Legal Opinion Submitted by Advocates International

In the Court of Appeals for Göta Hovrätt

Case # B 1987-04 

Re: Ake Green

Advocates International is a global network linking 30,000 lawyers, judges and national leaders committed to human rights and religious freedom in over 120 nations.  The freedom of conscience and expression are at the core of its mission.  The network includes law professionals from all Christian traditions, including Protestant, Evangelical, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Since 1991 it has advocated equal protection under law for all religious groups including Muslims and Evangelicals in Greece, Roman Catholics and Protestants in China, Eastern Orthodox in Turkey, Jews in Russia, Messianic Jews in Israel, Evangelicals in Bulgaria and Pakistan, Baptists in Portugal, and Pentecostals in France and Greece. Its philosophical cornerstone is Jesus’ statement: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

Advocates International considers the prosecution, trial, conviction and sentencing of Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green to be one of the greatest threats to the freedom of religious expression of any current case in the world because it has happened in Sweden, which has a longstanding tradition of guaranteeing freedom of conscience and other fundamental rights.  The eyes of the world are on Sweden.   If Sweden sentences pastors to prison for preaching unpopular sermons from their pulpits, then other nations with less refined commitments to human rights will not hesitate to do likewise on different topics that may be unpopular within their societies.     

At his church court trial in 1521 at the Diet of Worms, the reformer Martin Luther declared that he was bound in conscience to the Bible and that “it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.” Unfortunately Pentecostal pastors in Sweden can no longer preach their conscience as to what they believe the Bible teaches about sexual morality, family values and public health without going to prison for “inciting hatred” because the sermon may offend outsiders.

The price society pays for the freedom of religious expression is that someone may be offended by the views expressed.  Justice Robert Jackson, the Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials after World War II, wrote in a United States Supreme Court decision  dismissing a criminal fraud charge against a phony faith healer: “Freedom means we must put up with a good deal of rubbish.”   Some may consider Pastor Green’s sermon rubbish.  It is nevertheless protected rubbish. 

The decision by the District Court of Kalmar in this case violates Pastor Ake Green’s fundamental rights guaranteed by Sweden’s Constitution, as well as by all relevant international human rights conventions Sweden has ratified since 1948.   The District Court opinion should be reversed. 

1. The District Court Decision Violates the Letter and the Spirit of Universal and European Conventions on Fundamental Rights Ratified by Sweden.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“Universal Declaration”) provides:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes the freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public and private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance (emphasis added).

The European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“Convention”) contains several provisions addressing rights of conscience, including freedom of expression, freedom of association, rights relating to nondiscrimination, and parental rights pertaining to religious education of children. Within the Convention the most important provision guaranteeing rights of conscience is Article 9, drawn almost verbatim from the language in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration:

1.      Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance (emphasis added).

2.      Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

While the first section of Article 9 spells out the rights that the Convention guarantees, the second section specifies the limited circumstances under which governments may limit the freedom to manifest those rights.

Article 10 of the European Convention guarantees freedom of expression:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority (emphasis added).

Similar guarantees are found in other international conventions embraced by Sweden including:  a) Basket I Section VII of the Helsinki Final Act (1975);   b) Madrid Concluding Document (1983);  c) Vienna Concluding Document (1989), Sections 11 and 16;  and d) Copenhagen Concluding Document (1991) Sections 9.1 and 9.4.  

Sweden and its courts should abide by both the letter and the spirit of all relevant international conventions to which it is a party.  The District Court failed to do so in this case.

2. The Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Religion and Belief Without the
   Freedom to Express Those Beliefs is a Meaningless and Worthless Freedom.

The freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief guaranteed under Sweden’s Constitution and the aforementioned international Conventions ratified by Sweden include the freedom to teach those beliefs.  Freedom of thought without the freedom to express and teach those beliefs is a mirage lacking any meaningful substance. As a practical matter, freedom is sheer fantasy if the State declares that citizens are free to think religious thoughts but will go to prison if those thoughts are taught from the pulpit.

3. The Decision by the District Court to Sentence Pastor Green to  Prison For
   Preaching an Unpopular Sermon Sets a Dangerous Precedent Globally

Law now operates in a global village.  When Sweden sends a pastor to prison for preaching a sermon he or she believes is the biblical view on an issue, it creates dangerous ripples around the globe. All societies have their unpopular groups and offensive religious ideas.  In China, pastors go to prison for preaching the second coming of Jesus Christ in violation of government policies. Apparently, Communist atheists are offended.  In Pakistan, Christians are sentenced to death under the 1987 Blasphemy Law for alleged comments that Muslims find offensive.  There is little practical difference between those cases and Pastor Green’s.   

The harm in prosecuting and sentencing Pastor Green to prison is not limited to the chilling effect on the freedom of expression felt by clergy in Sweden who may feel restrained from speaking on controversial topics for fear that they may be prosecuted.  The greater harm is global.  Sweden has an excellent human rights reputation.  When Sweden spurns the guarantees of the conventions to which it is a party, other nations will not hesitate to do the same and point to Sweden as their model.

4.  Secular Courts are not Competent to Function as Sermon Review Boards

When courts act as Sermon Review Boards, they are on a slippery slope.  Secular courts must steer clear of reviewing any sermons, especially those on controversial moral topics, because sermons are inevitably, inextricably intertwined with moral, doctrinal, spiritual, ecclesiastical, and theological dimensions flavored by secular social, political and legal issues. 

For example, a trial judge from a Jewish background may be offended by a sermon by an evangelist, such as Billy Graham, that declares what many may consider to be narrow-minded, mean-spirited or even anti-Semitic views because of claims that Jews and others who reject Jesus as Messiah will go to hell.  Likewise, a judge from a Roman Catholic tradition may be ill equipped to review a Friday sermon in a Swedish mosque by an imam who quotes verses in the Koran calling for death to all infidels.   If Pastor Green goes to prison for preaching a sermon on his biblical view of homosexuality, Sweden’s prosecutors should not turn a deaf ear on hell-fire sermons by evangelists that may offend Jews or imam’s sermons declaring that infidels in Sweden or elsewhere should be killed, a view that offends Lutherans.  By definition, “selective” prosecution of one religious group while ignoring others is the classical case of religious persecution.  

The opinion of the District Court in Kalmar demonstrates the dangerous slippery slope facing courts when they act as Sermon Review Boards.  Consider four examples from the opinion:

a) “A person may not hide behind biblical quotations in order to convey his/her opinions about a certain people group.”  

In writing briefs and opinions, lawyers and judges cite quotations from court cases, statutes and treatises in their analysis and advocacy.  They are not hiding behind anything.  Likewise, pastors, priests and rabbis use Bible verses to support their points. For most pastors, the Bible is their Law Book and Constitution.  Among the 31,173 verses in the 66 “books” of the Bible there is very strong language against adultery, divorce, sexual promiscuity and homosexuality.  In his sermon on homosexuality, Pastor Green referenced 65 verses from 13 books as his authority.  He was not hiding behind biblical quotations but citing Bible verses as his authority like lawyers do when they cite cases.  Under international conventions and the Swedish Constitution, Pastor Green has the right to quote the Bible as much or as little as he chooses. He does not have to conform his preaching to contemporary values on sexual morality promoted by Hollywood’s worldview. 

b)      “The rights of homosexuals as a group…are worthy of greater protection than is Ake Green, who in the name of religion … caused the infringement.”

The notion that one group deserves greater protection and is to be preferred over another is the antithesis of human rights jurisprudence. “Equal justice under law” is the guiding star.  The only person in Sweden who will lose his liberty for expressing his view on sexual morality is Pastor Green.  The only persecuted group is Pentecostals who embrace an unpopular view.  No homosexual is going to prison for his speech or values that may offend Pentecostals and others.  Pentecostals should enjoy no less protection to express their beliefs than homosexuals.

c)       “His sermon was intentionally designed to clearly show disrespect for people on the grounds of their sexual orientation.” 

Pastor Green has been convicted of “inciting hatred.”  Who did he incite?  The Sunday sermon was preached to the faithful in Pastor Green’s small church. Where is the evidence that any member of his congregation did anything “hateful” toward anyone after the sermon?   The sermon focused on personal sexual conduct and biblical values.  It did not attack anyone by name. The focus was on the moral, spiritual, social and physical consequences of rejecting biblical standards. “Inciting hatred” has to bear fruit.  Without fruit, there can be no crime!

At the end of his sermon, Pastor Green said: “We cannot condemn these people – Jesus never did that either. He showed everyone He met deep respect for the person they were… Jesus never belittled anyone.  He offered them grace.  We must never belittle anyone who lives in sin.  The sin we cannot bear – but the human being we must hold up.”

Pastor Green did not declare war on homosexuals. He did not “incite” his audience to “hatred.”   In fact, he did not even “belittle” or “condemn” them.  At worst, he felt sorry for them.  To hate the sin but love the sinner is axiomatic to Christianity.  Pastor Green did that. 

When secular trial courts serve as Sermon Review Boards they enter dangerous territory.  As a rule, judges have no seminary training and therefore lack the professional skills needed to judge sermons. Moreover, like everyone else, judges bring their own personal biases to the bench as to what is “good” or “bad” in any given religion. 

Pastors and churches are not perfect.  Pastor Green’s sermon may not have been as sophisticated as those given by “high church” clergy.  But whether the sermon is “high church,” “low church” or no church, the freedom of expression of sincerely held religious beliefs must extend to all equally.

d)  “Ake Green is guilty of persecution of a people group.” 

By definition, persecution requires loss of life, limb, liberty or property. Mere words in a sermon are not “persecution” even if people are offended. Even children learn the lines attributed to Shakespeare: “Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.”  

Conclusion

For the first time in world history, a pastor has been sentenced to prison for preaching a sermon on sexual morality as he understands the biblical position.  In the global village of our 21^st Century world, sentencing a pastor to prison for a Sunday morning sermon at a small church in a village in Sweden can become a global precedent.  British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said, “Justice is truth in action.”  The greatest casualty in this case has been Truth and the freedom of pastors to express Truth as they understand it.   

Justice requires that Sweden not sacrifice freedom of expression on the altar of political correctness. The world’s eyes are on Sweden as it acts in defense of the rights guaranteed to all its citizens, including Pentecostal pastors whose sermons may be unpopular and even offensive to some.

We respectfully request that the Court of Appeals vacate the decision of the Kalmar District Court and restore to Pastor Ake Green all the freedoms guaranteed to him as a citizen of Sweden.

Respectfully submitted,

Samuel E. Ericsson

Founder & President

Advocates International

9691D Main Street

Fairfax, VA 22031

Phone: 703.764.0011   Fax: 703.764.0077

sericsson@advocatesinternational.org

www.advocatesinternational.org