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)