Oaks on religious freedom

[RobinFinderson]

The fact we were ran ot of state after state and eventualy had our leader murdered and then chased out of Missouri to the mountains, still weighs heavy in our hearts and minds. This was because of our beliefs.

Geesh! What do you want, 40 acres and a mule? Get over it!

[pellegrino]

I said I thought it was far-fetched. What do you want from me?

exactly that.

[byu71]

Geesh! What do you want, 40 acres and a mule? Get over it!

I assume you are consistent. You tell the blacks to get over slavery. You tell the Jews to get over the holocaust.

I guess every injustice that has happened in your life, you just get over it. WE aren't all as strong as you. Have a little tolerance.

[tooblue]

Elder Oaks speaks out again regarding perceived threat against religious freedom:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...s-freedom.html

He complains that it is becoming more difficult to condemn homosexuality:



Even goes so far as to imply that it will soon be illegal to preach anything negative regarding gays or gay rights:



Personally, I think that last bit of hyberbolic absurdity weakens his entire case.

Thoughts?

It's not hyperbole. The foundation has already been laid and established in the law. It's already happening in other countries.

U.S. House passes "hate crime" bill:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/0...53S8IM20090429

Quebec Human Rights Tribunal fines man $12,000 for ‘homophobic’ remarks:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/que...hobic-remarks/

[tooblue]

I'm having a really hard time seeing religion as the victim in all this.

I'm with the Dude - Oaks' assertion that there could be "criminal prosecution" for religious speech that offends public officials or public opinion is pretty far-fetched.

tooblue should weigh in here (:yikes. I think Canada has pretty strict "hate-speech" laws. Maybe he's encountered this type of thing.

It's not hyperbole. See my post with links:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showth...896#post527896

[tooblue]

Also, see this post:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=38170

Dire Straights "Money for nothing" cannot be played on Canadian radio.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Also, see this post:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=38170

Dire Straights "Money for nothing" cannot be played on Canadian radio.

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...43&postcount=3

[SeattleUte]

Also, see this post:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=38170

Dire Straights "Money for nothing" cannot be played on Canadian radio.

Canada is a free country?

[tooblue]

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...43&postcount=3

http://www.nationalpost.com/Homophob...171/story.html

It's coming to a country, state, county and city near you! Oaks isn't off the mark is he.

[RobinFinderson]

It's not hyperbole. The foundation has already been laid and established in the law. It's already happening in other countries.

U.S. House passes "hate crime" bill:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/0...53S8IM20090429

Quebec Human Rights Tribunal fines man $12,000 for ‘homophobic’ remarks:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/que...hobic-remarks/

Tooblue, as I pointed out, the church might run into trouble in other countries where 'free speech,' isn't protected the way it is here in the US.

But here in the US there is NOTHING suggesting that churches will ever be prevented from holding positions that are deemed by others as 'hateful.' The link you provide about 'hate crimes' has nothing to do with the subject of religious SPEECH. It is a huge stretch to claim that the HB you link to is the foundation for anything that Oaks is talking about.

[tooblue]

Canada is a free country?

Just as free as the US of A ... along as you don't use the word "faggot" ... and when will the US sets up tribunals that are neither under the jurisdiction of the judiciary or the congress / senate.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's not hyperbole. The foundation has already been laid and established in the law. It's already happening in other countries.

U.S. House passes "hate crime" bill:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/0...53S8IM20090429

While I am against the concept of hate crime legislation, this seems to have nothing to do with restricting religious freedom as described by DO.

Quebec Human Rights Tribunal fines man $12,000 for ‘homophobic’ remarks:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/que...hobic-remarks/

Again, stupid overreaction by Canadians, but what does hate speech ("faggots") have to do with the argument at hand?

[tooblue]

Tooblue, as I pointed out, the church might run into trouble in other countries where 'free speech,' isn't protected the way it is here in the US.

But here in the US there is NOTHING suggesting that churches will ever be prevented from holding positions that are deemed by others as 'hateful.' The link you provide about 'hate crimes' has nothing to do with the subject of religious SPEECH. It is a huge stretch to claim that the HB you link to is the foundation for anything that Oaks is talking about.

You are trolling or woefully naive. I say trolling

[tooblue]

While I am against the concept of hate crime legislation, this seems to have nothing to do with restricting religious freedom as described by DO.



Again, stupid overreaction by Canadians, but what does hate speech ("faggots") have to do with the argument at hand?

The tribunal was set up after similar hate legislation was written into law in Canada.

[Uncle Ted]

Also, see this post:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=38170

Dire Straights "Money for nothing" cannot be played on Canadian radio.

So is it ok to have dire straights "money for nothing" on my iPhone? I go to Canada every May for a conference and would like to return to Texas (with my iPhone).