|
|
|
 The Becket Fund on Ake Green in Varlden Idag, December 17, 2004Analysis / comments by:
Jared N. Leland, Esq.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty*
*The Becket Fund is an international, interfaith, public interest law firm in the United States dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. As an NGO, The Becket Fund is in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.
The fundamental right to manifest religious belief through prayer, practice, and teaching is indispensable in a free society. This right is recognized and protected by international covenants such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights to name a few. It guarantees all human beings the freedom to listen to our thoughts and to follow our consciences. Ultimately, it is this right that promotes the pursuit of truth about God, about religion, about ultimate questions such as ‘What is the meaning of life?’ Any sincerely held religious belief—whether politically or socially correct, whether wisdom or nonsense—must be respected and protected at all costs.
The case of Ake Green—the Swedish pastor sentenced to one-month imprisonment for preaching that homosexual conduct is immoral—demonstrates how vulnerable this right is in today’s society.
Sermons concerning the immorality of homosexuality are uncomfortable to some and rather offensive to others. This is particularly true in Sweden where the rights and reputation of the gay community are currently at issue. But the concern to be addressed in the case of Ake Green’s sermon is not whether homosexuals are entitled to the same rights, benefits, and privileges as heterosexuals. That’s for the people to decide. The real question before the Swedish domestic courts—and, perhaps eventually, an international tribunal such as the European Court of Human Rights or the Human Rights Commission—is whether the State can punish a religious minister for a religious message that does not threaten the public order.
To deny a religious institution the right to develop and disseminate its own doctrine is to deny the institution its very reason for existence. What good is a religious tradition without a voice? How effective and influential can an institution be without the right to freely formulate and communicate the beliefs and convictions of that particular religion? A muted or silenced religious group is not free. To muzzle any preacher or to mute any religious message simply because it’s not agreeable with a social trend is a fundamental mistake concerning a fundamental right. The issue is not homosexuality. The issue is religious liberty. Fight to preserve it.Relevant Cases
|
|
|
|
|
|
