← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 5225 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2003-02-26
2003-02-26 03:54 | User Profile
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 =96 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.
If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.
Related stories:
Punishment includes Islam indoctrination
The Bible as 'hate literature'?
Freedom of conscience debated in Ontario
Man appeals fine for rejecting 'gay' client
Art Moore is a news editor with WorldNetDaily.com.
2003-02-28 18:45 | User Profile
Leviticus being an Old Testament book it is somewhat underhanded the way this article couples it with the word Christian repeatedly. I didn't see the Old Testament mentioned at all -- altho I only skimmed the article. It is my understanding that all the old nasty taboos from the OT are outdated for the neo-Jews of the Christian dispensation.
2003-03-01 11:35 | User Profile
Old news, this.
Tony Benn, the UK pinko, used to quote the Sermon on the Mount to shame Brit industrial managers. Out of context, they screamed! Which was correct, actually.
Such things as Leviticus and the words of Jesus are part of a whole. Old Tony was wrong to carry on as if the Sermon on the Mount was the whole NT; the bumper-sticker crowd should realize Leviticus works much the same way. Shaving off a bit here and there and throwing it in someone's face is wrong whether from the left, right or anywhere.
2003-03-02 05:23 | User Profile
**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." **
You gotta love how the analogy drawn is ALWAYS to the Koran....never ever ever the Talmud.
"Judaeo-Christianity": what is it good for, anyway, but the proliferation of Jewish "Christians" ?
2003-03-02 15:46 | User Profile
A reference to the Talmud would leave most of the public wondering what you're talking about. Most people ignorantly think that the Old Testament is the Jewish Bible.
2003-03-02 17:23 | User Profile
The cryptoTalmud: who ever sees a copy? I see Korans around, finger through them sometimes, but who the hell ever even handles Talmud copy? It is a cryptodocument. It's publication is guarded. You will never see Talmud-Consciousness devotees hawking copies at the international airport!
2003-03-02 18:23 | User Profile
Interesting that all references to and attacks on people over this biblical teaching being analogus to hate speech stuff, are only directed at WASPS. As is all this fallacious "separation of church as state" garbage.
You will never see the left or the radical Homo crowd going after the gaudy displays of faith during "day of the dead" or other significant catholic days of observance when the Mexicans march all over downtown with their statues of the virgin mother or while performing self-flagellation. Nor is there any problem forcing children in schools to study the Koran, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Druid sacrifice for that matter. But don't break out that Bible.
I guess religion is only a threat when practiced by white Americans.
2005-05-16 07:46 | User Profile
I am still in school, and yet, I appear to have a greater understanding than any one else who has posted... The Old Testament is part of the bible, all scripture is God Breathed, and if you say otherwise than you might want to get your head checked. The koran, of course is delusional, and hogwash, how can a book be more blanatantly wrong and contradictory! I can not understand why so many people down play the bible! I will tell you all the real reason why people are against anything biblical... It is because they are afraid! There is power in the bible, and they don't like it one little bit. That is why the bible is no longer allowed in most schools, and why freedom of speech has gone out the window. I have seen many things, but you people need to seriously think about having your head screwed back on! And Muslims are violent, The koran is split up into to segments, the pre-Medina, Medina, the Mecca and the post-Mecca... These were two towns... does anyone know what happened? Medina was the first stop for Muhummad, he walks in, and after a while gets kicked out for his beliefs... he goes to the next town, preaches, gains popularity, walks back with an army and wipes out Medina! Open your eyes people, if they can't talk to you peacefully then they'll blow your heads off. There is no such thing as a "multi cultural" soceity. For one, it goes against the bible and Chrisitianity... seeing as there is only one true God, and other religions will openly try to take over... In a recent UN conference, they came to the conclusion that CHRISTIANITY was the only group that was not openly harrasing and attacking any other religious group! Buddhism doesn't like Hindus, Hindu's don't like Buddhists, Christianity is seeking to spread the good news without persecution, Muslims hate everyother religion... and there were many more.... BUT CHRISITIANITY WAS THE ONLY ONE NOT PERSECUTING ANYONE ELSE AND YET STILL IS THE MOST PERSECUTED RELIGION! DOES THAT TELL YOU SOMETHING!!! I hope I've got your brains switched on now, the bible is 100% true, I can prove it, and you all are prob. 50 years older than me and I can still teach you about faith, and prove to you why you are going to hell unless your Christian. Homosexuality is wrong, and any Christian who says otherwise needs to have their head screwed back on, and sit down and read the bible! The bible is clearly against it, and if the old testament is supposedly out of date, than we can throw out the new testament as well because many of the apostles qouted both the old and the new in the exact same breathe!
2005-05-16 11:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]The cryptoTalmud: who ever sees a copy? I see Korans around, finger through them sometimes, but who the hell ever even handles Talmud copy? It is a cryptodocument. It's publication is guarded. You will never see Talmud-Consciousness devotees hawking copies at the international airport![/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm[/url]
2005-05-16 16:50 | User Profile
The only reason the Old Testament was included in the Bible was to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. There was a great debate over whether it should be included.It does not need to be in the Bible to be wrong (although it is in the New Testament, see Galatians). Tradition condemns it. it is unnatural and all normal people have a natural reaction to it that can best be described as revulsion.
2005-05-16 17:59 | User Profile
Revolution? why be "disgusted"? remember that what they are to you you are to them and as long as you fight as to who is right and who is wrong there will be no peace.
As you know the Christians in the name of religion have killed more people than all the wars that we have had to date.
I have no religion and as long as you don't try to hurt me with your religion I am willing to be your friend.
2005-05-16 19:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=random]The only reason the Old Testament was included in the Bible was to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. There was a great debate over whether it should be included.It does not need to be in the Bible to be wrong (although it is in the New Testament, see Galatians). Tradition condemns it. it is unnatural and all normal people have a natural reaction to it that can best be described as revulsion.[/QUOTE]
There has never been a debate among godly people about whether the OT should be in the Bible. It is God-breathed scripture, just the same as the NT. The NT writers frequently reference the OT and draw lessons from the OT. Jesus didn't do away with one word of the OT.
2005-05-17 00:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]There has never been a debate among godly people about whether the OT should be in the Bible. It is God-breathed scripture, just the same as the NT. The NT writers frequently reference the OT and draw lessons from the OT. Jesus didn't do away with one word of the OT.[/QUOTE] If I'm not mistaken, there is still disagreement among Christians to this very day about whether certain books -- the Apocrypha -- should be considered inspired.
In the end, who decides whether a given book is divinely-inspired? Human beings. Weren't the books of the Bible were chosen by vote by agents of Emperor Constantine? How do we know they weren't just a bunch of buffoons?
To trust in the Bible is to trust in human beings who are supposedly middlemen for God. It's putting your mind in the hands of other mortals. No amount of Bible-quoting or religious sermonizing can ever, ever change that fact.
My thoughts on God are straightforward: if God wants to communicate something to me, then He is more than capable of doing that Himself, without any help from any mortal man. Since nothing God does requires any effort at all on His part, He has no need of servants. When ancient men say they spoke to God, I believe them about as much as I believe modern men (e.g., Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson) who tell me they spoke to God. Why should whether the claim was made 2000 years ago or today play any role in its plausibility?
2005-05-17 07:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]If I'm not mistaken, there is still disagreement among Christians to this very day about whether certain books -- the Apocrypha -- should be considered inspired.
Yes. You could add James and Jude to that list, as well.
In the end, who decides whether a given book is divinely-inspired? Human beings. Weren't the books of the Bible were chosen by vote by agents of Emperor Constantine? How do we know they weren't just a bunch of buffoons?
I don't think agents is the proper term. Constantine brought together the various leaders of the early church and what was hammered out over time was a formalization of doctrine and canon that was practiced and believed in continuity by the earliest Christian Churches. Most of that process was driven in reaction to various heresies that were cropping up here and there and threatening the one, true faith. I don't think it's unfair to say that what we now define as orthodox Christian doctrine is greatly due to ancient heresies. The same old discredited heresies that continue to pop-up in differing disguises to this very day.
To trust in the Bible is to trust in human beings who are supposedly middlemen for God. It's putting your mind in the hands of other mortals. No amount of Bible-quoting or religious sermonizing can ever, ever change that fact.
Men are fallible, certainly. But what we have today in our Bibles is more than sufficient for true faith and knowledge in our one true saviour, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
if God wants to communicate something to me, then He is more than capable of doing that Himself, without any help from any mortal man.
That is true.
Since nothing God does requires any effort at all on His part, He has no need of servants.
That may well be so, but it is not what the Scriptures tell us. St. Paul writes in Romans 10:
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
Indeed, God has chosen to communicate to us via Word and Sacrament. This is the basic function of the Christian Church, the bride of Christ.
When ancient men say they spoke to God, I believe them about as much as I believe modern men (e.g., Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson) who tell me they spoke to God. Why should whether the claim was made 2000 years ago or today play any role in its plausibility?[/QUOTE]
Christ walked out of his own tomb. That's the bottom line money-maker.
2005-05-17 14:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jeffersonian]
I guess religion is only a threat when practiced by white Americans.[/QUOTE]That does seem to be the case.
Christianity is the only faith that really counts. Evil people are threatened by the Truth; they are not afraid of other beliefs. Hence the enormous backlash of Christian doctrine/principles.
2005-05-17 15:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce] As you know the Christians in the name of religion have killed more people than all the wars that we have had to date.[/QUOTE] Ponce, please don't make assertions that are patently and demonstrably false. Stalin, to cite one example, caused the deaths of more Christians than Christians have caused in all of recorded history. Please keep your tired canards to yourself.