The bible can be viewed as hate literature.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Bible verses regarded as hate literature Court rules Scripture exposed homosexuals to ridicule -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: February 18, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Art Moore © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com Certain passages of the Bible can be construed as hate literature if placed in a particular context, according to a Canadian provincial court. The Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001 ruling by the province's human rights tribunal that fined a man for submitting a newspaper ad that included citations of four Bible verses that address homosexuality. Ad placed by Christian corrections officer in Saskatoon, Canada, newspaper A columnist noted in the Edmonton Journal last week that the Dec. 11 ruling generated virtually no news stories and "not a single editorial." Imagine "the hand-wringing if ever a federal court labeled the Quran hate literature and forced a devout Muslim to pay a fine for printing some of his book's more astringent passages in an ad in a daily newspaper," wrote Lorne Gunter in the Edmonton, Alberta, daily. Under Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code, Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan, was found guilty along with the newspaper, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, of inciting hatred and was forced to pay damages of 1,500 Canadian dollars to each of the three homosexual men who filed the complaint. The rights code allows for expression of honestly held beliefs, but the commission ruled that the code can place "reasonable restriction" on Owen's religious expression, because the ad exposed the complainants "to hatred, ridicule, and their dignity was affronted on the basis of their sexual orientation." The ad's theme was that the Bible says no to homosexual behavior. It listed the references to four Bible passages, Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 on the left side. An equal sign was placed between the verse references and a drawing of two males holding hands overlaid with the universal nullification symbol – a red circle with a diagonal bar. Owens, an evangelical Christian and corrections officer, said his ad was "a Christian response" to Homosexual Pride Week. "I put the biblical references, but not the actual verses, so the ad would become interactive," he told the National Catholic Register after the 2001 ruling. "I figured somebody would have to look them up in the Bible first, or if they didn't have a Bible, they'd have to find one." Leviticus 20:13, says, according to the New International Version, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." "Owens denies that, as a Christian, he wants homosexuals put to death, as some inferred from the biblical passages," the Catholic paper said. He believes, however, that "eternal salvation is at stake," both for those engaging in homosexual acts and for himself, if he fails to inform them about "what God says about their behavior." Exposure to hatred Justice J. Barclay wrote in his opinion that the human-rights panel "was correct in concluding that the advertisement can objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule." "When the use of the circle and slash is combined with the passages of the Bible, it exposes homosexuals to detestation, vilification and disgrace," Barclay said. "In other words, the biblical passage which suggests that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred." In the 2001 ruling, Saskatchewan Human Rights Board of Inquiry commissioner Valerie Watson emphasized that the panel was not banning parts of the Bible. She wrote that the offense was the combination of the symbol and the biblical references. Owens, in fact, published an ad in 2001, without complaint, that quoted the full text of the passages he cited in the offending 1997 ad. But the Canadian Civil Liberties Association sides with Christian groups that criticize the panel for stifling free speech. Opponents of the ruling say it illustrates the dangers of a bill currently in Parliament that would add "sexual orientation" as a protected category in Canada's genocide and hate crimes legislation. That legislation would make criminals of people like Owens and others who have been charged under provincial human rights panels, they argue. Two years ago, the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocacy group. Brockie argued that his Christian beliefs compelled him to reject the group's request. In 1998, an Ontario man was convicted of hate crimes for an incident in which he distributed pamphlets about Islam outside a high school. In one of the pamphlets, defendant Mark Harding listed atrocities committed in the name of Islam in foreign lands to back his assertion that Canadians should be wary of local Muslims. Janet Epp Buckingham, legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, says cases like this are worrisome precedents that an expanded hate law could build upon, reported the Hamilton, Ontario, Spectator newspaper. "Mark Harding really went overboard," Epp Buckingham said. "He said some quite nasty things about Muslims – that they are really violent overseas and that Muslims in Canada are the same and people need to be careful of them. "But the court almost ignored the religious exemption," she said. "Harding himself said he wasn't trying to incite violence against Muslims. But the court said he did promote violence and hatred against Muslims and therefore the exemption doesn't apply, that it was not a good faith expression of religion." She said that, at the very least, Bill C-250 could place a significant chill over the Christian community and, at worst, it could cause undue restrictions on religious expression. Link: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=31080 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you all think about the article??

Given that this is from Romans :

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things

and this is from Leviticus 18:22:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

and this from Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

and this from Corinthians 6:9-10

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

All of it sounds pretty hatefull , but does it encourage hatred and predjudice against homosexuals? Does something like this being posted in a local paper qualify as true "hate speech' or is it all taken out of context? Should the people in the article have won their case and had this labeled as hate speech or was it all just blown out of proportion?

[ 02-21-2003, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: The Hunter of Jahanna ]

[arion windrider]

i think its being blown out of proportion....

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Egads! Let's see if I can hold this grenade in one hand and type with the other. [img]graemlins/uhoh1.gif[/img]

Do I agree with the article - No, I don't. If Canada promotes Free Speech, then a Christian should have a right to express thier views in a paid advertisement. I do not think "combining the scripture verses with the No Homosexuality Sign" equals detestation. Anyone who looked the scriptures up will be able to see what they say.

On the flip side of that. Do I believe the scriptures quoted can "encourae hatred and prejudice". Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that it can. Many Christians DO take an "over the top" view of homosexuality because the Bible speaks against it. There is no reason to list specific examples...it is enough to know that they do exist. It is also important to note that this is NOT the case with the majority of Christians. The official position of the Southern Baptist Association is that homosexuality is a sin - just like every other sin in the Bible. But it is no greater or less than any other sin committed by any other person - including Christians. We all sin in God's eyes, and in God's eyes, all sins are equal.

Still, I can't help but feel there is a double standard at work here. A Christian printer was fined because he refused to print letterhead for a gay organization. So the gov't is telling him he does not have a right to turn away customers based on his religious morals. However, it would be interesting to see how they ruled if a homosexual printer refused to print letterhead for a local church. My guess is that the printer would win in this case because the court would say he can't be "forced" to comprimise his principles.

[ 02-22-2003, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

[Chewbacca]

I think it is wise draw clear lines for all religions about just how far they can go when subjecting others to thier beliefs, particularly if the written belief would inspire harm upon another, which obviously the aforemention bible verse do. We all know what religious extremism and bigotry can lead too.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Still, I can't help but feel there is a double standard at work here. A Christian printer was fined because he refused to print letterhead for a gay organization. So the gov't is telling him he does not have a right to turn away customers based on his religious morals. However, it would be interesting to see how they ruled if a homosexual printer refused to print letterhead for a local church. My guess is that the printer would win in this case because the court would say he can't be "forced" to comprimise his principles.

I don't think so, Cerek. The guy refused to put up their add because they where homosexual. Not because of the message.

If the message was something like: "Come join us in our monthly gathering!" Then, there was no reason to refuse it, it's only based on the person's sexal orientation.

Someone refusing to put up a church add because he is not religious would be in the same trouble than the guy in the first example, if it was a similar message.

But your example is very bad. Why would an Homosxual editor refuse to print a regular christian message? Or are you implying that all homosexual are all anti-christianism?

[Yorick]

So we grow closer to the era of thoughtcrime.

BTW, we have homosexuals as members of our church. And yes they read the same bible that this court deemed incites ridicule.

It's starts us down a road towards banning religion. Ban their books, ban the thinking and expression of their ideas. Ban religion.

Unbelievable, but not unexpected.

I wonder if people that love money, atheists, murderers, adulterers, rich people or ultra-religious people could all take lawsuits against bible publishers based on this precedent. Surely the bible incites ridicule of these such people more than homosexuals.

Where do we stop?

[Olorin]

Originally posted by Luvian: Quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Still, I can't help but feel there is a double standard at work here. A Christian printer was fined because he refused to print letterhead for a gay organization. So the gov't is telling him he does not have a right to turn away customers based on his religious morals. However, it would be interesting to see how they ruled if a homosexual printer refused to print letterhead for a local church. My guess is that the printer would win in this case because the court would say he can't be "forced" to comprimise his principles.

I don't think so, Cerek. The guy refused to put up their add because they where homosexual. Not because of the message.

If the message was something like: "Come join us in our monthly gathering!" Then, there was no reason to refuse it, it's only based on the person's sexal orientation.

Someone refusing to put up a church add because he is not religious would be in the same trouble than the guy in the first example, if it was a similar message.

But your example is very bad. Why would an Homosxual editor refuse to print a regular christian message? Or are you implying that all homosexual are all anti-christianism?[/QUOTE]I think he was just trying to try to turn it around, not imply that all homosexuals are anti-christian (just as all christians are not anti-homosexual)

Most christian printers wouldn't refuse to print letterhead for homosexuals, but at least one did. You could imagine the reverse happening if a particular homosexual had bad experiences with local churches and refused to take their business.

Personally, I think that homosexuality is a sin, but so are lots of other things. I don't think it's any worse that other sins, and I am appalled when I see christians who refuse to accept a homosexual into their church, but have no problem with people who lie, commit adultery, cheat, steal, etc. It is the worst type of double standard, and also hypocritical, since they themselves commit sin.

There are plenty of things that most churches seem to ignore like Jesus's messages prohibiting remarriage after divorce (see Matthew 19:1-10, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, I Corinthians 7:10-17).

The church I grew up in had several members who remarried after being divorced, and I never heard a word about it. Why should it be any different for someone who is homosexual?

In response to the court cases above, I don't think I can agree with the ruling on the newspaper ad. If the courts were okay with printing the full text of the verses one year, but objected to the circle/slash symbol; I don't see the difference. I do agree with the courts in the second case though. Unless this printer refused to print letterheads for anyone who was a sinner (i.e. everyone), it is indefensible to single out homosexuals as somehow more sinful than anyone else. He doesn't even have a good argument for refusing service to them on religious grounds, let alone legal ones. Even if a person belongs to some sect that thinks their salvation is endangered if they have business dealings with homosexuals still does not have the legal right to refuse them service (think about how the court would view someone claiming their sect forbad doing business with a particular ethnic group--they would not be protected by freedom of religion).

[LordKathen]

Well, I think I need to think on this one... [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

[Attalus]

I regard homosexuality as a sin, as sex outside of marriage, but not so great a one as, say, one that involved cruelty to another individual. I think that the printer was wrong not to accept the letterhead, but I feel the courts erred in punishing the man who took out the ad. I'm sorry, but, though "hate speech" is real and hurtful enough, there is still Freedom of Speech to consider, and I do not think any kind of speech should be regulated by the government.

[Stratos]

The Bible was written almost 2000 years ago. Some things were different back then.
If you follow any religious book to the word you will find alot in the world which doesn´t fit into your beliefs.

Practice some Common Sense when reading holy scripts.