Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Åke Green acquitted – follow up

As mentioned in an earlier post, the Supreme Court of Sweden has found the Swedish pentecostal minister Åke Green not guilty in spite of his sermon containing inflammatory and sick views on gays. Among other things he said:” The Bible clearly teaches about these abnormalities. Sexual abnormalities are a deep cancerous tumor in the entire society. The Lord knows that sexually twisted people will rape the animals. Not even animals can avoid the fiery passion of man's sexual lust.”

The Court’s reasoned as follows.

  • Green is guilty under Swedish law unless the rules of freedom of speech or of religion in the Swedish constitution and/or in the European Convention on Human Rights prevent this.

  • The court found that the Swedish constitution did not prevent the Court from finding Green guilty.

  • The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the rules of freedom of speech and of religion in the European Convention on Human Rights in such a way that a guilty verdict by the Supreme Court of Sweden would probably be overturned by the European Court. Consequently, the Court found Åke Green not guilty.

In my view the important conclusion to draw from the verdict by the Supreme Court of Sweden is that it has made it clear that the statements by Åke Green were fully within the criminalized area of the Swedish hate crime legislation and that, without of the cloak of religion, he would have been found guilty.

It is deplorable that a person like Green is allowed to make public his sick views. In my opinion it is a flagrant misuse of the freedom of religion. This freedom should only be interpreted to permit the exercise of any and all religion (including Islam) and not the condemnation of certain behaviour as contrary to the religious laws of some favourite god.

However, I feel that the verdict, although sending the wrong signals in a society as the Swedish where crimes against gays are on the rise (a 100 % increase in one year), will be of very little general importance. No one of sound mind will interpret the verdict of the Supreme Court of Sweden as a green light for similar attacks on gays. In addition, people like Åke Green are not taken seriously here.


Anonymous said...

So, its OK for you to express your views about others, call them 'sick', but its not OK for him to call gays sick? How do you figure this is your right and not his? What exactly is the difference here in free speech? Because he wraps it in a religous context?

OK, no religion here. Greek sex, men on men is 'sick' for all sorts of reasons, not just religion.

In America, every day people are calling Christians all kinds of names. Do you think we suppress the rights of people to degenerate Christians?

Of course not. They have every right to say whatever they want as long as it is not putting someone in harms way purposely and willingly inciting violence.

Have you listened to a rap song lately in Europe? Have you not heard some of the vile hatred which comes out of it? Do you want to ban all music that does not agree with your taste?

It appears to me that Green does not state anything that is not true of what the Bible states.

He is interpreting it and the Bible does state that once men lay with men, or prostitute themselves that he will give themm over fully to their own lust. God teaches such desires are uncontrollable if left alone without intervention and without repentence.

If you disagree, simply don't go to that church. You live in a free society. You are not forced to go to church.

He has the right at least in free countries to express his opinion of what God teaches and he quotes it from the Bible verbatum.

Whether I, you or anyone else likes it is not important. There are 500 hundred channels on my TV. Most of it is junk, lots of it detestable. You know what they tell me? Turn it off. So there ya go. Turn it off, don't go to church or watch TV programs you do not like. It works both ways.

There are thousands of words and speeches given that I do not like that talk just as badly and in some cases more vehemently and crudely defined about men, Christians, God, Christ, children, women, sex, animals, beastiality, etc. Am I allowed to suppress everyone's speech and thought? Where are we, China? North Korea?

Should I limit the right of someone to talk about sex with animals? You can go online right now and find it. Should we bring the law against them?

Yelling Fire, or Telling someone to go kill someone are two entirely different matters. If your inciting someone to perform harmful acts, then your in the right territory and it deserve scrutiny.

But he does not do this. He actually goes on to say that all people can be forgiven of their sins, all sins. He explains that one should show grace and mercy.
You completely ignore this message because you simply want to villify his stand.
He said,
"We must never think that some people, because of their sinful lives, would end up outside of grace."

That's called forgiveness and mercy in Christian terms. By the way, only God can condemn. Christians can only teach the difference between right and wrong.

Green quotes Paul,
"Paul says about himself that he was the foremost of all sinners, but he encountered an abundance of grace and mercy. He also states in First Corinthians 6:9-11, when he lists sexual immorality with other sins, that you can be saved from all the listed sins, including sexual immorality."

So, we are ALL sinners. But he says due to grace we can all be saved. That's the good news! You see, no matter what you've done; murder, rape, incest, homosexuality, thief, adultery, God says, you can be saved.

Truth is homosexuals and lesbians come out of the lifestyle every single day all around the world. They go on to have 'normal' families with normal intercourse and procreation by two adults of opposite sex.

This is the message that God has taught since over 4000 years ago and has never changed. Why should someone change their values for you if it does not impact your life? He's not putting a gun to your head or forcing you to live what he teaches.

Who decides if adultry is good or bad? polygamy? stealing? murder? you? why?

What you do not understand is Christians and Jews since the dawn of the ages defined these issues in laws long before any autocratic government or democracy. It is these foundation from which comes your law.

People change, God's word never changes. Its a harsh reality for some. Many do not like it and never have. So, if someone gets married in any relationship and then commits adultery - is it wrong? Why? Who sets this standard, you?

Can you define for me the term 'sick' as see it? How are you using 'sick' for Mr. Green?

It has been 'sick' for over 5766 years according to Jewish calendar for a man to lay with another man.
So why is it suddenly in the last few years you get to decide that its not 'sick'?

You have no high moral ground, nor scientific grounds upon which to state your condemnations of Mr. Green.

That is putting it rather nicely.
Do you understand what happens when a man enters another man's rectum? Do you understand that the intermingling of feces with the opening of the uria causes disease exhange unlike that of normal copulation between male and female?

Is it to 'sick' for you to discuss such 'abnormal' issues in public? In the light? Can you please tell me why it is 'normal' for two men to fake 'natural intercourse'?

Do you understand that male on male sex cannot lead to children?
Do you understand the meaning of the word, 'abnormality'?
Do you understand the meaning of the word 'normal'? as in scientific and local terms?

Do you understand the function of a normal penis? Do you understand that it is purposed for procreation?

Do you understand that the colon and rectum are designed to expel feces only? That it is not designed for foreign objects to enter it?

If so, then how do you continue to define abnormal sexual acts as normal?

Do you understand or even know that disease on average, STD's, HIV is at a much higher percentage in the gay population than normal heterosexuals? Do you understand that drug abuse, depression and a whole set of other psychological functions run much higher among homosexuals?

Do you understand that as a 'species' without copulation and procreation the gay population dies out according to evolutionary standards of science? So, what do you think gay's should do - have sex with other opposite sex partners outside their own 'abnormal' relationship in order that their progeny lives on?

How exactly is having two partners; one male, the other temporary female to create children - normal?

Do you understand natural selection?

Do you understand or even know that the attacks that you mention on homosexuals are increasing due to the Muslim population?

Do not blame all the problems of the gay community on Christians or anyone else for that matter.

A person makes their choice in life. You either live with it or change. I've changed many times in my life as to beliefs as I've matured through life experiences.

And do not think yourself so self-righteous.

One can just as easily look upon a man who has sex with another man as being 'sick'. Even more so because the natural function is detestable when you really think about where the man is having sex and if there is 'oral' play. Backended sex is not condusive to clean, healthy sex without a condom and without a prior cleaning.

Whereas a woman's body was formed to naturally accept into her body a man's penis for purposes of procreation.

People have every right to say what they think is disgusting. You certainly have your rights to say he is 'sick' or that what I say is sick. I will not deny your right to say such things. But I also have every right to argue and discuss these issues openly.

Freedom of speech is for all, not just someone trying to protect their little world views. Get over yourself.

I hope you wake up one day and see the true natural wonders of the world, how it was formed, how you are indeed loved. And that you understand that this is not any kind of attack on you as a person or on the homosexual community.

People have rights to disagree and to express them, to come together and discuss them, whether in religous, scientific or political functions.

Just as Mr. Green has a right to speak out against adultery or murder, he has a right to speak out against homosexuality.

I hope and pray that you see this as a serious gesture of concern not just for you, but others who are lost in search of love in places they will never truly find it.

To many men and women have come back out of those very lifestyles to have normal lives, families, children and to move on from their past.

Of course, if men and women choose the gay lifestyle, its their choice. But just as they try to promote and force others to accept it, so do others have a right to reject and object to it. We have a right to point out why and what we think is wrong with the lifestyle whether on religious basis, biologically, and psychologically.

To many people are being hurt and in pain after such lifestyles. All Mr. Green is saying is once they come out of them, that God welcomes them with open arms. In fact, God welcomes them anyway if you believe in Christ. He just ask that you follow his ways and change internally.

You would be surprised to know how many do change. Its not genetic. Its lack of nuture, not nature which leads to such breakdowns.

All the best. I hope you do not see this as an attack. It is certainly not meant to be so. And I do not see where Mr. Green intended it to be as such.

Krizz said...

1. I have not called Åke Green sick; only his views.

2.I did not ignore his words at the end of his sermon as you can see from an earlier post I made.

3. I do not give much for the rest of your standard homophobic remarks.

Laurila said...

Isn't it basically a good thing that the Supreme Court reminds about the force of international conventions, as in this case the European convention on Human Rights?