"religious expression"? hahaha...

This is part of a news story I found on the internet:

"The Vatican has attacked Sweden, saying that religious expression in the country is threatened.

The Catholic Church claims that the prosecution of Pentecostalist minister Åke Green for a sermon in which he called gay people "a cancer on the face of society" is evidence of a lack of religious tolerance in Sweden...."

So, prosecuting someone for hate crimes is now a hate crime? :/ Am I the only one who's baffled by this?

Lack of religious tolerance? Let me get this straight- prosecuting someone who calls a whole group of people a 'cancer on the face of society' just because of what gender turns them on is religious intolerance? That is the funniest thing I've heard all week.
P.S. Jävla rövhål: Ditt jävla barnknollare! Nu ska jag tamjefan döda dig, emedan din mamma suger björn kuk på lordag!

[calpurnpiso]

One must realize that the Grand Christ-psychosis infected folks of the Vatican, who released this intolerant neuron's eroding virus on mankind back in the 4th Century, define "religious tolerance" as :

Let Christianity dish out their disgusting retarded delusional way of thinking on others, but DO NOT let others defend themselves with reason or impose their own kind of religious psychosis on the Christians for they would be "religion intolerant"!!

This is what the mentally retarded Christ-psychosis infected intolerant folks DEFINED as
"RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE", this is perfectly understandable since Christ-psychosis, by eroding reason and the logic centers of the brain, distorts the way reality is perceived blurring the difference between irrational concepts and tangible realities.

Nietzsche realized how delusional those folks were, and Freud (the father of psychiatry) correctly diagnose them as delusional. How prophetic!...One doesn't need a PHD to see that if it swims like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck......

People infected with religious-psychosis, a condition that is not much different than the condition of those folks suffering from schizophrenia or temporal lobe epilepsy, ought not to be discriminated against and allow to be loose in the streets, and as the latter be committed to institutions where they can be truly saved from those pervasive delusions that infect their brains; delusions that could be extremely harmful to humanity and the planet...:(

I have heard this kind of crap before. The are allowed to preach any kind of hate they wish. Here in the US there is public applause whenever one of the televangelists attacks gays, atheist, pro-choice, ACLU, Porno Mags or anything else the fundamentalists hate. When they spew hate it is seen as a god given task to achieve. If anyone speaks of equality or freedom from religion they consider it hate. In a democracy the majority gets it's way. We are lucky that some of the ethics our founders imparted speak of truth, freedom and allow us to be at least be heard. I am still suprised that evolution is taught in any school. Considering how much of our population thinks it is totally false. They outnumber us. Thankfully the rule of law slows them down.

Religious tolerance...now there's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

It seems as though the hatred and violence is on another upswing these days. A lot of name calling and blaming. Paranoia and anger seem to be the main message coming from a lot of religious groups lately. Anyone have thoughts on that?

But the Catholic church is the world's biggest paedophile ring, so they haven't really got an opinion.

Nicole: A lot of name calling and blaming. Paranoia and anger seem to be the main message coming from a lot of religious groups lately. Anyone have thoughts on that?

Isn't this the way they have always been? Paranoid, delusional, angry, and out to get everyone NOT like them?

JP wrote

Isn't this the way they have always been? Paranoid, delusional, angry, and out to get everyone NOT like them?

I agree that there has always been an element of that but I wonder if it's on an upwards swing right now and why that might be.

I must say I agree with the vatican here. That minister should be allowed to say whatever he wants about any group of people, as long as it isn't a threat or a call to violent action. I think too many atheists here missed the point about freedom in their eagerness to defend gays and attack the church.

StillSurviving wrote

I must say I agree with the vatican here. That minister should be allowed to say whatever he wants about any group of people, as long as it isn't a threat or a call to violent action. I think too many atheists here missed the point about freedom in their eagerness to defend gays and attack the church.

You have a point. I sat here for a quite a while trying to come up with a valid argument to fight you but came up with nothing. He's got a right, provided that the church supports him because he is a representative of a larger organization that the parish has trusted, to spout any kind of hatred in the same way that the KKK does. Freedom of speech shouldn't just apply to nice guys although I don't know what their laws might be on the subject.

It sucks that an organization with such a strong hold on so many people would choose to use its' power in such a vile way. No surprise I guess but still...

I think too many atheists here missed the point about freedom in their eagerness to defend gays and attack the church.

I think your right, for what is freedom if not the ability, nay the right, to call other human beings names, and incite violence and hatred against them. Sure, he didn't actually say, "Go out and beat and kill homosexuals", but we all know that is what he really meant.

God Bless America ® "Spreading the love of Jaeeesus since 1776"

"Jaeeesus luvs u"

JP wrote

I think your right, for what is freedom if not the ability, nay the right, to call other human beings names, and incite violence and hatred against them. Sure, he didn't actually say, "Go out and beat and kill homosexuals", but we all know that is what he really meant.

God Bless America ® "Spreading the love of Jaeeesus since 1776"

"Jaeeesus luvs u"

JP, why are you trying to mis-represent my take on this issue? You cut out the part of my post that directly spoke to the issue of threats and violent acts. If you believe his speech was supposed to incite violent acts, you should disagree with my assessment on that point. You should not edit quotes and comment in such a way to make it seem as though I believe threats are covered by freedom of speech. The only information I have regarding this speech is the cancer comment. Without the context, I can't say if he was trying to get people to beat homosexuals, or just vote against them.

StillSurviving wrote

I must say I agree with the vatican here. That minister should be allowed to say whatever he wants about any group of people, as long as it isn't a threat or a call to violent action. I think too many atheists here missed the point about freedom in their eagerness to defend gays and attack the church.

I agree.

I think that Canada's hate speech laws go too far in attempting to regulate the acceptability of ideas. When the Ernst Zundel trial was taking place in Toronto, I remember telling my friends that the this was a huge boost to anti-semitists because it lent them credibility: "see, they take us seriously enough to try to silence us. That's how dangerous we are!" Likewise, someone like Fred Phelps is probably going to galvanize more support for gay rights than he will rouse opposition to it.

The antidote here isn't censorship. We need to train a harsh critical spotlight on these issues and encourage honest discussion.

Fred Phelps was right then, God Hates Sweden.

[Tenspace]

But I thought God Hates Fred Phelps