Bible verses regarded as hate literature

Remove all ads!

Bible verses regarded as hate literature

This article blew my mind. Any comments?

 

Political correctness -- and an increasingly anti-Christian fervor -- backstops these sorts of things. I guarantee if the fellow had used Koranic verses, no one would have said a word, because that would impinge on his free speech. We now have a system that, instead of learning from past experiences that discrimination against minorities is wrong, has now decided to discriminate against majorities! Brilliant, just brilliant. Makes me wish I could buy my own Caribbean island and get away from it all.

 

I think this here is a matter of context rather than bible verses. Would you have reacted at the sentence if the same things had been written without the Bible references and perhaps using slightly different words? That add *is* a hate add no question about it. The only reason there is a ruckos for it being convicted is because it quoted the bible instead of mr. Bigot himself.
I also do not think anyone would comment if someone had put in an add about the same topic and qouted the koran instead, as much if not more bigotry in that one than in the bible.
I know I find that add offensive and if I had been gay I would have found it even more offensive. I would even had found it threathening considering that in one the bible verses that is being referred to it states that a man that has homosexual sex should be put to death.

[ February 20, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: joacqin ]

 

Mat,

The problem is not the bible quotes, but how they are being (ab)used.

But they're God's word I hear you say.

Well lets examine just a few of the other words from the old testament:

1. Slavery is fine [Leveticus 25:44], even selling your own daughter [Exodus 21:7]
2. Working Sundays (or Fridays I suppose given the time this was written) is punishable by death [Exodus 35:2]
3. You may not approach God's altar if you have poor eyesight! [Leveticus 21:20]
4. It's a sin to have your sideburns trimmed and the sides tidied up. [Leveticus 19:27]
5. You can clearly not play American Football without gloves [Leveticus 11:7-8]
6. I also hope your congregation is small and out of stone if you should happen to swear [Leveticus 24:10]

This is NOT indended to be bashing the Christian faith, but the point is two fold:

The bible can surely be guidance in many respects for many people, and the 10 commandments give clearly good moral guidance for non Christians too. To say that we should live according to the all the old laws is, however, clearly neither practical nor relevant in todays society.

I do not see how the advert, using biblical quotes such as the ones shown, has anything to do with Christianity OR the bible, it has everything to do with "gay bashing".

[ February 20, 2003, 20:30: Message edited by: Viking ]

 

Having now read the article and some related links, I still am not convinced. The ad simply stated his belief that homosexuality is wrong. Any idiot knows that a lot of the punishments the Bible mentions are out of date, but the idea that homosexuality is wrong is still held by the majority of Christian denominations. The author of the ad did not put a little picture of people killing gays, or surround them with crosshairs -- he just had a circle with a line through it. By the logic currently being applied, any sign that has a cigarette that is circled and barred incites people to kill smokers, which we all know is nonsense.

I don't think they should penalize this guy until they have a better causal or logical link between his ad and violence against homosexuals.

 

Yeah, the Judical Branch in the States has very little to do with "Justice".

It has to do with "interpretation". Which is simply "popularity".

Just like it is in the Muslim community, and every other religion. They all have different sects. Which varies from year to year; nation to nation.

Right now, it's popular to be Anti-Catholic. And I can't really say the Roman Catholic Church didn't have it comming for the past 60 or 70 years.

But it'll die back down. Hopefully, with some changes made. All these priests just need some sex kitten wives. Won't really change this generation of child molestors, but it might very well prevent the next generation of them.

 

i don't think the Bible itself is being considered as hate speech, just the context. Heck, if someone is really bound and determined to find discrimination everywhere they look, they could probably find my grocery list to be hate speech!

Last I heard, in the US there had to be physical damages before pain and suffering could be pursued - DMC, Sir Bel, is this still the case? Is this true in Canada as well? If so, there must have been evidence of a direct cause-and-effect. I'd like to know more about what damages were suffered. Math's article is silent on that point.

On the whole, the Bible has more good stuff than bad. For those who believe it's a great guidebook; for those who don't, it's still interesting literature. But who gets to draw the line in determining how much of the literal text an individual adheres to? I can understand the defendant's position that his faith required him to make the sinners aware of [his interpretation of] God's word, but when the audience wasn't receptive did he have the right to continue to pursue the matter directly?

 

I must have missed the turning of the century or something. Since when did it become a hate crime to claim that what someone is doing is wrong? Next thing you know, my supervisor won't be able to order me to follow proper safety procedures (preventing me from injury), as the criticism might make me feel defamed, ridiculed, and ashamed.

Rallymama: most Christians believe that anyone not in Christ is bound for hell. If you care anything for people then it'd be paramount for you to warn them, whether they appreciated it or not. It'd be similar to telling your friend to get off the railroad tracks because a train is coming. Would you just shrug your shoulders and walk away if your friend didn't really want to listen?

Viking: it's true many of the Judaic laws are outdated and not literally applicable today. However, I don't think you can quite equate homosexuality with trimming your sideburns. Notice that two of those verses are New Testament, and clearly state that homosexuality is wrong. And, to open a new can of worms, look at the results of homosexual activity. About 70% of all AIDS cases reported were exposed during homosexual intercourse. That AIDS is strongly associated with homosexuality is undeniable: a look at any gay support page will reveal links to safe sex and AIDS prevention. Just think how much disease reduction we could do simply by making people ashamed of homosexuality....

 

three words: Freedom Of Speech. Yes it might hurt, yes people may feel injured, but still it's his right to publish this add. Just as Neo-nazi's should have the right to publish their articles and muslim-extremists have the right to publish theirs.

This seems far-fetched, but if we can't read what people think, we don't know what they'll do next.

If this man felt that this was the "right" thing to do, we can disagree with him but we can't forbid him to do this. Tolerance doesn't mean adjusting to majority's believes, it means having the right to have your own opinion even if most people disagree!

(still I personally think there are better ways to trie to convince people of their wrongdoings )

 

It seems that the way things are going (in Canada, anyhow) that actual damages do not have to be inflicted and proved before someone is shut down. Going down the slippery slope to Doublethink and the elimination of individual opinions and thought . . .

 

Well if the Christians don't like gay people then they don't like gay people, deal with it, get over it. Its not hate speech, just a dislike of something. Is saying that you dislike the guy down the road hate speech? No. If these people don't like your bible they just don't have to read it or take any notice of it now, do they?

 

That's my question. One individual makes a choice to interpret the Bible in a particular way (or ignore it entirely), but is then involuntarily subjected to preaching from another individual whose interpretation of the same work requires him to save sinners from themselves. Where is the line between well-intentioned intervention and harrassment? Who gets to decide?

 

Capstone, I'm not sure about your number that 70% of AIDS cases are a result of exposure during homosexual intercourse.

According to the CDC, approximately 50% of the 38.6 million people in the world with HIV are women. Now, my understanding of the complaint of HIV/homosexuality is that the primary complaint is there is increased risk involved with anal sex. Putting aside that a lot of straight people also engage in anal sex, it seems that the fact that 50% of HIV cases are women seems to indicate to me that it is unlikely that 70% of AIDS cases were a result of homosexuality. Now, I know your number was "reported" AIDS cases but given those numbers I can't help but wonder at the 70% number. Maybe you meant only in the US? If that's the case the CDC numbers for the US that I see seem to indicate that at most the number will be more like 410-420 k out of about 800k. total of about and that is if you assume all those who were homosexual and injected drugs were exposed from their homosexual activity and you discount their drug use. If you assume drug use was the vehicle of exposure that number drops another 50k. These were the Center for Disease Control numbers, maybe you can make some assumptions about all the unreported causes etc to boost that number but then you're making a fair number of assumptions and this completely discounts the international numbers:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#international

Also, you wrote:

Well, we could say likewise, think about the amount of disease reduction we could achieve by making people ashamed of sex. Or ashamed of drug use. Or ashamed of blood transfusions. From the fact that something can have a negative consequence it doesn't follow that something is of itself wrong. Also, I take it there might be other ways of reducing the spread of HIV without painting a scarlet letter on people.

Edit -- oh, and as to the court's ruling, I find it awful from my point of view but don't have a clue when it comes to Canadian law.

[ February 21, 2003, 22:41: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

@Rallymama: I was a missionary for 2 years, but if someone said "No thanks, no interest" I said "Have a nice day!" and walked away. I never held anyone down and forced them to listen to what I had to say. I think common sense has to carry the day in these situations. An ad does not force anyone to read it or do anything. A person knocking once on your door is not harassment. I know people all have divergent opinions on this sort of thing, but as logical, rational people we can come to a general consensus on where the line between simple talking or preaching and harassment lies.

 

Deparra.

That is intelligent of you. But I would also remind you that there are individuals out there who are not so intelligent.

MY boy, The Body Ventura, summed it up fairly direct.

"Organized religion is for the weak minded."

Now, although that's taken "out of context", it's so applicable to so many things, not just religion. But, in specific, religion.

Heaven's Gate. The Branch Davidians. Extreme Fundamentalist Muslims. Extreme Fundamentalist Roman Catholics. Homophobics.

There are many who have been brainwashed; quite literally. And it follows, generation to generation; each perpetuates the situation. For an elite few, those which evolution has gifted, manage to free themselves. They are the ones that ask "Why?". And they ask that question, in reference to the other 4.5billion people on the planet.

Many of the Jehova's Witnesses that come to my door are not of the elite few. And my job description does not specifically list "Let them get it all out of their system, before you close the door and climb up on the roof with the garden hose."

My point is, you obviously were not brain washed correctly.

 

EJ, for one thing, I'm not a JW. And I don't think that there is any need for anyone to listen to someone on their doorstep for any length of time -- one the other hand, a hose is probably a little extreme, but hey, it could be worse -- it could be a gun.

Faith is not brainwashing, though. That's just a little too simple. I have faith in God, and I express that faith through the religion I believe he created. I am not some moron who was tricked by his parents, however. I am a fully functioning member of society. I hold a job, I contribute to the economy. The idea that I'm just some misguided moron is deeply offensive. And I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant, EJ, but I've come across people who honestly believe I'm some sort of programmed bunny.

[ February 21, 2003, 20:54: Message edited by: Depaara ]

 

Perhaps not a programmed bunny but rather gullible and extraordinary optimistic is what I would say. I do have to admit that I cant understand any thinking human being can just accept any religion, and I am not talking about the concept of god but about taking everything that a lot of loonie bins said a couple of thousand years ago as the absolute truth. I am not a stranger to leap of faiths but that leap must be world breaking in its lenght.
But this is highly off-topic and I apologize in advance.

 

joacqin, to accept religion you must be human..

 

Joaquin, you are entitled to your opinion -- I'm sure people who know me in other contexts have equally poor opinions of me, but it seems to me to be an attitude of extreme hubris to believe that so many people around the world are so gullible and naive. I'd just like everyone to be able to say what they think (as you just did) and not be accused of damaging anyone (which is what happened to the advertiser whose adventure started this thread).