CANADIAN court agrees that BIBLE is HATE LITERATURE

CWNews.com ^ | 2-11-2003 | staff

[Kev-Head]

Ditto OOPS

[Canadian Outrage]

You offering Luis??? LOL (God will provide should the time come)

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well, you ARE speaking out from that terrible frozen gulag where freedom of speech has died. I expect the speech police is coming to knock your door down anytime now.

A friend in need is a friend indeed.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not that it is any of your business, but I already answered that on this very thread.

[Canadian Outrage]

NAH!! We don't have that kind of situation yet. In this small city we march down the streets with signs calling abortion Dr.'s killers. Not arrested yet. As to Svend, he's been called just about everything. Smart isn't one of them.

[yendu bwam]

You may publish abook about it, but you will not stand in a street corner and do so. It's called slander and defamation of character, plus there's the case cited above.

Standing on a streetcorner and saying homosexual acts are sinful is neither slander nor defamation of character, Luis - just as saying fornication is sinful is neither, just as saying that selfishness is sinful is neither. Come back to this universe, Luis.

[yendu bwam]

Well, you ARE speaking out from that terrible frozen gulag where freedom of speech has died.

It is beginning to die there. When you can't quote the Bible in public, or say what you believe about homosexuality (or anything else) you know something is very, very wrong.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It's funny...it seems that things like public demonstrations are judged under a different set of standards, at least here in the US. Perhaps it has something to do with freedom to assemble.

If the assemblees get out of hand however, the assembly is brought to a sudden halt.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"When you can't quote the Bible in public."

That's a lie.

[yendu bwam]

The issue was never the Bible here, it was the intent of the ad.

The intent of the ad was to say that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, Luis. To take away the right to say that is an abridgement of freedom. Once that right is taken away, Canada can take away the right to say anything that offends someone or offends the political views of the tyrants in Ottawa. I am glad I live in a country where I can quote the Bible in public, and say what I think about homosexual acts (depraved, sinful, unhealthy and disgusting) without fearing the thought police. See, what I just said would be banned in thought-police Canada.

[yendu bwam]

That's a lie.

No, it's not, Luis. This man quoted the Bible in public, in a newspaper, along with a graphic which clearly represented the words of the Bible, and he was denied his right to free speech. In Sweden, you can't even say homosexuality is sinful now, without fear of government invervention. Canada is following in the footsteps of the liberalocracy.

[Snowyman]

I'm a much freer man as an American than I would be were I Canadian

Only in your mind.

And just out of curiosity," I am allowed to send my son to a scouting organization whose scoutmasters do not have a sexual attraction to males."

How do you know? What you fear is a pedophile , not a homosexual. They are not the same. And a pedophile will never declare himself.

Years ago I lived in a small city where a repeat pedophile (he had been released after serving his first sentence of 15 years) was put on trial for murdering a 10 year old boy. That pedophile was convicted again and himself murdered in prison. Recently the murderers of Emanuel Jack , the shoeshine boy in Toronto, in the early 70's , came up for parole and were denied. The list is long, and not one had ever let himself be known , until he was caught. After the fact.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Do you wnat to bet?

It is sinful to us as Christians, but if it is directed at a specific segment of the population, or at specific individuals, it is.

You seem to want to adhere to only half of the First Amendment.

The same freedom that allows you to worship as you see fit, allows others not to believe at all. And like the State can't ram a specific set of beliefs down your throat, you may not seek to ram yours down someone else's.

Nor will you slander others based on your religious beliefs.

You may get away with it if never taken to Court, but if someone proves intent to defame or slander, neither freedom of speech, nor freedom of religion will save you from the Court.

[yendu bwam]

We don't have that kind of situation yet.

Historically, freedoms are usually stolen a little at a time, and the longer you wait to fight to get them back, the harder the fight you have. Beware, CO!

[yendu bwam]

The same freedom that allows you to worship as you see fit, allows others not to believe at all. And like the State can't ram a specific set of beliefs down your throat, you may not seek to ram yours down someone else's.

You're in an outer, outer universe, Luis. People can believe whatever they want (at least in my country). This case had nothing to do with a state's ramming beliefs down anyone's throats - but rather about taking away a man's right to express his own.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"This man quoted the Bible in public, in a newspaper, along with a graphic"

You still don't get it do you?

It was the graphics, the intent of the ad, not the words themselves.

Dishonesty is as sin.

[yendu bwam]

Nor will you slander others based on your religious beliefs.

I haven't slandered anyone, Luis. I've just said that I have the right to say what I think about homosexual acts. I do. That's not slander. That's my right to free speech. You have your right to say what you think about homosexual acts. Further, I have the right to say what I think in public, or in the newspaper. So do you. In Canada, some people don't.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The intent of the ad was to say that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, Luis."

To do that, there was no need for graphics.

The graphics were meant to mock, insult, and inflame the issue.

What a good Christian tactic that is.

[pointsal]

another reason to put armed guards on the CANADIAN border....

[yendu bwam]

It was the graphics, the intent of the ad, not the words themselves.

You're still in some other galaxy, Luis. In a free speech country, you can publish a graphic showing that you disgree with something. In the US, I can publish a graphic with a baby being aborted and a slash drawn through that. I can publish a graphic with the word adultery and a slash drawn across that. I have the right to say in public what I think about something. In Canada, you don't.