Denmark sermons law could stifle free worship, warns Church of England bishop – Robert Innes says proposed translation law could affect religious freedoms across Europe

Can't you just see the fallout of how impractical this suggestion is?

First: it cannot be that the translations be done by the suspect organizations, because that would assume that the translation is accurate and faithful to the untranslated sermons. Therefore, the onus is on the suspecting organizations (government) to do the translating, for them to be sure about the accuracy. But, in that case, the suspect orgs also need to review the translations, to ensure the translation is faithful, and does not misrepresent or alter what was actually said. So then it comes down to two parties with potentially opposing interests coming to agreement over matters of translation. Religious organizations would be at the mercy of the government translators.

Second: As mentioned in the article, it is often the case that the words actually spoken in a sermon are not, word for word, letter for letter, written down in any document, whether ahead of time, or after the fact. I imagine that preachers very often paraphrase, or add peripheral comments, or go off on tangents compared to their pre-prepared notes. Furthermore, many skilled, experienced preachers do not write anything down ahead of time, but have an outline of their sermon in their head, and speak impromptu. The only way to get an accurate translation, then, is to have the sermon transcribed during or after delivery. But that would mean that determination of whether a given sermon transgresses any laws would be done after it is given.

It seems more sensible that, if any government org or individual suspects a given church, mosque or temple of doing something wrong, let them send someone to actually attend the church and listen to and record the preacher. Let the specific, particular cases (sermons) be investigated and tested.