Criminalizing Christianity in Sweden?

I wonder if the swede's here could elaborate on this article and what they think about it ?..


http://www.wejamaicans.com/forum/index.php?topic=1041.0;wap2

Ash wrote:I wonder if the swede's here could elaborate on this article and what they think about it ?..


http://www.wejamaicans.com/forum/index.php?topic=1041.0;wap2

I've read Green's sermon and I have to say that if he had said what he said about any other minority he wouldn't have gotten away with it anywhere. It was not just telling people that homosexuality is a sin, it was also hatespeech. He called homosexuals a cancer on society and other things like that. Here's his sermon translated to English. I think that many of you will agree with what he said, but I however do not.

I don't believe hate speech should be illegal, even if it is. Because anything can been "deemed" hate speech by government. That is the vehicle be which free speech is often eliminated.

I don't agree with green, but I agree with a persons right to be a "moron" without being arrested for it. That, to me, is thought control.

I am mean, it starts with something like that, and then you end up with it being illegal to be against terrorists, or marxism, or a certain political party. It's a very steep slippery slope.

You have to allow offensiveness to be permitted if you want freedom to oppose things.. anything.

this is oooold... Greens fault was that he became a bit to colorful in his description of what he thought of gays. instead of just talking about what he though of homosexuality in a biblical context, he went on and started to call homosexuals, the persons not what he though of as theirs sins all kinds of nasty things.
this upset alot of people and he was arrested for hate crimes. and yes he was at first found guilty, but the case went higher up and in the end his side managed to convince the final judge that since we have religious freedom in this nation and green did in fact not speak of harming anyone in a physical way, green should be released

ecthelion of the fountain wrote:this is oooold... Greens fault was that he became a bit to colorful in his description of what he thought of gays. instead of just talking about what he though of homosexuality in a biblical context, he went on and started to call homosexuals, the persons not what he though of as theirs sins all kinds of nasty things.
this upset alot of people and he was arrested for hate crimes. and yes he was at first found guilty, but the case went higher up and in the end his side managed to convince the final judge that since we have religious freedom in this nation and green did in fact not speak of harming anyone in a physical way, green should be released

Well, that's good. That is the way it should be.

Ash wrote:I don't believe hate speech should be illegal, even if it is. Because anything can been "deemed" hate speech by government. That is the vehicle be which free speech is often eliminated.

I don't agree with green, but I agree with a persons right to be a "moron" without being arrested for it. That, to me, is thought control.

I am mean, it starts with something like that, and then you end up with it being ilegal to be against terrorists, or democracy. It's a very steep slippery slope.

nazis are allowed to hold speeches publically in sweden, but not to in them scream: "kill all jews"
for the same reason a priest is allowed to say that homosexuallity is a sin, but not to scream out hateful things that can make people want to hurt homosexualls. the first judges though the things he said could do that, the final did not

ecthelion of the fountain wrote:

Ash wrote:I don't believe hate speech should be illegal, even if it is. Because anything can been "deemed" hate speech by government. That is the vehicle be which free speech is often eliminated.

I don't agree with green, but I agree with a persons right to be a "moron" without being arrested for it. That, to me, is thought control.

I am mean, it starts with something like that, and then you end up with it being ilegal to be against terrorists, or democracy. It's a very steep slippery slope.

nazis are allowed to hold speeches publically in sweden, but not to in them scream: "kill all jews"
for the same reason a priest is allowed to say that homosexuallity is a sin, but not to scream out hateful things that can make people want to hurt homosexualls. the first judges though the things he said could do that, the final did not

wel, that's good to know. I was worried.