because she was originally awarded like 2 million dollars, but then a judge reversed that. That case was a big catalyst in driving the debate over the amount of frivolous lawsuits.

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 01:11 PM
How would you, personally, define "hate speech."
Hate speech is speech that encourages its listeners to break the law of the land
Has ANY Church EVER done that with Homosexuals :huh:

If Your Church tells you that Homosexuality is wrong. Thats not Hate Crime, its an opinion (maybe a truthful one...but still its only delivering a statement)

If your Church tells you that you must hang homosexuals, that IS a Hate Crime...but how many churches do that :huh: :huh:

J.B.
04-14-2009, 04:34 PM
Hate speech is speech that encourages its listeners to break the law of the land
Has ANY Church EVER done that with Homosexuals :huh:

If Your Church tells you that Homosexuality is wrong. Thats not Hate Crime, its an opinion (maybe a truthful one...but still its only delivering a statement)

If your Church tells you that you must hang homosexuals, that IS a Hate Crime...but how many churches do that :huh: :huh:

For the most part, probably not very many at all. Certainly not any that I would ever consider a "Christian" Church.

With that being said, I am still sure there are plenty of little rogue groups who WOULD do violence to homosexuals just for being gay. I think that goes without saying. :unsure:

Neezar
04-14-2009, 04:55 PM
Dave should be arrested. He makes me want to go out and kick gays.


:laugh:

Crisco
04-14-2009, 05:25 PM
Dave should be arrested. He makes me want to go out and kick gays.


:laugh:

:scared0015:



:tongue0011: :tongue0011:

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 05:29 PM
there are plenty of little rogue groups who WOULD do violence to homosexuals just for being gay. :unsure:
Yes...but not the Church...surely :blink:

Its good to stop those who would advocate Harming them...the Church doesnt wish to Harm Homosexuals...only to save them:)

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 05:30 PM
Dave should be arrested.

:laugh:
:ashamed: I could warm to that idea :laugh:

J.B.
04-14-2009, 05:38 PM
Yes...but not the Church...surely :blink:

Its good to stop those who would advocate Harming them...the Church doesnt wish to Harm Homosexuals...only to save them:)

No, not ACTUAL Churches. Maybe some groups that call themselves Churches though, you never know. There are all kinds of crazy groups all over the place and more pop up all the time.

Crisco
04-14-2009, 05:48 PM
:ashamed: I could warm to that idea :laugh:

Ewwwwwwwwwwwww Dave lol

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 06:00 PM
Ewwwwwwwwwwwww Dave lol
:unsure-1: Its Denise fault...she brings out the worst in me :laugh: (meant in the nicest possible way :laugh: )

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 06:02 PM
No, not ACTUAL Churches. Maybe some groups that call themselves Churches though, you never know. There are all kinds of crazy groups all over the place and more pop up all the time.
Now that WOULD be frightening....and I aggree that any who go as far as advocating harm...telling their congregation to go do something nasty or cruel to ANY section of the community...they need to be stopped :frantics: