Government to pastor: Renounce your faith!

I certainly wont accuse you of promoting homosexuality (most certainly when I've received the 'love of brethern and sister' twisting my own remarks.... when I was trying to point out some problems with misrepresentation of facts..... and the willingness to accept everything we see in papers, or tv, or hear on radio as absolute fact when sometimes we're ignorant of the spin and force which may misrepresent or partially present 'the truth'.)

However, the Biblical view of justice for all types of fornication is capital punishment. As strong as his letter may seem to some (which opinion you join against his statement)..... and it is written with obvious emotion, intensity of conviction, and anger.....which may correctly be judged by some as 'inflammatory', the Bible doesn't teach that we should be tolerant or soft regarding sin.

The pastor is attacking the sin and he is presenting the agenda of groups who not only engage in that sin..... but openly and covertly promote it. The intensity is justified when it not only permeates society but is also has access to the education of our (or in the case of Canada 'their')children.....particularly the young. The homosexual agenda is an assault upon their (childrens) innocence regarding a lifestyle which goes against the religious and moral value of most of their homes, favorably promotes a knowledge which is totally unatural to the making and stability of a family, and arguably unhealthy.....both physically and emotionally...... and one could say definately spiritually.

 

Let the reader not be deceived. There is a huge difference between speaking out against the normalization of homosexual behaviour in a society and speech that inflames and can be reasonably understood as promoting hate.

This kind of statement is entirely unacceptable for an obedient Christian to make:

This is not legitimate critique of homosexual activisits - it is demonization. The words are carefully crafted to represent the homosexual advocate as a disease propagating vermin. And there is a not so subtle implication to tie homosexuals to pedophilia, a connection that is hazy at best.

Many people think this kind of approach to waging the war against the homosexual agenda is acceptable. It is not. There is no sense in which the sin of the homosexual advocate is balanced by a treatment of their humanity. Like the treatment of the Jews under Hitler, it is all about representing human beings as being less than the damaged image-bearers of God that they are.

Scripture indeed points outs sin. But there is always the counterpoint of the love that God has for his fallen creatures. In Mr. Boisson's letter, we get nothing of the latter and a fairly heavy dose of dehumanizing rhetoric.

This is not the way of the gospel. It is the way of the world.

 

Yes, though not necessarily so obvious to some..... a copy of the letter wasn't presented so I don't know what scripture was cited. Editors usually exercise rights to edit before printing so even if the letter had no mention of Biblical record....it doesn't mean the original author (the minister) didn't include it.

It is my understanding that previous judgements have already prevailed even for the singular posting of scripture with no other explanation regarding the sin of homosexuality.

So YES, it is an attack upon proclaiming the Word of God: In proclaiming the Word of God....... there is no part which is not the 'Word' and thus can be omitted.

 

I commend anyone who speaks out against the promotion of homosexual behaviour. And I think there is every reason for forcefulness and passion. The execution of this particular letter, though, really does go over the line. When we represent Christ to the world we always must season our rebuke for sin with an affirmation of the fundamental value of those who are being rebuked.

This letter does not do that - it demonizes the homosexual advocate without a hint of that person's value as an admittedly fallen creation of the God of the Universe.

I, too, can sometimes slip into that mode - pointing out sin without a hint of affirming the value of the person I am critiquing.

These kinds of letters are really for us - they make us (Christians) feel good, since the "bad guy" is getting a verbal licking. But, if we are wise, we realize that the heart and mind of the homosexual advocate will only be hardened by this blast. People simply do not respond to rebuke from those who clearly do not love them. And there is no sense of love at all in this letter.

 

Thankyou Dagoon68 for posting the full letter, which I have now read.

Andre
I firmly disagree that the letter demonizes homosexuality and dehumanizes its supporters. The very first paragraph of the letter is proof of that.

Also, though letters to the editor are not meant to be research papers with footnotes and references, the author presented the truth about the methods and purpose of homosexual activitist.

If you accept that homosexuals have a right to practice their lifestyle..... then tell me ........whats the need to advertise?
If they have the right to advertise their promotion then why doesn't someone have the right to disagree?

I also retract my perception that there might be any substance to the 'inflammatory' charge first presented by Andre. As he defended the verdict without the full presentation of the letter.... my previous judgement was based on the 'intent and spin' and limitations of what was presented and partiality in ommited.

 

The implication that homosexual advocates are "bearers of a disease" is strong evidence that the letter indeed demonizes.

The writer, whether intentionally or not, is appealing to fear, inviting the reader to see the homosexual advocate not as a human being, but rather as a disease bearing agent.

This is a common strategy used to demonize - sew a seed of fear and then represent the person demonized as as somehow non-human. That is what is really accomplished with the "disease bearing" implication.

Don't believe me? How about this little cutie:

 

If you're going to introduce Nazism into the argument......why not present the true comparison of government control of citizens with government control of citizens.

The suggestion and the illustration of the poster actually demonizes/dehumanizes the pastor and disrespects him as a Christian broher by comparing the man to a facist government.

Dehumanizing is not strong disagreement with persons: It is not making valid arguments with such persons: It is reducing their value to that of animals, possessions, or objects......usually of repugnant comparison: This the Nazis did with the Jews by calling them names, false accusationss, isolating them in ghettos and camps, removing from them the articles of value and for making a living, obtaining food and medical necessities, or for self protection, labeling them and requiring that they wear badges and emblems which identified them as 'different', restriction of movement, criminalization of association....... which began in advance of the holocost. The pastor doesn't suggest such.

The pastor identifies problems with the activist movement and identifies the targets (the young.......and desensitization of society) along a continuim line from criminalization to strictly repressed to victimization and marginally tolerance to sensitization to tolerance to acceptance to approval to protection to endorsement to preference.

He does not dehumanize them. .........Nor does he 'demonize', as suggested by this post: the good pastor neither accuses nor suggests that homosexuals possess or practice any supernatural powers, prowess, or occult involvement (though an arguement could be presented for the latter.)

 

I think he is conflating dehumanizing with devaluing the view. Or he is confuse, or he is over stating the situation ot of emotion.

 

The Human Rights Commission isn't exactly an agency, it's a completely arms-length body. While nominally under its supervision, its decisions are reached with complete independence and in no way represent the position of the government. Furthermore, it very much is the ALBERTA Human Rights Commission, which the federal government of Canada has absolutely nothing in the slightest to do with. There's two counts of either intentional incorrectness or massive stupidity right there. And I submit that if one is going to purport to be running a news site one should ensure that the people writing the articles know a smidgen of what they're talking about.

Further, if the court does not order the man to renounce his faith then it's simply shoddy sensationalism to say that it did. In a news piece one does not have the freedom to extrapolate from what actually happened to include a personal commentary -- that belongs in the op-ed section.

 

If they are completely independent of the government then how do they have the authority to impose a fine on anyone?

 

That 'little cutie' is nether cute nor relevant to this discussion nor your defense of your government's position opposing the pastor's well articulated letter.

 

It is indeed the way of the gospel. The gospel ties this type of behavior with like vices.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Strong's Greek Definition for effeminate


1) soft, soft to the touch
2) metaph. in a bad sense
2a) effeminate
2a1) of a catamite
2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
2a4) of a male prostitute

 

Originally Posted by Magnetic Poles
The official decision is here.

Are you going to do your usual cowardly act and refuse to answer a simple binary question?

 

Cut the personal attacks alcott. I didn't see your question. I cannot answer with certainty, however, not from cowardice...a stupid idea to begin with...as I don't know all the particulars. My opinion is that it probably infringes on freedom of speech, but I don't have enough info to make the call with a high degree of certainty. Plus, under the law in Alberta, this could be the right decision. We may not agree with the law, but it is what it is.

 

It obviously infringes on freedom of speech. Which begs the question, is freedom of speech a Scriptural value or is it, for example, an American value?

It certainly does not seem to a Scriptural value:

Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” . . . you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him.

I am not for a moment suggesting that we should follow these laws. But while the Law of Moses may indeed now be "retired", it would be very hard to argue that God has changed his mind about the underlying principles that should govern our world.

The notion of "free speech" is connected, I suggest, to the "individualism" that undergirds a lot of western culture. One should not simply presume that Scriptural values endorse this form of individualism. I suggest that they do not, and the the scriptural model for how a society is structured entails a shift to a less "individualistic" emphasis to a more "collectivist" one.

 

It does infringe, but does freedom of speech means "anything goes"? The old example of yelling "FIRE" in a theater, or libel / slander laws limiting free speech come into play. What are the limits? I would err in the direction of free speech over limiting in most cases. If objectionable speech isn't protected, maybe your opinions will be deemed objectionable tomorrow.

 

What about hate laws? Let's say that someone writes the following:

"The French are a disease, spreading lies, filth, and corruption, seducing our young children into sexual depravity"

Do you (MP) think such speech should be protected?

I do not.

 

I do, although if I incite someone to act against the French, then I should be held accountable. Such language says more about the speaker than those being spoken about. Now if the French were REALLY doing such things, and I say this and provide evidence, then we have a debate. :laugh: Dang French!!!

 

Andre, you could have saved yourself some time by merely citing the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 10th commandments which refer directly or indirectly to speach.

I don't understand your idea that 'the Law of Moses may indeed now be "retired" '. Of which do you retire? the 613 of Manmonides (sp?) or the 10 Commandments.....or the 2 which Jesus said hang (not remove, change, or distort) all the rest of the law. The Bible I read says not one Word.......... shall pass away before all is fullfilled. Jesus fullfilled the law....not doing away with it. he Law is a yardstick of judgement which requires prosecution for offenses, and a narrow provision of defense: The strength of the law is in its power to bring conviction which demands a verdict/ price/ penalty: The only fullfillment of the Law is two fold ....perfect obediance (which Jesus did and no other could do) or judgement which must be paid (which Jesus did substituting himself in my stead..... and for each person who trully believes). There is no middle ground, and Jesus is our only hope! He also teaches us that obediance to the law and teaching others also... is greatest in the kingdom but the least are those who fail to obey and teach others to do likewise.

Please reread the whole letter by the good pastor and examine yourself to see if you may not have a misperception of what the pastor said..... and your earlier view that he 'demonized' or 'dehumanized' homosexuals. Such may seem like a small thing.... but it is in the small things over which the enemy strikes to divide the body..... and it is first in minor deceptions by which we move away from sensitivity to God and desensitive to the lies of the enemy.

BTW, Jesus called the people in his day 'a generation of vipers'. In essence he called them 'snakes'. Would you accuse Jesus of 'dehumanizing'?

BTW, Jesus also confronted some "You are of your father the devil!". Would you accuse Jesus of 'demonizing'?

Oh that we could be obediant and bolder when standing for the truth against sin!

 

There is no fault in what Boissoin wrote that should merit any action by any government. The $5,000 fine and restraining order placed upon him by his government are as absurd as the initial charges. This sets an extremely dangerous trend in Canada and, obviously, has some interested followers and even active supporters for like action in our own nation. I don't want to see that here!

There is also nothing about Boissoin's writing that is contrary to the "way of the gospel" which itself was rather specific and harsh in its condemnation of sinful conduct and sinners. It is, in fact, the word of God that specifically calls attention to the grave sinfulness of homosexual conduct albeit without giving excuse to other sinful conduct.

Boissoin did not advocate violence against homosexuals nor did he raise himself up to judge over their souls which right belongs only to God. He knows we are all guilty of sin before God and deserve to die for it. If there had been any proof that he incited violence then he would surely have been charged and convicted of it in an environment that surely is, without it, so determined to punish him for his words.

Boission spoke out boldly against what he knows to be completely against God's plan and His laws and which he considered to be an extreme threat to his community requiring bold and urgent action. He appeals to the urgency of it by stating his fellow citizens should do whatever it takes to counter the agenda. He is obviously correct to call for that!

We need only roll the clock back a few decades to see the change that has been brought about by the aggressive actions of the "wicked homosexual agenda" that Boission describes and the active and passive support from others that has resulted from this agenda. It has escalated in recent years and each step builds greatly upon the previous. This action in Canada is one more step and it's in the wrong direction.

Standing firmly against homosexual conduct does not imply that it is the only sinful conduct against which we should stand. We should stand against them all. We know other types of sinful conduct are also just as bad and, obviously, before God they are because we're all condemned to the same punishment even for the slightest of our sinfulness.

Standing firmly against homosexual conduct does not mean we don't acknowledge our own personal sins which, in my case, are probably more numerous than many of you. If that criteria were the standard for our speaking out against sin then every single one of us would have to remain silent even in our own homes amongst our own families. That is most definitely not God's plan for spreading His word.

Standing firmly against homosexual conduct does not mean we can't accept a repentant homosexual who desires to turn away from that sin. Indeed we should because we are no better in our repentance. However, we have no obligation to accept homosexual conduct among us nor to remain silent in our objection to it and most certainly in light of the aggressive agenda to force it upon our society.