Christian Pastor on Trial in Finland

[why me]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is almost as if you can’t get a cohesive grasp of complex realities without deep dive investigative reporting instead of the clickbait banners running in our shallow 24 hour news cycle. It is why it is largely only the elderly who are used to it who still get their information from “the news”.

As to it being primarily about class this is a repackaging of the “Civil Rights Movement is actually about COMMUNISM” thing. Of course economic classes are involved on many levels but pretending it is all actually about class is about pretending racism is dead and gone. It is not. Many are uncomfortable with that. Many people shut down when confronted with that reality. They will turn to anyone who tells them the opposite. Hence why we are where we are.

The point is very simple: All races are exploited by a class structure. CRT stresses race. I linked the sites in a previous post. It posits whiteness and blackness at opposite poles. However, other races are omitted. What the elite fears most is the unity of the working people regardless of skin color against the power structures. Thus, we have now CRT being promoted. Also, it is a theory that is being promoted as truth. Can a student in high school question it without fear? Maybe not. No critical voice allowed. The white working class has always been oppressed too. Just read Howard Zinn's  People's History of the United States. But no discussion about that. Or what about the book White Trash? Let's forget about that book too.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27209433-white-trash

Much better to stress division than unity. If I were a history teacher in high school, I would make these two books apart of the reading. Not to mention a few more by people of color.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[smac97]

On 11/24/2021 at 6:00 PM, california boy said:

I don't think anyone on this board is opposed to freedom of religion.  

I do.

On 11/24/2021 at 6:00 PM, california boy said:

I think everyone is wondering what religion might be doing that could possibly infringe on the rights of others.  

Like . . . speaking?  Giving words to thoughts?  Expressing ideas?  The woman referenced in the OP should be criminally prosecuted by the state for this?

Sadly, there really are people out there who are in favor of such punishment.

On 11/24/2021 at 6:00 PM, california boy said:

I assume the courts in Finland will decide this.  

Likely.

On 11/24/2021 at 6:00 PM, california boy said:

It is certainly has no application to what is going on in the U.S. no matter which way the courts decide.

It might.

On 11/24/2021 at 6:00 PM, california boy said:

But abuse really hasn't been determined has it.  

I think it has.

On 11/24/2021 at 6:00 PM, california boy said:

The Finish government has not laid out their case against the minister, nor decided if the charges are valid.  

The government has filed criminal charges against a religious person to punish her for the content of her religious speech.

And there are people who are on board with such governmental actions.

On 11/24/2021 at 6:00 PM, california boy said:

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.

I think it's quite appropriate to express concern about government abuse of human rights before the full actualization of that abuse.

There is nothing premature about what I have said.

On 11/24/2021 at 6:00 PM, california boy said:

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?

No.

There are people out there who are on board with the idea of governments punishing religious people for the content of their speech.

"Live and let live" my foot.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 11/24/2021 at 6:12 PM, california boy said:

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.

I don't think LGBT rights are advanced by punishing religious people for the content of their speech.

I have previously commented on how some folks have reduced themselves to using government to punish ideological opponents, often under the guise of "hate speech" and/or public accommodations laws.  Sadly, there are some in the LGBT community who are on board with this behavior.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The Masterpiece case addresses an important legal and civic issue, namely, an increasing conflict between, on the one hand, the civil rights afforded to gay persons, and, on the other, the use of anti-discrimination and public accommodations laws to compel private citizens and businesses to engage in conduct and speech that contravened their civil rights.

Here's an example:

Quote

Ann Arbor Could Fine Conservatives $500 Per Day for Not Parroting Left-Wing Talking Points

Quote

A law in Ann Arbor could force a Democrat to write speeches for President Donald Trump or a pro-life artist to create a mural for Planned Parenthood.

On Tuesday, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a conservative political consulting firm, warning that an Ann Arbor non-discrimination law would force that firm to parrot liberal messages and help Democrats get elected. If they refuse, they could get hit with fines of $500 per day. ADF is representing Grant Strobl and Jacob Chludzinski, founders of the company ThinkRight Strategies.

...

The Ann Arbor non-discrimination law is extremely broad and open to abuse. The law defines a "place of public accommodation" to include any "business ... whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations are extended, offered, sold or otherwise made available to the public." Any such company is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of political beliefs.

"Ann Arbor's law is quite broad," the ADF lawyer noted. "It even prohibits Grant and Jacob from putting a statement on their website that they will only advance conservative beliefs and from having internal policies saying that."

According to section 9:155, "No person shall adopt, enforce or employ any policy or requirement, publish, post or broadcast any advertisement, sign or notice which discriminates or indicates discrimination in providing housing, employment or public accommodations."

While it might be defensible to prevent a company from posting a sign reading "no blacks allowed" or "no gays allowed" or "no conservatives allowed," this law also prevents ThinkRight Strategies from posting a sign or even an online message reading, "ThinkRight Strategies advocates for conservative causes and will not promote liberal causes."

Worse, section 9:156 even prohibits ThinkRight Strategies from having an internal policy restricting its services to conservative candidates or causes.

"No person shall adopt, enforce or employ any policy or requirement which has the effect of creating unequal opportunities according to ... political beliefs ... for an individual to obtain housing, employment or public accommodation, except for a bona fide business necessity. Such a necessity does not arise due to a mere inconvenience or because of suspected objection to such a person by neighbors, customers or other persons," the law states.

"Regardless of where people stand on the political divide, all of them should be supporting Grant and Jacob in this lawsuit because people should be able to determine for themselves which political causes they promote," Green said. "If Grant and Jacob were to post an explanation on their website of the political beliefs they can and cannot advance or to decline to write a speech for a Democrat’s campaign, they could face fines of up to $500 per day."

I am glad to see such lawsuits being filed.  We need to stop this assault on civil liberties.  By constantly falsely accusing people of good conscience and good character of horrible things, by seeking to punish other people because they have opinions which do not jibe with theirs, by distorting both the form and intent of "public accommodations" laws to go after religious people, the militant gay rights crowd have burned bridges.  Opportunities for mutual understanding and love and cooperation and tolerance are being diminished or destroyed.  

In short, nobody likes a bully.  And sooner a later, the bullying ceases to have its intended effect.

 

I think the LGBT folks do themselves a huge disservice by signing on to bullying tactics.

On 11/24/2021 at 6:12 PM, california boy said:

Honestly, it is these kinds of things that is strongly contributing to the division in this country.  

If "these kinds of things" is a reference to "the use of government to punish people for the content of their speech solely because you disagree with them ideologically," then I would agree with you.

But somehow, I don't think that's what you mean.  

On 11/24/2021 at 6:12 PM, california boy said:

One group outraged over another group before the facts and arguments from both sides are in.  

Oh, brother.  

On 11/24/2021 at 6:12 PM, california boy said:

It saddens me what is happening to this country and those that contribute to it.

I agree.  I am saddened that there are people who are quite happy at the prospect of the government punishing religious people for the content of their speech.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I agree.  I am saddened that there are people who are quite happy at the prospect of the government punishing religious people for the content of their speech.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

What do you mean? Do you think the government will force the church to allow SSM in the temples? Or do you think religions can get their tax exempt status revoked? If it's the first, I don't see how that can occur especially with our constitution. If it's the second, it won't bother me at all. Or please explain how government could hurt religions. 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Tacenda

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

I agree.  I am saddened that there are people who are quite happy at the prospect of the government punishing religious people for the content of their speech.

What do you mean?

I think my comment is pretty clear.

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Do you think the government will force the church to allow SSM in the temples?  Or do you think religions can get their tax exempt status revoked?

Look again at what I said: "I am saddened that there are people who are quite happy at the prospect of the government punishing religious people for the content of their speech."

I am concerned about A) the government punishing religious people for the content of their speech and B) people being happy about that.

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

If it's the first, I don't see how that can occur especially with our constitution. If it's the second, it won't bother me at all. Or please explain how government could hurt religions. 

Well, the government punishing religious people for the content of their speech is one way.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The woman referenced in the OP should be criminally prosecuted by the state for this?

Do you have the exact text she said as opposed to vague references or brief paraphrases…will need to be translated I assume.