Swedish Pentecostal Pastor On Trial For Anti-Gay Hate Speech

[HorhayAtAMD]

Sigh.

Here goes.

Homosexuals Molest Children At A Far Higher Rate Than Heterosexuals

...

The problem with this article is that it doesn't prove that homosexuals are likely to be pedophiles, it only proves that pedophiles are likely to be homosexuals (if it even does that). Even if 100% of pedophiles were gay, a huge majority of homosexuals would never, ever have sex with a child.

Here is a real life analogy. There is a fight here to outlaw certain breeds of dogs. I don't have the numbers but let's say that 80% of dog bites were caused by German Sheppards. The argument against the ban from German Sheppard lovers is that even though most dog bites come from German Sheppards, only a tiny minority of German Sheppards ever bite a human. All the statistic shows is that if you are bitten by a dog, the dog will likely be a German Sheppard, but you could live your whole life around German Sheppards and are still extremely unlikely to ever be bitten. The 80% sounds really bad since it sounds like 80% of German Sheppards bite humans but that isn't what that statistic says at all.

So the article offers statistics that sound really bad and scary but they don't help you prove what you are trying to suggest: most homosexuals are pedophiles.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

LOL pseudointellectual eh...sorry I'm not worthy of talking to you. I never claimed to be a Nobel prize winner but my logic skills are as sharp as anyone on this board, that much I can promise you.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You're opening up a huge can of worms here. Just about everything. Tell me what HAS been proven to be true in the bible?

"YOU SHALL always have the poor among you"

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You sir, are an ignorant buffoon at best, a totalitarian at worst. Do you study history? Do you read? Do you know what tends to happen when Free Speech is redefined as Free Speech Within The Approved Parameters Of The Government? Whether it's hateful or not is utterly irrelevent. You cannot go about banning what people say. So it's a "hate crime" to dissent against homosexuality? What happens if some government beurocrats decide that dissenting against the government is a hate crime, because the purpose of their "social democracy" is to help people? For someone who spends an excessive amount of time professing hatred of "superstition", you sure don't do too much thinking yourself.

Not to mention he likes to tell us how we should consider DMP, that "anyone on this board should consider him a loon"

 

[musicman]

Here is a real life analogy. There is a fight here to outlaw certain breeds of dogs. I don't have the numbers but let's say that 80% of dog bites were caused by German Sheppards. The argument against the ban from German Sheppard lovers is that even though most dog bites come from German Sheppards, only a tiny minority of German Sheppards ever bite a human. All the statistic shows is that if you are bitten by a dog, the dog will likely be a German Sheppard, but you could live your whole life around German Sheppards and are still extremely unlikely to ever be bitten. The 80% sounds really bad since it sounds like 80% of German Sheppards bite humans but that isn't what that statistic says at all.

Well, the information you provide is not sufficiently complete to make it analogous to the article in question. All that your analogy suggests to me is that there must be a hell of a lot of German Shepherds where you come from!

Let me suggest a hypothetical to you. If we could establish that German Shepherds comprised a tiny minority of the dogs in your area - yet they perpretrated 80% of the dog bites - wouldn't that suggest to you something disturbing about German shepherds?

So the article offers statistics that sound really bad and scary but they don't help you prove what you are trying to suggest: most homosexuals are pedophiles.

You want some "bad and scary" statistics? Although homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they perpretrate 20-40% of child molestations.

Doesn't this suggest to you something disturbing about homosexuality?

 

[KarlMarx]

The supression of free speech and gun control was how Hitler ultimately came to power. Two of the lefts favorite freedoms to attack.

Your first point isn't quite true, but your second one is. However, by explaining it, I hope to validate your over all hypothesis, i.e. the suppression of gun control and free speech and how they are stepping stones to dictatorial power.

Sorry to contradict you, but Hitler was voted into power. After his unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the German Republic during 1924 Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler decided to gain power through the system.

So, he wrote "Mein Kampft" while in prison, started cultivating political alliances once he got out, and eventually ran for chancellor (the stock market crash of 1929 was the best thing that happened to the guy, many disaffected people flocked to the Nazi party afterwards).

Once he became chancellor (actually co-chancellor, but eventually, the other guy retired or died, so Hitler was left standing holding all of the cards), he started disassembling people's rights, until one day, the Reichstag was burnt to the ground (the Reichstag is like our Capitol Building) by a "communist". The truth was that Hitler arranged it. With that bit of "luck" Hitler declared a state of emergency then, in one fell swoop, took people's rights away entirely.

The thing is, Hitler described exactly what he was going to do in "Mein Kampf", if anyone bothered to read it, they would have seen what he was going to do.

The point is, that Hitler got to power through legal means. Once bad laws are on the books (like "hate crime" legislation and regulating political speech), they take on the mantle of righteousness and justice. After all, we just want to protect some minorities from people who say bad things, right? Wrong. Legislation that regulates speech, the ownership of guns and so on are just the instruments of those who aspire to greater power, like Hitler did.

OK... BTW.... why is it when George W. Bush wants to introduce an amendment banning gay marriage the Left claims that the Constitution is a "sacred document" and shouldn't be tampered with for political gain, but then turn around and want to ban the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms)? The answer is obvious to me. To the Left, the Constitution is little more than a trophy the Left uses to show off when it wants to gain an air of moral superiority and sanctimonious self righteousness, the rest of the time, the Constitution is little more than a door mat.

 

[MissileMan]

Um duh. Of course American Indians are decendents of Noah. Who isn't?

So they remembered a flood, but forgot a God? This is a sensible anwer to you?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Your first point isn't quite true, but your second one is. However, by explaining it, I hope to validate your over all hypothesis, i.e. the suppression of gun control and free speech and how they are stepping stones to dictatorial power.

Sorry to contradict you, but Hitler was voted into power. After his unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the German Republic during 1924 Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler decided to gain power through the system.

So, he wrote "Mein Kampft" while in prison, started cultivating political alliances once he got out, and eventually ran for chancellor (the stock market crash of 1929 was the best thing that happened to the guy, many disaffected people flocked to the Nazi party afterwards).

Once he became chancellor (actually co-chancellor, but eventually, the other guy retired or died, so Hitler was left standing holding all of the cards), he started disassembling people's rights, until one day, the Reichstag was burnt to the ground (the Reichstag is like our Capitol Building) by a "communist". The truth was that Hitler arranged it. With that bit of "luck" Hitler declared a state of emergency then, in one fell swoop, took people's rights away entirely.

The thing is, Hitler described exactly what he was going to do in "Mein Kampf", if anyone bothered to read it, they would have seen what he was going to do.

The point is, that Hitler got to power through legal means. Once bad laws are on the books (like "hate crime" legislation and regulating political speech), they take on the mantle of righteousness and justice. After all, we just want to protect some minorities from people who say bad things, right? Wrong. Legislation that regulates speech, the ownership of guns and so on are just the instruments of those who aspire to greater power, like Hitler did.

OK... BTW.... why is it when George W. Bush wants to introduce an amendment banning gay marriage the Left claims that the Constitution is a "sacred document" and shouldn't be tampered with for political gain, but then turn around and want to ban the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms)? The answer is obvious to me. To the Left, the Constitution is little more than a trophy the Left uses to show off when it wants to gain an air of moral superiority and sanctimonious self righteousness, the rest of the time, the Constitution is little more than a door mat.

HAHAHHAHA, NOT SORE AT ALL.

If I am in error on anything historically, I WELCOME corrections, cuz you can surely bet I will be called on it by my "enemies" either here or elsewhere.

The left screams for whatever means it can to gain public support for its version of a eutopia. It uses the Constitution ONLY when it fits its needs. That is what makes them inconsistent. Its easily provable when they clamor for diversity on college campuses based on ones skin color or gender, but as soon as an appointment is made using skin color or gender, it becomes irrelevant if its obvious that black or female is conservative(anyone hear of Clarence Thomas? )

But I still disagree with your assesment that Hitler came to power by legal means.

It started off legal. The buring of the Reich building was a serious stroke of luck for the Nazi's, because they planned on burning it themselves and blaming it on the Communists (illegallyl), but it just so happened that a communist pyromaniac (I cant remember his name, but I believe it was a French surname) was on the lose and chose the Reich building as his target ON THE VERY SAME DAY THE NAZIS HAD PLANNED IT. So, it was extremely lucky for them, it saved them the possibility of screwing up the frameup. Of course, that isnt 100% verifiable, and some accounts vary, but it is one of the most widely accepted plausabilities. Nobody is 100% sure how the bldg fire got started.

Now, back to the "legality" of Hitlers rise to power (which does not in ONE IOTA lessen the importance of legal free speech)

Just prior to the election that brought Adolf to SUPREME power, the head of the POLICE, a now appointed Nazi, allowed the brown shirts to roam the streets, including the murder of 51 communists, they broke into their houses using violence and torture to intimidate communist supporters from voting (ala Iraq and the terrorists), they supressed the communists ability to air messages on the radio and print media. This was all illegal. The army did not interfere because Hitler had promised them a rise to prominence and no interference from the "brown shirts."

THe brown shirts he appeased by promising them posistions in the army.

The "ol man", I cant believe I cant remember his name right now, was too old and tired to do anything about it. Hitler wore him down.

There were certain factors absolutely necessary for Adolfs rise to power.

The treat of Versailles, reducing the German army to powerlessness, hence they could be tempted to allow a dictator if it meant the Generals regaining their power.

A terrible economy, causing people to be desperate, this occured after the beginning of the world wide great depression.

Supression of gun ownership, allowing the brown coats to roam unopposed in the streets.

Supression of free speech, either LEGALLY or ILLEGALLY, doesnt matter. In this instance, it was illegal, hence the election was a fraud. It was not an open and free election, and the lack of FREE SPEECH, and I reiterate, whether it is done through legal or illegal means, was ultimately what allowed Hitler to RISE to power, and it was lack of legal gun ownership which allowed him to stay there once enough Germans realized what they truly had on their hands.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

When did I say that free speech should be limited? I didn't. Why do you have a problem with me saying that comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is hate speech. What if I compared black people to monkeys? Would that be considered ok.

And I never said it was a hate "crime" to speak out against gays. I don't even like the term hate crime anyway. If you kill someone because they are black that makes you a murderer. The fact that you are racist doesn't matter to me. If you kill someone because they are gay which is what the bible says to do then you're a stupid fundamentalist murderer. The fact that you are a religious fundamentalist idiot to me is irrelevant to me because I'm more worried about the fact that you are a murderer.

Maybe you should try rehashing your points a little bit better. I never said free speech should be limited and while I said it is hateful speech I never said it was a crime. No go back in the corner and think before you post.

Theim's point is that HATE speech is now open game to legislation in the US, and whether you like it or not, or support it or not, when you start or anyone starts classifying ANYTHING as HATE, or HATE SPEECH, it now becomes fair game to be legally supressed.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I've been involved in those threads and know what they say, and even those who are vehemently opposed to homosexuals have never claimed that the majority of pedophiles are homosexual as you did. There is an alleged higher percentage of homosexual pedophiles as compared to the percentage of homosexuals within the general population. Again, the percentage varies depending on which study is cited. Some 75% of molestation victims were molested by the OPPOSITE sex. Clearly, the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.

HA!, sounds like you are arguing against yourself ! If 25% of peophile activity is commited by homosexuals, then that is an extraordinarally amount (% wise) of homos commiting the crime.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

But what you are stating as truth is that certain people existed. That's not even the important stuff in the bible. If you can prove that the earth was covered with water above mount Everest with a few feet to spare then you're onto something.

Does it actually say , COMPLETELY 100% covered ? Or does it merely say "covered" which could easily, without the usual leftists stretch on things, mean almost, 80-95%?

 

[GotZoom]

HA!, sounds like you are arguing against yourself ! If 25% of peophile activity is commited by homosexuals, then that is an extraordinarally amount (% wise) of homos commiting the crime.

The other "abstract" thing he can't come to terms with is that homosexuals make up only 1-2% of the population.

When 1-2% of the population commits 25% of the crimes, it shouldn't be that hard to see that overall picture.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

"The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as “homosexual” or “bisexual"

I'm glad you are using up to date information.

But this is the thing. You didn't come out and say that it was on a per capita basis. You acted as if the number of pedophiles overall was made up of a majority of homosexuals. That's a lie.

Its not a lie, (unless his name is GW Bush), more of a mis statement. I think ZOOMIE's main point was there. You can argue semantics, its like you, especially when we start getting the Bible involved.

Problem is you have a predisposed agenda. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that you can construe in any way, shape or form to "PROVE" the Bible wrong is how you go. You start reading a passage, and turn as hard left as is possible at every possible interpetation, of course ignoring the OBVIOUS POINTS.

I draw you a map to get to the mall. You are bound and determined to "prove" my map is wrong. The instructions on the map say, "go about a mile and turn right" the mall is straight ahead.

You are bound and determined to wind up at city hall, thus "proving" my map is wrong.

SO, when you get to the "about a mile point", you CLEARLY SEE THE ROAD GOING TO THE MALL, but you realize if you go that way, YOUR AGENDA is destroyed, so instead,, you think, "well, it says ABOUT a mile, I can go another twenty feet and still be within the bounds of interpeting his map, and it will lead me to city hall, THUS PROVING HIS MAP IS WRONG, WRONG! WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I TELL YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, go ahead with your bitterness and self deception, But, GOD STILL LOVES YOU !

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Whats this suppose to prove?

That someone owns photoshop????

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Awwww...Jeeeeez! Here we go again with the persecuted Christian complex. If you want to see Christians persecuted, go to Sudan, any Islamic republic or any Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist regime. Because it just ain't happening here in America.

Just because the supression of Christianity isnt as terroristic in the US compared to those places you pointed out, doesnt mean it doesnt exist here. Try a decent arguement next time.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Probably my worst post ever. I butchered the shit out of it LOL! I can admit it. THis post sucks.

Aw hell, but I used "predermined" as a word in scrabble. My wife and I argued of it incessentally, to the point, "no sex tonight for you hubby!"

and I used your post to PROVE it was a word, hahahahhaha

 

[LuvRPgrl]

How can you use an American Indian flood myth as an argument for the big flood and the story of Noah? If the Noah story is true, all the inhabitants of the earth were wiped out except for those on the Ark. The American Indians would be the descendents of Noah who populated North America after making their way across an ocean. The Indians couldn't have witnessed the big flood and survived, as according to the Bible, only those on the Ark lived.

Actually, the link across Alaska is easily traveled over several hundred years of migrating peoples. Migrating is a very strong and natural instinct of man.

Its simple, people migrated to the Americas, the flood began to occur, they recorded it in drawings, the flood finished, then people again migrated to the Americas, found the drawings, it became a part of their lore.

 

[GotZoom]

Its not a lie, (unless his name is GW Bush), more of a mis statement. I think ZOOMIE's main point was there. You can argue semantics, its like you, especially when we start getting the Bible involved.

Problem is you have a predisposed agenda. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that you can construe in any way, shape or form to "PROVE" the Bible wrong is how you go. You start reading a passage, and turn as hard left as is possible at every possible interpetation, of course ignoring the OBVIOUS POINTS.

I draw you a map to get to the mall. You are bound and determined to "prove" my map is wrong. The instructions on the map say, "go about a mile and turn right" the mall is straight ahead.

You are bound and determined to wind up at city hall, thus "proving" my map is wrong.

SO, when you get to the "about a mile point", you CLEARLY SEE THE ROAD GOING TO THE MALL, but you realize if you go that way, YOUR AGENDA is destroyed, so instead,, you think, "well, it says ABOUT a mile, I can go another twenty feet and still be within the bounds of interpeting his map, and it will lead me to city hall, THUS PROVING HIS MAP IS WRONG, WRONG! WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I TELL YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, go ahead with your bitterness and self deception, But, GOD STILL LOVES YOU !

Lies - no.

Forward thinking - perhaps.

I assumed our friend could grasp the concept of thinking on a bigger scale but as you have pointed out, his agenda blinded his thought process.

Gee. Imagine that.

 

[KarlMarx]

HAHAHHAHA, NOT SORE AT ALL.

If I am in error on anything historically, I WELCOME corrections, cuz you can surely bet I will be called on it by my "enemies" either here or elsewhere.

The left screams for whatever means it can to gain public support for its version of a eutopia. It uses the Constitution ONLY when it fits its needs. That is what makes them inconsistent. Its easily provable when they clamor for diversity on college campuses based on ones skin color or gender, but as soon as an appointment is made using skin color or gender, it becomes irrelevant if its obvious that black or female is conservative(anyone hear of Clarence Thomas? )

But I still disagree with your assesment that Hitler came to power by legal means.

It started off legal. The buring of the Reich building was a serious stroke of luck for the Nazi's, because they planned on burning it themselves and blaming it on the Communists (illegallyl), but it just so happened that a communist pyromaniac (I cant remember his name, but I believe it was a French surname) was on the lose and chose the Reich building as his target ON THE VERY SAME DAY THE NAZIS HAD PLANNED IT. So, it was extremely lucky for them, it saved them the possibility of screwing up the frameup. Of course, that isnt 100% verifiable, and some accounts vary, but it is one of the most widely accepted plausabilities. Nobody is 100% sure how the bldg fire got started.

Now, back to the "legality" of Hitlers rise to power (which does not in ONE IOTA lessen the importance of legal free speech)

Just prior to the election that brought Adolf to SUPREME power, the head of the POLICE, a now appointed Nazi, allowed the brown shirts to roam the streets, including the murder of 51 communists, they broke into their houses using violence and torture to intimidate communist supporters from voting (ala Iraq and the terrorists), they supressed the communists ability to air messages on the radio and print media. This was all illegal. The army did not interfere because Hitler had promised them a rise to prominence and no interference from the "brown shirts."

THe brown shirts he appeased by promising them posistions in the army.

The "ol man", I cant believe I cant remember his name right now, was too old and tired to do anything about it. Hitler wore him down.

There were certain factors absolutely necessary for Adolfs rise to power.

The treat of Versailles, reducing the German army to powerlessness, hence they could be tempted to allow a dictator if it meant the Generals regaining their power.

A terrible economy, causing people to be desperate, this occured after the beginning of the world wide great depression.

Supression of gun ownership, allowing the brown coats to roam unopposed in the streets.

Supression of free speech, either LEGALLY or ILLEGALLY, doesnt matter. In this instance, it was illegal, hence the election was a fraud. It was not an open and free election, and the lack of FREE SPEECH, and I reiterate, whether it is done through legal or illegal means, was ultimately what allowed Hitler to RISE to power, and it was lack of legal gun ownership which allowed him to stay there once enough Germans realized what they truly had on their hands.

Good points... Hitler did use his brown shirts to intimidate his opposition. So, I concede, since you meant it that way, I guess your original statement was correct.

BTW.... since we're on the subject, remember who founded the Gestapo/SS, which was responsible for beating up people, intimidating the opposition and ultimately the Holocaust? Answer: Ernest Rohm - an openly gay Hitler supporter......

And Hitler knew he was gay, and he did not care..... which puts to rest the myth that the Nazis had something against gays...


Now, what part of the Nazi organization was responsible for "final solution"? The SS.... and the gays use that "pink triangle" to show that "they too" were persecuted by the Nazis.... except it was a gay person that helped Hitler start the who bloody thing.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Good points... Hitler did use his brown shirts to intimidate his opposition. So, I concede, since you meant it that way, I guess your original statement was correct.

BTW.... since we're on the subject, remember who founded the Gestapo/SS, which was responsible for beating up people, intimidating the opposition and ultimately the Holocaust? Answer: Ernest Rohm - an openly gay Hitler supporter......

And Hitler knew he was gay, and he did not care..... which puts to rest the myth that the Nazis had something against gays...


Now, what part of the Nazi organization was responsible for "final solution"? The SS.... and the gays use that "pink triangle" to show that "they too" were persecuted by the Nazis.... except it was a gay person that helped Hitler start the who bloody thing.

BINGO !