Government to pastor: Renounce your faith!

while I do not care what people do with their sex life in the privacy of thier home I strongly believe in the right to free speech and religion. This is sad that Canada no longer has this freedom and it could soon come to the USA if they ever pass the hate speech law on the federal level. This would restrict the freedoms of: Christians, Jews, Muslims and others to express their views on certain moral choices. It is sad to see Canada slip into Soviet style tryranny. Such a law in the USA would not only be an attack upon our constitution but an insult to our founding fathers.
1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


A Canadian human rights tribunal ordered a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again express moral opposition to homosexuality, according to a new report.

In a decision dated May 30 in the penalty phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings run by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was banned from expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and ordered to pay $5,000 for "damages for pain and suffering" as well as apologize to the activist who complained of being hurt.

According to a report from Pete Vere at the Catholic Exchange, the penalty could foreshadow the possible fate of the Rev. Alphonse de Valk, who also cited the biblical perspective on homosexuality in the nation's debate over same-sex "marriage" and now faces HRC charges.

Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of his local Red Deer, Alberta, newspaper in 2002 denouncing the advance of homosexual activism as "wicked" and stating: "Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights."

The activist, local teacher Darren Lund, filed a complaint, and the guilty verdict from Lori G. Andreachuk, a lawyer, was handed down Nov. 30, 2007. The latest decision involved the penalty phase of the trial.

"While agreeing that Boisson's letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to [stop expressing his opinion]," Vere reported.

Andreachuk noted that Lund, who brought the complaint, wasn't, in fact, injured.

"In this case there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward," she wrote.

However, that did not stop her from ordering the payment anyway.

And as for the future, she wrote:

"Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by e-mail, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about … Lund or … Lund's witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current Web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.," the lawyer opined.

Andreachuk also ordered Boissoin to apologize for the original letter in the Red Deer Advocate and told the two "offenders" to pay $5,000.

The apology letter, Vere said, "threatens civil liberties in Canada, according to Ezra Levant, an author and lawyer who himself was targeted by an HRC attack."

"[The] government now believes that if it can't convince a Christian pastor that he's wrong, it will just order him to condemn himself?" Levant wrote on his blog. "Other than tribunals in Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China, where is this Orwellian 'order' considered to be justice?"

"This is like a Third World jail-house confession – where accused criminals are forced to sign false statements of guilt," Levant wrote. "We don’t even 'order' murderers to apologize to their victims' families. Because we know that a forced apology is meaningless. But not if your point is to degrade Christian pastors."

"In essence, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal is ordering to the minister to renounce his Christian faith, since his opposition to homosexuality is based upon the Judeo-Christian Bible," Vere wrote.

WND reported recently about de Valk, the target of a Human Rights Commission case over his biblical references regarding homosexuality.

"Father [de Valk] defended the [Catholic] Church's teaching on marriage during Canada's same-sex 'marriage' debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages – many of whom are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman," Vere wrote.

Vere raised the question that Canada now considers morality a "hate crime."

"If one, because of one's sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered 'hate'?" he asked.

Vere wrote that the response he got from Mark van Dusen, a spokesman for the federal human rights prosecution office, shocked him.

The government agent confirmed the agency investigates complaints but doesn't set public policy or moral standards. He said the agency job is to look at the circumstances and decide whether to advance it or dismiss it.

What is shocking about that, Vere wrote, is the admission that unjustified complaints can be dismissed, yet the case against de Valk has continued now for more than six months.

An extended audio recording between Vere and van Dusen is posted on YouTube:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704

Edited by eaglecap - 11-Jun-2008 at 22:27

Originally posted by Constantine XI There has never been absolute freedom of speech and religion, though. These things stop once a person breaks other laws or somehow inflicts tangible harm or abuses a trusted position However, there is a big difference between a private citizen sending his opinion into a local newspaper and a religious figure putting on his ceremonial robes and mounting the altar to incite hate amongst his congregation. The pastor in this case was simply expressing his opinion as a private citizen, which is fine. Governments give religious organisations a tax-free exemption so that they may minister to the spiritual needs of their flock. When religious figures stand before their congregation with all the power and ceremony vested in them and then use that power to manipulate their congregation - that is an abuse of power. In the same vein, primary school teachers are entitled to hold and express views on which political party they support. But in a classroom of 8 year olds they should do well to keep their views in reserve and not use their position of authority to condition their pupils to adopt those same views verbatim.

Originally posted by Constantine XI And yet both have an enormous influence of the formative minds of children. Or indeed, over a great many people who are rendered highly impressionable by the confronting aura of the priestly office, which presents itself as a representation for imparting the divine. Both, therefore, must accept they use their power responsibly and not incite social harm or violence.

Could someone please link to what Boisson he actually said that we may evaluate it?

-Akolouthos

Originally posted by Constantine XI Originally posted by Akolouthos The difference being that pastors are not employees of the state, either directly or indirectly. In the case of Catholic pastors, it is canon law not civil law which determines what they may and may not preach. And yet both have an enormous influence of the formative minds of children. Or indeed, over a great many people who are rendered highly impressionable by the confronting aura of the priestly office, which presents itself as a representation for imparting the divine. Both, therefore, must accept they use their power responsibly and not incite social harm or violence. It would be rather fun to see them cuff ol' "Rev." Phelps, but the road to regulating these matters is rather a slippery slope. I wonder if Rev. Phelps could be put away for child abuse. Having watched a documentary on how he has systematically indoctrinated his own grandchildren, and caused them near total social isolation, one has to wonder. I feel sorry for those kids, I honestly do. I think there is a real difference between inciting hatred and condemning immorality -- one of the most important distinctions between the two hinges upon the same distinction each Christian must make between a sinner and his sin. Christians, as a point of doctrine, must explain the immoral nature of homosexual relations while stretching out loving arms to embrace those who choose to listen, and to continually welcome those who do not. Perhaps we should consider what really is immoral, and qualify it properly. In the same book which condemns homosexuality, not far away is the command to put to death those who eat shellfish, or wear two different types of threads entwined, or children who insult the honour of their parents. What is considered immoral in one context (6th century BC Palestine), may have no practical immorality in today's context. As for the preaching itself, and the aura of authority that surrounds the priestly office, I suppose that the situation would be best compared -- for the present purposes -- to that of a university professor who speaks and often, whether knowingly or unknowingly, "manipulates [his] congregation". There must surely be a wide latitude when dealing with matters so given to respective areas of erudite specialization. I am not so sure I agree with this comparison. Priests often preach to assemblies of some of the most psychologically impressionable people in society - including young children, the infirm, those with serious personal problems. University professors, at least in my country, are normally speaking with people who comprise an upper percentile of the student population whose marks indicate they are probably better than average at things such as critical thinking and problem solving. And these students are adults.Also, the priest gives pronouncements on issues of social and moral concern almost exclusively. And this can be an open door to incitements of misbehavour in the congregation. How many math, biology, engineering, computer science or medical lecturers are placed in a position to impart damaging moral commands and the like to their students? And of those who do such a thing, there is a university disciplinary hierarchy which investigates matters of abuse authority by members of staff.

I lost this thread but weighing from the US constitution's First Amendment such a tribunal in the USA would be very unconstitutional. Alhough, there are some who would like to create the same hate law restricting free speech here. This is why I believe in the 2nd Amendment so strongly. I only on a short seg so I will get back with UUU. The threat ot our free speech is real though by Neo cons and progressvie liberals. I will address the other things later when I have time.

http://www.dailynews-record.com/opinion_details.php?AID=29345&CHID=36

New York did the right thing to protect free speech and the press:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=63124

Edited by eaglecap - 22-Jun-2008 at 04:24

Originally posted by eaglecap I lost this thread but weighing from the US constitution's First Amendment such a tribunal in the USA would be very unconstitutional. Alhough, there are some who would like to create the same hate law restricting free speech here. This is why I believe in the 2nd Amendment so strongly. I only on a short seg so I will get back with UUU. The threat ot our free speech is real though by Neo cons and progressvie liberals. I will address the other things later when I have time. http://www.dailynews-record.com/opinion_details.php?AID=29345&CHID=36 New York did the right thing to protect free speech and the press: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=63124