Printable View
These people make me sick... an old story, but one where these preachers will protest at a military funeral, with signs that say 'Thank God For Dead Soldiers' and 'You're Going to Hell',all because they believe homosexuals should be killed and the American government are not deterring it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7898972.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7072404.stm
Ah yes. Thats the same persons that hates sweden for prosecuting a priest that preached anti-gay stuff during his services.
People like that are dangerous.
This should please all the Daffyds in UK :)
I think I read something like that before, like "America's most hated family" who basically did the same thing. Wikipedia Linky
Freedom of Speech is a double-edge chalice.
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom to be intolerant.
Doesn't it? Freedom of speech is the perfect excuse for expressing intolerance - you may just happen to not agree with certain schools of thoughts (such as anti-gay protesters).
I think that's what he meant. We shouldn't be intolerant of peoples belief's.
If they want to speak out on their intolerant gay beliefs, we shouldn't be intolerant of their intolerance...
wait, the law in Sweden is intolerant of intolerance.... what?
The law in sweden isnt intolerant of intolerance, however it does not allow for attacks on "groups/races" (black,white, chinese, homosexualls, christians etc etc)Quote:
Originally Posted by JPicasso
Oh, he was attacking people, that's different.
I thought he was just using words.
I meant verbal attacks :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JPicasso
So Sweden put a person in jail for saying things
that somebody disagreed with?
I think this is a good time to "agree to disagree".
(and not only for this thread)
Yes, thats exactly what I said. Well interpreted ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JPicasso
No. This priest in question stood in church, on a "public service"...exclaiming hate for homosexualls and how others should do the same.
THAT is what the law is against.
So the Government of Sweden is deciding who goes to heaven? Ballsy!
Glad to see your Supreme Court come to it's senses.
(Don't get me wrong, I think this dude is a dick. And I would not be a part of his "church".)
I think it's dangerous to have laws that forbid speech that is considered "Disrespectful", and that you could go to prison for such.
Anytime someone expresses an opinion, it's almost always possible to find a group of people who will either be offended by it, or wishes to rid the world of the kind of person that expressed it.
Anything even remotely homosexual-related ticks both boxes, mainly because humanity is a bunch of jerks.
Simply by discussing this here we're giving it more publicity than it warrants. So why not just drop it and get on with our lives?
There's still a difference between being disrespectful and "attacking" (I cant think of the proper word for it) a group.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPicasso
However it doesnt seem to matter what I say, you seemed to have made up your mind that the goverment of sweden are against free speech:confused:
To be honest, I'm with Atheist on this one. There are far too many people who use "freedom of speech" as a barricade to hide behind. A distinction needs to be made between those who are expressing a private, personal opinion in conversation and those who use their job or position to express their personal views. In my opinion, taking on a position in society where others are likely to be influenced by the things you say carries a certain responsibility, and it is not acceptable to hide behind a curtain of "free speech" when you want to promote your own bias to a wider audience.
Some people think it's morally wrong to eat meat.
Some people think it's morally wrong to practice homosexuality.
Some people think it's .........................
No matter how strongly you believe in something, someone out there disagrees just as strongly. So it's simple - people will have different opinions and we simply have to accept that (of course you can throw outliers in my face to disprove this, but I'm ignoring those). I don't believe homosexuality is morally right, but that doesn't make me intolerant. In fact, I have 2 gays friends and both are just as tolerant of my feelings as I am for theirs and our differing opinions have no affect whatsoever on our friendship or daily lives. I accept my feelings as my own and let others do what they wish.
You can agree/disagree with homosexuality (or any matter) and still be tolerant of other people's view. This is something that both extremes can't accept and where the problem lies. Yes, the preacher and his followers who desecrated the poor guys funeral are simply intolerant, heartless and disrespectful. Their actions should not have been allowed and I don't consider desecrating a funeral freedom of speech. There are also plenty of obnoxious and over the top protests that happen on the other side too, but they go unnoticed by people who share the same opinion. These extreme cases don't represent the way each and everyone with an opinion would act or think. So the liberals that think everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a full of hate and would act as this preacher did, need to open their eyes and mind. The same goes for the idiots who really are filled with hatred and bigotry. People just need to understand what tolerance really is and move on with their lives.
That guy doesn't disagree with homosexuality, he publicly advocates murdering homosexuals. His group petitioned the city of Boise, Idaho to force them to allow the group to erect a monument glorifying the murder of Matthew Shepard. Their argument was that the city had a monument of the ten commandments, and therefore had to allow this monument of their religious beliefs that murdering homosexuals is justified.
The city responded by moving the ten commandments monument (which may have been placed in the park as some kind of movie prop, but I'm unclear on the subject) to a church, which ignited another kind of media firestorm that was stoked by some publicity hunting evangelicals. Much noise and bother ensued, money was spent, lawsuits litigated, and then it all died down. The monument remains at the church, and Phelps was not allowed to erect his monument.
I didn't read the entire article, but I clearly stated I did not approve of his actions. I was trying to draw a line between what's acceptable and tolerant and what is extreme and hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
To me, speech becomes unacceptable when it puts others at physical risk. It's a hard line to spot though.
I didn't doubt your views, I just wanted to emphasize that this guy takes hate speech to an extreme that few others match.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error