The Swedish Media Massage (The disturbing truth about Sweden’s moral decay)

American Family Association ^ | February 17, 2006

[NYer]

The disturbing truth about Sweden’s moral decay should serve to sober us from our own complacent drunken stupor.

I recently had occasion to discuss religion and politics (dangerous ground, I know) with a Swedish mother of two visiting America. Sonya (not her real name) is a manager at a large investment house in Sweden. Her politics may be described as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. In a word, fashionable.

We chatted about the Swedish economy, city life versus country life, and agreed that high taxes were hard on families. So much for the preliminaries.

Then we dove into the issue of homosexual rights. Having found common ground on fiscal matters, Sonya was not prepared for how divergent our views were on “gay” rights. But our takes on Pastor Ake Green’s sermon on homosexuality could not have been farther apart had she been from another planet.

When it became obvious to her that I would not repeat her “same-sex-marriage-is-a-human-right” mantra, she was visibly taken aback.

“Is this a religious thing for you?” she asked, hoping to pigeon hole me into a convenient corner.

I said, “You seem to assume that religion is something we can take out and put away at will, like a broom in a closet. It doesn’t work that way.” I then explained that just as my religion affects everything in life, from homosexual marriage to what I do for fun during the week, so her religion (or lack thereof) affects everything for her, too.

When I probed Sonya’s human rights argument and asked her where those rights came from, she just stared at me, unable to respond. She was speechless, apparently never having considered the question.

She recovered her voice when I asked her to define the rights. She said (somewhat judgmentally), “Everyone has the right not to be judged.” But when she conceded that she judges pedophiles, she stumbled again, and grew indignant. Our conversation ended abruptly only moments later, and I am sad to say our previous good relations were never the same again.

I don’t mean to single Sonya out. I suspect her views are representative of most Swedes, and indeed of many Americans as well.

But there is a lesson to be learned: for all of us who hold strong opinions on these issues, it behooves us to think through the presuppositions we hold before charging into heated discussions about them. Sadly, many of us who defend traditional marriage have not critically considered what we have presupposed.


The truth about Sweden

Before we parted, Sonya gave me a Swedish newspaper. It was half in Swedish and half in English., and I eagerly read it. If you are like me, you have always heard what a laid back, peaceful, utopia Sweden is, with low crime and little stress. It is the poster child of the left, held up as a model of what a live-and-let-live, anything-goes society ought to be. Such is the Swedish media massage.

So I was genuinely surprised to read the truth about Sweden. One article in particular was aimed at readers just like me, who had bought the chamber of commerce line about life in Sweden. The author was Swedish, and his title said much about his reasons for writing: “Quiet No More.” He had turned myth-buster.

Here are some of the startling facts he shared:

• There is more crime in Sweden than in New York City, though they are comparable in population.

• Drug abuse is rampant, with the number of deaths from overdoses having doubled in the past 10 years.

• Sweden has one of the highest incidences of rape in the world.

• Burglaries are so numerous that many citizens have stopped reporting them, because the police are overloaded and cannot undertake to investigate them all anyway.

• Attacks on money transports (like highway robbery) are so frequent that the transporters are threatening to quit, thereby effectively closing ATM’s all over the country.

• Violent outdoor muggings are becoming routine, having increased 15% last year alone.

• In Stockholm, the police recently admitted having lied when they claimed to have neutralized some 130 of the city’s most prominent gangsters; in reality, their sting operation was a bust.

• Swedish courts are plagued with perjurious police officers who routinely lie to support fellow cops in trouble.

I found this data remarkable. While I do not want to place undue reliance on a single newspaper article, it is entirely consistent with a Christian worldview that a nation so firmly committed to the ways of the world would eventually find itself wallowing in crime.

Augustine of Hippo put it this way: “He who sees the truth and flees has weakened the acuteness of his mind through the habit of carnal shadows.” That is, to the extent we turn from truth, away from God, we weaken our ability to discern and become accustomed to carnality, or wickedness.

Of course, it is as true for us in America as for those in Sweden. We have embraced our sin, celebrated our “diversity,” and indulged our depravity. And now, having sown, we must reap. Will we awaken from our stupor? Can we turn from the shadows and once again gaze upon the glory of Truth?

America is only a step behind Sweden and the whole of post-Christian Europe. Absent an abrupt change in our spiritual direction, we are in for dark days ahead. Those who have light, however dim, must lead the way.

[Malesherbes]

Excellent article. The killer question to people like Sonya is always, "Exactly where do these rights come from?"

I'm old enough to have been long exposed over the years to the left-liberal line that Sweden was a model of what we should become. At the same time, I read regularly that Sweden had one of the highest suicide rates in the world. I always wondered how this computed.

[the anti-liberal]

Exactly where do these rights come from?

The other day while conversing with another university student, a young gal, I pointed out to her the fact that if those who want to remove the 'in God we Trust' from our money, remove 'one Nation under God' from our pledge succeeded in removing 'endowed by our Creator' from the Declaration of Independence our rights would no longer be inalienable because they would be given to us by the government - and if our rights are given by the government then the government can take away those rights.

She said she hadn't thought of it that way. Gee, ya think?

[Lysandru]

Excellent article. The killer question to people like Sonya is always, "Exactly where do these rights come from?"

Shoot, I have these sorts of discussions with my secular Conservatives/ Libertarian friends all of the time. They never have a good answer for this question.

[sine_nomine]

A small puddle of grey heads.

Similarly, in Finnland, a church so large that one can hardly see the front altar from the back, boasting 20 pastors, has 200 regular members. The pastors complain about being overworked.

[Bob Mc]

I've discussed politics and "rights" with many German and Bristish visitors. They just repeat CNN and BBC talking points with no real thought process behind it.

And just like in this article, it often draws a blank stare when they are asked to support their claims.

[k omalley]

I'm glad my father immigrated to the USA and my mother's grandparents as well. My Swedish ancestors were all devout Christians. Soon Sweden will be a Muslim country and it well deserves it's fate.

[Lucky Dog]

I happen to think that there are many people who are born gay.

Let's call them "authentically gay".

Let’s not, since there is no documented proof of any such thing.

All of these examples fall under the heading of sexually deviant behavior…

All examples of homosexual behavior are sexually deviant behavior.

Heterosexually oriented adults exist who choose for religious and other reasons to be celibate. From this observation, obviously, adults have the power to choose to be celibate. Therefore, sexual orientation is irrelevant to the choice to engage in sexual activity whether it is heterosexual or homosexual. In other words, regardless of whether or not someone is “BORN homosexual” (a point which I do not grant), their voluntary choices

Homosexual behavior provides no benefits to, nor serves any useful purposes to, society that are not available through other sources at lower societal costs and greater side benefits. Additionally, homosexual behavior is detrimental in a number of ways to society as well as individual practitioners.

1) Utilitarian Assertion: Homosexual behavior serves no useful/productive purpose [to society] and causes significant detriments [both to society and individuals].

2) Resource Inefficient Use/Misapplication Assertion: Homosexual behavior results in significant misuse of societal resources:

a. Increases completely avoidable, deadly disease rates (HIV/AIDS) among its practitioners with attendant increases in premature death rates.
b. Increases other, completely avoidable, potentially less deadly diseases (STD’s) among its practitioners and potentially others (unavoidably).
c. Inordinately diverts resources to the care of completely avoidable diseases (especially in acute stages).
d. Inordinately diverts (in proportion to the percentage of those affected to the overall general population) limited resources into medical research for prevention/cure of these completely avoidable diseases.

3) Societal Degradation Assertion: Homosexual behaviors and open advocacy for their acceptance result in significant detriments to society at large.

a. In ordinate numbers (in proportion to percentage to the total population of perpetrators) of pedophiles are homosexual practitioners.
b. Increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior, in general, will result in increased numbers of homosexual practitioners and resultant increases in cases of pedophilia.
c. Increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior, in general, will result in legalization of homosexual marriage which will degrade the institution of marriage and its benefits to society.
d. Increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior, in general, will result in increased acceptance of child adoption by these practitioners and cause increased societal costs for dealing with children harmed psychologically (and otherwise) by this practice.
e. Increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior, in general, will result in increased acceptance of bigamy, polygamy, incestuous unions, prostitution, bestiality, etc., which will inordinately and adversely affect the family in general and children (future citizens) in particular.
f. Homosexual behavior (by the overwhelming majority of its practitioners) focuses on individual pleasure/self-indulgence to the exclusion of any regard for negative impacts on others (hedonism) and causes a resultant decline in antithetical (to hedonism) virtues beneficial to society such as service to others, self-sacrifice, self-discipline, devotion to duty, etc.
g. Society unnecessarily loses potentially valuable contributions from homosexual practitioners who die prematurely due to avoidable diseases resulting from this behavior.

4) Biological/Psychological Assertion: Homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural function of sex and normal human social behavior

a. Procreation is impossible to exclusively homosexual behavior practitioners.
b. If homosexuality were a genetic anomaly, it would appear in the population at much lower incidence than is observed.
c. Homosexual behaviors observed (Skinner, et al) in non-human animals are neurotic, abnormal singularities and require artificial, forced conditions (e.g., overcrowding) and is not seen in the normal habitat and behavior of these animals.
d. Homosexual behavior is a conscious choice by its practitioners… homosexual “orientation”(if it exists) no more requires an individual to participate in homosexual behavior than heterosexual “orientation” requires an individual to participate in rape, bigamy, prostitution or any other sexual activity.

5) Theological Assertion: No major religion approves of homosexual behavior and most discourage and/or prohibit or condemn it.

a. Homosexual behavior is explicitly condemned multiple times in the Judeo-Christian scriptures (both Old and New Testaments).
b. Homosexual behavior is explicitly condemned in the Islamic foundational documents.
c. Tenants of Buddhism strongly discourage homosexual behavior.
d. Hindu documents discourage homosexual behavior.
e. Homosexual “orientation” is not a problem absent homosexual behavior.

I also happen to think that the line in the Bible that says "a man shall not lie with another man" is addressed to heterosexuals, and G-d is saying "it's okay for THEM to do that, but don't YOU go mimicking their behavior.

You are reading something into the text that is clearly not there. Your opinion is ill informed.

Opponents of biblical inerrancy within must address themselves to an essential question: If Scripture cannot be trusted as the infallible and inerrant Word of God, what then is our source of knowledge, of truth? If the Word of God is relegated to the "culturally relative," how do we know anything from Scripture? How do we know anything?

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" 1 Timothy 1:9-10).

Consider the list of sinners mentioned in 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Notice that homosexuals are grouped together with the following: "the ungodly," "murderers of fathers," "murderers of mothers," "manslayers," "fornicators," "kidnappers," etc. If homosexuality were really a legitimate, alternate life-style in God's sight, then we would not expect homosexuals to be listed together with the worst kind of sinners imaginable.

"Wherefore GOD also GAVE THEM UP to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause GOD GAVE THEM UP unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" (Romans 1:24-27).

In the above passage, notice the words and phrases which are used to describe the sin of homosexuality:

It is UNCLEAN, filthy, morally foul, morally polluted.

It DISHONORS THE BODY, it is degrading.

It involves VILE AFFECTIONS (dishonorable, degrading and disgraceful passions).

It is AGAINST NATURE, contrary to the original intention of the Creator.

It is UNNATURAL ("leaving the natural use"), contrary to God-ordained sex relations.

It involves BURNING LUST, being sexually inflamed, boiling with unnatural lust.

It is UNSEEMLY, shameful.

It is ERROR.

The Penalty for Homosexuality under the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 20:13).

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).

The term "mankind" is the Hebrew term for "male." If a man lies with a male as one lies with a female, both of them have committed an abomination. This repeats the teaching of Leviticus 18:22, only now the penalty is given: "they shall surely be put to death." If you were living in the days of Moses, under the law of God, homosexuality was punishable by DEATH. "What about 'Gay Rights'?" The teaching of God was that it was RIGHT to put those who practiced such things to death. The death penalty was demanded. The Hebrew construction "they shall surely be put to death" is very similar to that found in Genesis 2:17-- "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou [Adam] shalt surely die." Under the Mosaic law, those caught in the act of homosexuality would surely, most certainly be put to death.

The expression "their blood shall be upon them" is highly significant. A similar phrase is found in Matthew 27:25-- "Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." What did these words mean? The Jews who demanded Christ's death by crucifixion were saying this: "We take full responsibility for Christ's death. Pilate, His death and His blood will not be upon you, but upon us. We assume full responsibility for this death."

In Leviticus 20:13 God tells us that those men who engaged in a homosexual act were fully responsible for this deed and had to bear the consequences of it, namely, the death penalty. These men were fully responsible for this sin that they committed. Homosexuality is not some inborn, innate tendency over which a man has no control. Rather it is something that a man chooses to do, and God holds him fully responsible for that action. A man can never legitimately say, "I could not help it. I was born this way. I have no control over my sexual conduct. I am not responsible for my actions and I should not be punished for something that I could not help. I cannot change what and who I am." No, this man was fully responsible for his own death ("[his] blood shall be upon [him]") because he chose to commit a crime worthy of death.

[scripter]

I happen to think that there are many people who are born gay.

Why do you think that? What do you think about Queer By Choice?

I also happen to think that the line in the Bible that says "a man shall not lie with another man" is addressed to heterosexuals

Why do you think that? What is your biblical justification?

[jwh_Denver]

Very good post. People might not see the love that is in this doctrine. God cares for the individual first and the homosexual is a vexed human being. They are not "gay" at all. They are overcome with lust (uncontrolled desires) and they begin to be overcome with increasingly insatiable desires for more extremes. There are more consequences to the gay lifestyle than just dieseases if that were not enough. Homosexuality is a spirtual diesease which does cause consequences to society at large, a society that wants no moral authority, God and what He says.

[Antoninus]

Having had similar conversations with Europeans, this all sounds depressingly familiar.

[Antoninus]

I happen to think that there are many people who are born gay. Let's call them "authentically gay". I also happen to think that the line in the Bible that says "a man shall not lie with another man" is addressed to heterosexuals, and G-d is saying "it's okay for THEM to do that, but don't YOU go mimicking their behavior.

Ok, you and that nutty Rabbi who was on Michael Medved's show. That makes two of you who think that.

No one is genetically programmed to jam their sausage into another man's poop-chute. And if you think God approves of such behavior, you're simply insane.

[Lucky Dog]

Thank you. I agree with you. Homosexuals can turn from their lifestyle through sincere repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ. However, such is possible only when they recognize that they are committing sin. They will recognize it most easily when some one points out to them in love and without falsity.

[Charlemagne on the Fox]

Similarly, in Finnland, a church so large that one can hardly see the front altar from the back, boasting 20 pastors, has 200 regular members. The pastors complain about being overworked.

Well, they DO have to keep all those records!!!

[Boazo]

Excellent

[The Fop]

Just my own interpretation. I'm not claiming to be a Biblical scholar.

[Boazo]

FOP,Fags On Parade?

[The Fop]

I respect your views about this. I know that mine are a bit unorthodox, and I don't claim to be a Biblical scholar. But the Bible is open to interpretation, that's why there's many demoninations of Christianity as well as Judaism, and why people devote their lives to studying the likes of the Torah, the New Testament, the Talmud, etc.

The fact is, there are lots of people who are in favor of gay marriage. It's already been legalized in several European countries. You can't expect everyone who opposes gay marriage to do so for the same reasons as you do.
If the institutiton of marriage is to remain a union between a man and a woman, we need to offer people several different arguments why.

Keep in mind that the institution of marriage predates both Judaism and Christianity. People didn't get married in ancient societies because they didn't want to "live in sin", as the concept of living in sin didn't exist back then.

I happen to believe (here I go again) that the institution of marriage was originally created for one basic purpose.....so the guy who gets your daughter pregnant won't disappear and leave you having to take responsibility for providing for your grandchildren. Living in sin, true love, tax breaks, etc, etc, didn't figure into the picture in 4,000 B.C. Marriage addressed the basic fact that men and women have sex, women get pregnant, and the guy can never be heard from again, while the girl's got a baby in her belly that ain't going anywhere.

So if we want to keep gay marriage illegal, we've got to cover all the bases and not simply quote from the Bible, as there are other arguments against it that are worth being heard.

[sine_nomine]

Preaching twice a year is such a chore, too!

[scripter]

So if we want to keep gay marriage illegal, we've got to cover all the bases and not simply quote from the Bible, as there are other arguments against it that are worth being heard.

You wrote that as if we quoted from the Bible. You mentioned the Bible first in post 13 so I was responding to your comments.

The arguments you used in regards to the Bible are without foundation, which is why I asked why you believed it. Yes, the Bible is open to interpretation, but you have to understand the language and the culture to even begin to interpret the Bible. What have you read to help you understand the language and culture?

Have you seen my profile? There are plenty of links for you to read on the subject.

Here's one link: Questions and Answers: What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples "Marry?" and not a single argument from the Bible. If you read any of my comments you wouldn't find a single post referencing the Bible unless somebody else, such as yourself, mentions it first.

[Lucky Dog]

I respect your views about this.

Thank you. I respect your right to hold independent views that may be contrary to mine or anyone else’s. Without engendering disrespect, disagreements of which facts supporting an opinion may be most important or whether fallacies of logic may, or may not, exist are certainly possible. However, for respect of anyone’s assertions of opinion to exist, such logic and/or factual support for that opinion must be offered.

Your original post failed to provide logical or factual support for your assertions. Consider that an argument can be made that an inmate of some mental institution may hold a sincere opinion or belief that he is Napoleon or some other historical figure. However, the mere fact that he sincerely holds such a belief or opinion does entitle that view to respect.

I know that mine [views] are a bit unorthodox, and I don't claim to be a Biblical scholar.

Personally, I have no problem with anyone’s “unorthodox” views and opinions. I happen to hold a few of my own. However, I do not hold such views, nor express them in a non-casual forum, without factual support and what I consider to be sound logic.

But the Bible is open to interpretation, that's why there's many demoninations of Christianity as well as Judaism, and why people devote their lives to studying the likes of the Torah, the New Testament, the Talmud, etc.

You are most certainly correct that portions of the Bible are open to interpretation, perhaps, due to ambiguity of original language or contextual settings amid other possibilities. However, there are other portions of the Bible that are crystal clear in meaning because, among many reasons, the same meaning is expressed multiple times in different language throughout the Bible. Such is the case concerning the topic of homosexual behavior. Consequently, the opinion you proffered concerning homosexual behavior without factual or logical support is beyond mere unorthodoxy.

The fact is, there are lots of people who are in favor of gay marriage. It's already been legalized in several European countries. You can't expect everyone who opposes gay marriage to do so for the same reasons as you do. If the institutiton of marriage is to remain a union between a man and a woman, we need to offer people several different arguments why.

You are correct in that there are many possible arguments against so-called “gay marriage.” Additionally, you are also correct in that I do not expect everyone who opposes this proposition to do so for the same reasons that I might.

However, I feel I must challenge anyone who espouses opposition to “gay marriage” in a manner that allows its supporters an easy attack on that opposition. When “gay marriage” opposition is ill-founded or illogical, “gay marriage” supporters can, and do, divert attention from valid opposition by attacking the ill-founded argument and successfully diverting public attention from the more valid arguments. Consequently, I felt obligated to challenge your assertions on the topic.

So if we want to keep gay marriage illegal, we've got to cover all the bases and not simply quote from the Bible, as there are other arguments against it that are worth being heard.

You should have noted in my reply to your post that I offered numerous reasons for opposition to homosexual behavior in general and, by extension, “gay marriage.” I did so, to provide factual and logical support to my assertions.

Furthermore, I cited multiple, specific Biblical passages that clearly expressed the same meaning concerning homosexual behavior. Consequently, I invite you to reconsider your “unorthodox” opinions and change them, or defend them with facts and logic.