The real point is that a man used a eulogy to smear an in-law after his death in the persence of his mourning family. There is no justification morally for this. I don't know why you would continue to use sophistry and rhetoric to defend such cruelty. You seem to present yourself as representing Christianity, and then lend a sadistic taint to the religion. You introduce red herrings like allegations of oppressive laws in foreign lands apparently to attach some global God vs. Devil significance to a local act of petty cruelty. If I pick up a bible and call myself a preacher, may I tell your children that you are a liar and a child molester? Will others like you defend my behavior? I know I waste my breath(figuratively), as the problem with you is one of willful feigned ignorance rather than lack of understanding.
I continue to notice the selective omission from your cut and paste, and, after these few exchanges, I really don't see any point in further argument as you continue be dishonest.
No, the "real point" here is that you wish to be able to use the courts to enforce your concept of what is appropriate religious content upon a pastor. You've stated in several posts that you think the pastor should be sued for what he said in a pulpit in a religious ceremony. All of our discussions trace back to that central issue. There is no legal or moral justification for this. Do you really want the courts to judge the suitability of the content of a sermon?
"I don't know why you would continue to use sophistry and rhetoric to defend such cruelty."
I am defending the pastor's right to determine the content of his sermons.
"You seem to present yourself as representing Christianity, and then lend a sadistic taint to the religion. You introduce red herrings like allegations of oppressive laws in foreign lands apparently to attach some global God vs. Devil significance to a local act of petty cruelty."
Don't you see that there is no diffence between the positions you've advocated and those oppresive laws overseas? In both cases, someone is offended by the content of a sermon and wishes to use the powers of the courts to control the content of a sermon? Or, in some cases, some people find it perfectly acceptable to beat up a preacher for preaching what he thinks is the Word Of God. These are not red herring issues.
"If I pick up a bible and call myself a preacher, may I tell your children that you are a liar and a child molester? Will others like you defend my behavior?"
If you have the facts to back it up, then you may certainly do so. I note that no one has claimed a factual error on the part of the minister for claiming that the man was a drunkard and a fornicator. These claims have no where been challenged. The only claim has been that these claims caused emotional distress. I point out that truth is always a perfect defense in a libel case.
"I know I waste my breath(figuratively), as the problem with you is one of willful feigned ignorance rather than lack of understanding."
No, I understand your point that you think the minister shouldn't have said what he said. I may even agree with you on that. But the point remains that the courts have no place in the pulpit.