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?