Parts of Bible ruled hate speech in Canada.

February 23, 2003 7:17 PM

Parts of Bible ruled hate speech in Canada.Frankly, I've always found it odd how easily the gay and lesbian community lives with what can best be described as thinly-veiled death threats like in this ad. "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."
posted by skallas (34 comments total)

He could have gotten away with what would have simply been a tasteless, mildly offensive ad if e didn't include the reference to that ever-so-popular Leviticus quote about putting homosexuals to death..
posted by Space Coyote at 7:33 PM on February 23, 2003

Yeah its a worldnetdaily.com article, but I can't find it elsewhere.
posted by skallas at 7:35 PM on February 23, 2003

I guess they've been thumbing through the Skeptic's Annotated Bible
posted by troutfishing at 7:35 PM on February 23, 2003

Technically, the ad you refer to in the FPP does NOT say that. It may reference that quote, but it doesn't state it directly. You say that it IS the ad, but it's not.
posted by Witty at 7:40 PM on February 23, 2003

Just last week they banned the word "gun" from grade school...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:44 PM on February 23, 2003

Who's they? And are you saying that because *someone* didn't like the word gun (a stupid thing) that the people who iddn't like the insinuation in one of the references in this ad is also stupid?
posted by Space Coyote at 7:48 PM on February 23, 2003

Hate speech, my butt. If it's the Bible, it must be true. That Leviticus is right on!

Now, if you'll excuse me, in accordance with Leviticus 15:26, I have to dispose of some furniture. It seems that a woman was a guest in my apartment while she was thoughtlessly menstruating.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:48 PM on February 23, 2003

We just live with it, not easily though as you say. The hypocrisy of using Leviticus verse is so easily pointed out. That book also says that you can be stoned to death for working on the sabbath or wearing two different kinds of fabric. It goes on and on. My stance has always been "If you follow every rule that is listed then you have a right to condemn me. If not then your are just picking and choosing and you're a joke."
posted by bas67 at 7:54 PM on February 23, 2003

Interestingly enough, both "ways" of life and the convictions thereof, revolve around righteouness. Both are integral to their existance, and diametrically opposed. So now that one court has rendered a verdict, I suppose I will wait for another to over turn it.

Hey..any news on the I/P front? I could use another irreconcilable issue.


righteousness

\Right"eous*ness\, n. [AS. rihtw[=i]snes.] 1. The quality or state of being righteous; holiness; purity; uprightness; rectitude.
Note: Righteousness, as used in Scripture and theology, in which it chiefly occurs, is nearly equivalent to holiness, comprehending holy principles and affections of heart, and conformity of life to the divine law.
2. A righteous act, or righteous quality.
All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. --Isa. lxiv. 6.
3. The act or conduct of one who is righteous.
Blessed are they that keep judgment, and he that doeth righteousness at all times. --Ps. cvi. 3.
4. (Theol.) The state of being right with God; justification; the work of Christ, which is the ground of justification.

There are two kinds of Christian righteousness: the one without us, which we have by imputation; the other in us, which consisteth of faith, hope, and charity, and other Christian virtues. --Hooker.

Only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. --Westminster Catechism.

Syn: Uprightness; holiness; godliness; equity; justice; rightfulness; integrity; honesty; faithfulness.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


posted by lampshade at 7:54 PM on February 23, 2003

Hate speech and friendly fire. What a world.
posted by spazzm at 7:56 PM on February 23, 2003

You know they....

[/tinfoil hat]
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:57 PM on February 23, 2003

It just goes to show that context is everything. If it were aimed at a specific person, it could easily be read as a death threat. Since he directed it to a large group of people, calling it hate speech seems apropos given the context. The fact that he happened to use Bible verses to make it seems somewhat beside the point. You could find a quote in the Bible that could be used to threaten just about anybody given a specific context. (e.g. just substitute a picture of Woody Allen for the couple holding hands and Leviticus 20:12 for Leviticus 20:13, an you've got yourself a pretty pointed death threat).
posted by boltman at 8:00 PM on February 23, 2003

Good. I don't know if I would agree with someone who said the bible itself was hate speech, since it was written at such a different time. But I would agree with someone saying that the bible is used to add credibility to hate speech, which it often is. I think that should be the spirit of the ruling, but the linked article is anything but clear on that. (worldnet daily, surprise surprise)
posted by Hildago at 8:28 PM on February 23, 2003

Perhaps the pro-choice movement should place an ad referencing Psalms 137:9

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

There's a quote for every possible cause in the Bible, mostly because the Old Testament is completely and totally insane. Of course, the gentleman who placed that ad would likely argue that the indisputably crazy parts require interpretation, whereas the parts he agrees with do not.
posted by mosch at 8:57 PM on February 23, 2003

This is great. It's hypocracy that in the politically correct world today, kids are still taught in schools that it's valid to see Leviticus as the fundamental truth in the universe. Personally I think "hate speech" should be allowed in the right place, but while it isn't, I'm glad some authorities are using an even hand.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 1:33 AM on February 24, 2003

Yeah its a worldnetdaily.com article, but I can't find it elsewhere.

Erm, try here
posted by qwerty155 at 4:28 AM on February 24, 2003

From the article: 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...

This would never happen. The Muslim would be dragged out into the street and lynched, then he would be sent to Guantanamo.

Had thought about posting this article about British citizens facing extradition for European "xenophobia and racism" laws, but saw there was already something about thought crime today.
posted by son_of_minya at 5:22 AM on February 24, 2003

In Christianity, many old testament ideas are tempered by a new message of kindness and love. Christ even specifically states at one point that it is kindness that he wants, not the animal sacrifices that are described in detail in the old testament. In other words, above all, being nice is the goal, not following a bunch of arbitrary rules from the past. And, of course, there is also the famous line "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I see these new testament ideas (especially the last one) as completely repudiating the sometimes vengeful and violent ideas found in the old testament. Unfortunately, some fundamentalists ignore this an feel justified in judging and hating others.
posted by jsonic at 5:49 AM on February 24, 2003

Stone Disobedient Children!
posted by basilwhite at 6:17 AM on February 24, 2003

basilwhite - perfect
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:25 AM on February 24, 2003

Stone Disobedient Children!

Excellent example of taking old testament quotes and proporting them to be beliefs of Christianity. As I said above, the teachings of the new testament temper, and in many cases, change the teachings of the old testament.

The one new testament interpretation of staying away from sinners is shaky since Christ himself made a point of sitting and having dinner with people considered 'sinners' to show the people of the time that judgement and alienation are incorrect.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of making fun of religious people.
posted by jsonic at 7:08 AM on February 24, 2003

Stone Disobedient Children!

Excellent example of taking old testament quotes and proporting them to be beliefs of Christianity....
[snip]
.....But hey, don't let facts get in the way of making fun of religious people.


jsonic, but if you notice, the original article is about a Christian using out-dated OT teaching to spread intolerance in the 21st century, not about an non-Christian spreading anti-Christian propagana.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way.
posted by qwerty155 at 7:20 AM on February 24, 2003

You have to blame St. Paul for the whole "keep the homophobic stuff from Leviticus" thing. (Which still strikes me as ludicrously selective, but then, I'm Jewish.) Jesus doesn't seem to have considered it important enough to make it worthy of comment.

Then again, as more than one Biblical scholar has pointed out, the modern definition of homosexuality would have made no sense to any Jew (or Christian) of the period, Jesus no doubt included.
posted by thomas j wise at 7:33 AM on February 24, 2003

I'm always struck by the emphasis on the OT by Fundamentalist Christians. I guess their idea of strict interpretation is only for the parts that support their agenda.
posted by tommasz at 8:15 AM on February 24, 2003

For those of you who are in support of this, I don't suppose there's any problem whatsoever with this book being banned as well. I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That book should be back on the list, no? It certainly was found by customs to offend Canadians sensibilities.
posted by shepd at 9:03 AM on February 24, 2003

How would that book fall under 'hate speech' shepd? Not that I'm in favour of banning either, but they're totally unrelated cases.
posted by Summer at 9:12 AM on February 24, 2003

IMO, you can blame Paul for all of what we call Christianity.

I don't recall any indications in the NT that Christ wanted people to worship him. I don't recall Christ being misogynistic. It's Paul who put Christianity up to these things.

Indeed, it isn't Christianity at all: what's currently practiced is Paulism. And it's a death cult.

Christ was about life and love. Paul is about death and hate.

What a shame.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:41 AM on February 24, 2003

I think if any Christian quotes/publishes anything out of Leviticus as a holy commandment, he should be put in jail for First Degree Quoting Out of Context With Malicious Intent.
posted by dagnyscott at 2:04 PM on February 24, 2003

jsonic, but if you notice, the original article is about a Christian using out-dated OT teaching to spread intolerance in the 21st century, not about an non-Christian spreading anti-Christian propagana.

My comment was in response to the satirical webpage someone posted. If you care to notice, my comment quoted the person who posted the link to the webpage. I hope this gives you enough information to see I was speaking about the link, and not the original article. I did that in a previous comment.
posted by jsonic at 2:17 PM on February 24, 2003

Well I'm glad to see that US is not only country that is cracking down on its citizen's civil liberties these days. It looks like my plans to move Canada might be put on hold.

More seriously, I don't a agree with the message, but I can't support banning it (I know hating religion is against the MIFI manifest, but I'm not that closed minded or hate filled). This also well with Canada's history of banning speech (right inline with anti-pornography law passed in the 1980s and 1990s).
posted by Bag Man at 2:55 PM on February 24, 2003

Indeed, it isn't Christianity at all: what's currently practiced is Paulism.

BTW, this comment is a paraphrase of Tom Robbins from "Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates." My wife has the book, and I can't find the quote on the Web, but Robbins did make this exact point.
posted by terrapin at 11:51 AM on February 25, 2003

Having the book in hand now, I quote:

"It was on the road to Damascus (then already six thousand years old) that the apostle Paul (formerly Saul) suffered an epileptic seizure. Pounded to his knees by the relentless strobe of the sun, an egg-white mousse of spittle sudsing from his baked lips, Paul imagined he heard the big boom-boom voice of God (formerly Yahweh) admonishing him to scorn sensuality, snub women, and subdue nature, instructions that he subsequently incorporated into the foundation of the early Church (what came to be called "Christianity" was really Paulinism)."

Ok, close enough. Paulism. Paulinism. Potato. Potahto :)
posted by terrapin at 3:06 PM on February 25, 2003

Is it a paraphrase if I've never read the book?

I didn't realize that promoting the murder of queers was a civil right, Bagman. Huh.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:34 PM on February 25, 2003

O' Canada, you suck. I don't have much use for the Bible but I have even less use for thought control [Insert Orwell reference here]. O' Peoples Republic of Kanada indeed.
posted by MikeMc at 7:55 PM on February 25, 2003