Arrest me and throw away the key

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's just stupid.

No, it's freedom of speech. Defamation is saying untrue things about a defined organization or a person, which will result in some financial or severe reputational harm (unless it is done for parody). We tolerate that minor restriction on free speech for the specific. However, for statements made against some sort of birth-characteristic group or an entire religion in general, we allow people to have their freedom of speech... mostly because it is very difficult to measure the harm in that case, but also because we want to curtail the restrictions on speech. We will allow remedy for the lies about the specific, but not those about the general. Freedom of speech is the most important right we have. Any restrictions on it should be of the most narrow.

Otherwise, saying something like Muslims in general don't care when terrorists blow up Israelis (with the implication, of course, that they implicitly support it) could be considered 'defamation'. I'm sure you wouldn't like that.

[Gibsie]

Hmm, the guy seems to have said that homosexuals are a tumour; the way that tumours are generally treated is to remove them from the body, to kill them. Whilst not a direct threat, I think that it is going over the legal line to call them something that is accepted to be deserving of death.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Flinx
I am quite sure that this did not appear in the original text. This is a 20th centaury concept.

BK uses the New International Version, not the King James version.

[Boris Godunov]

And the NIV, as we've gone over time and time again, is crap. Mainstream theologians have decried its textual manipulations and blatant editing of the supposed sacred text it represents. The use of the word "homosexual" it but a tiny example.

[Agathon]

If any book deserves burning, it's the Bible. Then we could get back to real classical texts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmm, the guy seems to have said that homosexuals are a tumour; the way that tumours are generally treated is to remove them from the body, to kill them. Whilst not a direct threat, I think that it is going over the legal line to call them something that is accepted to be deserving of death.

I think that's kind of a stretch: to say that since he calls them a tumor, that means he wants people to kill them. I don't think calling someone a tumor is threatening to kill them (ie, it's valid speech).

[Ben Kenobi]

I thought we were all doomed to sin.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore sin.

[Ben Kenobi]

Feel free to post your statistics on Swedish mullahs found preaching anti-Jewish hatred who haven't been prosecuted.

Impossible, since if they have not been prosecuted, how would we know what they are preaching?

I ask again, how many Swedish mullahs have been prosecuted for preaching hatred against Jewish people.

The reason for a double standard is of course that modern Christians dress so badly, and so many gabble on about sin whilst ignoring their own conspicuous brand of sanctimony.

As opposed to the pride activists, I suppose, who preach tolerance, except for those to whom they disagee.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Agathon
If any book deserves burning, it's the Bible. Then we could get back to real classical texts.

Whereas, if anyone said the Quran deserved to be burned, they would be a homophobe who needed to stop hating the peaceful Muslim religion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Missionary work in Africa, with H.I.V. orphans. Perhaps some good works rather than harsh words might serve Pastor Fingerwag well.

I think he would find that sufficient punishment, helping others who need help.

You should submit this to the judge in Sweden, and test the true character of the Swedish judicial system.

[Ben Kenobi]

Is there another article you're referring to or is this a general inquiry?

General inquiry. I'm curious as to the application of this hate crime law.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think that's kind of a stretch: to say that since he calls them a tumor, that means he wants people to kill them. I don't think calling someone a tumor is threatening to kill them (ie, it's valid speech).

I agree, it is a bit of a stretch. A regular member of the public calling a group of people tumours should obviously never be prosecuted- but a man of some influence doing it in the middle of a sermon about the evils of homosexuality, that's another matter. I think by doing so he is implying that actions should be taken by his congregation to halt the "tumour" that infests society. After all, you don't just ignore cancer.

[Ben Kenobi]

'7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For those outside the church. My statement was directed at Pekka, who is inside.

However, you are correct. It is difficult for those outside the church to see things the way that the church sees things. This is why Christ is the one to whom you will be held accountable, rather than to the members of his church.

If you believe you can hold your head high, then I have nothing more to say to you, Molly. Time will tell.

[Ben Kenobi]

You see, the whole point of Romans 1 was not to rally ther faithful against gays, but to heal a rift between two segments of the Roman congregation. In the future please read the whole section from which you're ripping a biblical quote to ensure that you preserve the meaning within the true context.

True. No one sin is any worse than another.

However, I still can say that homosexuality is a sin.

[Imran Siddiqui]

a man of some influence doing it in the middle of a sermon about the evils of homosexuality, that's another matter. I think by doing so he is implying that actions should be taken by his congregation to halt the "tumour" that infests society.

I'd even think that would be a stretch. Just because someone has influence doesn't mean he should have less freedoms. Saying someone is a tumor doesn't mean that he wants them removed forceably, by violence.