Canada Orders Pastor to Renounce His Faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter Starwynd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fitswimmer said:
That’s the dilemma. It’s what makes the First Amendment so wonderful and so difficult at the same time.
Click to expand...
I don’t really find the 1st Amendment difficult.

We have no right not to be offended. If someone wants to disparage my religion, race, ethnicity, whatever, have at it.

The way to respond to hateful speech is with the truth, not with facist government policies.

God Bless
 
rpp said:
Bingo! That is the problem. That is the moral disconnect. Moral ans social relativism. What the Catholic Church, and this protestant minister, teach about homosexuality has not ever changed.

By the way, I do not support unlimited free speech. I think it is very dangerous. However, do not ask me to fix it. I have no clue. All I know is that “free speech” in my State means that we have strip clubs, live sex shows and porno stores next to schools and churches.
Click to expand...
I’m guessing that the drafters of the U.S. Constitution would never have suspected that stripping or obscenity would have someday have been construed as “speech.”
 
Dale_M said:
But if you allow people to start suppressing speech which they find offensive, don’t you open up the US to the very thing which the pastor is facing - that what he said is viewed as hate speech?
Click to expand...
I do not want to get into this because I do not have fully formed or well thought-out arguments. My position is a reaction to the abuses and great harm that certain forms of “speech”, like porn and other obscene material and activities have.
 
JimG said:
I’m guessing that the drafters of the U.S. Constitution would never have suspected that stripping or obscenity would have someday have been construed as “speech.”
Click to expand...
No I do not think they did.

There are a lot of “rights” that people have that appear nowhere except in the pronouncements of fewer people than could fit in a tennis court whom some call “judges”.
 
rpp said:
I do not want to get into this because I do not have fully formed or well thought-out arguments. My position is a reaction to the abuses and great harm that certain forms of “speech”, like porn and other obscene material and activities have.
Click to expand...
You are certainly correct that there are regrettable side effects to freedom of speech as it has been interpreted by the courts in the US.

As with you, I haven’t thought this matter out fully - this is why I appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut of everyone here.
 
God gave us freedom, but under His authority; simply the freedom to choose right from wrong, not the freedom to determine what’s right or wrong. The more laws and controls we put on the books in the absence of a proper moral compass (God’s revealed and natural laws) the more mixed up we’ll be. So then it’s just a matter of who gets control of the “morals” tribunal, and we all know who is the best organized and most vocal these days.
 
Lost_Found said:
God gave us freedom, but under His authority; simply the freedom to choose right from wrong, not the freedom to determine what’s right or wrong. The more laws and controls we put on the books in the absence of a proper moral compass (God’s revealed and natural laws) the more mixed up we’ll be. So then it’s just a matter of who gets control of the “morals” tribunal, and we all know who is the best organized and most vocal these days.
Click to expand...
Referring to what I put in bold…

Absolutely correct! Well said! 👍

Overall a very good post! 👍
 
Lost_Found said:
So then it’s just a matter of who gets control of the “morals” tribunal, and we all know who is the best organized and most vocal these days.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying it is right to restrict freedom of expression/speech, and that whoever gains the upper hand in the public sphere… to the victor goes the spoils. Is that right?
 
Dale_M said:
I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying it is right to restrict freedom of expression/speech, and that whoever gains the upper hand in the public sphere… to the victor goes the spoils. Is that right?
Click to expand...
I think this is a good summary of modern Canadian law as I understand it.
 
Stupidest legislation ever! It wasn’t like he was in the street with a bullhorn (which still should be legal during daylight hours). And it was a LETTER TO THE EDITOR. The newspaper did not have to publish it. The proper way to deal with this pastor would have been to counter his letter with another letter.
 
“wicked” and stated that: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

That’s probably what did, a fairly hateful comment if I do say so myself.

Imagine someone wrote something like that about Catholic’s…you would be up in arms and likely the Catholic Civil Rights League would launch their own complaint.
 
onetimeposter said:
Imagine someone wrote something like that about Catholic’s…you would be up in arms and likely the Catholic Civil Rights League would launch their own complaint.
Click to expand...
There is a big difference in the two examples though.
 
onetimeposter said:
How so? In both examples, people are being unfairly targeted to receive hateful comments.
Click to expand...
No. It is a well established fact that exposing young children to sexual material is psychologically damaging.

It was not a hateful remark. It was a fact. But it is a fact that sexual deviants want to suppress. This is a case of the origin of the hate (the supporters of sexual deviance) accusing those who correctly point out the serious problems as being hateful.

It is like suing the doctor because he diagnosed you with cancer. And you really do have cancer, but just do not want to admit it.
 
rpp said:
No. It is a well established fact that exposing young children to sexual material is psychologically damaging.

It was not a hateful remark. It was a fact. But it is a fact that sexual deviants want to suppress. This is a case of the origin of the hate (the supporters of sexual deviance) accusing those who correctly point out the serious problems as being hateful.

It is like suing the doctor because he diagnosed you with cancer. And you really do have cancer, but just do not want to admit it.
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard of 6 year olds exposed to sex in a public school. Pure propaganda and twisting of the facts is all that is…both by you and the pastor. 😦

The pastor is exclusively targeting homosexuals, but leaves every other immoral sexual act alone in his agenda.
 
onetimeposter said:
I’ve never heard of 6 year olds exposed to sex in a public school. Pure propaganda and twisting of the facts is all that is…both by you and the pastor. 😦

The pastor is exclusively targeting homosexuals, but leaves every other immoral sexual act alone in his agenda.
Click to expand...
I am sure, if given the opportunity, this pastor would decry other seriously sinful activity. However, those were not the topic of the letter. He was not talking about people, he was writing about actions.

If you want to support sexual deviance by silencing those who correctly oppose acting out this grave disorder, that is your choice. But declaring victory by imprisoning those who disagree with you sounds like something from China or the old Soviet Union. It is not consistent with a free society.
 
rpp said:
I am sure, if given the opportunity, this pastor would decry other seriously sinful activity. However, those were not the topic of the letter. He was not talking about people, he was writing about actions.

If you want to support sexual deviance by silencing those who correctly oppose acting out this grave disorder, that is your choice. But declaring victory by imprisoning those who disagree with you sounds like something from China or the old Soviet Union. It is not consistent with a free society.
Click to expand...
It is consistent to MY free society ( I live in Canada) in that the spreading of hate is not tolerated.

People are free to hate, they just can’t spread it around and infect everyone else.
 
onetimeposter said:
It is consistent to MY free society ( I live in Canada) in that the spreading of hate is not tolerated.

People are free to hate, they just can’t spread it around and infect everyone else.
Click to expand...
Who defines what is ‘hate’?
 
Dale_M said:
I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying it is right to restrict freedom of expression/speech, and that whoever gains the upper hand in the public sphere… to the victor goes the spoils. Is that right?
Click to expand...
Dale - No, I’m saying that’s what has actually happened here. We are in battle with relativism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top