Recent events in Canada underline the urgent importance for those supporting free speech, and especially the freedom of religion to teach their basic doctrines, to mobilize and take action to prevent an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth' coming upon us.

HUMAN_RIGHTS_COMPLAINT.

A Pastor, wrote a 'letter_to_the_editor' which resulted in a HR complaint as below

"Boissoin, the full time pastor of a Red Deer youth ministry, wrote a letter to the editor of his hometown newspaper in which he said
PART 1 homosexuality is immoral and physically dangerous for those involved in it.

PART 2 Boissoin particularly criticized the homosexual political lobby that worked to teach children in schools about the practices of the “gay lifestyle”.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07120306.html
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf

Now..the question I put to the forum is this:

IF.Pastor Boisoin had said in his letter "The bible TEACHES that Homosexual behavior is immoral, thus Christians can never condone such behavior"...how likely would it be that such a complaint would succeed?

IF.. such a complaint did NOT succeed.. does anyone (of normal mental balance and sanity) really believe that the day will not come when the politicized homosexual lobby will be lobbying to prohibit the teaching even in Churches of Leviticus 18 and more especially "Romans 1"?

Given that in Sweden, a pastor WAS JAILED for preaching in his own Church on Romans 1 and using some colorful language in his sermon...it is not only 'possible' but I suggest 'very likely'.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39328

The Words Green used were that Homosexuality is:

"abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society"

Now..if he had said "The Bible teaches:" and simply quoted Romans 1:

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

CJ Morgan regularly characterizes myself and others as "certifiable fruitloops" -I defend his right to say that, will he defend my right to preach the Gospel?

Dear David,

You'd better be careful with what you're quoting from the Bible:

"... if you pass judgement you have no excuse. In judging others you condemn yourself... do you think you will escape God's judgement?...
He will repay each one as his works deserve...God has no favourites."
- Romans 2:1-11.

The Bible teaches us to 'love thy neighbour as thyself...'
It does not make exceptions according to sexual orientation, gender, race, or religion. We're all God's children. Posting threads like this does not honour you or your religion. And I really find it difficult David, to understand why you persist in doing it - except perhaps to provoke? I'm disappointed in you, when you behave like this.

Thats a gross story BOAZ_David.
Considering what I say, I had better watch out:)
Seriously though...perhaps Aussies arent so thin skinned as the Canadians etc (must be the French in them:).
As christians if we dont speak out against sin (the evil men do) the world will simply get worse.
Gets to a point when God says "NO MORE"...and the civilisations fall.
See the Great Flood Genesis chapter 6 and Genesis chapter 19 re: Sodom.
Where now all of the old civilisations?
Not so alive are they.
A new generation of babies comes into the world each day and without Bible-based discipline they will end up in hell for sure after they pass on (check out Mary K Baxter a divine revelation of hell readers)
Its a good thread BOAZ...good on ya.

He's been told that over and over and over Foxy. But still he doesn't seem to grasp the concept. You'd think being a self confessed christian it would be a fairly easy thing TO grasp.

The crazy contradiction within the Catholic Church is that many of their Priests were homosexuals and repressed at that.It screwed them emotionally living a lie and this makes for deviant behaviour.

No none can deny homosexuality and no organisation has the right to cast judgement.The Churches need to pull their heads in on this topic and stop being hypocrites.

By the same token,David does have a point about certain sections of the gay lobby.They are too promiscuious and seem too intent on coverting others to their lifestyles.Homo sexuality is not the norm and should not be premoted as such.

Dear foxy.. most interesting response....

I don't find it a problem to have compassion for a person claiming to be a homosexual. But compassion is limited to their 'state' (of believing they are homosexual) not to their political activities of seeking to educate children as to the normality of behavior which the same author of Romans (under the inspiration of God) said what he did in my first post.

This is not about 'get gays'..its about the insidious nature of human rights law (still) where a group of alleged professionals are in fact 'extending' the law in a very arbitrary manner.

I'm curious about what others think about this idea.

THE PROBLEM.
If I am a member of a lawful religion, and my holy book says I should view certain forms of behavior as 'evil, devient and sinful' (which includes adultery as much as it includes homosexual behavior) then, one would expect that within the confines of that lawful religious body's lawful places of meeting, that such values can be promoted without interference.

If there was a CJMORGAN religion in which Christian people are defined as 'certifiable fruitloops' or to quote Irfan "Armchair_nazi's" then, I hardly think either of them would like to be legally compelled NOT to express such views in their meetings.

THE OTHER SIDE of the coin. Given that such legislation includes 'religion' as a basis by which discrimination or hate speech is unlawful, it stands to reason then, that to describe someone of a religion as a 'certifiable fruitloop' is hate speech :) (no CJ..I'm not concerned by what you say, I'm concerned about laws which would prevent you saying it)

Clearly, such speech in a public forum by a usually articulate contributor would be 'reasonably likely' to raise the level of contempt against Christians (even one) in the minds of some 'ordinary people'?

There other sides to the question, such as how particular religions are described by other religions.. and in such cases, what criteria might be used to determine 'which' complaint prevails, if both made a complaint against the other. (No Pericles..don't go there)

Dear Arjay,

I agree with you - the Christian churches have a lot to answer for.
However promiscuity exists among heterosexuals as well as gays. It's not just a 'gay' thing. It's a human trait. However as Ian Robertson points out in his book, 'Sociology,' and I quote:

"...prejudiced people are not concerned about genuine group characteristics; they simply accept any negative statement that feeds their existing hostility ... In one study, Eugene Hartley (1946) found that people who are prejudiced against one minority group tended to be prejudiced against others..."

"Scapegoating ...the word comes from a custom recounted in the Old Testament - the laying of the people's sins on a goat, which was then allowed to escape into the wilderness."

Dear David,

You state that:

"If I am a member of a lawful religion, and my holy book says I should view certain forms of behaviour as "evil, deviant and sinful" (which includes adultry as much as it includes homosexual behaviour) then, one would expect that within the confines of that lawful religious body's lawful places of meeting, that such values can be promoted without interference."

Following your line of reasoning and logic - this means that you don't object to what Islam teaches within the confines of their lawful religious body's lawful places of meetings, and that their values can be promoted without interference. Or is there a double standard here - one for Christians, another for everyone else?

As you said David, interesting response.

There's quite a distinction between preaching the words of a holy book in a church (or mosque, or whatever), and vilifying people in the media. Having said that, I think that the Canadian homophobe should not be subject to legislative penalty for exposing his bigotry to the world - nor should other idiots like Mark Steyn, for example, who is also being taken to task for publishing hate material in Canada [ http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2008/06/human-rights-and-criticising-islam/ ].

Boazy: << CJ Morgan regularly characterizes myself and others as "certifiable fruitloops" -I defend his right to say that, will he defend my right to preach the Gospel? >>

Absolutely. However, it's your "interpretations" of the Gospel that worry me :)

<< Given that such legislation includes 'religion' as a basis by which discrimination or hate speech is unlawful, it stands to reason then, that to describe someone of a religion as a 'certifiable fruitloop' is hate speech :) (no CJ..I'm not concerned by what you say, I'm concerned about laws which would prevent you saying it) >>

Boazy, I don't think you're a frootloop because you're a Christian - indeed, the vast majority of Christians I know are perfectly sane and normal people. I think that Christianity's just a vehicle for your psychopathologies to express themselves :)

CJ, maaaaate, I've yet to see you express an opinion I disagree with, including the bit about the odious Steyn. Love your work. But if you were a fish you wouldn't survive to the legal size limit.

Bait. Hook. Line. Sinker. And he reels you in every time. You're trying to teach a pig to sing, as the saying goes. It's a waste of your time, but at least the pig enjoys the company.

To be born female you must have a XXchromosome
To be born male you must have an XY chromosome

The Xchromosome provides your whole genetic code. If the Xchromosome is damaged in any way then a person will be born with possible severe abnormalities physically or intellectually.
The Y chromosome only donates maleness and is added to the Xchromosome solely for that purpose. It seems to me that if something does not go quite right with that process then a person could be born 3/4female and 1/4male or any number of combinations. There was one female tennis player in particular who seemed to have a fairly masculine look.

If homosexuality is therefore a birth defect should it not be treated as other people born with birth defects, with compassion but not as the norm

Boazy,

One first needs to establish the Bible, as an authority on sexual orientation and sin. The DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders]hasn't listed homosexuality as abnormal behaviour for decades.

I would be more concerned about admiring men whom offer there daugthers to angels and incest, as "known" to the Bible.

None of the Biblical characters or Biblical narrative, except perhaps the Sermon on the Mount, would rank a 5 or 6 on Lawrence Kolhberg's scale on the matter of Morality, so the Bible is not well placed to give directions on the topic:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2602/is_0003/ai_2602000337

The above said, I do advocate free speech, wherein, each individual has the right to place a view, as in this Forum. That said, it is proper that The Public Domain is not subjected to rants and agenda.

Herein, were a Minister or Priest to enter into the debate on the table about homosexuality, there should be a place; but, for each participant, their action should not be a missionary enterprise. Rather, each contributor should listen as well as present.

Dear_fellow_posters..

Chainsmoker.. ur not progressing, :) ur missing the point of this thread. (yes..I do enjoy the company though both for and against).

Here is 'the point'. IF.. you said “Boaz, ur a stupid evil Christian, just like the rest of your mob”

It is hate speech and legally actionable.

If I said “Chainsmoker..I think you are a prize dill , just like the rest of your secular mates” it's just opinion.

Why the heck do we need some secretive 'Star Chamber' like cloister of inHuman Rights subversives adding laws according to their own very discriminatory and biased opinions on what constitutes 'hate speech'?

Foxyness :).. you raise the other side of this whole question.. YES.. “If” I want to be free to preach/study/educate people along the lines of Romans 1 and also to make such information known in the public sphere, why shouldn't Muslims be free to do the same with their own faith?

ABSOLUTELY...... My 'psychopathalogical' issue with all this is ..(now..focus please :).. how the HR law is applied in a selective and discriminatory manner primarily against Christians!

So, people can be free to express, teach, promote their faith or morality as long as those of contrary views can also, including vehement criticism of those values, without fear of the law.

A Catholic Bishop Frederick Henry who defended traditional_marriage!
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/mar/05033001.html

Clearly 'Christian' religious teaching is increasingly being supressed by law. That is totalitarianism.

If HR law is about protecting 'feelings' then based on what I'm called here regularly I'd set up a permanent humpy at VCAT :)

Illegal acts, calls for destruction of named classes of people, and immoral acts are open to criticism in a free society, even if they are only immoral to 'some' members of that society.

Sharkfin.. need to mention something about your post.

If Homosexuality is a birth defect? Imagine this, "Paedophilia" something gone wrong such that people believe they are 'predisposed' to that area of life. Of course we prohibit it, by law.

The issue with Homosexuality always and inevitably comes back to the moral relativism on which it is based.
If for example we accept the Islamic viewpoint that 'puberty' is the age when sex is acceptable (though in Islams case, it means marraige) then obviously the Gay lobby will want the age of consent to be 'puberty'. Because clearly if a 'child' is capable of reproduction, she/he is capable of all the associated mental processes and responsibilities.

There is absolutely no moral prohibition of sex between much older individuals and much younger. Mohammad 53, Ayesha 9.. just as an example without making any value judgement on that here.

Thus, Nambla who are always seeking a lowering of the age of consent, do so for this very reason..moral relativism. I.e.. if there is nothing but the 'law' preventing mature men/young boy(child) sex, then the solution is:
a) Change the law.
b) Change public opinion.

So, this raises the horrendous possibility that given time, Nambla will succeed just like Rodney Croome and his associates did in Tasmania. 20 yrs is all it took.
They had to be prepared to be arrested and jailed for promoting 'gay rights' information at a public market...and indeed they WERE arrested...but now? Go figure.

Our biggest challenge in all this is 'perspective'. We absolutely MUST look at 'time' and how things are changed.

The Law is simply the means by which people gain acceptability for some behaviors and unacceptability for others.

Re the topic of this thread, we now see criticism of homosexual behavior as 'unacceptable'..... So, what's caused this? 'activism'!

chainsmoker: << You're trying to teach a pig to sing, as the saying goes. It's a waste of your time, but at least the pig enjoys the company. >>

Thanks maaaaate - you're quite correct of course :) However, the process of porcine singing lessons is quite entertaining in itself, and I am at heart an animal lover.

I also note that even your comment elicited a bit of a warble from our very own Napoleon :D

"Chainsmoker.. ur not progressing, :) ur missing the point of this thread."

Since when have you been the arbiter BD of who's progressing or not progressing and who's getting or not getting the point of your narrow-minded little threads or any other thread for that matter?

Chainsmoker was making an aside to another poster which we are all perfectly entitled to do. I'm sure he's as interested as most of the rest of us in getting involved in another one of your many rants on the evils of homosexuality. Oh alright I know that's not the point of the thread, the point is free speech.

Well let me give you my opinion on free speech. Freedom of speech should always comes with the responsibility not to offend and hurt others. The power of free speech should never give people the right to slag off indiscriminately at whomever they want. The issue of whether or not that slander is supported by a religious document is irrelevant.

Once again, the irony of you dictating terms of speech to others in a thread you've started and stated specifically is all about free speech, is obvious to all but yourself.

post script:

On today's "Insiders", on TV, it was mentioned the Pope, presumably a Christian, has provided sanctionary to the Bishop of Boston, whom himself protected paedophile priests. US legal authorities seemingly are after the Bishop. I did/do not hear any cries from Christians condemming the Vatican. Why so quiet?

If the Australian Potestant Churches are serious about real sexual deviates, they should be "in the Pope's face" during his visit on the issue.

All,

- Should Protestant Archbishops slam the Pope in the media on this matter? Should the Media slam Christian leaders, who like Simon and Garfunctal, "The Sound of Silence":

Relatedly:http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol5No1/media%20versus%20church.htm

Boazy, Christian leaders and Christians, like the Pastor you cite, will know Matthew 7.5:

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Source, Christ, J. (c. 32 CE) in Matthew, Bible KJV

Paelophilia amongst Christians, with a due of care towards children, Boazy, that is a real issue.

Regrads,

O.

Hi David, thank you for your answer to my post,

“We now see critiscism of homosexual behaviour as unacceptable, so what caused this activism”.

I can see that saying that homosexuality is a birth defect would lead to activism for acceptance. I also said that as a birth defect it should be regarded as not normal.
This is an enormously difficult area for the church leaders in trying to have compassion but at the same time saying God did not intend this to be the natural order of things. Some church leaders instead of speaking with compassion get all inflamed and vilify these people as though their sin was murder. Their will always be church leaders who do not counsel in the wise and compassionate ways of Jesus.
There will always be homosexuals who do not take even being told in the gentlest way that in the eyes of God, it was not the intended order of his creation.

You introduce a sidetrack, Boaz, you must expect people to follow it. Especially since you specifically asked me not to.

>>There other sides to the question, such as how particular religions are described by other religions.. and in such cases, what criteria might be used to determine 'which' complaint prevails, if both made a complaint against the other. (No Pericles..don't go there)<<

Forget about free speech, this is a thread demonstrating how many Christians are homophobic. You only raise it to show how Christians in other countries are being prevented from venting their homophobia in an offensive manner.

But on the topic of "one religion vs another", it would appear that you and fundamentalist Islam are at one on the issue of homosexuality, which must please you greatly.

Common ground, Boaz. You should actively look for other areas of compatibility, of which there are many, instead of constantly looking for areas of difference.

It is quite poetic, really. For example, for all you waffle on about Islam's treatment of women, the Bible seems to have a pretty poor opinion of them too.

"and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women" Rev 14:3-4

Defiled with women, Boaz?

Surely not?

Clearly pericles, you're interpreting wrong.

The only 'right' way to interpret it, is to interpret the bible as being sugar and spice and all things nice, but the Qu'ran as being snips and snails and puppy dog tails. In other words, just seeing it like boaz does. When he preaches against gays it's okay, because it's biblical, but it's only his religion that's allowed to.

For an explanation as to why, see above. Perhaps he'll even furnish us with more contortions, backflips and bizarre justifications as to why in his case, it's totally different.

Got it? It's really not that hard to grasp. Especially seeing as he's been repeating the same lines over and over ad nauseum on OLO for years now, with vague changes to the labelling. Fear not however, he's doing a great job of dissuading potential converts to Christianity.
Secularists should be grateful.
Besides, it's evident that criticism just flies past and only serves to strengthen his resolve, regardless of the accumulated weight of logic and objections that pile up.

Though his latest three threads (this one, the 'interpretation is not subjective unless I say it is' one and the one where he explains how despite having met kind people from another religion who showed him only kindness, they're not really kind at all because of their ancient book) I think, are his three most objectionable yet, as they're more transparent, clumsy, and plain arrogant than all the others I've seen.

For that reason, I think this'll be the last time I pop into a thread he starts. They're all the same at heart and they're all ugly.

TRTL, you have picked the exact reason I keep coming back.

>>Though his latest three threads (this one, the 'interpretation is not subjective unless I say it is' one and the one where he explains how despite having met kind people from another religion who showed him only kindness, they're not really kind at all because of their ancient book) I think, are his three most objectionable yet, as they're more transparent, clumsy, and plain arrogant than all the others I've seen. For that reason, I think this'll be the last time I pop into a thread he starts. They're all the same at heart and they're all ugly.<<

The closer we get to the real Boaz - the one who has generally escaped any detailed attention when propagating his let's-all-hate-Islam material - the more transparent, clumsy and plain arrogant he becomes.

I cannot think of a better way to expose his formidably un-Christian attitudes and prejudices, than to keep chipping away at his credibility.

What he will eventually come to realise is that it has nothing to do with his religion, but his own attitude.

I know some very decent Christians, who are kind, tolerant and humble. I have absolutely nothing against Christianity, as I have said many times before. But I cannot sit back and watch his systematic, calumnious denigration of another religion.

Logic and truth will win out every time against blind and wilful prejudice. It just takes time.

Pericles, TRTL,

I rather think the time has come to take Chainsmoker's advice and just ignore him now.

I wrote in another thread that I think his whole reason for writing is because he see himself as a martyr for his cause - so every time someone responds to him he chalks that up as another sling and arrow he is suffering in defense of his faith. The proof of this is that though Pericles, TRTL I and others have pointed out that our objections are indeed centred round his patronising, smug attitude and his total lack of any of the redeeming features such as kindness, tolerance, charity or selflessness that should characterise any good citizen - let alone a practicing Christian - he ignores or denies it.

In fact last time I was goaded into pointing this out to him he flatly denied it and informed me that no, it was indeed Christianity that was being attacked.

The fact that so many people, both Christian and non-Christian, have pointed out that he is giving the whole movement a bad name does not seemed to have caused him one single moment of self reflection or doubt.

I am in agreement with TRTL that having this ugliness pushed down ones throat from multiple threads is becoming a little too much and yes, he does seem to be getting worse. I really don't think, Pericles, that he even notices the chipping - his egotism doesn't allow for humility, introspection or even, it seems increasingly, logical thought. This continuous and insulting condescension and intolerance is completely unacceptable.

Leave him be - as pointed out, he is very transparent and every time he posts he is revealing more and more the most unsavoury aspects of his character. One doesn't need to chip - he is hoist on his own petard in every second post . And the fact that he is incapable of realising it compounds the thoroughness with which this is done.

Dear Bron... re my 'ur not progressing'.. "tonque in cheek arrogance" :)
You need to turn up the sensitivity on your 'warm hearted sarcasm' meter.
PS.. a lot of what you say "hurts and offends me" but I absolutely agree to your right to say it.

Sharkfin.. valid point! I'd say that the reaction of Church leaders to homosexuals is confused and mixed. When they are 'ranting' against it, they are probably more ranting against the 'militant/pride' expressions of it, rather than thinking about the birth aspects. Some would not recognize it as a birth defect, but as a chosen behavior.
Personally, I think it might be mixed. Some related to genetic pre-dispositon, others chosen, others a combination. The only people deserving of true compassion are those who:
a)Do not try to tell everyone else that it is is "normal"
b)Never try to educate innocent children that it is so.
c)Don't try to change the law about it.(though this has already happened. We would not expect or allow people with other more dangerous deviences to change the law to support other types of behavior we abhor.

PERICLES.. 'defiled' with women. aah..back to 'interpetation' :) and context. It is hardly reasonable to consider that legitimate and normal involvement in marraige would be considered 'defiling', but good try. Remember Revelation is written in apocalyptic style and is very symbolic, including the number 144,000 which = 12000 from each of the 12 tribes.

The problem with 'homophobia' vs free speech, is that while Pastor Green was a bit coloful with his 'tumor' statement, it hardly exceeds "Evil peversion" mentioned by Paul in Romans. Which is the reason for my concern. That incident occurred IN a Church..not in public.
Very Orwellian.

OLIVER
If The Vatican is doing as you said, then it is to be utterly condemned on that issue.
You should look up what some evangelicals have said about the Pope.. try John Hagee or.. Ian Paisly. (neither are my cuppa but they do condemn the Pope)

Dear Romany..

"his egotism doesn't allow for humility, introspection or even, it seems increasingly, logical thought. This continuous and insulting condescension and intolerance is completely unacceptable."

Do you see a tiny bit of 'intolerance' in your own statement? :)

Perhaps you regard 'pointing out intolerance' as being ok for you, but not for me?

This whole thread is about INtolerance where people are being taken to court.. to star chamber/show trial/closed doors/Kangaroo courts for expressing views.. and you speak of intolerance here?

Now, you mentioned 'logical thought' and 'introspection' and 'humility'.

But that's emotional sentimentality I'm afraid because in the real world, people are being
-Jailed
-Fined
-harrased

by so called 'Human Rights' groups which are discriminatory and selective and hostile.

In the final analysis, there will always be intolerance in this world. Homosexuals will not tolerate a group which is based on a Bible which condemns their behavior, and Christians will not feel to comfortable about being fined, harassed and jailed for simply expressing their beliefs.
Muslims will not tolerate the expression of the Christian gospel in countries they control. Homosexuals will not tolerate preaching against them, Hindues will not tolerate a cow they revere being put down, Tibetan Buddists will not tolerate Atheist Communist Chinese imperialism.

So, the soft left's cry against 'intolerance' is as intolerant as it gets.
That's why Pericles 'chipping away' has little effect.

In your case here, you are attacking me for defending the freedom to express our faith. Thats intolerance.

One of the tenets of Evolution is the survival of the species. Thus, homosexuality (including lesbianism) within a species would in the long run threaten the survival of the species. It is therefore a learnt behaviour and an aberration like murder and rape.

The Dawkinites, jihadists and those against anti-social behaviour should come together and see what must be done to minimise such a behaviour. Osama bin Ladin and Richard Dawkins have more in common than many may think.

On the contrary, Philip Tang...

>>Osama bin Ladin and Richard Dawkins have more in common than many may think<<

From my understanding of OBL's militant Islamism, and Islam's attitude towards homosexuality, he has far more in common with the Christian Evangelists than a humanitarian atheist.

And Boaz, this is positively weird:

>>'defiled' with women. aah..back to 'interpetation' :) and context. It is hardly reasonable to consider that legitimate and normal involvement in marraige would be considered 'defiling'<<

But... but... it was not I who described it so, Boaz, but your Bible - the New Testament, to boot.

So if you don't want to take this verse as written, how would you "interpret" it?

Usung the mores and values of those times? Using a modern slant, to bring it into the twentyfirst century?

Exactly what would you like us to think the Bible is telling us here?

And this is a classic - it puts all your waffling into perspective

>>In your case here, you are attacking me for defending the freedom to express our faith. Thats intolerance.<<

Boaz, attacking other people is not "expressing your faith".

Especially a faith that prides itself on kindness, charity, doing unto thy neighbour and turning the other cheek.

You are still fighting the Crusades my friend. That much is obvious. And the rationale you employ, ultimately requiring the extermination of another faith, is identical.

Philip,

Over-breeding also threatens a species, when/where there are scarce resources. Read Malthus. Over-population is one of the greatest challenges homo sapiens faced last century and will face this century.

O.

Who is this wacky BOAZ character?

"This whole thread is about INtolerance where people are being taken to court.. to star chamber/show trial/closed doors/Kangaroo courts for expressing views.. and you speak of intolerance here?"

Condemned by his own words: it's about INtolerance, yet he describes the democratic court process as "star chamber/show trial/closed doors/Kangaroo courts".

He throws wild accusations at the Canadian Tribunal: "...people are being Jailed Fined harrased by so called 'Human Rights' groups which are discriminatory and selective and hostile." But in the case he draws to our attention, no one was jailed or harassed. One man was fined for breaking the law. He was heard, defended his position and after due process was found to be in obvious breach of the law.

Mr Tolerance himself, aka BOAZ, claims that he doesn't "find it a problem to have compassion for a person claiming to be a homosexual." Note the snide and gratutious "claiming to be".

Yes, BOAZ's compassion is "limited to their 'state' (of believing they are homosexual) not to their political activities of seeking to educate children as to the normality of behavior..."

Note the snide innuendo: homosexuality is synonymous with getting at young children. Christians would never do a thing like that would they?

And the man in BOAZ's case was up front before the case was heard: “I’m ok with whatever the outcome is. I’m just going to trust God. I’ve been through a lot in my life…I’m just going to trust Him. He may have me speaking just before the panel and judges and it may touch someone’s heart and minister to them. I’m just going to go in humble, and leave the outcome to God.”

So God if decided the outcome, and the accused put his trust in God, what's all the fuss about Mr BOAZ?

Hi Spikey - I see you're pretty new to OLO. Welcome.

Meet our Boazy. I think your assessment of him is remarkably astute. However, as others have pointed out, responding to his hateful and loopy rants only encourages him - mind you, it can be amusing at times :)

Pericles....

"defiled" themselves with women. Given that there is a highly unlikely possibility that 144,000 people have never either procreated or married, -the word 'defiled' would be more likely to mean 'in an immoral manner'.

And this of course leads into the whole area of 'immediate context' and broader. If we use Mark 1:1 as an example. You could read it, and then ask, in the absense of ALL other knowledge about Jesus, "what do I know about him?".

The answer of course is.. 'very little'. You would know that there is a thing called a "Gospel" about him....and that (if you accept the verse footnoted) he was 'The Son of God'.. if you don't accept that, he is just a "man called Christ". However, if you read the first 8 chapters of Marks gospel, you would be in no doubt about the meaning of 'Christ'as used in chapter 1 verse 1.

SPIKEY.. welcome :) yes indeed.

Actually I have to thank you for illustrating exactly the kind of intolerance that this thread is addressing. You just "don't see it".

To you, its "democratic process in action" and now you see why I call 'Human Rights commissions" STAR CHAMBERS.. they are NOT democratically elected NOR are they fair minded. They are political appointments and the government of the day uses them to further their social agenda.

The people appointed to such bodies is probably the LAST thing hip pocket voters are thinking about in the midst of all the hype at election time.

"Freedom of expression but no offensive talk"(Bronwyn)

I am offended every time Rodney Croome speak about Gay Rights.. is it my right to silence him?

I am offended every time someone calls 'Christians fruitloops (CJ) and armchair nazi's (Irfan) .. should I whine and whinge about it?

No..I fight back!

My number 1 target is "(in)Human (selective)Rights Commissions(Star Chambers)"

When "motive is not relevant" (RRT2001 SECTION 9) and "truth is not a defense" (Lawyers persecuting Christian pastors) we have a BIG and I mean BIGGGGG problem in this democracy.

SPIKEY (continued)

The pastor was jailed in Sweden for preaching in HIS OWN CHURCH......
based on the beliefs of that faith.

The homosexual would have been offended if Pastor Green had simply READ Romans 1 as follows:

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie,

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1/ Unnatural.
2/ Shameful.
3/ Inflamed with lust.
4/ Indecent.
5/ Sinful
6/ Perversion.
7/ Impure.

But note carefully. Paul contextualizes all this with a key phrase
'ABANDONED' natural relations. In this case, he is referring to a choice they made. So, it is conceivable that a man or woman of homosexual 'orientation' could be accepted in Church as long as they were not practicing.
The same (to be brutally honest) applies to anyone, straight or gay, who is 'living' in a state of unrepentant sin, which could include heteroxexual fornication and adultery.

Now.. as far as I see, the church is usually very generous, and what happens in practice is "they don't know" unless the elders are told by someone that so and so is doing such and such.
Even those 'doing' such and such would probably find no one kicks up much fuss except that we are all reminded that to partake of the communion in a sinful state is to bring judgement on ones-self.

If the pastor said "Fornicators are a cancerous tumor on society" would anyone try to drag him before a Human Rights Commission?

I rather doubt it.

Spikey.. are you tolerant of Christians reading Roman 1 in their own churches or public meetings and preaching sermons based on that passage? (might be to THIS many people)

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/lagosreinhard-bonnke/2009469929?icid=acvsv2

Boazy: you stated *I don't find it a problem to have compassion for a person claiming to be a homosexual.*

Did your nose grow whilst you were typing that?

You have a problem with just about everything and everyone that does not fit neatly into your religious waffle.

Personally, I feel sorry for you because you are completely oblivious to your limitations to unconditionally accept people for who they truly are.

I feel even more sorry for you because you are missing out on many of life’s truly beautiful soulful people (eg: gays, muslims, etc…).

You do not advance the Christian movement Boaz- I just wish you could see that.

Boazy,

VATICAN - PROTECTING BISHOP OF BOSTON

The sanctionary matter was only mentioned in passing on "The Insiders". It was not a segment. If confirmed, hopefully, your church's full congregation can write a protest letter, with your bishop's name on the top. Your archbishop can haNd it to The Pope, in Sydney, forgetting all the peer group & diplomatic niceties.

Thanks for your response on the other thread. Will reply soon.

O.

Oh dear, Boaz. You are getting very lazy these days

>>Pericles.... "defiled" themselves with women. Given that there is a highly unlikely possibility that 144,000 people have never either procreated or married, -the word 'defiled' would be more likely to mean 'in an immoral manner'.<<

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you?

However, if we expand the verse just the teensiest bit, we will see that there is no question of what is being described here:

"and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins." Rev 14:3-4

Look it up for yourself, and try again.

"how would you "interpret" it? Using the mores and values of those times? Using a modern slant, to bring it into the twentyfirst century?
Exactly what would you like us to think the Bible is telling us here?"

(I have simply repeated my question, in case you had forgotten that too.)

Incidentally, while we are talking about doing your homework, did you realize that the example you gave in the opening post - Ake Green's one month jail - never happened?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4477502.stm

Your words, I will remind you, were:

>>Given that in Sweden, a pastor WAS JAILED for preaching in his own Church on Romans 1 and using some colorful language in his sermon...it is not only 'possible' [that the politicized homosexual lobby will be lobbying to prohibit the teaching even in Churches of Leviticus 18 and more especially "Romans 1] but I suggest 'very likely'.<<

He wasn't. So it isn't "very likely", is it.

I wish you would try harder to get your facts straight, Boaz.

Fascinating. I looked up Ake Green at Wikipedia, and this is the first paragraph of the article about him:

<< Ake Green (born 3 June 1941) is a Pentecostal Christian pastor who was sentenced to one month in prison under Sweden's law against hate speech. On February 11, 2005 an appeals court, Göta hovrätt, overturned the decision and acquitted Åke Green. On March 9, the Prosecutor-General appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which on November 29 also acquitted him. In their opinion, while Åke Green had violated Swedish law as it currently stands, a conviction would most likely be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights, based on their previous rulings regarding Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. >>

So this homophobic fundy broke the law of his own country, but had his conviction overturned on the basis of an International Human Rights Convention!

Lordy be - even godbothering homophobes have human rights. Who would've thought, the way Boazy babbles on?

Can we expect a retraction of this obvious in error in fact from Brother Boazy?

Well done team mates.... Pericles.. ur right..I got lazy there..went from memory :)

Now.. given your additional research we can arrive at some sensible conclusions.

-A literal 144,000 virgin males from the literal 12 tribes of literal Israel (refer Rev 7) (which of course have not existed since around 700bc) will be presented to the Almighty.
-Given that the text clearly and literally says (in the midst of a literary style which is hugely symblolic/apocalyptic) 'they did not defile themselves with women'....

CONCLUSIONs.
-"women are evil, dirty and sinful"
-"Men are pure, and wonderful and holy"
-"Sex is utterly evil" (you know..nice but naughty)

So... I guess now we are all blessed with this very literal interpretation of a clearly symbolic section of the book, and we must on no account look to how male female/marriage relations are potrayed in the rest of the New Testament, or spoken about by Jesus Paul and the rest of the Apostles.....right?

Of course it might be argued from my obvious sarcasm that 'other' religious books should be approached in the same fair and balanced manner...right? :) (I can pick you like a beeeep nose old son)

Yes.. that WOULD be true except for one thing.

Surah 2:106 you can look that one up for yourself.
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/2.htm

Dear CJ.. OLO is about 'working together toward truth' if nothing else. So, your completion of the picture is welcome. No, he was not jailed (I wasn't aware of this from what I read)...so.. substitute CONVICTED for 'Jailed' and we have a fuller story.
Add to this your other contribution

["a conviction would most likely be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights, based on their previous rulings regarding Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights"]

Which...tells you what? THAT.. the real legislation is being MANIPULATED by scurrilous forces at the local level against Christians unfairly! I.e.. STAR chambers. Thanx for making my point!

Boazy: << OLO is about 'working together toward truth' if nothing else. So, your completion of the picture is welcome. No, he was not jailed (I wasn't aware of this from what I read)...so.. substitute CONVICTED for 'Jailed' and we have a fuller story. >>

Er, no Boazy - when you bellow out something tendentious but patently untrue in support of one of your hateful rants, such as

<< Given that in Sweden, a pastor WAS JAILED for preaching in his own Church on Romans 1 and using some colorful language in his sermon... >>

or

<< The pastor was jailed in Sweden for preaching in HIS OWN CHURCH......
based on the beliefs of that faith. >>

it's anything but "working together toward truth". As happens so often here, it's Boazy telling porkies and some of us correcting you. And you still don't get it.

To have been truthful, you would have had to have substituted ACQUITTED for "JAILED" - but that wouldn't have achieved quite the same rabble-rousing effect, would it?

You don't get human rights either. For all your frequent aspersions cast on laws and covenants designed to protect them, your homophobic Swedish cohort would have been convicted if it wasn't for the existence of laws in the EC that protect rights of religious observance and free speech.

I think the Swedish laws look to be even more stupid than the Canadian ones, but your homophobic Swede might well have been convicted if there hadn't been an International court that potentially had jurisdiction over his case. Mind you, it's quite possible that the Swedish Supreme Court judges were smart enough to hand down a ruling that denied the homophobic godbotherer the 'martyrdom' he was clearly seeking.

BOAZ asserts that "OLO is about 'working together toward truth'". Well blow me down, as a detached newcomer to OLO, I would have thought the stark evidence - in his own recent posts - demonstrates that BOAZ is the last person to be able to say that with a straight face. Where is BOAZ "working towards truth" on human rights? on tolerance of non-Christian churches? on the nature of homosexuality? on ill-treatment of refugees?

Perhaps he has tried to work towards truth in the past - before I took an interest in OLO - and I've missed it all? But what I've observed in recent weeks is BOAZ asserting a prejudiced position and twisting the facts to suit his cast-in-iron position.

Look at today's post. When challenged by the truth, BOAZ concedes that his homophobic hero wasn't in fact jailed but merely convicted. BOAZ tries to wriggle out of this error/falsehood by claiming that this correction of (implied trivial) fact merely gives us a "fuller picture".

The probability of that Swedish conviction being overturned by the European Court of Human Rights - which to any reasonable person would demonstrate that the court system works well - leads BOAZ to conclude that "the real legislation is being MANIPULATED by scurrilous forces at the local level against Christians unfairly! I.e.. STAR chambers."

That doesn't sound like "working together towards truth". That sounds like BOAZ desperately twisting the facts to salvage something from his sinking position.

What is truth, asked Pontius Pilate - and would not stay for an answer.

CJ... the only article I read about the Pastor was the one I linked to.

It is NOT (20 exclamation marks) a 'porkie' to take from the headline

"PASTOR GETS PRISON FOR SERMON" -> "Pastor Jailed"

It is 'incomplete information' though to state it, in the absense of information that his conviction was appealed and he acquited.

Now.. You need to run through the 170 odd posts in 'How to Interpret' because clearly 'my training' of you :) has not benefited you in the least.

'GETS PRISON' can only be interpreted ONE way "He..got..prison"

How far is that from JAILED or IMPRISONED ? you are toooo desperate to label me and undermine my credibility (as Perilous is want to do)

The day that 'GETS PRISON' cannot mean 'JAILED' is the day we see flying pigs. I can agree that there is a fine line, between 'actually put in jail' and 'gets prison' but if you are that pendantic then I feel sorry for you.

TO the issue. GREEN

http://www.akegreen.com/

Just have a look at how the Secular Politicians/gay lobby has twisted Swedish law so as to CRIMINALIZE the Bible. It cannot be said that just 'preaching' is criminal because bibles (containing the 'hate' speech) are sold in many bookshops.

It is CRIMINAL to say anything 'disrespectful' about Homosexuals by Swedish law.

The European Human Rights might seem to protect Green.."TODAY" but you can bet your bottom dollar the Gay lobby will be working to end that for TOMORROW.

Clearly, obviously, transparently.... 'Human Rights' are being manipulated by perverted interest groups for their own social benefit and the oppression of faith groups like Christianity.

Today 'criminals'
Tomorrow.'sub humans'
Day after Tomorrow 'gas chambers, gulags and graves'?
or...
Cromwell?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Evangelical_Alliance

Trends CJ... 'trends'.....

I'll BET that if you were a German in 1938 you would have criticized the 'whining Jews' about 'Stars of David'..

"what are you people worried about.. its just a dress code"

*shakes head in dismay*..and you wonder why I get passionate about these things?

Really Mr BOAZ, the more you defend yourself the worse you make your position.

You argue that you took a headline, "PASTOR GETS PRISON FOR SERMON", at face value, and so can't be accused of telling a porkie. So what can you be accused of? Ignorance? Laziness? Reliance on biased sources? Unwillingness to assess all the evidence? Desperately seeking to defame homosexuals and human rights activists?

You would have seen that that headline you rely on was first published on July 08, 2004 and was re-released on a Christian propaganda publication in 2008. We might ask, Why? because this is a well-known case (Google 'Pastor Ake Green' and you will see the plethora of commentary; even Wikipedia covers it).

Green was acquitted by the Swedish Court of Appeal in February 2005 and that decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in November 2005. A reading of both judgments will confirm the courts found that Pastor Green had the right and was free to preach the way he did.

In the light of these easily confirmed facts, your plea that 'GETS PRISON' can only be interpreted ONE way "He..got..prison" is limp and unconvincing. As is your accusation that CJ is pedantic. Is it pedantic to ask that you do some research and to expect that you would not rely totally on a headline?

A bit of honest research would also reveal that Pastor Green's defense attorney was Percy Bratt, the Chairman of the Swedish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. What does this say about your repeated diatribes against human rights activists?

It's not CJ who undermines your credibility, Mr BOAZ. Fewer histrionics and more objectivity might help your cause.

I don’t agree with the Pastor Boisoin however, I do support his right to preach whatever he believes and for others to disagree with him.

I was greatly saddened when the Muslims had a Christian group banned in Melbourne. I think the Victorian anti-vilification laws are a public disgrace and should be rescinded immediately.

I would support David Irvine coming to Australia to preach his version of holocaust revisionism because I believe only by respecting the rights of ones (opinion) adversaries to express their personal view do we protect our own right to free expression.

As for the gay community, our friends of pillow biting fame, well what can I say, you do unto one another whatever you like but please do not expect it to become compulsory or for me to join the movement.

I agree with the idea that homosexuality is both abnormal and deviate but I believe in tolerance so accept a gay persons right to choose to be abnormal and deviate.

As for the Bible, well it is a book the text of which has been massaged and manipulated to suit the politics of medieval Europe, thus whilst it might parody the word of God, I do not think anyone, blessed with reasoning skills could ever accept it as the word of God.

And organised religions have a lot of corruption upon their hands, the cover-ups being more depraved than the deviate acts of the priesthood.

As to the Church of Rome, in particular, what can I say, the most serious threat to the future of mankind is burgeoning populations numbers. The CoR keeps on its public and clandestine campaigns to deny effective contraception to the worlds poor, presumably preferring to simply see more starving Catholics than fewer well fed Catholics. Is seems all about getting the numbers through the door, no different to cinema marketing

Hi Col.. (still working on getting free, haven't forgotten)

you said:

"As for the Bible, well it is a book the text of which has been massaged and manipulated to suit the politics of medieval Europe,"

Can you flesh that out a bit with some examples and sources please?

Ra Homosexual behavior.. sure..they can do what they like..it's their funeral, literally:

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm
Criticism of the Cameron study here:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html

but the point I'm concerned about is the manipulation of the LAW in ways which persecute (and I mean PERSECUTE) Christians for simply stating what the Bible teaches.

If we publically proclaimed Galatians 1:8 we could be in trouble also. (need to see what it says) but sure as night follows day, we would proclaim it or at least teach it in our Bible schools and Churches.

It's only a small jump from banning speech which is 'offensive' to any group, to banning the SOURCE and basis for that speech, which in the case of Christians is the Bible.

Were it not for this kind of law, I'd not be thinking twice about the matter.
It's not like we spend every 2nd sunday (or 52nd) navel gazing and preaching about the evils of homosexual behavior.
I don't think I've EVER heard a sermon on "Homosexuality is evil"

It would crop up in passing if a preacher was working his way through Romans.

The CONSTITUTION and SCHOOL PRAYER.

More food for thought.

The US consitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The Australian Constitution says:

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Can someone explain to me, how

a state school could not have a VOTE about whether to include prayer in there daily routine, which, if democraticlly carried and providing that those who did not wish to participate would not be forced to...

would.. in point of law, constitute the Commonwealth MAKING A LAW' to establish a religion?

I rather think that such a challenge would be on very flimsy or non existent.consititutional grounds.

The constitution DOES SAY however

"or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion".

This does NOT say 'within or only outside of State premises'....

When a group of people at a School decide themselves to pray for guidance, this has nothing to do with establishing a law.
The DENIAL however.. is in fact "making a law" prohibiting the free expression of a religion.

You're scrabbling around Boaz, it is not a good look.

>>Can someone explain to me, how a state school could not have a VOTE about whether to include prayer in there daily routine, which, if democraticlly carried and providing that those who did not wish to participate would not be forced to... would.. in point of law, constitute the Commonwealth MAKING A LAW' to establish a religion?<<

This does not make a great deal of sense.

Which I suspect is why you posted it, of course. We can now dive down this little backwater, chasing the red herring, as a distraction from the complete nonsense that this thread has turned into.

The point you tried to make did not survive, Boaz, as I am sure you now realize. The examples you gave were fallacious. Even had they not been, the conclusions you drew were tenuous in the extreme.

So, where are you now taking us?

I've had to weed out a few distracting negative questions, but I think this is the gist:

You postulate that a school votes to include prayer in its daily routine. The prayer is not compulsory.

You then ask whether this is equivalent to the Commonwealth passing a law that establishes a religion.

Bit of a stretch, isn't it? A state public school does not have the power to pass laws.

Even if it did, I wouldn't call saying prayers "establishing a religion".

Sounds all very trivial to me.

So we don't have to follow that particular bouncing ball, and can get back to the original issue - "Canada 1984 the new Gulag of inHuman Rights"

Where were we - ah yes.

An example that wasn't an example of a human rights issue that turned out not to be one.

Sounds par for the Boaz course.

Pericles: << We can now dive down this little backwater, chasing the red herring, as a distraction from the complete nonsense that this thread has turned into. >>

Don't be so churlish. It's Boazy's thread and he can change the subject if he wants to, particularly since he's made such a fool of himself in it.

It is, after all, merely another manifestation of "the reality of the human/linguistic dynamic".

David “"As for the Bible, well it is a book the text of which has been massaged and manipulated to suit the politics of medieval Europe,"

Can you flesh that out a bit with some examples and sources please?”

Simple, http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/scriptures/

List some of the English “versions”

With every translation the implied value / definition of each word can alter.

That is with the best intended literal translations.

Add to that the overwhelming opportunity for textual manipulation and we have a massaged result which suits the designs of a political theocracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_omitted_Bible_verses

doubtless pre-James and the James version were similarly “reconstructed”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_archaeologists

lots of updated and changing opinions here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_History

alludes to even less consensus between the ‘experts”

Anyone with an interest in law will understand the need for precision. The wrong punctuation and you change the meaning. Here we have the “Word of God” where the words have changed to suit the vernacular, let alone invent punctuation across translations.

As for our gay friends, agree, they are hardly likely to out populate the hetrosexuals any time soon.

As for “Galatians 1:8”

unless you are going to do foreign language night school in Aramaic or whatever, expected to get “accursed”.

Re “It's only a small jump from banning speech which is 'offensive' to any group, to banning the SOURCE and basis for that speech, which in the case of Christians is the Bible.”

I look upon it in the same way many consider a guilty verdict in a trial.

Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted…..

Similarly

Better ten lies are expressed than one mans truth be censored.

Like I have said previously, I would support David Irvines right to spout his delusions from the steps of parliament house and challenge them, rather than see him (as he presently is) banned from entry to Australia.

Sorry guys...it's all the same subject, but Canada was the initial focus.

Pericles.. after decipering the babble..I think you agree with me that a State school can have prayer if it wants to, even in main assembly as long as those present are informed that it is not compulsory for them to personally engage in that prayer while it occurs.

Good..

Now.. while the Canadian situation remains and can be explored further, I'd value your opinion (and everyones) on this:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31867

The intriguing bit to me was that those opposing it were Jewish, and that they would have accepted the prayer if the word "Messiah" was used instead of "Jesus". i.e. "Jewish prayer is ok..Christian is not"
but they were just 2 out of 47 members.

Surely the issue of 'tradition and culture' must be considered or we could have a 1000 members of parliament who are all religion xyz, but ONE member who is not, and for the sake of the ONE.. all must forego the expression of national culture on the issue of prayer?

It seems that even if ONE person didn't like the prayer it could be stopped simply because it offended someone. If a backslidden Christian didn't like the prayer because he as spending every 2nd night in bed with his neighbours wife, HE would also be offended by it.....

This is the very same thing which Canada seems so out front on.
Sikhs can carry Kirpans on planes, in courts etc...Magazines cannot offend Muslims, Pastors cannot offend homosexuals....

All in the name of.. TOLERANCE which simply shows how INtolerant Canadian society is.

Boazy: "All in the name of.. TOLERANCE which simply shows how INtolerant Canadian society is."

Please reword that. I am a Canadian and I do not appreciate your ill-informed generalized sweeping statement. My intolerance for the crap you spew forth is rapidly increasing.

Boazy,

"116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." - Constitution cited Boaz

Individuals are free choose with regards to their beliefs. Moreover, a belief system is not to be imposed. Seems clear to me.

The Queen's Office, as Chief of State, "if" within the Commonwealth, would appear to a contradiction. Again, only "if", that Office maintains the holder to be Defender of the Church of England and a disbeliever in in transubstantiation [as in the Coronation Oath]to come under the Commonwealth.

- Think we ae drifting.

[Boazy, please check back at the Jesus' birth discussion]

Another gross "misinterpretation" from Boazy:

<< I think you agree with me that a State school can have prayer if it wants to, even in main assembly as long as those present are informed that it is not compulsory for them to personally engage in that prayer while it occurs. >>

I can't speak for Pericles of course, but it seems to me that your claim of agreement on that issue is just a tad presumptuous. The contemporary interpretation of S.116 with respect to State schools is that they should generally not make religious observances of any sort, except in the cases of secularised festivals like Easter and Christmas.

If my kid's State school proposed to have any kind of prayer at a general assembly, they would be so swamped in protests from non-Christian parents that they would never go ahead. Besides me, I know of other parents who have registered objections to the idiotic chaplaincy program as well.

Even if the school somehow put such an issue to the vote, unless it was unanimous it would discriminate against non-Christians and would therefore contravene the spirit of the Constitution.

Try again, Boazy. My, we have come a long way from hysteria based on false reports about homophobes being supposedly persecuted, haven't we? You really are a desperate bigot, aren't you?

Oly.. re Jesus Birth..will return of post limit doesn't stop me.

TAMMY.. it does not matter how much you might object to what I say, you are being intolerant. Wonderfully illustrating exactly the problem.

-"He says such and such"
-"I don't like what he says"
-"I don't want him to say it"

All taken together="intolerance"

Now..if you actually had something resembling some facts or an argument, I might hold you in higher regard.
But base intolerance of different views is shabby to say the least.

I've shown the intolerance of Canadian Human Rights Commissions.. Star Chambers, skilfully exposed by Ezra Levant who used his own video at the meeting which otherwise would have been 'behind closed doors'.

It cost him over $100,000 and his magazine folded. Quite a price to pay for exercising free speech.

Canada has laws which prohibit 'offensive' or critical things being said about 'protected classes' of people.

BUT... they have porn freely available on 8:30pm timeslots and justify this by saying 'They can change the chanel'

Bill C10 provides for financial assistance to Art groups, and the movie industry but NOT for Porn..and oooooh didn't the Porn industry kick up a stink and yell "CENSORSHIP".

Perhaps the government actually disocvered some true morality eh?

In the USA the ACLU is defending...wait for it..NAMBLA

This is the same ACLU which fights tooth and nail against prayer in schools.. they support NAMBLA?

The Canadian CCLU has a problem. Some of its members are Jewish Lawyers. They are trying to both support Ezra Levant but STILL support the anti hate laws at the same time.
See this.

http://www.ccla.org/2008-02-06%20Free%20Speech%20and%20Human%20Rights.pdf

They claim they were opposed to the "anti hate laws".

But look at the boxed last paragraph.

They want their cake and to eat it too.

Definition:

FACT:

Normal dictionary:
- something that is true, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation (as distinct from interpretation, inference or speculation);

In philosophy:
- something which is the case, that is, the state of affairs reported by a true proposition and is verifiable;

In law:
- a piece of information used as evidence and subject to challenge and rebuttal but eventually accepted or rejected in final determination;

In journalism:
- a piece of information used as part of a report or news article widely acknowledged according to reliable sources to be indisputably the case;

On OLO e.g. Mr BOAZ:
- a statement plucked from right-wing Christian sources or the Bible that helps prove a prepared position or bludgeon an oppositional position;
- a statement, when it is true but does not suit your position, that you can ignore, indeed must ignore and never concede;
- any statement you would like to be true;
- any statement of opinion that you prefer at a given time for a given argument;
- any statement that you care to stipulate is true.

I've got to hand it to you Spikey, you are exceptionally observant.

One thing that really strikes me as odd, or perhaps not so odd, is the conflict in positions in the way many 'Christians" seem to live their lives (at least many of the ones around here). It must cause a lot of congitive dissonance.

For example, there is postion that we must not let others dictate how we lead our lives or alter our behaviour because of them and that freedom of speech is paramount. Fair enough. This appears to be the case for Muslims, homosexuals and 'political correctness'.

But the complete opposite appears to be true when it comes to pedophiles. In fact the restriction on free speech and arbitrary judgements on what is art or pornography abound. In this case, we must all restrict our behaviour and actions just in case a random pedophile gets off on a picture or someone gets called a slut in 20 or 30 years time, however unlikely this appears to be.

Which is it? "Free speech" or "free speech only when we want it"?

BUGSY.. at least you raise an important question, unlike spikey who just makes an ad homimen. (Spikey.. don't bother I'm immune to them)

The issue of "free speech or free speech only when we want it" is one of those difficult areas of life.

EXAMPLE Canada apparently now has a most enlightened show called 'Young people f*_king
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm200120064/tt0913445

And.. no matter what we do or don't think of such content, it does at least raise the question about how far we venture in the arena of media content for domestic consumption.
After all.. if YPF is ok.. then why not the next step.. why not real people from some porn site on regularly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCGDv58kuO0 that should give you some entertaining moments...

For me it all raises the issue of values. If we don't have 'A' limit or boundary..then where will it all end? we both know the answer to that.

The changes to magazine advertising content 'adult' personals etc..and the plethora of hard core porn sites.. 'thats' where..

Then will be fulfilled the 'fall' part of "the Rise and Fall...of the West"

No society has ever survived it's own decadence.

So.. back to Canada and Human Rights. I maintain that left wing and minor non/anti Christian religions see these as a tool to futher both their faith profiles and also to supress criticism of their activities.

Boazy, apparently, you can't tell the difference between a "show" and "film" (or what a porn movie looks like either it seems)...

So, Canada hosts a comedy film about sex at the Toronto Film Festival (it looks cool to me BTW), because it's some kind of inhuman rights gulag?

And that these films are just a tool to push an anti-faith-based agenda?

Seriously weird.

MR BOAZ: "...spikey (sic)...just makes an ad homimen. (Spikey.. don't bother I'm immune to them)."

Now lest you prove my point too readily, Mr BOAZ, can you tell me what specific parts of my utterance on the definition of a fact were ad hominem? And what particular parts were not factual?

Have you lost all ability to tell them apart? Or is this just another of your OLO ploys? After playing fast and loose with the facts, and been exposed, you attempt to turn that exposure into an allegation of ad hominen - in itself an ad hominen. Perfect irony (but probably too subtle for you).

Such an allegation might pass without scrutiny among the feeble-minded - but most reasonable readers of OLO I'm sure will not be deflected from an appreciation that you have a very weak grip on what constitutes a fact.

Spikey.. the last half of your post was in my view an adhominem.

Bugsy.. I'm wondering if you (and spikey) watched 60minutes 2night?

I'm not exactly surprise Bugsy that you 'like' that YPF show/movie and the fact that you chose to point to the rather irrelevant issue of it being a show or a film really contributed (not) to the topic.

Spikey.. if you wish to criticize me for factual error, then please provide some examples rather than just taking the cowards way of 'stating' it.

Am I factually incorrect on Islam? Am I factually incorrect on the legal actions against Ezra Levant and others in Canada?

Yes..I was "incomplete" about Green being physically jailed but making an issue of that is very cheap to say the least. He was convicted, by a court, based on a homosexuals complaint.. that's bad enough.

Mr BOAZ, you say "Yes..I was "incomplete" about Green being physically jailed but making an issue of that is very cheap to say the least. He was convicted, by a court, based on a homosexuals complaint.. that's bad enough."

I'm sorry, how can my correcting you on factual errors be a "cheap shot"?

Look again at your heavily-value-laden language: "he was convicted, by a court, based on a homosexuals complaint.. that's bad enough."

Pastor Green was convicted by a court on a person's complaint. Maybe you think homosexuals are not persons? If he broke the law, what does it matter what the orientation of the complainant?

How can it be a cheap shot ?

very simply Spikey... the source I referred to said

"Pastor gets prison"... do you honestly mean to say that 'gets prison' is not synonymous with 'goes to jail' ?

To find fault over that is pedantic in the extreme and is not correcting me on a factual ERROR based on my source, it is adding to the fulness of the story, and pointing out that there was an appeal which was succesful.

He was convicted on the basis of a HOMOSEXUAL persons complaint.. leaving out 'person' is quite legitimate like referring to a 'Catholics' complaint about job discrimination in Northern Ireland.
The orientation of the person is crucial for the story, hence it is legitimate to refer to them by that.

How is the persons sexual taste relevant? woooo..now THAT is a red rag to a raging bull to me.. it is ABsolutely relevant and central, because the law only CHANGED due to intense political lobbying and some might call it social terrorism by homosexual groups.
Outing, shaming, invading meetings.. shouting screaming, breaking the law themselves at the time... THAT is why it is absolutely relevant.

Hope that clarifies it.

I'm noticing a distinct tendency in these threads to hugely exaggerate, and massively generalize.

A tribunal in Alberta decides that a slap on the wrist is an appropriate remedy for some particularly inflammatory remarks about homosexuals.

From this isolated incident we are invited by Boaz to conclude that the globe is about to be overrun by NAMBLA.

>>In the USA the ACLU is defending...wait for it..NAMBLA. This is the same ACLU which fights tooth and nail against prayer in schools.. they support NAMBLA?<<

The idea being that once someone's freedom to insult people at will is curtailed, the doors are wide open to a torrent of totally unrelated abuses, because...

>>If we don't have 'A' limit or boundary..then where will it all end? we both know the answer to that. The changes to magazine advertising content 'adult' personals etc..and the plethora of hard core porn sites.. 'thats' where.. Then will be fulfilled the 'fall' part of "the Rise and Fall...of the West"<<

Reality check.

One court in Alberta tells off Pastor Boisson for overstepping the mark. Not a criminal offence, but an offence to a particular group of people.

Alberta's population is less than that of Melbourne. It was one case, determined on its merits. Since it was a tribunal, no decision is in any way binding on any other tribunal, let alone court.

Oh, and the Swedish case cited didn't actually result in a conviction, so proving that even in that bunch of radical Socialist welfare-niks, sanity does prevail.

Once again: what is this thread about?

Certainly nothing close to the end of civilization that Boaz fervently wishes.

And absolutely nothing of any substance.

Mr BOAZ, why do you persist with such empty sophistry? A person either goes to prison or he does not. It's not pedantic to suggest that there's a difference between going to prison and not going to prison.

A claim of fact is either true or it's false.

Weasel words like "incomplete" can't camouflage your flagrant abuse of the truth - and you can't hide behind your "source". You chose to quote that source and it was wrong - and so were you. You can't blame someone else for your blunder.

As for your pastor being accused by a homosexual person, I note that you now prefer to refer to a person's "sexual taste". Nice choice of words, Mr BOAZ. Homosexuality is just a matter of fashion or preference, eh? Like chardonnay or riesling?

Yet, in your next breath you allege that the Canadian law "only CHANGED (why do you shout so?) due to intense political lobbying and some might call it social terrorism by homosexual groups." Social terrorism, is it? Your not a little hysterical are you, Mr BOAZ?

A little bit out of control? A little latent fear and self-loathing, eh?

Dear Spikey

I truly cannot see the difference between

"Pastor gets prison"

Pastor (Subject) gets prison (predicate using a verb and object)

and

"Pastor jailed"

I don't have to hide behind my source.. I just have to quote it and make the (increasingly doubtful) assumption that the readers have a basic grasp of the english language and grammar.

It would be an entirely legitimate assumption based on the source that the pastor was in fact physically Jailed.

The problem is.. whether he set foot in 'the hole' or not isn't the central point of the story or the issue.

The issue is that a homosexual in his church, made a complaint about his sermon (which relflected the essential language of the Bible) and on the basis of that complaint the pastor was arrested and charged with a crime. That alone is the story. The criminalization of in Church speech.

Why do I shout? very simple.. that change in the law has almost criminalized the Bible, and has definitely criminalized the public reading of it where certain passages are concerned, at least in Sweden.

There is a trend, reflected by Canada in the same direction. Trends have destinations.

Homosexual behavior, is, as outlined in Romans 1:24 and following:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=1&version=31

Mr BOAZ

You may be obtuse or you may be deliberately missing the point. The issue is not whether "Pastor gets prison' is much the same as "Pastor jailed". The issue is that the pastor was not gaoled, despite what you and your source claimed.

The pastor (subject) was not gaoled (predicate using an intransitive verb, past perfect negative). No amount of bluster will alter the fact. Or should that be (shouted) FACT?

You quoted a source which was factually wrong. And unfortuneately for you, you can make the "assumption that the readers have a basic grasp of the english (sic) language and grammar." OLO readers are not all stupid Mr BOAZ.

When you claim: "It would be an entirely legitimate assumption based on the source that the pastor was in fact physically Jailed", you give the game away. The pastor was NOT gaoled despite your claim that he was. So why lie? To prove a point? Well, what point?

For you, "the issue is that a homosexual in his church, made a complaint about his sermon (which relflected the essential language of the Bible) and on the basis of that complaint the pastor was arrested and charged with a crime. That alone is the story. The criminalization of in Church speech (sic)."

But Mr BOAZ, that alone is not the story. The courts found the pastor not guilty of any offence. There was no criminalisation of in-church speech. Your crime is that of lying in order to attempt to denigrate homosexuals. And you are guilty of knowingly using false witness.

You SHOUT because you claim that "change in the law has almost criminalized the Bible, and has definitely criminalized the public reading of it where certain passages are concerned, at least in Sweden." You are dead set wrong about both Canada and Sweden.

The Bible sheds no light on the matter, either.

Disingenuous, Boaz, in the extreme.

>>I don't have to hide behind my source... It would be an entirely legitimate assumption based on the source that the pastor was in fact physically Jailed.<<

It took me less than a minute to find out that a) the pastor didn't go to jail and b) the charges against him were dismissed in the Supreme Court.

So even you must be able to see that it was not difficult to come to the conclusion that you deliberately ignored these facts in order to make your "story".

And look once again at the context you weaved around your story:

>>does anyone (of normal mental balance and sanity) really believe that the day will not come when the politicized homosexual lobby will be lobbying to prohibit the teaching even in Churches of Leviticus 18 and more especially "Romans 1"? Given that in Sweden, a pastor WAS JAILED for preaching in his own Church on Romans 1 and using some colorful language in his sermon...it is not only 'possible' but I suggest 'very likely'.<<

Can you not see that your entire argument - that "the politicized homosexual lobby will be lobbying to prohibit the teaching even in Churches of Leviticus 18 and more especially 'Romans 1'" - falls completely to pieces when you know the full story?

To illustrate this, and to make your example completely accurate at the same time, simply add the word "not" between "was" and "jailed".

Do you see now? Your diatribe would have read:

"Given that in Sweden, a pastor WAS NOT JAILED for preaching in his own Church..."

Does that give you an inkling as to why the point is being made?

Further, it is worth taking issue with this observation too, on exactly the same terms:

"The issue is that a homosexual in his church, made a complaint about his sermon..."

Boaz, I am sure you would not want to live in a world where you were unable to make a complaint. It is called a free society. And the free society in question chose not to uphold the complaint.

Good morning Pericles and Spikey.

On the one issue of the Pastor and Sweden.... lets re establish the facts.

1/ I heard about this originally when the matter was not settled and have not revisited it until this time.
2/ The first source I checked (and the only) indicated that the pastor was jailed.
a) He was charged with a hate crime under Swedish law.
b) The charge was based on a complaint from a homosexual present in Green's Church at the time of his sermon.
c) The sermon language did exceed the literal biblical pronouncements, but not by much. The same outcome could have occurred if Green had done nothing more than read Romans 1:26 "Shameful lusts"

The conviction was appealed and dismissed, but not on the basis of Swedish law, it was on the basis of the possibility of an appeal to the EU court of human rights.

So it remains an established fact that Sweden itself, seeks to criminalize the proclamation of the Bible in its fullness.

Such invasive, abusive, pernicious and tyrannical extremism must be dealt an absolute death blow politically.

So, in conclusion, the story.. remains unchanged, ie... the oppression of Christians by secular law, shaped by vested interests such as the Gay and non-Christian religious lobby. Such 'hate crime' laws themselves are insidious, odious and based on intense hatred of anything and anyone critical of homosexual behavior or certain religious faiths and beliefs.

That was so at the beginning of this thread and it will remain so till the end. (which this 'is' as far as I'm concerned as we are going in circles) Canada is a prime example of the cutting edge of such inquisatorial laws, while at the same time promoting/permitting all manner of moral decadence on prime time TV.

If you feel 'liberated' by YPF and the such like, then..so be it, as Romans says "God gave them up to deceitful lusts"

I've said all that needs to be said on the issue, apart from the fact that repentance is always an option for those who have hearing ears.

Pure bluff and nonsense Boaz, and you know it.

>>I heard about this originally when the matter was not settled and have not revisited it until this time<<

Slack.

>>The first source I checked (and the only) indicated that the pastor was jailed. <<

Slacker.

>>He was charged with a hate crime under Swedish law<<

Hooray, one out of three so far.

>>The charge was based on a complaint from a homosexual present in Green's Church at the time of his sermon<<

This one has me puzzled. How is it relevant, if the complaint was dismissed? I can see how it might be important if the case had been upheld, but...?

>>The sermon language did exceed the literal biblical pronouncements, but not by much. The same outcome could have occurred if Green had done nothing more than read Romans 1:26 "Shameful lusts"<<

Calls for speculation, as they say in those TV courtroom dramas. In other words, "could" doesn't equal "did".

>>The conviction was appealed and dismissed, but not on the basis of Swedish law, it was on the basis of the possibility of an appeal to the EU court of human rights.<<

That is a very clever, but entirely spurious, and indeed scurrilous interpretation of the ruling, Boaz, and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for promoting it.

The ruling is very thoughtful, and unfortunately too long to reprint here. But here's just one sentence for you.

"One of the reasons for incorporating the European Convention into Swedish law was, however, to create a distinct basis for directly applying the Convention in Swedish courts (see Bill 1993/94:117 p. 33)"

So I'm afraid this accusation of yours simply does not fly:

>>So it remains an established fact that Sweden itself, seeks to criminalize the proclamation of the Bible in its fullness<<

In fact, as stated by the learned judges themselves, they actively seek to bring themselves closer to international norms.

As for this bit of Boaz OTT:

>>Such invasive, abusive, pernicious and tyrannical extremism must be dealt an absolute death blow politically.<<

Looks just a little silly now, doesn't it?

Mr BOAZ

Your "re-establishment of the facts" is classic self-deception.

What you've re-established is that you relied on partial, outdated and ultimately wrong facts and didn't bother to check before using this flimsy basis for an attack on homosexuals who had the temerity to exercise their right to redress for an intemperate attack on them.

You compound your problem with the facts by claiming that: "The conviction was appealed and dismissed, but not on the basis of Swedish law, it was on the basis of the possibility of an appeal to the EU court of human rights."

Wrong. The Swedish Appellate Court, using Swedish law ruled that it was not a crime to say what Pastor Green said. The court found that Pastor Green's rhetoric wasn't harsh enough to be criminal. Moreover, it concluded that it was not illegal to offer a personal interpretation of the Bible and urge others to follow it. http://www.washtimes.com/news/2005/feb/11/20050211-110207-7628r/

In any event, the European Court is part of the Swedish legal system as it is part of the system of justice in all EU nations.

So, all things considered, you are deluded if you believe that, after all, "...it remains an established fact that Sweden itself, seeks to criminalize the proclamation of the Bible in its fullness." Such a paradox: your "established facts" fly in the face of your "re-established facts".

You conclusion that "...the story.. remains unchanged, ie... the oppression of Christians by secular law, shaped by vested interests such as the Gay and non-Christian religious lobby" is a distortion of the 'established fact" that Swedish law upheld the right of churchmen to preach whatever they think the Bible says (right or wrong).

It's sad to read Mr BOAZ that you have "...said all that needs to be said on the issue, apart from the fact that repentance is always an option for those who have hearing ears".

Pontius Pilate didn't tolerate the truth either. Classic self-deception.

Spikey, I wonder if we can persuade Boaz back to this thread in his new disguise of "Polycarp"?

Might be fun to try, even if only to find the reasons why he won't return.

Pericles

I think Mr BOAZ has done a runner (and left it to runner).

I think Polycarp doesn't SHOUT enough to be Mr B in mufti. (Oops! Unfortunate metaphor. Don't mention Islam...I did but I might get away with it.)

BOAZ scores much higher on the crackpot index than Polycarp. Thus we can prove statistically that they are not the same person.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Well at least Not-Boazy's in good company.

I haven't seen Jack the Lad around lately. Playing with sock puppets can be kinda fun sometimes.

Pericles and Spikey,

The return of Boaz_David? Look-out for "Obed_Salmon". Come-on Boazy prove me right old friend.

Oly.

Hmmm. Fascinating.

I reckon Boazy's been muzzled by his Brethren, rather than OLO.

Strangely, I miss him.

Boazy,

You will have us all wondering whether or not you have converted to Islam? Come back. Joan of Arch would not be impressed.

Oly.

p.s. Joan is no relation to Noah.