Speaking against homosexuality - Crimes against Humanity?

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229
Speaking against homosexuality - Crimes against Humanity?

Should a pastor in the U.S. be charged with a crime against humanity for teaching Biblical views on homosexuality?

An American pastor is facing a federal lawsuit filed by a George Soros-funded organization alleging that the pastor?s messages on homosexuality are a ?crime against humanity? ? a lawsuit that some Christians fear might have far-reaching consequences for church mission groups.

Scott Lively, a Massachusetts pastor known for his opposition to homosexuality, was sued by Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG). They claim that he incited the persecution of homosexuals in Uganda.

Lively traveled to Uganda in 2009 where he delivered messages that shared his Biblical views on homosexuality.

The visit coincided with that nation?s legislature considered a bill that would have imposed the death penalty for the ?offense of homosexuality.?

?This is absolutely outrageous, ? Liberty Counsel founder Mathew Staver told Fox News. ?If this case is not dismissed, we will be having an American pastor that lives in the United States on trial for alleged crimes against humanity. And what are those crimes? He spoke out on homosexuality.

Staver is asking the federal district court to toss out the lawsuit as a ?gross attempt to use a vague international law to silence, and eventually criminalize, speech by U.S. citizens on homosexuality and moral issues.?

Read more: Anti-Gay Pastor Sued By Soros-Funded Group For 'Crimes Against Humanity' | Scott Lively | Fox Nation

Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

Do Biblical views include the idea that gays should be killed, that gay = pedophile, and that gays helped Hitler? Because this pastor believes and says all of those things.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

I think no, because regardless of what his religion or beliefs, or whether they are traditional Biblical views or not, he has the right to say them, as does the KKK.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

He doesn't have the right to incite violence.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Jessica80" wrote:

He doesn't have the right to incite violence.

I don't see that he did, they took out the death penalty.
2ndly it is in a different country. They might want to try prosecuting him there, instead of the US.
People say hateful things all the time, they are never punished.

ETA- People even say things to incite violence and are not punished. It isn't the same as FIRE in a crowed theater.

Offline
Last seen: 8 months 1 week ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

Whatever their local laws are should be the measure of behavior while there - or do not go. If he violated laws in Uganda, he should be charged. Being an American citizen visiting other countries does not make us exceptionary to others' laws. But if a crime is done elsewhere the person needs to be prosecuted there in that country.

Offline
Last seen: 8 months 1 week ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

"Rivergallery" wrote:

I think no, because regardless of what his religion or beliefs, or whether they are traditional Biblical views or not, he has the right to say them, as does the KKK.

But only if on American soil.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"myyams" wrote:

Whatever their local laws are should be the measure of behavior while there - or do not go. If he violated laws in Uganda, he should be charged. Being an American citizen visiting other countries does not make us exceptionary to others' laws.

Agreed but he isn't being sued by Uganda. He is being sued by an organizational group in Uganda.

The difference is as I see it, he didn't break an outright law, or he would have been arrested. He is doing something that a group in another country disagreed with. That group is protesting him and wanting "Justice" for what he said. If he had started or "incited a riot" he would have had to deal with the state.

Offline
Last seen: 8 months 1 week ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Agreed but he isn't being sued by Uganda. He is being sued by an organizational group in Uganda.

The difference is as I see it, he didn't break an outright law, or he would have been arrested. He is doing something that a group in another country disagreed with. That group is protesting him and wanting "Justice" for what he said. If he had started or "incited a riot" he would have had to deal with the state.

So they basically need to get their case together and until and unless they are able to do that there is nothing to be done. Protest til they pass out but until and unless charges are filed through their legal system I do not get what the issue is really.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I would be interested to know how influential he was in helping to draft the death penalty law in Uganda. I also don't know what the laws are in Uganda regarding free speech, freedom of religion, et cetera. I do think that if you go to another country and break their laws then you should face their courts, regardless of whether or not what you did would be legal in the US. US law, as far as I know, only protects you for acts committed on US soil.

I just don't know enough about the laws in Uganda or what he did while there to say whether or not this lawsuit is appropriate or if anything will come of it.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I would be interested to know how influential he was in helping to draft the death penalty law in Uganda. I also don't know what the laws are in Uganda regarding free speech, freedom of religion, et cetera. I do think that if you go to another country and break their laws then you should face their courts, regardless of whether or not what you did would be legal in the US. US law, as far as I know, only protects you for acts committed on US soil.

I just don't know enough about the laws in Uganda or what he did while there to say whether or not this lawsuit is appropriate or if anything will come of it.

1- He wasn't, and as far as I read he doesn't agree with everything in the bill.
2- The Bill no longer contains the death penalty as far as I know.
3- I agree about breaking the laws of another country, but as I can tell he didn't. They have had punishment for homosexuality for a long time.
4- Not sure Americans should be held liable for civil lawsuits in other countries... Something to think about.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

I don't think anyone should be tried for a crime they committed in another country in civil court here. I can't see how one person could have made enough of a difference in their country to have it called crimes against humanity. Was Uganda gay friendly before 2009?

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

no it wasn't.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"wlillie" wrote:

I don't think anyone should be tried for a crime they committed in another country in civil court here. I can't see how one person could have made enough of a difference in their country to have it called crimes against humanity. Was Uganda gay friendly before 2009?

Apparently the law that allows this is called the Alien Torte Statute.

The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) is a U.S. federal law first adopted in 1789 that gives the federal courts jurisdiction to hear lawsuits filed by non-U.S. citizens for torts committed in violation of international law. When the ATS was drafted in the 18th century, international law dealt primarily with regulating diplomatic relations between States and outlawing crimes such as piracy, however international law in the 21st century has expanded to include the protection of human rights. In the 60 years from the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 to the present decade, universal human rights have moved from being an aspirational concept to a legal reality. This remarkable evolution gave the ATS renewed significance in the late 20th century. Today, the Alien Tort Statute gives survivors of egregious human rights abuses, wherever committed, the right to sue the perpetrators in the United States.

Since 1980, the ATS has been used successfully in cases involving torture, state-sponsored sexual violence, extrajudicial killing, crimes against humanity, war crimes and arbitrary detention. The Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), passed in 1991 and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, gives similar rights to U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike to bring claims for torture and extrajudicial killing committed in foreign countries.

CJA?:?The Alien Tort Statute

Having said that, if all he did was go to Uganda and preach the usual anti-gay rhetoric that we typically see here and he didn't have anything to do with writing the Kill the Gays Law, I think he's a bad man, but I don't think that they have a case against him.

ETA: Don't know why the confused smiley popped up in my link. LOL

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

I wonder if the group knows the lawsuit will not gain traction, but are seeking to shed light on what was said by that pastor while in Uganda?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 15 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

I am not sure I understand all of the details of the case enough to answer, but I did want to share something that was on my FB wall this AM. One of my FB friends from college lives in France.

"800,000 people came out for the demonstration against gay marriage in France. The largest demonstration in France in 30 years. Praying the government listens."

Just to say that it is not an American only thing. (Not saying how I personally feel on the issue as my feelings are largely undecided in this issue, but that I did not want it to be portrayed that only Americans would do such a thing.)

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"mom3girls" wrote:

I wonder if the group knows the lawsuit will not gain traction, but are seeking to shed light on what was said by that pastor while in Uganda?

This makes sense to me. He seems like a pretty hateful man and its always gratifying to see hatred outed and light shined on darkness........ but the lawsuit itself probably won't be successful.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Apparently the law that allows this is called the Alien Torte Statute.

CJA?:?The Alien Tort Statute

Having said that, if all he did was go to Uganda and preach the usual anti-gay rhetoric that we typically see here and he didn't have anything to do with writing the Kill the Gays Law, I think he's a bad man, but I don't think that they have a case against him.

ETA: Don't know why the confused smiley popped up in my link. LOL

That's good to know. Wow. I wonder how it works if the country the crime was committed in doesn't consider the action a crime.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

Everyone has a right to their own beliefs. Everyone has a right to express their own opinions about things. Everyone has the right to spew hatred about gays if they choose. But no one has the right to advocate violence against anyone else, not even when it's done in the name of religion. The other person's right to safety, privacy, freedom, etc. supercedes your right to say what you think. I don't know if this lawsuit will go anywhere but it did the job it was most likely intended to do, which is bring light to the situation in Uganda.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Spacers" wrote:

Everyone has a right to their own beliefs. Everyone has a right to express their own opinions about things. Everyone has the right to spew hatred about gays if they choose. But no one has the right to advocate violence against anyone else, not even when it's done in the name of religion. The other person's right to safety, privacy, freedom, etc. supercedes your right to say what you think. I don't know if this lawsuit will go anywhere but it did the job it was most likely intended to do, which is bring light to the situation in Uganda.

I understand what you are saying. But I disagree, on the face of it it feels nicer to say one can't insight violence against another person or groups of persons.. But we do it all the time, and I think it should be legal. We should be allowed to be pro-death penalty, and discuss it, and promote it if we want. We should be allowed to discuss war our enemies, killing them and promoting it if we want to. So thus if we don't wan the government telling us who we should view as our enemies, then we should be allowed to insight violence.. trick is the carrying it out is the legal part, I think saying something or feeling something should not be nearly as legistlated as it is, and especially not as legislated as the action.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

So Rivergallery, where do you draw the line, or do you? If I hate black people, should I be able to talk about and encourage people to kill black people? Christians? Atheists? Women? Anybody at all?

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

I'm not going to get into a death penalty debate but I will definitely disagree with you about war. War should be between countries, not people. My uncle was on the front lines in WWII and he said it was never about killing the Japanese, he never had any hatred of them, he was just doing what his country asked him to do, which was kick their *** for what they did in Pearl Harbor. Being at war is not even close to the same thing as one person inciting violence against another.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

So Rivergallery, where do you draw the line, or do you? If I hate black people, should I be able to talk about and encourage people to kill black people? Christians? Atheists? Women? Anybody at all?

That is the trick, if we don't want the government controlling who we view as the enemy, then we shouldn't have laws against talk. I do agree with libel and slander laws, making someone prove something is true or not. But stating you hate XYZ shouldn't be regulated IMO. The violence itself should be harshly punished, not the talk

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Spacers" wrote:

I'm not going to get into a death penalty debate but I will definitely disagree with you about war. War should be between countries, not people. My uncle was on the front lines in WWII and he said it was never about killing the Japanese, he never had any hatred of them, he was just doing what his country asked him to do, which was kick their *** for what they did in Pearl Harbor. Being at war is not even close to the same thing as one person inciting violence against another.

I disagree.. so the government can not only incite violence on a group of people but cause the violence to happen, but individuals can't?

ETA- gotta take a break, making too many spelling typing error.. damn daily migraine!

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 15 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

Not really part of the debate, but I did want to point out the irony of a law here. It is a felony to threaten to hit someone, but a misdemeanor to actually hit them.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"Rivergallery" wrote:

That is the trick, if we don't want the government controlling who we view as the enemy, then we shouldn't have laws against talk. I do agree with libel and slander laws, making someone prove something is true or not. But stating you hate XYZ shouldn't be regulated IMO. The violence itself should be harshly punished, not the talk

No one is saying that you can't hate someone, or that you can't say you hate them. What you shouldn't be able to say is that they should be hurt or killed because of the way you feel about them. It has nothing to do with your government conspiracy theory. It should be the same whether whatshisname is saying gays should be killed because that's what the bible says, or whether I say religious fanatics should get some common sense beaten into them.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Rivergallery" wrote:

That is the trick, if we don't want the government controlling who we view as the enemy, then we shouldn't have laws against talk. I do agree with libel and slander laws, making someone prove something is true or not. But stating you hate XYZ shouldn't be regulated IMO. The violence itself should be harshly punished, not the talk

So to make sure I understand you, the answer is that we should be allowed to encourage each other to hurt anyone we want. It's only punishable if you actually act. Is that right?

boilermaker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

The article is so biased, too. His trip "coincided" with the legislation-- as if it were an accident that he traveled to Uganda during the time they were considering this law.

This man is a hateful jerk. No Christian that I know or respect believes that it is their job to pass judgement on others or their lifestyle. The Christians I respect leave that to individuals and their God. This guy is up there with that creepy baptist church that protests funerals.

The idea that it is okay to incite violence against anyone based upon their lifestyle or choices is sick. I find it seriously warped.
WWJD? Really.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"boilermaker" wrote:

The article is so biased, too. His trip "coincided" with the legislation-- as if it were an accident that he traveled to Uganda during the time they were considering this law.

This man is a hateful jerk. No Christian that I know or respect believes that it is their job to pass judgement on others or their lifestyle. The Christians I respect leave that to individuals and their God. This guy is up there with that creepy baptist church that protests funerals.

The idea that it is okay to incite violence against anyone based upon their lifestyle or choices is sick. I find it seriously warped.
WWJD? Really.

WWJD?.... Really?
Matt 21:12 - he not only incited violence both as a man and GOD in the OT, and new.. might want to Read REVELATION ALSO.. But here he WAS violent. Violence is not always evil ;).

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

Okay, since I'm not a Bible reader..please advise me on where he spoke of hurting and killing others because everything I ever learned in rel. ed pointed to the fact that he never called others to violence or spoke to others about hurting others.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"Rivergallery" wrote:

WWJD?.... Really?
Matt 21:12 - he not only incited violence both as a man and GOD in the OT, and new.. might want to Read REVELATION ALSO.. But here he WAS violent. Violence is not always evil ;).

Jesus is not a figure in the old testament, and in the verse you quote, he doesn't tell anyone to hurt the money changers or kill the dove sellers, nor does he do those things himself, he just knocks over their tables and drives them out of the temple.

We could probably have an entire separate debate on the book of revelation. My opinion is that Jesus is not the violent one in that book; God is. The first verse says that the revelation was given to Jesus by God; it's God's story, Jesus is the one telling it.

And violence is always, always evil. Sometimes a necessary evil, but always evil.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

he did it all without touching them and he asked them nicely and they left?
Revelation is told by John, not Jesus. Jesus is the WORD, and Jesus is God.

ETA- Your view is that God is Violent..... All Violence is Evil.. Thus by your own admission or beliefs God is Evil.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

Just one of the many reasons why I don't believe in any of it.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Spacers" wrote:

Just one of the many reasons why I don't believe in any of it.

Long as I understand your view.

boilermaker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

I'm no Biblical scholar-- but isn't Jesus called the Prince of Peace for a reason? I'm the first to admit that I've not thoroughly read the Bible, but my understanding was that Jesus as peaceful and peace loving.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 15 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"boilermaker" wrote:

I'm no Biblical scholar-- but isn't Jesus called the Prince of Peace for a reason? I'm the first to admit that I've not thoroughly read the Bible, but my understanding was that Jesus as peaceful and peace loving.

I believe that he is peaceful, however, he did not and would not take just anything. It angered him that people were misusing the Temple.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

Jesus is peaceful and loving, but he is also clear that love must include following his teachings.

Matthew 10
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

Matthew 7
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

John 14
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"boilermaker" wrote:

I'm no Biblical scholar-- but isn't Jesus called the Prince of Peace for a reason? I'm the first to admit that I've not thoroughly read the Bible, but my understanding was that Jesus as peaceful and peace loving.

1- It is ok that you aren't but next time you might not want to invoke a religious character that you don't know enough about. Jesus is God. Jesus/God will force Peace. He is also JUST and right, and Peace isn't always right. He is not a one sided character. He does love peace, but I would not call him a pacifist at all. He is very active in promoting and guiding us to what is right. Sometimes that may be seen as violent. That is why I said VIOLENCE isn't always evil. An only peaceful person would never go against the law of the day and go into a place of worship throwing over tables and forcing people out. A Just and righteous person might Wink

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

She said she isn't a Biblical scholar. She never said she didn't know enough about Jesus or God. She might not I don't know but I know I don't consider not being a Biblical scholar as not knowing Jesus.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"Rivergallery" wrote:

1- It is ok that you aren't but next time you might not want to invoke a religious character that you don't know enough about. Jesus is God. Jesus/God will force Peace. He is also JUST and right, and Peace isn't always right. He is not a one sided character. He does love peace, but I would not call him a pacifist at all. He is very active in promoting and guiding us to what is right. Sometimes that may be seen as violent. That is why I said VIOLENCE isn't always evil. An only peaceful person would never go against the law of the day and go into a place of worship throwing over tables and forcing people out. A Just and righteous person might Wink

Yelling & throwing things around is a far different kind of violence than hurting or killing someone. You still haven't shown me where in the bible does Jesus personally advocate hurting or killing other people.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Spacers" wrote:

Yelling & throwing things around is a far different kind of violence than hurting or killing someone. You still haven't shown me where in the bible does Jesus personally advocate hurting or killing other people.

Did you or did you not say all violence is evil? Thought we already agreed on where we stood.