Christian Pastor on Trial in Finland

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Chum said:

think she points out that US's relationship with religion is complicated.

And its relationship with the world…though “complicated” seems almost simplistic even from the limited view I had and have.

[Chum]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

And its relationship with the world…though “complicated” seems almost simplistic even from the limited view I had and have.

Well, yeah. Other nations' citizens can't vote for US pols. This leaves our thinkers free to blow up non-US lives.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

You are obviously trying to get everyone worked up about this.  

I'm trying to draw attention to this, yes.

16 hours ago, california boy said:

But I am skeptical we know exactly what has been said and how it has been said.  

And rather than investigate the matter, you persist in asserting your ignorant skepticism.

It's almost like you don't want to "know exactly what has been said."

16 hours ago, california boy said:

The question I would ask is, How many gays are in her congregation?  

And that question illuminates the justification of the government's criminal charges against her for the content of her religious speech . . . how, exactly?

16 hours ago, california boy said:

If there are none, then why does she even have to bring up the "sin" of homosexuality to her congregation.  Is she JUST trying to stir up hatred towards the LGBT community under the guise of religion?

Thank you for so amply proving my point about the risks inherent in "hate speech" legislation.

If you engaged in speech that others found disagreeable, and if they were situated so as to weaponize "hate speech" legislation against you, to the point that you were at risk of being imprisoned for the content of your speech, I think you would be concerned.  And justifiably so.  But since it's a Christian in the crosshairs...

16 hours ago, california boy said:

THIS is why I am not going to get all riled up about something that I honestly do not have enough information on.  I don't know exactly what has been said or how it has been said.  What I do know is that there are thousands of other ministers in Finland that evidently can talk about homosexuality without needing to take judicial action against them. There are plenty of things that we can all be outraged about on a daily basis when we actually don't know all the facts about.  Too often we leap to outrage before knowing the actual facts.  How about wait and see how the court case goes, and then get outraged if the court rules that what she has said has crossed the line from biblical teachings to hate speech?  

Or we could discuss the risks inherent in the government criminally punishing anything it can define as "hate speech."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The unstoppable march of state censorship

Vaguely worded hate-speech laws can end up criminalising almost any opinion.

See, in my view "criminalising almost any opinion" is a bug, not a feature.  For others, having such "vaguely wording hate-speech laws" is a feature, not a bug.

Quote

The case of Päivi Räsänen is an extreme example of what is playing out across Europe. Over the past two decades, a tried and tested three-step formula for censorship has emerged, and it goes something like this.

Firstly, governments make a case in public for more restrictions on speech, citing extreme examples of the sort of threats they want to prevent (threats which apparently cannot be addressed with the already far-reaching laws at their disposal). Warnings of the threat to free speech are often dismissed as scaremongering.

Secondly, vaguely worded laws are rushed through parliaments that end up going well beyond their publicly stated aim.

Thirdly, these laws are amended or interpreted over time to broaden the scope of what is caught by the law and lower the threshold for what is considered illegal. As a result, the restrictions apply to a much wider range of behaviour than originally advertised. Those who were accused of scaremongering are vindicated, which counts for very little.

Incidentally, the EU is planning to follow this exact formula. It is currently launching a roadmap to make ‘hate speech’ an EU-wide crime.

No doubt the reason Päivi Räsänen is being charged under an offence called ‘ethnic agitation’ in a section called ‘war crimes and crimes against humanity’ is because the law was originally intended for one thing, yet is so vaguely worded it could apply to almost anything.

Indeed, the English translation of the offence reads: ‘A person who makes available to the public or otherwise spreads among the public or keeps available for the public information, an expression of opinion or another message where a certain group is threatened, defamed or insulted… shall be sentenced for ethnic agitation to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years.’
...
This language is so impossibly, ludicrously vague that it could apply to almost anything. But surely, in the UK, our government would never consider passing a law advertised as addressing one thing but so vaguely worded it could apply to almost anything? If only it were so.

Take Exhibit A – the newly released Online Safety Bill – the stated aim of which is to make the internet a safer place for young people by targeting illegal content online. But then we read in the bill’s explanatory notes, ‘Alongside illegal content and activity, there are increasing levels of public concern about online content and activity which is lawful but potentially harmful’. The government goes on to include ‘disinformation and misinformation’ that may create a ‘toxic online environment’. As many have already pointed out, ‘lawful but potentially harmful’ is a very dangerous standard for the government to try to enforce.

Or take Exhibit B – the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which, among other things, would hand expansive powers to police officers to restrict behaviour for a number of loosely defined reasons, including if they deem a particular demonstration causes ‘serious unease’ to observers. This is a threshold so low that police officers could conceivably prevent any protest, given that protests are intrinsically contentious and disruptive.

Or Exhibit C – the government’s insistence on banning so-called conversion therapy – an umbrella term that could include prayer, pastoral support and parenting. While the government has yet to release its definition of the term, top lawyers have already warned the government about loosely worded definitions that would catch far more activities than stated.

These bills are all different but they follow the same dangerous formula described above. And what could possibly go wrong with such vaguely worded laws? Just ask the softly spoken grandmother of six in Finland facing jail time for tweeting a picture of some Bible verses.

The phrase "canary in a coal mine" keeps coming to mind.

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Besides all that, I know how you slice and dice things, taking things out of context, and making assumptions on things that I write until I barely recognize what I and others actually wrote.  You are not really someone that I trust is telling the whole story of what is going on or what the real intent of what the person had to say. 

Feel free to do your own research to find "the whole story."  

There really are people out there who are in favor of the government using vaguely-worded hate speech laws to punish religious people for the content of their speech.  I think such folks would be throwing conniption fits if their speech were so targeted.

For myself, I am very much in favor of robust protection of speech, including speech I personally dislike or with which I disagree.  Consider the words of Justice Louis Brandeis in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927):

Quote

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

For some, though, "enforced silence" of religious people by the government is preferable.  These bullying antics are one of the reasons I have had such a hard time giving serious consideration to these folks.  If their position were really meritorious, then they could participate in the Marketplace of Ideas and, through explanation and evidence and analysis, persuade people to their point of view.  Instead, they resort to bullying and shaming tactics.  And even worse, some even are keen on using (exploiting, really) the power of government to punish speech they dislike (and/or deflect and distract when this happens).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 24, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Duncan said:

and you don't care about their comments so why care now?

Because weaponized "hate speech" legislation is like cholera.  It tends to spread quickly until and unless it is addressed and countered.

18 hours ago, Duncan said:

The US has enough legal problems to worry about, solve those first

One of those problems is the risk of weaponized hate speech laws.  See, e.g., here: “Hate Speech” Laws Undermine Free Speech and Equality

Some excerpts:

Quote

Having no specific legal definition, “hate speech” is a vague term. It is generally understood to mean speech that expresses hateful or bigoted views about certain groups that historically have been subject to discrimination. Concerned by the impact of hate speech on vulnerable populations, social justice advocates see sense in restricting this type of speech.

However, these types of laws often fall hardest on the very people they are intended to protect. Nadine Strossen explores this idea in her new book, Hate Speech: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship. (Hereafter all page citations are to this book).

Strossen draws attention to the fact that prohibitions of “hate speech” are characterized by unavoidable vagueness and overbreadth.  A law is “unduly vague” (and unconstitutional) when people “of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning.” “Hate speech” laws are inherently subjective and ambiguous in their language, with the use of words like “insulting,” “abusive,” and “outrageous.” Specific to laws about speech, vagueness “inevitably deters people from engaging in constitutionally protected speech” (69).

One person’s “hate speech” is another’s anti-“hate speech.” Strossen cites many examples in which certain religious views are assailed as “hate speech” against LGBT individuals, while critiques of those religious views are attacked as anti-religious “hate speech.”
...
Deciding what should count as “hate speech” leaves room for decision-makers to err or disagree about whether an expression constitutes “hate speech.” This arbitrariness of these laws on campus means that “...all members of the campus community face enforcement that is unpredictable and inconsistent at best, and arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory at worst” (77).

Moreover, “given the pervasiveness of individual and institutional bias,” the government is likely to enforce “hate speech” laws, as it has other laws, to the disadvantage of the disempowered and those with unpopular ideas. David Cole, ACLU legal director reiterates this point:

Here is the ultimate contradiction in the argument for state suppression of speech in the name of equality: it demands protection of disadvantaged minorities’ interests, but in a democracy, the state acts in the name of the majority, not the minority. Why would disadvantaged minorities trust representatives of the majority to decide whose speech should be censored (81)?

The entire article is worth a read.

18 hours ago, Duncan said:

We aren't talking about the church, but the Finnish Legal system

And members of the Church in Finland are potentially impacted by that legal system.

The weaponization of hate speech legislation is not constrained by national boundaries.

18 hours ago, Duncan said:

I am familiar with the "canary in a coalmine" metaphor, worry about your own canaries and coalmines- Are you familiar with the "whited sepulchres" metaphor?

Yes.  That is why I am bringing up this topic here.  Because I think the U.S. is also at risk of seeing this sort of thing.

18 hours ago, Duncan said:

why does it bother you that other legal minds view law differently then you? 

I am bothered by the government punishing, with fines and incarceration, free speech and the expression of religious ideas.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Duncan said:

serious consequences-for them, unless Finnish law somehow applies to the US and vice versa

"Somehow" being the operative word there.

I invite you to spend some time researching how the legal systems of countries affect and influence each other.  Most of the Unites States, for example, uses the English "common law" system.  A notable exception is Louisiana, which uses a "civil law" system derived from the Napoleonic Code.

More recently, consider this proposal by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Quote

Justice Ginsburg has fired the latest salvo in the ongoing debate about the Court’s use of foreign and international law sources in constitutional adjudication.   On Friday, she gave a speech to the International Academy of Comparative Law at American University, entitled “A decent respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind”: The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication.  Not surprisingly given her earlier opinions, Justice Ginsburg comes out strongly in favor of the Court’s use of foreign and international law materials to interpret U.S. law, including the Constitution.

"Strongly in favor of the {United States Supreme} Court's use of foreign and international law materials to intepret U.S. law, including the Constitution."

Does that fit within the parameters of your "somehow"?

15 hours ago, Duncan said:

It does apply

Why is the US still attached to Northern Europe? Didn't you guys fight a war so that you wouldn't be? if you wanted out then be out.

Great advice.  One of the means by which we differentiate ourselves from Northern Europe is to publicly speak against legal ideas from Northern Europe that we feel are incompatible with our system of laws.  I'm doing that here, and your faulting me for it.  Weird.

15 hours ago, Duncan said:

Not that other countries need your permission but their laws are their laws and if others disagree then they disagree. As I say are you guys so weak that your laws would be influenced by other countries? You had like 300 years since the Revolutionary War to get your own deal going, so when is that going to happen?

Again, I invite you to study up a bit on how legal systems of various nations influence each other.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 hours ago, mgy401 said:

Naturally.  Just as the US doesn’t have the right to control what Germany does to Jews, or what China does to Uighurs, or what Iran does to gays, or how South Africa handles anti-apartheid advocates, or what Hungary or Poland do to illegal immigrants.

But we do have the right to impose sanctions, restrict trade, and otherwise take measures that adversely affect countries that abuse human rights.

13 hours ago, mgy401 said:

But of course, that doesn’t prevent freedom-loving people anywhere and everywhere from pointing out troubling trends; especially those created and supported by emotionally-fragile jack-booted thugs who want to prosecute anyone who publicly disagrees with their life choices. 

Amen.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

So far I haven’t seen one measure of freedom Canada didn’t beat the US on.

Free speech.

Technological innovation.

Medical and pharmaceutical innovation.

Wealth creation.

Religious liberty.

Lower taxes.

Gun rights.

Plenty more.

There are ways that Canada can be said to be doing better than the U.S.  

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Calm: I respect you very much, but perchance you might come down here and visit the descendants of thousands of Mennonites who had to flee Canada to pursue their religious beliefs without Canadian governmental interference. Canadian tolerance for religious freedom has not been sterling!

Isn't that a "measure of freedom" that "Canada didn’t beat the US on"?  Or am I misreading you?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Somehow" being the operative word there.

I invite you to spend some time researching how the legal systems of countries affect and influence each other.  Most of the Unites States, for example, uses the English "common law" system.  A notable exception is Louisiana, which uses a "civil law" system derived from the Napoleonic Code.

More recently, consider this proposal by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

"Strongly in favor of the {United States Supreme} Court's use of foreign and international law materials to intepret U.S. law, including the Constitution."

Does that fit within the parameters of your "somehow"?

Great advice.  One of the means by which we differentiate ourselves from Northern Europe is to publicly speak against legal ideas from Northern Europe that we feel are incompatible with our system of laws.  I'm doing that here, and your faulting me for it.  Weird.

Again, I invite you to study up a bit on how legal systems of various nations influence each other.  

Thanks,

-Smac

American arrogance at its finest and that is what I am faulting you for. 

"One of the means by which we differentiate ourselves from Northern Europe is to publicly speak against legal ideas from Northern Europe that we feel are incompatible with our system of laws.  I'm doing that here, and your faulting me for it.  Weird."

and yet you are so worried that in speaking out against it it won't work and Finnish law will somehow become a law in your country. Are you that worried that your own country is so malleable to other's influences? is that what is bothering you? Your actually worried that somehow Finnish law will become US law? Weird.

by the way the First Presidency banned talking about sexuality at the pulpit anyways so I doubt Finnish members would be speaking out against homosexuality in church-unless you want to fault the First Presidency for kyboshing "religious expression"

Edited November 24, 2021 by Duncan

[pogi]

Nevermind

 

Edited November 24, 2021 by pogi

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Free speech.

Technological innovation.

Medical and pharmaceutical innovation.

Wealth creation.

Religious liberty.

Lower taxes.

Gun rights.

Plenty more.

There are ways that Canada can be said to be doing better than the U.S.  

Isn't that a "measure of freedom" that "Canada didn’t beat the US on"?  Or am I misreading you?

Thanks,

-Smac

He was quoting, and responding to Calm, who said:

Quote

So far I haven’t seen one measure of freedom Canada didn’t beat the US on.

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So far I haven’t seen one measure of freedom Canada didn’t beat the US on.

Hi my friend: The above quote was Calm's, not mine. I think you are are confusing something she wrote as being mine. I was simply trying to point out that Canada has not been religiously tolerant with the Mennonites as recently as the 20th century. I really don't know exactly why, but more keep coming here from Canada and some return. Thanks and best wishes, Phil

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

He was quoting, and responding to Calm, who said:

And I meant actual measures. I spent some time looking at scales of freedom yesterday seeing how well the US was viewed (which is somewhat different in how it actually performs).  I have no doubt there are plenty of others where the US does better, maybe even ones the majority of people in the world might agree on if given the chance.

But my point was people see freedoms in different ways and what is most important to one may be a low value variable to another.  To assume what might be best in one country is best in all countries is a false assumption Imo.  Added:  Same thing with what is wrong. There are many absolutes, but in the borderlands the unique contexts that can’t been seen in headlines and limited news articles that push a law into contributing to this freedom, detracting from that freedom and which has more value for a community…that is complicated enough that I think it is wrong to condemn based on superficial treatment that pretty much superimposes the context of the US on other countries. 
 

Added:  I will admit that when I seeing worry that the US is going to be influenced by another country’s current laws into changing our own when the balance of influence is typically so much in the US’s favour…it seems overblown. 

Edited November 24, 2021 by Calm

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm trying to draw attention to this, yes.

And rather than investigate the matter, you persist in asserting your ignorant skepticism.

It's almost like you don't want to "know exactly what has been said."

And that question illuminates the justification of the government's criminal charges against her for the content of her religious speech . . . how, exactly?

Thank you for so amply proving my point about the risks inherent in "hate speech" legislation.

If you engaged in speech that others found disagreeable, and if they were situated so as to weaponize "hate speech" legislation against you, to the point that you were at risk of being imprisoned for the content of your speech, I think you would be concerned.  And justifiably so.  But since it's a Christian in the crosshairs...

Or we could discuss the risks inherent in the government criminally punishing anything it can define as "hate speech."  See, e.g., here:

See, in my view "criminalising almost any opinion" is a bug, not a feature.  For others, having such "vaguely wording hate-speech laws" is a feature, not a bug.

The phrase "canary in a coal mine" keeps coming to mind.

Feel free to do your own research to find "the whole story."  

There really are people out there who are in favor of the government using vaguely-worded hate speech laws to punish religious people for the content of their speech.  I think such folks would be throwing conniption fits if their speech were so targeted.

For myself, I am very much in favor of robust protection of speech, including speech I personally dislike or with which I disagree.  Consider the words of Justice Louis Brandeis in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927):

For some, though, "enforced silence" of religious people by the government is preferable.  These bullying antics are one of the reasons I have had such a hard time giving serious consideration to these folks.  If their position were really meritorious, then they could participate in the Marketplace of Ideas and, through explanation and evidence and analysis, persuade people to their point of view.  Instead, they resort to bullying and shaming tactics.  And even worse, some even are keen on using (exploiting, really) the power of government to punish speech they dislike (and/or deflect and distract when this happens).

Thanks,

-Smac

Just curious why you aren't starting threads worrying about Iran throwing gay people off the roofs of buildings or starting them on fire?  Not worried about a slippery slope for gay people? Not enough outrage?  Or is it only the "christians" you worry about?

[Chum]

moved

Edited November 24, 2021 by Chum

[Chum]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Just curious why you aren't starting threads worrying about Iran throwing gay people off the roofs of buildings or starting them on fire?  Not worried about a slippery slope for gay people? Not enough outrage?  Or is it only the "christians" you worry about?

Things that I believe bore the folks who continually see threats to their religious beliefs:

• Journalists being arrested and imprisoned for reporting on evidenced misdeeds by gov (or gov buddies)
• Persistent bulk surveillance of people not suspected of a crime
• Laws designed to curtail voting and protesting by vulnerable people (okay. more excited for than bored by this one)
• LEO stealing cash from people via civil forfeiture because they can
• A generation of hampered freedom of movement, for no meaningful gain in security, at a cost of many billions
• The enslavement of people who don't look like them (unless it fattens LEO budgets eg:trafficking)
• Stupid, corrupt crap Australia does
• The War On Redemption

Edited November 24, 2021 by Chum

[kimpearson]

The real question is not religious freedom but whether teaching that same sex marriage is a sin hurts people to a large enough degree that the government has an overriding responsibility to step in a protect such people.  Government in most democratic countries has always preserved the right to limit religious expression if it hurts or damages the rights of others to live in peace.   Our own supreme court has held up this right of government to restrict religious freedom to the extent it limits the rights of others.  So instead of arguing freedom of religion smac97 and others.  Put forth your arguments about how such teachings do not damage or deprive the rights of gay individuals.

The basic problem as I see it is that governments have recognized as a basic right, the right to gay marriage.  You have religions arguing that such a right is a sin in God's eyes.  If you will notice, the Church has been very careful to always state officially that it recognizes the rights of gay individuals to marry under current law.  This is the Church's attempt to not cross the current lines recognized by the US courts currently.  It also explains what the Church was looking for in the "Utah  Compromise" and the current proposed federal legislation known as "the Fairness for All Act".  The Church wants the law to clearly state it can preach against gay marriage and discriminate against it in its own institutions.  I would expect many to believe this is OK while many others would object to it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Finnish law has a bar for determining if religious practices harm or take away to the rights of others that is lower then the US because there is no doubt that some harm is occurring.  So again put forth your arguments of how teaching same sex marriage is a sin does not cause enough harm to affect the rights of gay citizens of a country under their laws.  Maybe smac97 can research Finnish law instead of relying on news articles from religious or conservative viewpoints that have an obvious bias.  Or conversely, you can wait to see the outcome of the trial to see what the Finnish legal system thinks.

As I have state before, I have talked to thousands of gay members/former members and without exception every single one has experience some level of harm.  Several studies indicate that this harm rises to the level of PSTD (COMING OUT MORMON: AN EXAMINATION OF RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION, SPIRITUAL TRAUMA, AND PTSD AMONG MORMONS AND EX-MORMON LGBTQQA ADULTS, BRIAN WILLIAM SIMMONS, B.S., Brigham Young University, 2006 M.S.W., University of Utah, 2008A, Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia).

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just curious why you aren't starting threads worrying about Iran throwing gay people off the roofs of buildings or starting them on fire?

No.  But I am certainly opposed to and condemn that.  I don't equivocate on that one bit.  I am not deferring my assessment until I understand "exactly" what is going on, nor do I need to "wait for more information" about it.  There is no justification for Iran's conduct.  There is no circumstance under which I would say "Well, I'm going to 'wait for more information' until 'until I can see exactly what this case is about.'"  

The irony here is . . . strong.  I can oppose governmental abuses in both circumstances.  Some folks seem to be more . . . selective.  They are okay with governmental abuses if they happen to dislike the victims of that abuse.  I find that quite repellant.  

56 minutes ago, california boy said:

Not worried about a slippery slope for gay people?

What slipperly slope?  What is worse than "Iran throwing gay people off the roofs of buildings or starting them on fire"?

56 minutes ago, california boy said:

Not enough outrage?  Or is it only the "christians" you worry about?

Nope.  That this thread is about Topic A doesn't mean I am not also concerned about Topic B.

If this board was geared toward gay topics, you might have a point.  But it's not, so you don't.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 24, 2021 by smac97

[Vanguard]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just curious why you aren't starting threads worrying about Iran throwing gay people off the roofs of buildings or starting them on fire?  Not worried about a slippery slope for gay people? Not enough outrage?  Or is it only the "christians" you worry about?

Though I'm not yet as concerned about the situation in Finland (I agree we should wait and see how it plays out), I do think comparing Iran's treatment of gays with Finland's potential foray into restricting religious expression is an apples to oranges comparison. In other words, it's pretty easy to refute any argument Iran might have against the LGBT community - the entire civilized world condemns any such action. This is not the case when potential action taken against Christian communities is at the hands of our civilized allies. Perhaps the situation in Finland will resolve itself and perhaps the 'royal we' should keep an eye on these actions as they can have a tendency to gain steam quickly.  

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What is worse than "Iran throwing gay people off the roofs of buildings or starting them on fire"?

Wholesale throwing people off…expanding from treatment of one group to it being SOP. 

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1) 

Nothing new hear because since the war in heaven till now men and women by the millions have rejected the word of God and the sayings of his inspired prophets because they say hard and upsetting things against sin and unrighteousness.  And so it will be forever, which is one of the reasons why there are lower kingdoms of glory reserved for the majority who strain against the truth of God and are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus. It seems that with the exception of a select few the majority inevitably fail to acknowledge and yield to the strictness of Got, which strictness is sure evidence of the intense concern and abiding love.he fells for his children.

 

No it is really because so many come to understand that the alleged word of God has major problems and flaws and that it was written by men who lived thousands of years ago and based their writings on their understanding of their world. God had little or nothing  to do with it.  As humans have progressed and become more enlightened they understand this.  Scholarship on the Bible also shows that it is not really reliable as the inerrant word of God-though I know LDS don't believe in inerrant they act like most of it is and probably believe it as literally as an evangelical Christian. Well except when it disagrees with the LD doctrine of something,

[Chum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  But I am certainly opposed to and condemn that.

Opposed as in "Anyone who knows me knows this bothers me" or opposed as in "Now that you brought it up, um.. ok. it's bad"

Which would you say better reflects your objection?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  But I am certainly opposed to and condemn that.  I don't equivocate on that one bit.  I am not deferring my assessment until I understand "exactly" what is going on, nor do I need to "wait for more information" about it.  There is no justification for Iran's conduct.  There is no circumstance under which I would say "Well, I'm going to 'wait for more information' until 'until I can see exactly what this case is about.'"  

Maybe I should do a SMAC answer on your post and cut it apart piece by piece.

I don't think anyone on this board is opposed to freedom of religion.  I think everyone is wondering what religion might be doing that could possibly infringe on the rights of others.  I assume the courts in Finland will decide this.  It is certainly has no application to what is going on in the U.S. no matter which way the courts decide.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The irony here is . . . strong.  I can oppose governmental abuses in both circumstances.  Some folks seem to be more . . . selective.  They are okay with governmental abuses if they happen to dislike the victims of that abuse.  I find that quite repellant.  

But abuse really hasn't been determined has it.  The Finish government has not laid out their case against the minister, nor decided if the charges are valid.  So at this point, it is just stirring up division on a matter that we all may actually agree on when the final verdict is determined.  Your thread is built on fear and speculation.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What slipperly slope?  What is worse than "Iran throwing gay people off the roofs of buildings or starting them on fire"?

The slippery slope argument would be that since Iran allows throwing gay people off of buildings and starting them on fire, we should be worried that it is going to start happening in the United States.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  That this thread is about Topic A doesn't mean I am not also concerned about Topic B.

If this board was geared toward gay topics, you might have a point.  But it's not, so you don't.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well actually when you have a religion trowing gay people off of buildings, one could argue, like you seem to be doing here, that the next thing we are going to see is Mormon throwing gay people out of the Salt Lake Temple.  See how slippery slope arguments can devolve?  You know, kinda the same argument you are using about what happens in Finland is a canary in the mine issue to be outraged about here 

Do you really not see that your OP is just about fear and stirring up animosity pitting one group against the other when we don't even know if there is a fight to be had here?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Though I'm not yet as concerned about the situation in Finland (I agree we should wait and see how it plays out), I do think comparing Iran's treatment of gays with Finland's potential foray into restricting religious expression is an apples to oranges comparison. In other words, it's pretty easy to refute any argument Iran might have against the LGBT community - the entire civilized world condemns any such action. This is not the case when potential action taken against Christian communities is at the hands of our civilized allies. Perhaps the situation in Finland will resolve itself and perhaps the 'royal we' should keep an eye on these actions as they can have a tendency to gain steam quickly.  

I largely agree with you.  I personally think SMAC starts endless LGBT issued threads that are meant to stir up division and outrage against those that support LGBT rights.  How many of these types of threads has he started?  They rarely end well.  This one is trying to get outrage on issues that we don't know what  the exact charges even are for, nor whether the courts will throw the whole case out.

 Honestly, it is these kinds of things that is strongly contributing to the division in this country.  One group outraged over another group before the facts and arguments from both sides are in.  It saddens me what is happening to this country and those that contribute to it.

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

But remember, only as far as it is translated correctly.

I prefer, only as far as it is interpreted correctly!

[OGHoosier]

5 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Our own supreme court has held up this right of government to restrict religious freedom to the extent it limits the rights of others.

Which case and precedent is this? Employment Division v. Smith? That's the current standard controlling government restrictions on religion, with important modification in Hosanna-Tabor v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Fulton v. Philadelphia. None of those hold that religion can be restricted "to the extent it limits the rights of others." In fact, Hosanna-Tabor directly rebukes this interpretation since it ruled that federal antidiscrimination laws have no power to dictate to religions who they can and cannot appoint as leaders. It should also be said that in the concurring opinions to Fulton v. Philadelphia (which was decided unanimously) 5 of the 9 justices signaled willingness to revisit Employment Division v. Smith and replace it with a precedent more protective of religious free exercise. 

Besides, "harm" is a term which is so broad and vague that per US constitutional precedent it cannot form the central definition of a law restricting First Amendment rights (or any Bill of Rights rights which have been incorporated to the states via the "rights critical to an ordered scheme of liberty" interpretation of the due process clause.) A law prohibiting preaching would MOST CERTAINLY DO exactly that. Religious expression is a right. This is not a conflict of preferences vs. rights but rights vs. rights and religious expression shall not be downgraded so cheaply.