Ian McKellen's bible vandalism catches on

[Third Eye Open]

Link: (http://www.3news.co.nz/Default.aspx?TabId=418&articleID=127863&cat=707&ce2661=1#comment)

The openly gay Lord of the Rings star tears out a section of Leviticus, which condemns homosexuality, whenever he finds the good book in hotel suites - and his small-scale vandalism has inspired others to do the same.

Acceptable? Intolerant? Childish? Heroic?

I find it irritating that there are bibles laying around in hotels anyway, though I have never vandalized one. It actually never occurred to me to do it, but now I will probably toss it in the trash at least, they can always take it out if they want.

[Yoink]

Link: (http://www.3news.co.nz/Default.aspx?TabId=418&articleID=127863&cat=707&ce2661=1#comment)



Acceptable? Intolerant? Childish? Heroic?

I find it irritating that there are bibles laying around in hotels anyway, though I have never vandalized one. It actually never occurred to me to do it, but now I will probably toss it in the trash at least, they can always take it out if they want.

I admire McKellan as an actor, but this strikes me as free publicity for the other side. If there were some society of rationalists who went around putting free copies of "Free Thought" literature in hotel rooms, what would we make of people who bragged about systematically defacing or vandalising those books?

[Third Eye Open]

I admire McKellan as an actor, but this strikes me as free publicity for the other side. If there were some society of rationalists who went around putting free copies of "Free Thought" literature in hotel rooms, what would we make of people who bragged about systematically defacing or vandalising those books?

Well, those books don't single out a certain group of people as less than human.

[AvalonXQ]

Well, those books don't single out a certain group of people as less than human.

Neither does the Bible. Now, back on topic...

Defacing someone else's property is unacceptable.
I also find book burnings to be repugnant, even when you own the books you're burning.
Needless to say, defacing someone else's books is unacceptable, uncivilized, and repugnant.

[Yoink]

Well, those books don't single out a certain group of people as less than human.

Book burners (or tearers) always have their reasons. In this case I am entirely on McKellans side in terms of the cause he embraces and the end point he wants to arrive at; I think he's chosen, however, a tactic which in this case will only hurt his cause and can do it no possible or imaginable good.

[Yoink]

Neither does the Bible.

It's obviously been a long time since you read it.

[Simon39759]

I don't like the idea of vandalizing the books.

I would be much happier if he got his own pamphlets printed and put them alongside the books.

[AvalonXQ]

I don't like the idea of vandalizing the books.

I would be much happier if he got his own pamphlets printed and put them alongside the books.

That's a much better idea. Although I wonder which, if any, hotel chains would let him.

[Marduk]

I don't understand his motivation, tearing out Leviticus because it describes homosexuality as an abomination. Surely he should be tearing apart copies of Aladdin for forcing him to be widow twanky, which is more damaging to his attempt to be taken seriously as a gay actor
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/arts/2004/12/20/twankey23423sdfdf5353.jpg
hehe
:D

[Belz...]

He should be required to buy the bibbles after damaging them.

[Belz...]

I don't understand his motivation, tearing out Leviticus because it describes homosexuality as an abomination. Surely he should be tearing apart copies of Aladdin for forcing him to be widow twanky, which is more damaging to his attempt to be taken seriously as a gay actor
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/arts/2004/12/20/twankey23423sdfdf5353.jpg
hehe
:D

Ouch.

[CurtC]

I'd be more inclined to highlight the offensive passages so that subsequent guests can see what their holy but mostly unfamiliar book actually says.

[Simon39759]

That's a much better idea. Although I wonder which, if any, hotel chains would let him.


And, of course, the good Christians that are now crying over the vandalism would get in line to burn the 'evil gay propaganda'.

[AvalonXQ]

And, of course, the good Christians that are not crying over the vandalism would get in line to burn the 'evil gay propaganda'.

Uh, no. Note what I said earlier: I'm not interested defacing others' property or burning books. It doesn't matter if I agree with what they say or not.

[Marduk]

I'm still mystified as to his motivation, its like hes saying "hmmm all that crapola up til Leviticus is cool, and all thats stuff after leviticus is cool"
like the man doesnt have a brain in his head does he, I dont see him tearing out the stuff about the degradation of women

still if its because hes worried about being seen as a homosexual actor I can see his problem, after all John Geilgud, Alec Guinness and Laurence Olivier were the very epitome of machismo werent they
:D

[Cainkane1]

I admire McKellan as an actor, but this strikes me as free publicity for the other side. If there were some society of rationalists who went around putting free copies of "Free Thought" literature in hotel rooms, what would we make of people who bragged about systematically defacing or vandalising those books?
I agree. The fundys will latch onto this and make a bad situation worse. Those books aren't his property and he has no right to damage them.

[Blackadder]

who ever READS hotel bibles? I would bet he can tear out leviticus all he wants and nobody would ever notice

[LibraryLady]

I recently left a copy of Godless (http://www.amazon.com/Godless-Evangelical-Preacher-Americas-Atheists/dp/1569756775/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257195237&sr=8-1) next to a Gideon bible in a hotel. It gives me some pleasure fantasizing about what might happen to it.

[six7s]

Link: (http://www.3news.co.nz/Default.aspx?TabId=418&articleID=127863&cat=707&ce2661=1#comment)
Yesterday was obviously a very quiet news day at that bastion of tele-journalism...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07083005.html

AUCKLAND, NZ, August 30, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - British Actor Ian McKellen who has used the mega-stardom he achieved playing Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings films to promote homosexuality, has admitted to ripping out pages of hotel bibles that refer to homosexuality.

In an August 10 interview on New Zealand's TV1 Close Up program McKellen was confronted by the interviewer questioning the truth of the rumour "He's the one, that when he stays in hotels rips the part of the bible out that criticizes homosexuality."

"Yes it is true," responded McKellen it's even tones. "Its Leviticus 18:22 that I object to, or is it 22:18, I've always got to look it up. Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination. And they, I think the punishment for an abomination was being stoned to death," he said.

McKellen added, "I think it's rather obscene and pornographic, and shouldn't be there, so I remove it."

Asked how many bibles he has vandalized, McKellen replied, "I have no idea, but other people do it as well, people send me evidence that they have been removing that."

[Simon39759]

Uh, no. Note what I said earlier: I'm not interested defacing others' property or burning books. It doesn't matter if I agree with what they say or not.

I wasn't commenting on you in particular, just as to how too many Christians are crying to act of intolerance, all the while engaging in even worse behaviour toward perceived expressions of atheism (such as mentioned in the discussion about FSM sticker on one's car).

[joobz]

I oppose the labor practices of American Standard. So, I opt to pee on the floor of every hotel I stay at in protest.

[pipelineaudio]

I'd be more inclined to highlight the offensive passages so that subsequent guests can see what their holy but mostly unfamiliar book actually says.

You know, that is a really good idea!

[Robin]

Neither does the Bible. Now, back on topic...

Defacing someone else's property is unacceptable.
I also find book burnings to be repugnant, even when you own the books you're burning.
Needless to say, defacing someone else's books is unacceptable, uncivilized, and repugnant.
So suppose you go into a hotel room and find a framed sign on the wall saying "AvalonXQ (or whatever your real name is) is an abomination and ought to be put to death", would you simply leave the sign where it was?

Would you regard it as unacceptable if I found a similar sign in a hotel room and removed the paper from the frame and tore it up?

[Robin]

I'd be more inclined to highlight the offensive passages so that subsequent guests can see what their holy but mostly unfamiliar book actually says.
You know, that is a really good idea!
That is what I first thought, but then consider - suppose you use postit notes to bring attention to the passages in Deuteronomy which suggest that God command you go into a city and enquire about which God they worship and then slaughter them if they worship the wrong God, or where Moses commands his men in the name of God to slaughter helpless children and to keep the girl children for their own uses.

The reaction of the person reading might not be "what amoral bloodthirsty nonsense this all is", it might instead be "Gosh, God is commanding that stuff, I should be doing it".

[AvalonXQ]

So suppose you go into a hotel room and find a framed sign on the wall saying "AvalonXQ (or whatever your real name is) is an abomination and ought to be put to death", would you simply leave the sign where it was?
Yes, I would. I would also probably go to the management and ask the sign be taken down or else leave the hotel.

Would you regard it as unacceptable if I found a similar sign in a hotel room and removed the paper from the frame and tore it up?
Very much so. You don't deface others' property.

Of course, there are differences between your hypothetical and the case in evidence, one of which is that I, like many people, find it especially repugnant to harm books (there are other conceptual differences, like the fact that the Bible quote is about a BEHAVIOR, not a PERSON, being an abomination, but that's probably too content-rich to get into here).

[Robin]

Yes, I would. I would also probably go to the management and ask the sign be taken down or else leave the hotel.
Wouldn't do you much good if the management won't take down the sign and every other hotel had the same sign.

So you would be perfectly happy for the sign to remain in place?
Very much so. You don't deface others' property.
The same as you don't steal or lie - but there are exceptions to these cases, why not exceptions to this?

Are things more important than people?
Of course, there are differences between your hypothetical and the case in evidence, one of which is that I, like many people, find it especially repugnant to harm books
So when a publisher prints a libel or an incitement to violence or terrorism the law demands that the book be pulped. Should this law be repealed?

Are books always more important than people?
(there are other conceptual differences, like the fact that the Bible quote is about a BEHAVIOR, not a PERSON, being an abomination, but that's probably too content-rich to get into here).
Sure, the command applies just as much to heterosexuals as it does to homosexuals.

[AvalonXQ]

Wouldn't do you much good if the management won't take down the sign and every other hotel had the same sign.

So you would be perfectly happy for the sign to remain in place?
It wouldn't make me happy. That doesn't mean that anything I want to do to fix it is okay.

The same as you don't steal or lie - but there are exceptions to these cases, why not exceptions to this?
Are things more important than people?
False dichotomy. In fact, only people are important -- that's why it's wrong to hurt things that belong to other people.

[Robin]

False dichotomy. In fact, only people are important -- that's why it's wrong to hurt things that belong to other people.
Even when those things cause hurt to people?

So are you saying that there is no possible circumstance in which you will intentionally cause damage to something that belongs to another person?

None whatsoever?

[AvalonXQ]

Even when those things cause hurt to people?

So are you saying that there is no possible circumstance in which you will intentionally cause damage to something that belongs to another person?

None whatsoever?

I wouldn't say that, no.
But certainly no such circumstance has arisen thus far in this thread.
Tearing out pages from someone else's book because you dislike the message, is not appropriate behavior for an adult.

[Marduk]

False dichotomy. In fact, only people are important -- that's why it's wrong to hurt things that belong to other people.

I don't think Gideon would really mind AvalonXQ, iirc hes been dead a few years now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideons_International
and as the Gideon organisation distributes bibles free to whoever wants one, the person doing the tearing (Ian Mckellen) is actually the owner, until he discards it. This is why hes happy to talk about what for him is an act of expression over something that is his, otherwise he'd be inviting a prosecution. He might be an old queen but hes not stupid.

Note he said nothing about smashing up the coffee maker or the trouser press.......
:p

[Achán hiNidráne]

Defacing someone else's property is unacceptable.

Oh boo fracking hoo! You do realize that the hotel gets the damn things for free from sects like the Gideon? Tearing out pages from a hotel bibble is as much a "crime" as tearing out the Savage Love columns from a stack of The Onion.

So kudos to Sir Ian! Tear out all the hate-filled, superstitious prattle you want. The relgionist retards will just print more, and more, and more...

[Ron_Tomkins]

I would rather he took all the books, put them in a pile, take a staff and hit the ground with it while yelling "YOUUUUU SHALL NOT PAAASS!!!"

[six7s]

So kudos to Sir Ian! Tear out all the hate-filled, superstitious prattle you want. The relgionist retards will just print more, and more, and more...H0MO***UAL ACT!V!SM PR0MOT3S D3F0REST4T10N AND TEH GL0B4L WARM!NG !!11!!

iT'S TRUE!!11!!

[Achán hiNidráne]

I would rather he took all the books, put them in a pile, take a staff and hit the ground with it while yelling "YOUUUUU SHALL NOT PAAASS!!!"

Please, the man is going to be type-cast forever thanks to those movies. Leave him SOME dignity.

Besides, nothing is more satisfying than the sound of the consecrated paper TEARING away from the spine followed by the feel of crumbling up those sacred scriptures into a ball to be tossed into the nearest trash can where it belongs.

[Achán hiNidráne]

H0MO***UAL ACT!V!SM PR0MOT3S D3F0REST4T10N AND TEH GL0B4L WARM!NG !!11!!

iT'S TRUE!!11!!

I thought that bringing forth Armageddon was a top priority for some breeds of Christer. Surely, turning the earth into a polluted dump will bring JEEZ-us back to magic the faithful up to Heaven.

Hell, its been the GOPs platform during Dubbya's administration!

[six7s]

I thought that bringing forth Armageddon was a top priority for some breeds of Christer. Surely, turning the earth into a polluted dump will surely bring JEEZ-us back to magic the faithful up to Heaven.Oh christ! We're screwed either way, right!

I blame his mother!

[Marduk]

Please, the man is going to be type-cast forever thanks to those movies. Leave him SOME dignity.


he kept his dignity by refusing to play Dumbledore, Alas poor Michael Gambon.
:D

[Whiplash]

Oh boo fracking hoo! You do realize that the hotel gets the damn things for free from sects like the Gideon? Tearing out pages from a hotel bibble is as much a "crime" as tearing out the Savage Love columns from a stack of The Onion.

So kudos to Sir Ian! Tear out all the hate-filled, superstitious prattle you want. The relgionist retards will just print more, and more, and more...


Please, the man is going to be type-cast forever thanks to those movies. Leave him SOME dignity.

Besides, nothing is more satisfying than the sound of the consecrated paper TEARING away from the spine followed by the feel of crumbling up those sacred scriptures into a ball to be tossed into the nearest trash can where it belongs.


Yikes. While I agree in principal, you seem to get awfully angry or worked up about this sort of thing when it comes up (ie religion).

I understand why some are so anti-religious, but to some extent I think it's fair to say "chill out" and "get some perspective".

[tyr_13]

Several years ago I thought about making a hotmail account for the sole purpose of leaving it on cards in the hotel Bibles. I was curious how many people would email.

Why do hotels even put those in the room? Why not something useful? Would they put any book in their rooms that someone donated to them?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Yikes. While I agree in principal, you seem to get awfully angry or worked up about this sort of thing when it comes up (ie religion).

I understand why some are so anti-religious, but to some extent I think it's fair to say "chill out" and "get some perspective".

Oh, but I do have a perspective. One that comes from living under the thumb of a family where one side is made up of hard-core Catholics and the other is dominated by Evangelical Lutherans (Wisconsin Synod).

If it weren't for the damn forum rules, you'd see just how "worked up" I could really get.

[Marduk]

Why do hotels even put those in the room? Why not something useful?

you wait til youre stuck in a hotel room with the galloping trots and no toilet paper before you go saying those tissue thin paper bibles arent useful
:D

[Simon39759]

Several years ago I thought about making a hotmail account for the sole purpose of leaving it on cards in the hotel Bibles. I was curious how many people would email.

Why do hotels even put those in the room? Why not something useful? Would they put any book in their rooms that someone donated to them?

Certainly not.
I would offer them gay porn; I am quite certain that they would refuse to put them into the rooms.

But now consider. If they were to refuse to put Bible, odds are, the Gideon would report it to the media and, the next thing you know, O'Reilly would be calling to boycott this particular hostelry chain to protest their 'anti-Christian agenda'.

[tyr_13]

Certainly not.
I would offer them gay porn; I am quite certain that they would refuse to put them into the rooms.

But now consider. If they were to refuse to put Bible, odds are, the Gideon would report it to the media and, the next thing you know, O'Reilly would be calling to boycott this particular hostelry chain to protest their 'anti-Christian agenda'.

Yes, but even crap hotels have bibles. Would the local motel really end up in the papers for not putting bibles in the room?

Apart from that, I find it difficult to believe that even O'Reilly could spin not accepting a bible into an anti-Christian agenda.

[gtc]

And, of course, the good Christians that are now crying over the vandalism would get in line to burn the 'evil gay propaganda'.

You have no evidence for this.

[gtc]

tyr_13,

They are donated. I doubt it costs them anything other than to drop them into the rooms.

Certainly not.
I would offer them gay porn; I am quite certain that they would refuse to put them into the rooms.

But now consider. If they were to refuse to put Bible, odds are, the Gideon would report it to the media and, the next thing you know, O'Reilly would be calling to boycott this particular hostelry chain to protest their 'anti-Christian agenda'.

You are free to organise a boycott of any hotel that refuses to distribute your gay porn on your behalf.

[six7s]

And, of course, the good Christians that are now crying over the vandalism would get in line to burn the 'evil gay propaganda'.You have no evidence for this.Without asking, you have no way of knowing one way or another

OK... so Simon39759 has yet to furnish evidence of such behaviour

So what?

Do you have a point to make?

Going by the despicable acts of ignorance-fueled hatred that are routinely perpetrated by those filled with teh l0v3 of teh j3sus (http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=christians+hate+homosexuals&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8), I think that its quite likely that evidence does (or will soon) exist

[gtc]

Without asking, you have no way of knowing one way or another

Are you saying that I have no idea whether he has evidence or whether his allegation is true?

He may have evidence, but I doubt it.

OK... so Simon39759 has yet to furnish evidence of such behaviour

So what?

We are on a skeptics board. We don't usually accept statments at face value.

Do you have a point to make?

Yes. There is no evidence to suggest that Christians who are upset about someone tearing out pages from a bible would be 'lining up' to burn a pamphlett denouncing the bible's views on Homosexuality.

Going by the despicable acts of ignorance-fueled hatred that are routinely perpetrated by those filled with teh l0v3 of teh j3sus (http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=christians+hate+homosexuals&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8), I think that its quite likely that evidence does (or will soon) exist

A google search for 'christians hate homosexuality' is not particularly relevant.

[hamelekim]

Destroying private property is wrong, period. If you destroy a Bible in a hotel room, or damage it purposefully you are engaging in an unethical act.

If you want to purchase a Bible and destroy it, go ahead. I disagree with that behavior, just as I disagree with book burning of any kind, but it's your free right to do so.

[Darat]

...snip...

Why do hotels even put those in the room? Why not something useful? Would they put any book in their rooms that someone donated to them?

Habit.

[Darat]

Destroying private property is wrong, period. If you destroy a Bible in a hotel room, or damage it purposefully you are engaging in an unethical act.

...snip...

No you are not - the Bible has been placed there by the Gideons for you. (If it is a Gideon Bible of course.). Many of them even have pages for you to write notes in, the Gideons want you to take the Bible, to use it.

[hamelekim]

No you are not - the Bible has been placed their by the Gideons for you. (If it is a Gideon Bible of course.). Many of them even have pages for you to write notes in, the Gideons want you to take the Bible, to use it.

I don't know enough about those Bible to argue with you. I am surprised that you can just take the Bible. I thought that you could read it in the room, but that is all.

I have never personally seen a Bible in a hotel room, but I live in Canada, which is fairly agnostic when it comes to religion, compared to the US.

[BobHaulk]

I always rip pages out of Lord of the Rings since it's clearly a pro homosexual text book
:D

[andycal]

As Darat says, these bibles are simply put there by the Gideons out of habit. A hotel is built, a pallet of bibles turns up next to the linen. The Gideons also supply bibles to schools, again, it's just because they always have (although ours provided a dictionary - w00T!).

But anyway, back to topic - I personally think this act only has a point if publicised in the media, I doubt anyone actually reads the thing. If I were a Christian then I'd probably have a bible with me or on my iPhone or something.

[Hux]

I cant condone it but I can see why he'd get so angry.

If it was me Id go down to the reception and say, can I have some more toilet paper; that Leviticus stuff is rather harsh?

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Link: (http://www.3news.co.nz/Default.aspx?TabId=418&articleID=127863&cat=707&ce2661=1#comment)



Acceptable? Intolerant? Childish? Heroic?

I find it irritating that there are bibles laying around in hotels anyway, though I have never vandalized one. It actually never occurred to me to do it, but now I will probably toss it in the trash at least, they can always take it out if they want.
Well, it's certainly much more hygienic than what I do to them.

[gtc]

If it was me Id go down to the reception and say, can I have some more toilet paper; that Leviticus stuff is rather harsh?

They'd say Levitic-who-now, then you'd have to explain the joke and then they's send you up a couple of extra rolls of toilet paper. Plus another bible. And a packet of laxatives. Because they still didn't understand.

[whatthebutlersaw]

Gideons: the Ninja missionaries. *Bill Hicks*: "Has anyone ever seen a Gideon?"

As has been pointed out, the Gideon bibles are left for the occupants, not the hotel. It is the property of whoever chooses to see it as their property. With a bit of skill and patience, all that hate can be turned into beautiful origami.

On a different note: has anyone ever challenged the fact that Gideons actually leave, among other things, hate speeches in hotel rooms? In effect, that is what they are doing. Would it be acceptable to leave pamfletts inciting hate for other groups in society? I don't quite remember the passage, but doesn't it actually promote violence (in the form of stoning?)

[Achán hiNidráne]

Gideons: the Ninja missionaries. *Bill Hicks*: "Has anyone ever seen a Gideon?"

When I went to UW-Milwaukee, they would show up on campus once or twice a semester and take up positions at all of the entrances to the student union. You couldn't get in or out without one of them thrusting a bibble in your face.

The one distinguishing characteristic is that they all dressed like fracking Ward Cleaver. Hey, Ozzie Nelson! Harriet called to tell you that your watch is 40 years too slow!

[joobz]

Unfortunately, for the Gideons, their hotel bible has become somewhat of an anachronism.
With the invention of closed circuit TV and pay-per-view, We no longer need the bible to fulfill the role of hotel masturbation material. (Ezekiel 23, at least the first half...)

[Squid]

Every year at DragonCon there are Gideon Bibles tossed out of windows to land upon the roof of the hotel below.

Personally I don't agree with it, but that's just my feelings on the matter. It is not something I feel I should get excited over.

[Blue Mountain]

I have never personally seen a Bible in a hotel room, but I live in Canada, which is fairly agnostic when it comes to religion, compared to the US.
Either you don't travel very much or you're not very curious. In most of the hotels and motels I've been in here in Canada, there's a bible tucked away in a drawer on the bedside table.

[Ladewig]

So suppose you go into a hotel room and find a framed sign on the wall saying "AvalonXQ (or whatever your real name is) is an abomination and ought to be put to death", would you simply leave the sign where it was?

Of course, there are differences between your hypothetical and the case in evidence, one of which is that I, like many people, find it especially repugnant to harm books (there are other conceptual differences, like the fact that the Bible quote is about a BEHAVIOR, not a PERSON, being an abomination, but that's probably too content-rich to get into here).

Then let's change the hypothetical to a book donated to all hotels that includes a passage saying "Christianity is an abomination and all Christians should be put to death." After all, Christianity is just a BEHAVIOR and not a PERSON. You wouldn't be the least bit tempted to destroy the page that calls for the widespread slaughter of innocent people?

[StuBob]

I recently left a copy of Godless (http://www.amazon.com/Godless-Evangelical-Preacher-Americas-Atheists/dp/1569756775/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257195237&sr=8-1) next to a Gideon bible in a hotel. It gives me some pleasure fantasizing about what might happen to it.


That's great!
A colleague of mind was wondering if he could buy a bunch of paperback versions of Dawkins' "God Delusion" to leave in hotel rooms next to the bibles. We mulled over the cost of the venture and then forgot about it. Maybe Prof. Dawkins can eventually make a cheap, Gideonesque copy of his book! Athiests could don their coat/tie/nametag and hand them out 20 yards away from the Gideon fellas. Ah, fun times.

[Ladewig]

I don't know enough about those Bible to argue with you. I am surprised that you can just take the Bible. I thought that you could read it in the room, but that is all.

The frontpiece of the book explains that guest may take the book without charge. Hotel maid carts include a stack of Bibles to replace any that are taken.

I have never personally seen a Bible in a hotel room, but I live in Canada, which is fairly agnostic when it comes to religion, compared to the US.

I've been in only four hotel rooms in Canada, but each one had a Bible. It is worthwhile to check for a Bible. Sometimes religious people hide their money there thinking that thieves would never think to look there. I've heard unconfirmed stories that occasionally they forget their money and a subsequent occupant finds it.

[cyborg]

Either you don't travel very much or you're not very curious. In most of the hotels and motels I've been in here in Canada, there's a bible tucked away in a drawer on the bedside table.

It can vary - I found one in a student dorm I was staying in during the summer holidays whilst working (this is in the UK). I was a bit surprised by that. Never found one in a hotel though - stayed in some pretty random ones though.

[Careyp74]

I admire McKellan as an actor, but this strikes me as free publicity for the other side. If there were some society of rationalists who went around putting free copies of "Free Thought" literature in hotel rooms, what would we make of people who bragged about systematically defacing or vandalising those books?

I agree. It isn't right that the bible is forced on anyone, however, just leave it in the drawer. You don't have to drink the horrible instant coffee either, but it is there if you want it.

[AvalonXQ]

Then let's change the hypothetical to a book donated to all hotels that includes a passage saying "Christianity is an abomination and all Christians should be put to death." After all, Christianity is just a BEHAVIOR and not a PERSON. You wouldn't be the least bit tempted to destroy the page that calls for the widespread slaughter of innocent people?

Not in the least.
I. Don't. Destroy. Books.
The solution to lies is not censorship, but the truth.

[Ladewig]

Not in the least.
I. Don't. Destroy. Books.
The solution to lies is not censorship, but the truth.

O.K. You don't believe in destroying books ever.

I am a bit confused about the last part of the post. Are you saying that calling for the execution of Christians is a lie? Is calling for the execution of homosexuals a lie, as well?

[AvalonXQ]

I am a bit confused about the last part of the post. Are you saying that calling for the execution of Christians is a lie? Is calling for the execution of homosexuals a lie, as well?

One would assume that, if I disagree with it, then there must be faulty reasoning or falsehood involved in it for me to do so. (ETA: Or it's just an unsupported "call to action", in which case, "NUH UH!")
The proper response is to spread the truth. Basically the idea that some people have had of putting some OTHER book next to the Bibles would be the carrying out of that idea.

[Ladewig]

One would assume that, if I disagree with it, then there must be faulty reasoning or falsehood involved in it for me to do so. (ETA: Or it's just an unsupported "call to action", in which case, "NUH UH!")
The proper response is to spread the truth. Basically the idea that some people have had of putting some OTHER book next to the Bibles would be the carrying out of that idea.

Now I understand what you were saying. The only question I have left is whether or not you consider a blanket condemnation of homosexuals to be an example of faulty reasoning that should be corrected by spreading the truth.

[Simon39759]

Yes, but even crap hotels have bibles. Would the local motel really end up in the papers for not putting bibles in the room?

Apart from that, I find it difficult to believe that even O'Reilly could spin not accepting a bible into an anti-Christian agenda.


The Religious right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_controversy#2005) has called for the boycott of corporation for using 'Holiday' rather than 'Christmas'.
I seem to recall O'Reilly supporting that but y check at Faux News has him refuting that, so I might have been wrong on mentioning him personally.

But, no, it seems to me like a very, very likely outcome if any chain was to refuse to distribute Bible.

[AvalonXQ]

The Religious right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_controversy#2005) has called for the boycott of corporation for using 'Holiday' rather than 'Christmas'.
I seem to recall O'Reilly supporting that but y check at Faux News has him refuting that, so I might have been wrong on mentioning him personally.

But, no, it seems to me like a very, very likely outcome if any chain was to refuse to distribute Bible.

I agree, and for the same reason. The "Merry Christmas" nonsense has shown that people will get up in arms over the silliest things.

[billw]

So when Ian McKellen stays at a Marriott, does he rip Alma Chapter 39 from The Book of Mormon?

[ZirconBlue]

But, no, it seems to me like a very, very likely outcome if any chain was to refuse to distribute Bible.

It seems that the hotel-room bible is slowly becoming less ubiquitous:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/69049

[slingblade]

So when Ian McKellen stays at a Marriott, does he rip Alma Chapter 39 from The Book of Mormon?

I'm sure he would if the circumstances were the same as with the Gideon bibles, and if he could make the same point he's trying to make with the Gideons.

Wouldn't you expect so, too, or do you see some difference you haven't mentioned, but which you are hoping we are clever enough to divine?

Why don't you assume we're not clever? Spell it out for us.

[six7s]

He may have evidence, but I doubt it.
<snip/>
We are on a skeptics board. We don't usually accept statments at face value.
Teh Irony... It BURNZ!

Do you have a point to make?Yes. There is no evidence to suggest that Christians who are upset about someone tearing out pages from a bible would be 'lining up' to burn a pamphlett denouncing the bible's views on Homosexuality.Huh? Your point is that you haven't found evidence for a possibility, therefore its impossible???

We are on a skeptics board. We don't usually dismiss a hypothesis just because it pushes us out of our comfort zone

A google search for 'christians hate homosexuality' is not particularly relevant.Maybe not...

However, I linked to a search on christians+hate+homosexuals (http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=christians+hate+homosexuals&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)... if you think want to pretend that's irrelevant, then good luck

[Yoink]

The question of whether the Gideons encourage you to take the bible for your personal use seems to me to be utterly beside the point. The question, in my mind, is whether this is an act that is likely to further the cause that McKellan believes in or likely to hinder it. I can't see a single "anti gay rights" person being swayed to a "pro gay rights" position by this act. I can see some Christians who would otherwise take a "live and let live" approach becoming much more susceptible to the anti gay rights rhetoric that gay rights is part of a larger attack on 'religion' in general, however.

Imagine, for a second, that you were arguing over California's Prop 8 with someone who had been fed the (false) line about churches being forced to perform gay marriages against their will and children in schools being indoctrinated in gay marriage etc. Imagine that you're trying to persuade an undecided Christian voter in California to vote against Prop 8. Do you think the idea that "gay people rip up Bibles whenever they see them!" is going to help your case?

It would be far, far smarter for him to get a small pamphlet printed up that makes a solid and sensible case for gay rights in a pluralistic society (pointing out that the defense of gay rights is consistent with the defense of minority religious rights too, for example) and to slip that inside every Gideon's bible in the hotels he stays at. That might actually change someone's mind. This act of mindless vandalism certainly won't.

[AvalonXQ]

The question of whether the Gideons encourage you to take the bible for your personal use seems to me to be utterly beside the point. The question, in my mind, is whether this is an act that is likely to further the cause that McKellan believes in or likely to hinder it. I can't see a single "anti gay rights" person being swayed to a "pro gay rights" position by this act. I can see some Christians who would otherwise take a "live and let live" approach becoming much more susceptible to the anti gay rights rhetoric that gay rights is part of a larger attack on 'religion' in general, however.

This is exactly what happens.
Gay rights advocates have, through their actions, convinced a lot of people that their agenda is fundamentally anti-religion, and so must be opposed.

[Darat]

I do like "blame the victim" rationalizations....

[Marduk]

It would be far, far smarter for him to get a small pamphlet printed up that makes a solid and sensible case for gay rights in a pluralistic society .

so the fact that hes a founding member of Stonewall which has had huge success fighting for equal rights for LGBT and that he is a constant personal campaigner for same isn't relevant in this case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_McKellen#LGBT_rights_campaigning
tearing up bibles makes him happy as a form of expression
that he does it makes me happy that he can express himself that way
does he need any more motivation ?
:p

[Marduk]

This is exactly what happens.
Gay rights advocates have, through their actions, convinced a lot of people that their agenda is fundamentally anti-religion, and so must be opposed.

no they haven't
they are opposed to groups and things that are opposed to their free will, which is guaranteed under law
not all religions call homosexuals "abominations unto the lord"
those that do they are naturally opposed to, what do you think they should do, agree ?

this started off with you as a rage against property damage, now that you've realised thats not accurate youve changed your game to being opposed to equality

homophobe much ?

[AvalonXQ]

those that do they are naturally opposed to, what do you think they should do, agree ?

No. I think they should disagree, strongly, with better arguments if they have them, and work within the law to change what they think is wrong.
A lot of people seem to think that certain groups get a free pass to do whatever vile nonsense they want to do in response to injustices or other attacks against them.
Bad acts are bad acts; you don't get a bye because you don't like what another group says or believes.
I, personally, expect groups to express themselves civilly, and to respect the rights of other groups to do the same -- and I will condemn anyone who chooses lawlessness, violence, and oppression instead, whatever their views.

homophobe much ?
The ad hom is acknowledged and not appreciated. Please stop.

[ponderingturtle]

The Religious right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_controversy#2005) has called for the boycott of corporation for using 'Holiday' rather than 'Christmas'.
I seem to recall O'Reilly supporting that but y check at Faux News has him refuting that, so I might have been wrong on mentioning him personally.

But, no, it seems to me like a very, very likely outcome if any chain was to refuse to distribute Bible.

This always pisses me off. Why have we lost our puritian ways? Legalizing christmass was the worst decision ever.

[applecorped]

No. I think they should disagree, strongly, with better arguments if they have them, and work within the law to change what they think is wrong.
A lot of people seem to think that certain groups get a free pass to do whatever vile nonsense they want to do in response to injustices or other attacks against them.
Bad acts are bad acts; you don't get a bye because you don't like what another group says or believes.
I, personally, expect groups to express themselves civilly, and to respect the rights of other groups to do the same -- and I will condemn anyone who chooses lawlessness, violence, and oppression instead, whatever their views.




:bigclap

[Yoink]

so the fact that hes a founding member of Stonewall which has had huge success fighting for equal rights for LGBT and that he is a constant personal campaigner for same isn't relevant in this case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_McKellen#LGBT_rights_campaigning

No, of course it isn't. Why would it be? Just because he has done some things that were good and effective forms of campaigning doesn't mean that this is a good and effective form of campaigning. Does that really need to be spelled out to you?
tearing up bibles makes him happy as a form of expression
that he does it makes me happy that he can express himself that way
does he need any more motivation ?
:p
I have no doubt that it makes him feel good and, vicariously, makes some people whose support for gay rights will never, ever, be in question feel good. That does not mean that it is an effective way to bring people who are not already devoted to the cause on board, or that it doesn't alienate people who might not otherwise actively oppose the cause.

[Marduk]

No, of course it isn't. Why would it be? Just because he has done some things that were good and effective forms of campaigning doesn't mean that this is a good and effective form of campaigning. Does that really need to be spelled out to you?

Sure, go ahead and tell me how he is not effectively campaigning when hes not actually campaigning. Did you see him on TV standing on a podium and telling the audience to rip out leviticus ?

I have no doubt that it makes him feel good and, vicariously, makes some people whose support for gay rights will never, ever, be in question feel good. That does not mean that it is an effective way to bring people who are not already devoted to the cause on board, or that it doesn't alienate people who might not otherwise actively oppose the cause.
like people who believe that Leviticus is righteous you mean and dont want it defaced because they believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God. Theres a name for people like that
in fact theres lots of names
none of them are pleasant, but for you to have a go at Ian Mckellen for expressing himself on something that is legally his is just bizzarre. Would you stop him cutting small ads out of his local newspaper too ?
whats the difference here.?

[six7s]

I can't see a single "anti gay rights" person being swayed to a "pro gay rights" position by this act.Have you even tried to look?

Note that one of the prime functions of 'extremist action' is to provoke thinking in the otherwise blissfully-ignorant middle-ground

[Marduk]

No. I think they should disagree, strongly, with better arguments if they have them, and work within the law to change what they think is wrong.
A lot of people seem to think that certain groups get a free pass to do whatever vile nonsense they want to do in response to injustices or other attacks against them.

your aim is way off, the only bad here is what Leviticus says about homosexuals, in case youre not aware of that here it is
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
if youre not sure what the word "Abomination" means its a word that expresses "extreme disgust"
Leviticus is calling Sir Ian extremely disgusting, and you are claiming his personal protest is bad. Missed the real target there didn't you

KJV: (King James Version): "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."
Leviticus is saying that Sir Ian should be murdered for something that hes not responsible for, again, you took a shot but you missed the real bad here. Its not his reaction thats at fault, its leviticus as its clearly homophobic, and that if expressed by an individual towards another is illegal, its a hate crime, and has been used to support hate crimes in the past. so why are you supporting it ?

Bad acts are bad acts; you don't get a bye because you don't like what another group says or believes.
I, personally, expect groups to express themselves civilly, and to respect the rights of other groups to do the same -- and I will condemn anyone who chooses lawlessness, violence, and oppression instead, whatever their views.

hes not a group, straw man alert, he is an individual making a personal protest, nothing he's done is illegal, who the hell are you to judge.



The ad hom is acknowledged and not appreciated. Please stop.
I will when you see reason, til then, your behaviour is homophobic, defending a piece of paper written by some ignorant homophobes 2000 years ago over the rights of an individual living today. Do you often support the words of dead people over the rights of the living. Thats what you call intellect is it
I despair for some people I really do
:rolleyes:

[AvalonXQ]

Note that one of the prime functions of 'extremist action' is to provoke thinking in the otherwise blissfully-ignorant middle-ground

One of the most successful arguments currently used against gay activism is the idea that it seeks to forcibly silence the opposition, making it illegal to speak out against homosexuality and making it mandatory for school-aged children to accept it. It is this argument, and not any argument about the morality or immorality of homosexuality itself, that has brought the "otherwise blissfully-ignorant middle-ground" to vote against reforms, and emboldened a lot of "live-and-let-live" people to take a position.
Actions like this feed the argument.

[AvalonXQ]

I will when you see reason, til then, your behaviour is homophobic
And you've chosen to attack rather than discuss. Fair enough.

[Yoink]

Sure, go ahead and tell me how he is not effectively campaigning when hes not actually campaigning. Did you see him on TV standing on a podium and telling the audience to rip out leviticus ?

Ah, I see we've reached the "being deliberately obtuse" portion of the entertainment.

How do we know about what Ian McKellan does to bibles, may I ask? Did one of us observe it? Did one of us check into a hotel room immediately after him for a few weeks and notice that the bibles had all been similarly defaced? No, McKellan brags about doing this in interviews. He makes it into a public statement (if he simply did it and never told anyone about it there's no possible way in the world that any of us would be aware of it). The act of publicizing this action is what makes it part of a "campaign"--o.k.?

like people who believe that Leviticus is righteous you mean and dont want it defaced because they believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God.

No, not at all. Those people are pretty much unreachable. But there are lots of people who revere the Bible without regarding it as "the inerrant word of God." There are plenty of self-described Christians out there who would be profoundly shocked by the idea of someone deliberately defacing the bible who are either pro gay rights or fairly neutral on gay rights. It is those people, in particular, that I think McKellan risks alienating.

As for me, an atheist who has always been entirely pro gay rights, I find the act of selective defacement of any works of literature abhorrent. I, personally, think McKellan is behaving like a childish ass when he does this. It won't stop me voting in favor of gay rights whenever I get the chance and it won't stop me admiring him enormously as an actor--but I can tell from my own reaction to the act how damaging it must be to gay rights cause among people who are less committed to the cause than I am and who have special reason to care about the particular book that he's defacing.

Theres a name for people like that
in fact theres lots of names
none of them are pleasant, but for you to have a go at Ian Mckellen for expressing himself on something that is legally his is just bizzarre. Would you stop him cutting small ads out of his local newspaper too ?
whats the difference here.?

Oh, you are indeed a world champion at deliberate obtuseness.

Yes, what possible difference could there be between cutting coupons out of your local newspaper and bragging in multiple interviews about how you rip pages out of bibles in every hotel room you stay in? Oh my. I'm racking my brains and I can't see any difference at all!

I guess you would also agree that there was no difference whatsoever between the Nazi book burnings and the fact that I recycle my newspapers after I've read them, too. I mean--they're both a matter of destroying printed matter. There's clearly no difference at all!!!

Look, if you think it's a smart move for McKellan to publicize these acts of selective vandalism, explain why. Give me a "for instance" of some person who might be swayed from voting, say, yes on Prop 8 to no on Prop 8 because he reads about this action. I've given you some entirely plausible instances of people who might be swayed the other way and it's easy to see that such people constitute an important section of the electorate. O.K., now show me that there's an even larger section who are going to be won over by McKellan's boasting about ripping pages out of bibles. That would be a far more convincing argument than pretending that this is simply a matter of what McKellan does with his private property.

[Yoink]

Have you even tried to look?

Note that one of the prime functions of 'extremist action' is to provoke thinking in the otherwise blissfully-ignorant middle-ground

Oh, so this is an "extremist action" now? Hang on, though, wasn't it equivalent of clipping newspaper coupons just a moment ago? It's all so confusing.

O.K., great, this is an "extremist action" that will "provoke thought." So, explain the next step. Describe some likely "yes on Prop 8" voter who will be 'provoked' by this action and as a result of being "made to think" will become a "no on Prop 8" voter.

[six7s]

I will when you see reason, til then, your behaviour is homophobic, defending a piece of paper written by some ignorant homophobes 2000 years ago over the rights of an individual living today. Make that 3,000+ years ago

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus)
According to tradition, Moses authored Leviticus[1] as well as the other four books of the Torah [2]. Modern biblical scholars believe Leviticus to be almost entirely from the priestly source (P), marked by emphasis on priestly concerns, composed c 550-400 BC, and incorporated into the Torah c 400 BC.[3]

Moses died allegedly at the age of 120 in the year 1271 BCE

[six7s]

Describe some likely "yes on Prop 8" voter who will be 'provoked' by this action and as a result of being "made to think" will become a "no on Prop 8" voter.Me, straight and - until around the age of 20 - narrow, raised in a culture that made being gay illegal

When people I admired began campaigning for change, I stopped and thought... it didn't hurt a bit

:)

[Marduk]

And you've chosen to attack rather than discuss. Fair enough.

that was stating a fact, your behaviour in supporting leviticus over the living is homophobic.

couldn't deal with the rest of my post eh
why am I not surprised
:rolleyes:

[AvalonXQ]

Relevant point. McKellen is quoted as saying:
I'm not proudly defacing the book, but it's a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible.
In terms of what message people might take away (good or bad) from this, I think McKellen's clarifying statement may make a difference to some people. The act is symbolic, not of an affront to the Bible, but of a rejection of a specific part of it.
Some people, like me, still won't be able to see past the idea of tearing up a book. I freely admit it's more visceral than logical.
But I think, for others, this act, portrayed in this context, might provoke them to thought on some of these issues.

[AvalonXQ]

that was stating a fact, your behaviour in supporting leviticus over the living is homophobic.

It was an attack. I asked you to stop; you refused.
Engaging with you doesn't make sense. You'll keep up your shouting, your attacks, your vitriole, and keep pushing people to the other side on this issue.
I'll keep discussing it with more civil forumites.

[Ladewig]

I didn't get an answer from AvalonXQ, so I'll ask again.

The only question I have left is whether or not you consider a blanket condemnation of homosexuals to be an example of faulty reasoning that should be corrected by spreading the truth.

[AvalonXQ]

The only question I have left is whether or not you consider a blanket condemnation of homosexuals to be an example of faulty reasoning that should be corrected by spreading the truth.

Without a doubt, yes.
The blanket condemnation of any group of people is wrong; condemning someone for something they cannot choose or control is wrong. Whenever either occurs, we need to work against it.
(Leviticus does neither, but that's not what you asked.)

[Marduk]

Look, if you think it's a smart move for McKellan to publicize these acts of selective vandalism, explain why. Give me a "for instance" of some person who might be swayed from voting, say, yes on Prop 8 to no on Prop 8 because he reads about this action. I've given you some entirely plausible instances of people who might be swayed the other way and it's easy to see that such people constitute an important section of the electorate. O.K., now show me that there's an even larger section who are going to be won over by McKellan's boasting about ripping pages out of bibles. That would be a far more convincing argument than pretending that this is simply a matter of what McKellan does with his private property.

perhaps you should read what he actually said, its quite apparent you have built this argument from straw in ignorance
"I'm not proudly defacing the book, but it's a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible.
personally I would throw away the whole thing, that wouldn't be bad or illegal either as its mine to do what I want with........

[Marduk]

It was an attack. I asked you to stop; you refused.
Engaging with you doesn't make sense. You'll keep up your shouting, your attacks, your vitriole, and keep pushing people to the other side on this issue.
I'll keep discussing it with more civil forumites.

you admitted that your position wasn't logical in your previous post, I agree, its not logical, its homophobic
;)

[Ladewig]

Without a doubt, yes.
The blanket condemnation of any group of people is wrong; condemning someone for something they cannot choose or control is wrong. Whenever either occurs, we need to work against it.
(Leviticus does neither, but that's not what you asked.)

Now I am back to being confused. Can you explain why the statements "homosexuality is an abomination" and "homosexuals should be executed" are not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality?

[Magyar]

Neither does the Bible. .

WOW, yet another stupendously ignorant statement of the facts brought to you by the society of buy bull thumpers.

[AvalonXQ]

Now I am back to being confused. Can you explain why the statements "homosexuality is an abomination" and "homosexuals should be executed" are not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality?

Leviticus makes neither of those statements.
God instructs the Israelites to refrain from certain acts. The orientation or other uncontrollable aspects of the individuals in question is never discussed.
But do certain things (wear two-fabric cloth, talk back to your parents, worship Baal, have gay sex, have incestuous sex, have an affair), and you would be put to death. For your ACTIONS. A very different standard.

[Yoink]

perhaps you should read what he actually said, its quite apparent you have built this argument from straw in ignorance

Care to explain what you see in the quote you provide that contradicts anything I've said? He publicized his act of selective vandalism in multiple interviews.

personally I would throw away the whole thing, that wouldn't be bad or illegal either as its mine to do what I want with........

And neither I nor anyone else would care what you did. Nor would I or anyone else care what McKellan did if he didn't TRUMPET IT IN PUBLIC INTERVIEWS. I'm saying that McKellan's decision to publicize his actions is one that can only hurt, not help, a cause he (and I) hold dear. For that reason I wish he would cease and desist.

[Yoink]

Me, straight and - until around the age of 20 - narrow, raised in a culture that made being gay illegal

When people I admired began campaigning for change, I stopped and thought... it didn't hurt a bit

:)

This doesn't address McKellan's action at all. Finding out that "someone you admire" (McKellan) is campaigning for change could happen in any number of ways (including the 'leaving a pamphlet' way I suggested above). Explain why this specific action (ripping pages out of Bibles) would be the one that would tip you from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights." What's the thought process that takes you from

A) "I don't think gay people deserve to be treated with the same respect as straight people."
B) "I just heard that Ian McKellan selectively defaces bibles in every hotel he stays at."
C)???

to

D) "Gay people clearly deserve the same rights and respect as straight people!"

Care to spell out how C works?

[joobz]

that was stating a fact, your behaviour in supporting leviticus over the living is homophobic.
I support KKK's right to hold rallies and pass out racist literature.

Does this make me a racist, or a liberal who defends the 1st amendment?

[six7s]

Now I am back to being confused. Can you explain why the statements "homosexuality is an abomination" and "homosexuals should be executed" are not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality?Leviticus makes neither of those statements.Maybe not in the Looney Tunes version...

Meanwhile... in the King James version
Leviticus 18:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018:22&version=KJV)Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13&version=KJV)
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.

That's all, folks

[six7s]

Explain why this specific action (ripping pages out of Bibles) would be the one that would tip you from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights." OK... I'll try... Its not easy to be objective...

Anyhoo...

I have a hunch (hope?) that such actions work on me because I am prepared to think AND admit that I don't know everything AND I acknowledge that some (much?) of my 'assumptions' are based on bollocks

[AvalonXQ]

You should have quoted the rest of my post.

Leviticus makes neither of those statements.
God instructs the Israelites to refrain from certain acts. The orientation or other uncontrollable aspects of the individuals in question is never discussed.
But do certain things (wear two-fabric cloth, talk back to your parents, worship Baal, have gay sex, have incestuous sex, have an affair), and you would be put to death. For your ACTIONS. A very different standard.

I'll also note: no person is called an "abomination" in those passages. An act is.

[cyborg]

But do certain things (wear two-fabric cloth, talk back to your parents, worship Baal, have gay sex, have incestuous sex, have an affair), and you would be put to death. For your ACTIONS. A very different standard.

You can't get much more homosexual than gay sex.

[six7s]

I'll also note: no person is called an "abomination" in those passages. An act is.So freakin' what?

You can play semantic games until the cows come home

No acts are murdered/persecuted at the behest of some mythical sky daddy

Face it AvalonXQ, Leviticus is one of the biggest piles of vile, nasty, vengeful crap in our literary history and no amount of weasely dodging can make it into the benign treasure it seems you want/need to pretend it is

[AvalonXQ]

Face it AvalonXQ, Leviticus is one of the biggest piles of vile, nasty, vengeful crap in our literary history and no amount of weasely dodging can make it into the benign treasure it seems you want/need to pretend it is

If Leviticus is what you say it is, then you should be able to make your points while correctly portraying it, rather than trying to mischaracterize it as saying things that it doesn't say.
Leviticus doesn't say a word against homosexual attraction or homosexual people; it condemns a variety of sex practices including homosexual sex, and orders the Israelites to kill those who violate the law and perform these sex acts.
If you think that's terrible, then fine -- condemn it for what it says, not what it doesn't say.

[six7s]

You can't get much more homosexual than gay sex.I'm a lesbian trapped inside a man's body... does that count?

[AvalonXQ]

I'm a lesbian trapped inside a man's body... does that count?

I don't know, but it's hot. ;)

[six7s]

If Leviticus is what you say it is, then you should be able to make your points while correctly portraying it, rather than trying to mischaracterize it as saying things that it doesn't say.
Leviticus doesn't say a word against homosexual attraction or homosexual people; it condemns a variety of sex practices including homosexual sex, and orders the Israelites to kill those who violate the law and perform these sex acts.
If you think that's terrible, then fine -- condemn it for what it says, not what it doesn't say.You do know that Moses didn't have an electron microscope with which he could - otherwise - have split such fine hairs, right?

[AvalonXQ]

You do know that Moses didn't have an electron microscope with which he could - otherwise - have split such fine hairs, right?

You don't think there's any meaningful difference between condemning sexual attraction and condemning sexual behavior?
I'm glad you're not my wife; I'd be in serious trouble! :eek:

[Marduk]

I support KKK's right to hold rallies and pass out racist literature.

Does this make me a racist, or a liberal who defends the 1st amendment?

hmmm difficult question, does supporting racism make you a racist, I'm gonna have to refrain from answering that until I can get hold of a five year old for a decision

;)

[six7s]

You don't think there's any meaningful difference between condemning sexual attraction and condemning sexual behavior?Correct... although that's not quite how I'd word it

Instead, I'd say that I think condemning either is equally stupid, ignorant, hateful, and a whole nother bunch of negative terms

[Ladewig]

Leviticus makes neither of those statements.
God instructs the Israelites to refrain from certain acts. The orientation or other uncontrollable aspects of the individuals in question is never discussed.
But do certain things (wear two-fabric cloth, talk back to your parents, worship Baal, have gay sex, have incestuous sex, have an affair), and you would be put to death. For your ACTIONS. A very different standard.

Let's cut to the chase. If two consenting, twenty-first century, adult men have sex, have they committed an immoral act? If so, why?

Follow up question: Is wearing clothing of mixed fibers immoral? If not, why not?

[Simon39759]

You don't think there's any meaningful difference between condemning sexual attraction and condemning sexual behavior?
I'm glad you're not my wife; I'd be in serious trouble! :eek:




Well; you might still be in trouble, according to Matthew 5:28:
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart..

[Simon39759]

Double post, sorry

[AvalonXQ]

I'm not sure what relevance my beliefs have to Leviticus and McKellen, but I'll bite. We can always start a new thread if we go too far off-course.

Let's cut to the chase. If two consenting, twenty-first century, adult men have sex, have they committed an immoral act? If so, why?
Yes, because according to Christian teachings, sex between two or more individuals is immoral under all but very specific circumstances.

Follow up question: Is wearing clothing of mixed fibers immoral? If not, why not?
No, because according to Christian teachings, the Law of Moses is not binding on us today.

ETA for Simon: That passage in Matthew requires considerably more than attraction; it condemns active fantasizing.

[Ladewig]

I'm not sure what relevance my beliefs have to Leviticus and McKellen, but I'll bite. We can always start a new thread if we go too far off-course.

No need to start a new thread. I'm done asking questions of you.

[Yoink]

OK... I'll try... Its not easy to be objective...

Anyhoo...

I have a hunch (hope?) that such actions work on me because I am prepared to think AND admit that I don't know everything AND I acknowledge that some (much?) of my 'assumptions' are based on bollocks

If you're going to explain how Ian McKellan ripping pages out of Bibles will help turn you from an anti-gay-rights person to a pro-gay-rights person it might help if you used the words "rip" and "bible" somewhere in the "explanation."

[joobz]

hmmm difficult question, does supporting racism make you a racist, I'm gonna have to refrain from answering that until I can get hold of a five year old for a decision

;)
Then you clearly miss the idea of what free speech is all about and the protection of minority rights.

Who gets to decide which ideas are acceptable and which ones are unacceptable to disseminate? Ask your 5 year old that question.

[six7s]

[OK... I'll try... Its not easy to be objective...

Anyhoo...

I have a hunch (hope?) that such actions work on me because I am prepared to think AND admit that I don't know everything AND I acknowledge that some (much?) of my 'assumptions' are based on bollocksIf you're going to explain how Ian McKellan ripping pages out of Bibles will help turn you from an anti-gay-rights person to a pro-gay-rights person it might help if you used the words "rip" and "bible" somewhere in the "explanation."OK... for the hard-of-thinking...

<insert>If I was still a cultural homphobe, I imagine that when I heard about the highly-esteemed actor Ian McKellen choosing to publicise his choice to rip pages from the book of Leviticus from copies of the Gideon bible, </insert> I have a hunch (hope?) that such actions would work on me because I am prepared to think AND admit that I don't know everything AND I acknowledge that some (much?) of my 'assumptions' are based on bollocks

[Yoink]

Then you clearly miss the idea of what free speech is all about and the protection of minority rights.

Who gets to decide which ideas are acceptable and which ones are unacceptable to disseminate? Ask your 5 year old that question.

Apparently the ACLU is a racist organization. Who knew?

[six7s]

hmmm difficult question, does supporting racism make you a racist, I'm gonna have to refrain from answering that until I can get hold of a five year old for a decision

;)Then you clearly miss the idea of what free speech is all about and the protection of minority rights.Maybe not...

Note the ;)...

Maybe (hopefully!) Marduk was being ironical

[Yoink]

OK... for the hard-of-thinking...
If I was still a cultural homphobe, I imagine that when I heard about the highly-esteemed actor Ian McKellen choosing to publicise his choice to rip pages from the book of Leviticus from copies of the Gideon bible, I have a hunch (hope?) that such actions would work on me because I am prepared to think AND admit that I don't know everything AND I acknowledge that some (much?) of my 'assumptions' are based on bollocks

And, once again, you avoid every single specific aspect of the case. Why is that this action in particular (as opposed, for example, to hearing that he had placed a pamphlet in the bible, or hearing that he'd marched in a gay rights march, or simply hearing him give a reasoned defence of gay rights in an interview etc. etc. etc.) would help you move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights."

What is it in this action that "makes you think"? Once it "makes you think" why are those thoughts more likely to be "why, you know, those pro gay rights people have a point, really, don't they?" Why does it make your previously held belief that gay rights should not be supported suddenly appear to you to be wrong? In what way does this particular action (ripping pages out of bibles in hotel rooms) challenge any beliefs of any kind that you have previously held?

[six7s]

Apparently the ACLU is a racist organization. Who knew?Serious question:

How do you know?

[Yoink]

Serious question:

How do you know?

How do I know what?

[joobz]

Maybe not...

Note the ;)...

Maybe (hopefully!) Marduk was being ironical
Possibly. But then it wouldn't jive with his "If you oppose ripping out leviticus, you are a homophobe" argument.

Opposing the censorship of an idea isn't the same as being supportive of that idea. That's the kind of thinking that makes conservatives call the ACLU a godless evil organization.

I am against Ian McKellen's method because it is Nothing more than censorship and vandalism.

Similarly, I would oppose someone who would write "faggot" all over pro-gay rights literature.

[six7s]

How do I know what?Oh please...

How do you know that "the ACLU is a racist organization"?

[AvalonXQ]

How do you know that "the ACLU is a racist organization"?

The ACLU supports the KKK's right to hold rallies and pass out racist literature.
The point was, if this makes someone racist, then the ACLU qualifies.
The real point is that opposing censorship does not imply that you agree with the censored material.

It comes from a common fallacy ("I strongly support X, which helps blacks/women/gays, so anyone who disagrees with X is a racist/sexist/homophobe") that Marduk decided to use on this thread.

[joobz]

Oh please...

How do you know that "the ACLU is a racist organization"?
he was being sarcastic.

He was pointing out that in the past, the ACLU has defended hate speech. http://www.channel3000.com/news/381962/detail.html

[joobz]

It comes from a common fallacy ("I strongly support X, which helps blacks/women/gays, so anyone who disagrees with X is a racist/sexist/homophobe") that Marduk decided to use on this thread.
Exactly.
It's exactly analogous to saying, "You're either with us, or against us!".

[six7s]

And, once again, you avoid every single specific aspect of the case.Please specify the specifics I am avoiding

Why is that this action in particular (as opposed, for example, to hearing that he had placed a pamphlet in the bible, or hearing that he'd marched in a gay rights march, or simply hearing him give a reasoned defence of gay rights in an interview etc. etc. etc.) would help you move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights."Erm... it isn't - or, rather, wouldn't be (for the hypothetical 20-year-old-homphobe-me) - this action in particular that "would help me move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights""... my thoughts, opinions and actions are (I hope) shaped by a wide variety of issues

What is it in this action that "makes you think"?I think/hope I've answered this

What is it in this action that makes you so bloody minded?

[joobz]

I think it would be more useful to provide an alternate view. Perhaps a sticker on the front cover that highlights the anti-gay passages followed by passagse that outlaw
shrimp, clothes, ...

[Yoink]

Oh please...

I honestly did not have the faintest idea what you were asking me.

How do you know that "the ACLU is a racist organization"?

I don't believe it is. Marduk, however, claimed that anyone who defended the KKK's rights to disseminate their racist ideas must be a racist. The ACLU has defended the KKK's rights to disseminate their racist ideas, therefore, logically, Marduk was claiming that the ACLU is a racist organization. That was my point.

[Darat]

One of the most successful arguments currently used against gay activism is the idea that it seeks to forcibly silence the opposition, making it illegal to speak out against homosexuality and making it mandatory for school-aged children to accept it.

...snip...
Well people have always made up stuff about people they want to get rid off.


It is this argument, and not any argument about the morality or immorality of homosexuality itself, that has brought the "otherwise blissfully-ignorant middle-ground" to vote against reforms, and emboldened a lot of "live-and-let-live" people to take a position.
Actions like this feed the argument.

Really - so back in the 80s when I was being spat at because I was on a march in a major city in the UK as part of campaign for equal rights for homosexuals that was because people had invented time travel and had read that McKellen, 20 years in the future, would start tearing pages out of a bible that he was given?

[Darat]

...snip...


Yes, because according to Christian teachings, sex between two or more individuals is immoral under all but very specific circumstances.



You missed out the word "some" - not all Christians hold those beliefs.

...snip...
No, because according to Christian teachings, the Law of Moses is not binding on us today.



Again you missed out "some".

...snip...

ETA for Simon: That passage in Matthew requires considerably more than attraction; it condemns active fantasizing.

That is your interpretation - I am sure I can find some Christians that disagree with you.

[AvalonXQ]

Really - so back in the 80s when I was being spat at because I was on a march in a major city in the UK as part of campaign for equal rights for homosexuals that was because people had invented time travel and had read that McKellen, 20 years in the future, would start tearing pages out of a bible that he was given?

Generally it's not the middle-ground live-and-let-live types that act that way, so no.

[Yoink]

Please specify the specifics I am avoiding

Well, not to be repetitive, but:
And, once again, you avoid every single specific aspect of the case. Why is that this action in particular (as opposed, for example, to hearing that he had placed a pamphlet in the bible, or hearing that he'd marched in a gay rights march, or simply hearing him give a reasoned defence of gay rights in an interview etc. etc. etc.) would help you move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights."

What is it in this action that "makes you think"? Once it "makes you think" why are those thoughts more likely to be "why, you know, those pro gay rights people have a point, really, don't they?" Why does it make your previously held belief that gay rights should not be supported suddenly appear to you to be wrong? In what way does this particular action (ripping pages out of bibles in hotel rooms) challenge any beliefs of any kind that you have previously held?

And to add a little seeing as this didn't seem to help the first time: the argument here is about whether or not Ian McKellan's act of tearing pages out of bibles is helpful or harmful to the cause of equal rights for gay people. I'm asking you to explain how that specific act (tearing pages out of bibles and then publicizing the fact that you do this) could help a person such as yourself move from being anti-gay-rights to being pro-gay-rights.

The act has obvious downsides as a piece of political provocation. It provides wonderful ammunition to the enemy (I'm sure that the yes-on-8 crowd, for example, would love to tell wavering people about how the evil gay actor goes around defacing bibles whenever he can!), to name one self-evident problem. If you're going to argue that overall it's a clever political move, you need to explain how it will overall sway more people from "anti-or-wavering to pro" than it will sway from "pro-or-wavering to anti." As a start you need to explain how it will sway ANYONE from "anti-or-wavering to pro" gay rights. So far you've consistently refused to do that.

Try filling in the blank in this sentence: "I used to be opposed to equal rights for gays, but then I heard that Ian McKellan regularly rips some pages from Leviticus out of every bible he finds in the hotels he stays at._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ made me realize that I was wrong, and that gay people deserved equal rights with straight people."

Erm... it isn't - or, rather, wouldn't be (for the hypothetical 20-year-old-homphobe-me) - this action in particular that "would help me move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights""... my thoughts, opinions and actions are (I hope) shaped by a wide variety of issues

So you don't, in fact, think that this action helps his cause at all?

I think/hope I've answered this

No, you certainly haven't.

What is it in this action that makes you so bloody minded?

I think it hurts the cause of gay rights. I think that's a really, really, really important cause. I think it's particularly sad and ironic that that cause should be being hurt by a great actor who happens to be gay himself.

[Darat]

Generally it's not the middle-ground live-and-let-live types that act that way, so no.

Ah I see - the no-true-middle-ground live-and-let-live-types argument.

[Darat]

...snip...

I think it hurts the cause of gay rights. I think that's a really, really, really important cause. I think it's particularly sad and ironic that that cause should be being hurt by a great actor who happens to be gay himself.

Any evidence that his action is hurting the cause for gay rights, or rather the cause for rights?

[AvalonXQ]

Ah I see - the no-true-middle-ground live-and-let-live-types argument.

What's your point, exactly? That you're in the "us-or-them" camp? Everybody is either a died-in-the-wool rainbow-flag-waving freedom fighter or an epithet-weilding gay-bashing homophobe?
You appear to be missing the point that a lot of people people don't really care, one way or the other, about homosexual behavior in and of itself; that they have to be convinced that the gay agenda is actually an anti-religion agenda in order to be induced to vote against it; and that this is exactly what McKellen helps convince them of.
I assume that all of this may be much less relevant in the UK than it is here in the States.
ETA: I really think that our experiences with Proposition 8 in California this past fall is coloring a lot of the argument here, for me and for Yoink.

[Darat]

What's your point, exactly?

...snip...

Well I've not really made any point in this thread, however your many unsubstantiated claims have piqued my curiosity so if I now have a point it is to see if you can support your claims with actual evidence.


That you're in the "us-or-them" camp? Everybody is either a died-in-the-wool rainbow-flag-waving freedom fighter or an epithet-weilding gay-bashing homophobe?
...snip...

Well I know I am not in the camp that believes that homosexuality is an abomination, is that good enough for you?


You appear to be missing the point that a lot of people people don't really care, one way or the other, about homosexual behavior in and of itself; that they have to be convinced that the gay agenda is actually an anti-religion agenda in order to be induced to vote against it; and that this is exactly what McKellen helps convince them of.

...snip...


Lots of claims again but no evidence to support them - do you have any?

[AvalonXQ]

Lots of claims again but no evidence to support them - do you have any?

The best evidence I have is circumstantial -- the passage of Proposition 8 in California, and the main arguments used to pass it, which were exactly these arguments.

[AvalonXQ]

Well I know I am not in the camp that...

This seems to support that you DO in fact hold the extremists' "us-or-them" mentality.
I find it's pretty much impossible to get through to folks with this mentality, but I do like to point out that such people almost universally push the people on the fence to the other side.

[Darat]

This seems to support that you DO in fact hold the extremists' "us-or-them" mentality.
...snip...

Wow! However since you believe that someone who does not think homosexual is an abomination is an extremist it does explain some of your claims in this thread.

[AvalonXQ]

Wow! However since you believe that someone who does not think homosexual is an abomination is an extremist it does explain some of your claims in this thread.

Note that that's not what I snipped.
I asked you a simple question: do you think everyone is on the extreme, on one side or the other? Or do you accept that some people (most, in my opinion, but I have no hard evidence of that) are in a rather neutral, live-and-let-live mode of thinking? Do you accept that the absence of an affirmative pro-gay belief is not always homophobia, but is often just laissez-faire apathy?

[Darat]

Note that that's not what I snipped.
...snip..

Yes it is - what I posted was: "Well I know I am not in the camp that believes that homosexuality is an abomination, is that good enough for you?"

You took that answer and decided that it meant I was an extremist, the logic of your reasoning is therefore that anyone who believes, as I do, that homosexuality is not an abomination is an extremist.



I asked you a simple question: do you think everyone is on the extreme, on one side or the other?

I don't even know what these "extremes" that you are talking about are so it is very hard for me to answer.

Or do you accept that some people (most, in my opinion, but I have no hard evidence of that) are in a rather neutral, live-and-let-live mode of thinking?


Once you have presented your evidence for your claims I can evaluate it and then answer your question. You made the claims you support them.




Do you accept that the absence of an affirmative pro-gay belief is not always homophobia, but is often just laissez-faire apathy?

As above.

[Yoink]

Any evidence that his action is hurting the cause for gay rights, or rather the cause for rights?

Not hard to find. Here's a mormon discussion site (http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/46116-ian-mckellan-brags-about-defacing-hotel-room-bibles/page__st__40)discussing his actions. Funnily enough it doesn't seem to be making them see the light. Lucky there's no reason for gays to fear riled up Mormons, eh?

Here's an entry on some general Christian topics blog (http://whataboutchurch.com/church-life/ian-mckellans-bible-vandalism/).

Here's a freerepublic thread (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889540/posts)where the whole thing is red meat for the gay bashers.

Here's a Townhall.com (http://townhall.com/blog/g/43b95175-b8cb-4f45-af04-cec11b4f8503)thread on the same topic. Once again, the story being used to rally the troops on the Right.

That was approximately five minutes of looking through just the first two pages of just one Google search using "Ian McKellan bible vandalism"--I'm sure if I had a look at "bible attack" or "bible defacing" or what have you I'd find more.

Oh, and yes, gay rights are rights, just as red walls are also walls. Women's rights are rights, too. I've been actively involved in the struggle for gay rights for over thirty years, Darat; this really isn't about a secret desire to spread the word of Leviticus, for pete's sake. Gay rights are human rights (and hey, human rights are RIGHTS too!); this act of McKellan's can do nothing to further that cause and can, potentially, do a great deal to hurt it.

[AvalonXQ]

Yes it is - what I posted was: "Well I know I am not in the camp that believes that homosexuality is an abomination, is that good enough for you?"

And what I snipped was, "Well I know I am not in the camp that..."
What I took from your post is that you believe that there are two "camps" -- the ones I described earlier -- and which one you're in.
That sort of thinking is very extremist: the idea that the only two groups out there are rainbow-flag-waving freedom fighters and epithet-weilding homophobes.
Most people aren't in either "camp". Most people are looking to protect their own interests without hurting anyone else.

[Trystero4]

I have a hard time supporting censorship regardless of how much I disagree with the message or how vile it is.

I agree with the earlier post that said McKellen should instead leave behind something that explains his point of view.

[six7s]

Try filling in the blank in this sentence: "I used to be opposed to equal rights for gays, but then I heard that Ian McKellan regularly rips some pages from Leviticus out of every bible he finds in the hotels he stays at._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ made me realize that I was wrong, and that gay people deserved equal rights with straight people."

OK...

I used to be opposed to equal rights for gays, but then I heard that Ian McKellan regularly rips some pages from Leviticus out of every bible he finds in the hotels he stays at. Around this time, I was at a party with a whole bunch of people that I admired and respected... and waddaya know... they were discussing the news of Ian M ripping pages out of the bible... It sure came as a surprise to me to discover that these friends of mine were nodding in some sort of approval, before going on to mention how the underlying reasons (for homosexuality being regarded as 'wrong') are as stupid, harmful and counter-productive as those that oppress people for reasons of gender, ethnicity, age, etc. Luckily, my friends were neither surprised nor annoyed by my obvious ignorance. Instead, they welcomed me into the discussion, which made me think even more, and in turn, this made me realize that I was wrong, and that gay people deserved equal rights with straight people.

How's that?

[AvalonXQ]

OK...

I used to be opposed to equal rights for gays, but then I heard that Ian McKellan regularly rips some pages from Leviticus out of every bible he finds in the hotels he stays at. Around this time, I was at a party with a whole bunch of people that I admired and respected... and waddaya know... they were discussing the news of Ian M ripping pages out of the bible... It sure came as a surprise to me to discover that these friends of mine were nodding in some sort of approval, before going on to mention how the underlying reasons (for homosexuality being regarded as 'wrong') are as stupid, harmful and counter-productive as those that oppress people for reasons of gender, ethnicity, age, etc. Luckily, my friends were neither surprised nor annoyed by my obvious ignorance. Instead, they welcomed me into the discussion, which made me think even more, and in turn, this made me realize that I was wrong, and that gay people deserved equal rights with straight people.

How's that?

That's excellent.

[Yoink]

OK...
I used to be opposed to equal rights for gays, but then I heard that Ian McKellan regularly rips some pages from Leviticus out of every bible he finds in the hotels he stays at. Around this time, I was at a party with a whole bunch of people that I admired and respected... and waddaya know... they were discussing the news of Ian M ripping pages out of the bible... It sure came as a surprise to me to discover that these friends of mine were nodding in some sort of approval, before going on to mention how the underlying reasons (for homosexuality being regarded as 'wrong') are as stupid, harmful and counter-productive as those that oppress people for reasons of gender, ethnicity, age, etc. Luckily, my friends were neither surprised nor annoyed by my obvious ignorance. Instead, they welcomed me into the discussion, which made me think even more, and in turn, this made me realize that I was wrong, and that gay people deserved equal rights with straight people.
How's that?

So the act of ripping these pages out of Leviticus, in itself, is completely useless. What helped you change your mind, in this scenario, is finding out that your friends regarded your prejudices as absurd. The only useful part of the Ian McKellan thing was that it got you to bring the topic up with your friends.

So, in other words, a far, far more effective act on McKellan's part would be one that gets as much news coverage (therefore being likely to make people like you bring the topic up with your friends) but which doesn't automatically serve as a red flag to all the gay bashers in the nation AND have the added downside that it serves to offend and alienate people even if they don't, themselves, feel strongly opposed to gay rights and in some cases even if they feel positively disposed to gay rights.

So, in other words, you agree with me that this act in itself can do nothing to sway someone from being opposed/neutral on gay rights to being pro and you must surely agree that the act in itself could sway someone who is pro/neutral on gay rights to being anti? So you must, therefore, agree that all people who hold the cause of equal rights for all dear should hope that Sir Ian stops this foolish practice and thinks up some much smarter strategies for bringing attention to the cause.

[Third Eye Open]

Leviticus makes neither of those statements.
God instructs the Israelites to refrain from certain acts. The orientation or other uncontrollable aspects of the individuals in question is never discussed.
But do certain things (wear two-fabric cloth, talk back to your parents, worship Baal, have gay sex, have incestuous sex, have an affair), and you would be put to death. For your ACTIONS. A very different standard.

The people who have had gay sex are certainly a group of people. They are called homosexuals. The verse in Leviticus is a blanket statement that they should all be put to death. I don't understand your point here.

[six7s]

Any evidence that his action is hurting the cause for gay rights, or rather the cause for rights?Not hard to find<snip/>
...this act of McKellan's can do nothing to further that cause and can, potentially, do a great deal to hurt it.

OK... so you have found links to web sites that were discussing the story...

Have you any evidence that ANY such actions have had an overall detrimental effect on the adavancement of any human rights?

[AvalonXQ]

The people who have had gay sex are certainly a group of people. They are called homosexuals.

If that's your definition of a "homosexual", then I agree with you insofar as we agree to that definition.
However, this is not the definition that people usually use. The definition I'm used to is "people who are primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to members of their own gender".
I'm pretty sure this is the definition that we usually talk about in the context of the homosexual community and homosexual rights. And I'm pretty sure there are non-homosexuals who have had gay sex and homosexuals who have not had gay sex, so, using the definition that I expect people are using, I disagree with you.

ETA: I really, really like shrimp. I don't have any issue with the fact that Leviticus condemns my shrimp-eating as, yes, an abomination.

[six7s]

So the act of ripping these pages out of Leviticus, in itself, is completely useless. What helped you change your mind, in this scenario, is finding out that your friends regarded your prejudices as absurd. The only useful part of the Ian McKellan thing was that it got you to bring the topic up with your friends.

So, in other words, a far, far more effective act on McKellan's part would be one that gets as much news coverage (therefore being likely to make people like you bring the topic up with your friends) but which doesn't automatically serve as a red flag to all the gay bashers in the nation AND have the added downside that it serves to offend and alienate people even if they don't, themselves, feel strongly opposed to gay rights and in some cases even if they feel positively disposed to gay rights.

So, in other words, you agree with me that this act in itself can do nothing to sway someone from being opposed/neutral on gay rights to being pro and you must surely agree that the act in itself could sway someone who is pro/neutral on gay rights to being anti? So you must, therefore, agree that all people who hold the cause of equal rights for all dear should hope that Sir Ian stops this foolish practice and thinks up some much smarter strategies for bringing attention to the cause.
No

[Third Eye Open]

ETA: I really, really like shrimp. I don't have any issue with the fact that Leviticus condemns my shrimp-eating as, yes, an abomination.

That's because people aren't holding that verse on signs as they call you names and threaten your life. They don't use that verse to push for shrimp to be outlawed.

[six7s]

... I'm pretty sure there are non-homosexuals who have had gay sexYes... bisexuals, experimenters, etc

and homosexuals who have not had gay sexYes, virgins...

Serious questions:

Has this 'semantic' distiction been at the core of your recent (related) posts?

If so, why?

[Third Eye Open]

If that's your definition of a "homosexual", then I agree with you insofar as we agree to that definition.
However, this is not the definition that people usually use. The definition I'm used to is "people who are primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to members of their own gender".
I'm pretty sure this is the definition that we usually talk about in the context of the homosexual community and homosexual rights. And I'm pretty sure there are non-homosexuals who have had gay sex and homosexuals who have not had gay sex, so, using the definition that I expect people are using, I disagree with you.



I agree that that is the definition yes, but you saying 'oh no the bible doesn't have a problem with homosexuals, its just the sex' is really quite a cop out. Sex is a natural part of human existence. Saying that a certain group of people should be put to death if they have sex is on par with simply condemning those people to death right out, IMO.

[Yoink]

No

Sigh. So, I know it's pointless to ask, but if you disagree with what I said, would you care to point out why. I mean, if you think that this particular act does have some symbolic or argumentative force why are you so unwilling to spell it out? I've asked you over and over again to explain how this specific act could help motivate someone to support gay rights. When you finally decided to address the question, you said that it might make you raise the topic with friends and then your friends might challenge your homophobia. Clearly, in that scenario, the specific act has nothing whatsoever to do with your "conversion"--it is the fact of discovering that your friends view your position as intolerant and narrow minded. But you'd discover that no matter what made you raise the topic of gay rights with them.

If you'd read a news article about Ian McKellan refusing an honor from the Queen, say, because she's the titular head of the Church of England, that would have had precisely the same effect. And that would be an action which would provide exactly zero motivating red meat to the gay-bashing right. Or if you'd read an article about Ian McKellan devoting vast sums of money to the No on 8 campaign, or starring in a series of advertisements for the campaign pro-bono, or any other such action (all of which I would entirely applaud) these would all be the kinds of actions which would draw attention to the cause (which is the sole good you're postulating in the bible-ripping act), AND have the ancillary benefits of actually drawing positive commentary about a gay star publicly sacrificing for the greater good AND avoid the ancillary negative effects of alienating moderates and provoking (and mobilizing) opponents.

[six7s]

Clearly, in that scenario, the specific act has nothing whatsoever to do with your "conversion"No

Get it?

You seem hell bent on pretending that you know more than I do in regard to how I think.

Please, stop it

[Yoink]

OK... so you have found links to web sites that were discussing the story...

Have you any evidence that ANY such actions have had an overall detrimental effect on the adavancement of any human rights?

If you're asking for "evidence" then that's what I've given you. Read the comment threads I linked you to--you can observe the anti-gay right being motivated before your very eyes. Look at the role motivated Mormons played in the Yes on 8 campaign in California. That's extremely strong inferential evidence.

If you're asking for "proof" then you're asking for the impossible. Obviously I don't have some panopticon with which I can observe the actions of every single inhabitant of this and some parallel world and by means of which I can examine exactly who is affected by hearing of McKellan's actions and how.

In the world of political gestures and opinion campaigns we never, ever have "proof" that one tactic or another works or doesn't work. But that doesn't mean that we can't apply our common sense. If you'd been President Obama's campaign manager, would you have advised him to boast about ripping out the page in Gideon's bibles on the campaign trail that refers to the poor "always being with us" because he doesn't like such defeatism? Or ripping out all pages that refer to slavery? Why not? If you'd made that recommendation would it have been because you are pro-slavery?

No, you'd have said "that's insane--the right will make that a club to beat us to death with." And no, you wouldn't ever be able to "prove" that the endless squawking in the media about Obama defacing bibles was what destroyed his campaign, but only a moron would disagree that that would have been a campaign-destroying action.

Similarly, I have shown you proof--hard proof--that the right is mobilized and energized by McKellan's statements about his actions. I have shown you (and any idiot can see) why a person who is somewhat neutral on the issue of gay rights but feels strongly about the sanctity of either the bible or freedom of expression might feel offended by his actions. So we know that it mobilizes the very forces who work to defeat gay rights and we have a strong inferential reason to assume that it will turn off possible swing voters on the issue (and swing voters are crucial on this issue--look at the huge swings in the polling on Prop 8 as the lying propaganda of the Yes on 8 campaign did its work).

Opposed to that we have what? Evidence that people who are utterly devoted to the cause already will sometimes be inclined to cheer McKellan on, and your argument that "well, maybe I'd hear about it and talk about it with my friends and then my friends would totally argue me round on gay rights." That's not much of a basis for adopting this as a campaign tactic, is it?

[Yoink]

No

Get it?

You seem hell bent on pretending that you know more than I do in regard to how I think.

Please, stop it

Great. So SAY WHAT IT DOES CONTRIBUTE THEN!!!

ETA: I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever "in regard to how you think." What I do claim knowledge about is what you have written in this thread. In this thread you wrote that hearing about Ian McKellan's act might make you talk with your friends about gay rights, and that your friends might offer you new perspectives. The specific details of McKellan's act play no part whatsoever in the account you gave of how you might end up changing your mind on gay rights.

[Third Eye Open]

Sigh. So, I know it's pointless to ask, but if you disagree with what I said, would you care to point out why. I mean, if you think that this particular act does have some symbolic or argumentative force why are you so unwilling to spell it out? I've asked you over and over again to explain how this specific act could help motivate someone to support gay rights. When you finally decided to address the question, you said that it might make you raise the topic with friends and then your friends might challenge your homophobia. Clearly, in that scenario, the specific act has nothing whatsoever to do with your "conversion"--it is the fact of discovering that your friends view your position as intolerant and narrow minded. But you'd discover that no matter what made you raise the topic of gay rights with them.

If you'd read a news article about Ian McKellan refusing an honor from the Queen, say, because she's the titular head of the Church of England, that would have had precisely the same effect. And that would be an action which would provide exactly zero motivating red meat to the gay-bashing right. Or if you'd read an article about Ian McKellan devoting vast sums of money to the No on 8 campaign, or starring in a series of advertisements for the campaign pro-bono, or any other such action (all of which I would entirely applaud) these would all be the kinds of actions which would draw attention to the cause (which is the sole good you're postulating in the bible-ripping act), AND have the ancillary benefits of actually drawing positive commentary about a gay star publicly sacrificing for the greater good AND avoid the ancillary negative effects of alienating moderates and provoking (and mobilizing) opponents.

It's pretty simple really. The more extreme or out of the ordinary something is, the more people will talk about it and tell it to their friends or post new threads about it on forums.

If Mckellan had been instead talking about how he left pro gay rights literature in the drawer next to the bible, I doubt that thread would have gone more than a page.

I doubt I would have even posted that thread.

Whatever his intentions are, this news is spreading quicker than non controversial news would, and causing more discussion that non controversial news would. Peoples opinions about gay rights will be more likely to be known when you hear them talking about this story, whether they are against what Mckellen did or not.

More discussion about a subject that a large percent of the country doesn't think or care about is a GOOD thing.

[gtc]

Teh Irony... It BURNZ!

Huh? Your point is that you haven't found evidence for a possibility, therefore its impossible???

We are on a skeptics board. We don't usually dismiss a hypothesis just because it pushes us out of our comfort zone

Maybe not...

However, I linked to a search on christians+hate+homosexuals (http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=christians+hate+homosexuals&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)... if you think want to pretend that's irrelevant, then good luck

WTF are you babbling about?

Simon39759 made two claims.

1) Christians are crying over this vandalism.
2) These same Christians would line up to burn a pamphlett saying homosexuality isn't an abomination.

There is no evidence for either of these statements. If you or him want to make claims then you need to back that up with evidence.

I do like "blame the victim" rationalizations....

I don't think anyone is blaming the Gideons.

No, not at all. Those people are pretty much unreachable. But there are lots of people who revere the Bible without regarding it as "the inerrant word of God." There are plenty of self-described Christians out there who would be profoundly shocked by the idea of someone deliberately defacing the bible who are either pro gay rights or fairly neutral on gay rights. It is those people, in particular, that I think McKellan risks alienating.

As for me, an atheist who has always been entirely pro gay rights, I find the act of selective defacement of any works of literature abhorrent. I, personally, think McKellan is behaving like a childish ass when he does this. It won't stop me voting in favor of gay rights whenever I get the chance and it won't stop me admiring him enormously as an actor--but I can tell from my own reaction to the act how damaging it must be to gay rights cause among people who are less committed to the cause than I am and who have special reason to care about the particular book that he's defacing.

That seems reasonable.

In what way does this particular action (ripping pages out of bibles in hotel rooms) challenge any beliefs of any kind that you have previously held?

The excuses being made for the actions of defacing bibles sound like post hoc rationalisations for people who get a thrill from attacking Christian symbols.

I would be interested to know if the people who justify defacing the Bible would do the same thing to the Koran. And if not, why not?

[six7s]

Similarly, I have shown you proof--hard proof--that the right is mobilized and energized by McKellan's statements about his actions. I have shown you (and any idiot can see) why a person who is somewhat neutral on the issue of gay rights but feels strongly about the sanctity of either the bible or freedom of expression might feel offended by his actions. So we know that it mobilizes the very forces who work to defeat gay rights and we have a strong inferential reason to assume that it will turn off possible swing voters on the issue (and swing voters are crucial on this issue--look at the huge swings in the polling on Prop 8 as the lying propaganda of the Yes on 8 campaign did its work).

So we know, huh?

Oh really?

Are we forgetting or ignoring that these self-same morons would be 'mobilised' regardless?

[Yoink]

More discussion about a subject that a large percent of the country doesn't think or care about is a GOOD thing.

Not if it is discussion that casts the proponent of gay rights in a bad light. Let me repeat my example above. Would you have suggested, if you were Obama's campaign manager, that he should talk about ripping out the pages of bibles that refer to slavery during the campaign? Hey, everyone agrees slavery is a bad thing, right? And it sure would have got people talking, right?

O.K.--now, why wouldn't it have been a smart move? Anyone?

[Simon39759]

Yes, because according to Christian teachings, sex between two or more individuals is immoral under all but very specific circumstances.

No, because according to Christian teachings, the Law of Moses is not binding on us today.

Says who?
I mean, I think the idea that Jesus cancelled the law of Moses is not warranted from reading the NT, that it is apologetic and a decision of convenience.
Leaving that aside, if you are going to declare that Leviticus is no longer applicable, where do you get the bit about the immorality of sex?
Jesus actually says almost nothing about sex and absolutely nothing about homosexuality.
He does spend a lot of time condemning divorces, though, but a surprising number of Christian seem to gloss over that.




ETA for Simon: That passage in Matthew requires considerably more than attraction; it condemns active fantasizing.

That's your interpretation but it certainly is not as clear as you make it to be.

[Marduk]

Let me repeat my example above. Would you have suggested, if you were Obama's campaign manager, that he should talk about ripping out the pages of bibles that refer to slavery during the campaign? Hey, everyone agrees slavery is a bad thing, right? And it sure would have got people talking, right?

O.K.--now, why wouldn't it have been a smart move? Anyone?

ah easy answer, because Obama is a sycophantic politician and Ian Mckellen isn't

thankyou thankyou I'm here all week
:D

[Third Eye Open]

Not if it is discussion that casts the proponent of gay rights in a bad light. Let me repeat my example above. Would you have suggested, if you were Obama's campaign manager, that he should talk about ripping out the pages of bibles that refer to slavery during the campaign? Hey, everyone agrees slavery is a bad thing, right? And it sure would have got people talking, right?

O.K.--now, why wouldn't it have been a smart move? Anyone?

Because you have to keep your nose deep up the religious rear end if you want to win any elections in America. Mckellen is not running for office. You don't have to be liked to make a point.

I understand what you are saying about a bad impression, but sometimes people just need to stand up and say 'hey this is BS' and the only way some people will even look your way is if you slap them in the face.

[Dysphemist]

I've had discussions with Christians who have said "where does it say in the Bible that being gay is wrong?" And they think they are completely correct in thinking the good book isn't full of this intolerant, ignorant trash. I tell them that in Leviticus it says directly that gay sex is an abomination, and in every case so far (straight away, or after seeing the verse for themselves) the person will say "well then that part of the Bible is wrong." I know this is an anecdote, but there have been numerous threads discussing Christians lack of Biblical knowledge.

I don't see what McKellen is doing as intentional censorship*, and it can't be put in the same boat as the book burning actions. McKellen is making a public statement that condemns this section of the Bible. I think that the opposers to McKellen's action in this thread are underestimating the amount of ordinary people who don't even know where in the Bible this garbage is located. McKellen brings to their attention the place the anti-gay (and yes, the verse is anti-gay) material is located, and then shows his own personal disgust at this material still being placed in hotel rooms.

I agree with freedom of speech, but McKellen is just making a public statement against the intolerant views in the Bible using his own property. There are plenty of other Bible's out there, and the actions of McKellen is not going to result in the mass suppression of Biblical material any time soon (how could he not know this).

Honestly, who even looks through the Bible at the hotels? You think an ordinary person (who isn't militant atheist, or evangelical Christian) would pick it up to start reading it? Highlighting the parts that are trash is not an effective protest. Placing pamphlets, could maybe be a little more effective. Ripping the pages out of the Bible by a number of people who support McKellen's cause is a great protest against the ignorant, intolerant material. It is our property. There are plenty more Bibles. It makes for a good news story, and ruffles the feathers of the anti-gay Christians -- more people hear about the cause, learn about what it actually says in the Bible.

*ETA: censorship as in the mass elimination of a certain material. His actions have a different purpose.

[Monster Machine]

Leviticus makes neither of those statements.
God instructs the Israelites to refrain from certain acts. The orientation or other uncontrollable aspects of the individuals in question is never discussed.
But do certain things (wear two-fabric cloth, talk back to your parents, worship Baal, have gay sex, have incestuous sex, have an affair), and you would be put to death. For your ACTIONS. A very different standard.


To be clear, Avalon:

1. Being a homosexual is not, in and of itself, an abomination.
2. Having sex with a member of the same gender is.

So, you can be gay, you just can't express physical love with your same sex partner.

This is exactly what happens.
Gay rights advocates have, through their actions, convinced a lot of people that their agenda is fundamentally anti-religion, and so must be opposed.

When the religion is oppressive, I can't figure out why anyone would be against it...

You also indicate how Christians don't fall under the OT law, but even the NT likes to condemn teh homosinuals:


1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


Monster

[Yoink]

Because you have to keep your nose deep up the religious rear end if you want to win any elections in America. Mckellen is not running for office. You don't have to be liked to make a point.

Actually, gay rights are directly at issue at the ballot box in state after state after state. This very night the people of Maine are poised (I hope) to be the first state ever to endorse gay marriage in a popular election. If gay marriage loses at the ballot box in Maine tonight Ian McKellan's foolish act may very well have played a small part in that defeat; Christians who are pro equal-rights (yes, there are plenty of them) might be demotivated by this vision of a gay rights activism that takes the form of a direct attack on their holy book. Christians who are anti equal-rights might have been motivated to do more phone-bank get-out-the-vote stuff etc. etc.

You can't divide electoral politics from gay rights politics. The equations are basically the same.

I understand what you are saying about a bad impression, but sometimes people just need to stand up and say 'hey this is BS' and the only way some people will even look your way is if you slap them in the face.

Yeah, sure, sometimes. How is this one of those times? We're on the verge of a momentous historic shift in social attitudes towards and legal codification of homosexuality. Explain how it's politically useful to that movement--to tipping the last 5-10% which will give you a majority in favor of gay rights in most states in the US--to associate gay rights with ripping up bibles?

It seems to me that you're putting "getting up the noses of the evangelicals" way above "actually reforming the laws" in your order of priorities. And that seems politically foolish.

[Yoink]

ah easy answer, because Obama is a sycophantic politician and Ian Mckellen isn't

thankyou thankyou I'm here all week
:D

The question wasn't "what would Obama do"--the question was "if you were Obama's campaign advisor, what would you advise him to do, and why?"

Do you advise him to boast of ripping pages out of bibles? If not, why not? If it's a good way of advancing your cause, why wouldn't you advise him to do it?

[six7s]

It seems to me that you're putting "getting up the noses of the evangelicals" way above "actually reforming the laws" in your order of priorities. And that seems politically foolish.You seem to be suggesting that you can make your country a better, more harmonious place to live by enacting legislation in a 'cunning' manner, i.e. under the unsuspecting noses of the monumentally stupid section of your population

If so, good luck with that!

[Marduk]

The question wasn't "what would Obama do"--the question was "if you were Obama's campaign advisor, what would you advise him to do, and why?"

Do you advise him to boast of ripping pages out of bibles? If not, why not? If it's a good way of advancing your cause, why wouldn't you advise him to do it?

I would advise him to carry on being sycophantic of course
what part of "political image" arent you getting ?
McKellen doesnt have a political image, as an actor hes a self made millionaire, why should he care what people think, it won't stop him getting roles, it will just get him more roles as villains, and they generally pay more. I expect if he knew you were comparing him with an American politician he would be quite insulted, moreso than he is by Leviticus
:D

you asked a stupid question and it got treated with the contempt it deserved, perhaps better to compare an orange to an orange next time rather than an apple.
:D

[MikeSun5]

Leviticus doesn't say a word against homosexual attraction or homosexual people; it condemns a variety of sex practices including homosexual sex, and orders the Israelites to kill those who violate the law and perform these sex acts.
If you think that's terrible, then fine -- condemn it for what it says, not what it doesn't say.

At first you were against defacing of private property, then you pretty much declared books should never ever be destroyed no matter what they say or who they belong to. I agree with your first stance. I don't agree with your second. The sacredness of the written word aside, I can do whatever I want to whatever book is given to me. Gideons Bible that Sir Ian ripped up was arguably his. I wonder if your issue is more with the fact he left it behind defaced rather than just throwing it out?

Now you're arguing that the Bible is actually OKAY with homosexuality, just not physical sex between people of the same gender. WTF?

Here's a website (http://bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspective) that plainly states the typical Christian viewpoint (which is WAY different than your behavior-only idea). It specifically states that "In the Bible, sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality." According to the Bible, homosexuals are sodomites and therefore deserve death. You seem to be saying that one isn't a homosexual/sodomite until they have actual, physical homosexual intercourse. That's absurd.

ETA: I really, really like shrimp. I don't have any issue with the fact that Leviticus condemns my shrimp-eating as, yes, an abomination.

:rolleyes: An unfortunate, terrible analogy. When you're beaten, persecuted, and ostracized because of it -- and then blamed for shellfish allergies -- then we'll talk.

A lot of people seem to think that certain groups get a free pass to do whatever vile nonsense they want to do in response to injustices or other attacks against them.

Tearing a page out of a free book = vile nonsense? :)

Bad acts are bad acts; you don't get a bye because you don't like what another group says or believes.
I, personally, expect groups to express themselves civilly, and to respect the rights of other groups to do the same -- and I will condemn anyone who chooses lawlessness, violence, and oppression instead, whatever their views.

No law was broken, and no violent act committed... So from what I gather from your post here is you think Sir Ian was oppressing the rights of the people who put that Bible in his hotel suite. Am I right?

[applecorped]

Are the bibles free to take from hotel rooms?

[arthwollipot]

No. I think they should disagree, strongly, with better arguments if they have them, and work within the law to change what they think is wrong.Unfortunately, it's the law itself that they think is wrong.

Sorry for dredging up old posts, but it needed to be said.

[Marduk]

Are the bibles free to take from hotel rooms?

YES
thats why theyre there
:D

[Ladewig]

who ever READS hotel bibles?

From the Gideon website: "Research from the hotel industry tells us that approximately 25% of travelers read the Bibles in their hotel rooms."

[Marduk]

From the Gideon website: "Research from the hotel industry tells us that approximately 25% of travelers read the Bibles in their hotel rooms."

only while theyre waiting for reception to run the gay porn
;)

[JoeyDonuts]

Meh. The PPV porn in hotel rooms is a monumental rip-off anyway.

Seeing as how most hotels now have Wi-Fi or some sort of internet access, I'd use that, and then use Deuteronomy to clean up.

Or perhaps Ezekiel.

[Darat]

Not hard to find. Here's a mormon discussion site (http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/46116-ian-mckellan-brags-about-defacing-hotel-room-bibles/page__st__40)discussing his actions. Funnily enough it doesn't seem to be making them see the light. Lucky there's no reason for gays to fear riled up Mormons, eh?

Here's an entry on some general Christian topics blog (http://whataboutchurch.com/church-life/ian-mckellans-bible-vandalism/).

Here's a freerepublic thread (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889540/posts)where the whole thing is red meat for the gay bashers.

Here's a Townhall.com (http://townhall.com/blog/g/43b95175-b8cb-4f45-af04-cec11b4f8503)thread on the same topic. Once again, the story being used to rally the troops on the Right.

That was approximately five minutes of looking through just the first two pages of just one Google search using "Ian McKellan bible vandalism"--I'm sure if I had a look at "bible attack" or "bible defacing" or what have you I'd find more.

...snip...

That doesn't support your and AvalonXQ's claim. Unless you are saying these people only became "anti-gay rights" after reading about McKellen's actions? And if yo uare making that claim I would like to see the evidence for it!

[Darat]

So the act of ripping these pages out of Leviticus, in itself, is completely useless. What helped you change your mind, in this scenario, is finding out that your friends regarded your prejudices as absurd. The only useful part of the Ian McKellan thing was that it got you to bring the topic up with your friends.

...snip...

Make your mind up - was it "completely useless" or not?

[Darat]

As far as I know James Parks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8328665.stm) was not eating shrimp the night he was attacked.

But then I suppose he brought it on himself - you know by being an extremist and thinking he had any sort of right to express himself in anyway that anyone may take offense at.

[Darat]

...snip...

I don't think anyone is blaming the Gideons.

..snip...

And I haven't said they were.

[Darat]

Are the bibles free to take from hotel rooms?

A Gideon bible is - they want you to have "God's word".

[JoeyDonuts]

Quick dumb question - Where do the Gideons procure the funding to continually print Bibles? I don't imagine hotel rooms need to be "replenished" that often, so I'm not certain how often, or even how they would go about doing so.

Do they send volunteers out to do "inventory" to see if a hotel needs any more?

:confused:

[Darat]

Quick dumb question - Where do the Gideons procure the funding to continually print Bibles? I don't imagine hotel rooms need to be "replenished" that often, so I'm not certain how often, or even how they would go about doing so.

Do they send volunteers out to do "inventory" to see if a hotel needs any more?

:confused:

They are funded by charitable donations, from other Christian organizations and individuals.

As for distribution - they do send out volunteers and a hotel (and other organizations) can also request supplies of Bibles.

[gtc]

As far as I know James Parks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8328665.stm) was not eating shrimp the night he was attacked.

But then I suppose he brought it on himself - you know by being an extremist and thinking he had any sort of right to express himself in anyway that anyone may take offense at.

The two situations are very different. Firstly, James Parks was minding his own business. He was not attacking a symbol of another's religion.

More importantly, Ian McKellen is being labelled a wanker for his actions. Not murdered.

[Darat]

The two situations are very different. Firstly, James Parks was minding his own business. He was not attacking a symbol of another's religion.

...snip...

Yes he was. He was an "out" homosexual, and you can read the links that Yoinks provided if you want a take on what that means to some religious people.


More importantly, Ian McKellen is being labelled a wanker for his actions. Not murdered.

Not at this moment but as he will be well aware of in the UK attacks on homosexuals, because they are homosexuals such as James Parks, are on the increase. But then if only those uppity gays would just keep quiet about their views on people who label them abominations and sinners it would all be OK, I mean why should anyone object to being in a room they have paid for which has some literature that promotes their death?

[gtc]

Yes he was. He was an "out" homosexual, and you can read the links that Yoinks provided if you want a take on what that means to some religious people.

OK. But do you have any evidence that the people who attacked him were religious?



Not at this moment but as he will be well aware of in the UK attacks on homosexuals, because they are homosexuals such as James Parks, are on the increase.

Attacks by Christians?

But then if only those uppity gays would just keep quiet about their views on people who label them abominations and sinners it would all be OK, I mean why should anyone object to being in a room they have paid for which has some literature that promotes their death?

You appear to be putting words in my mouth. I have never said that I think people should be quiet about that and I have never said that they shouldn't object to the presence of a Gideon Bible in their room.

His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people and does not appear to actually work to improve anyone's opinions of gay people. Being needlessly confrontational is counterproductive.

[Darat]

OK. But do you have any evidence that the people who attacked him were religious?

...snip...

Given the attack was in city centre Liverpool I would suspect the people involved are nominally Christian, but I would be very surprised if they were practising Christians.



Attacks by Christians?



Happening in the UK so some are very likely to be carried out by Christians.


You appear to be putting words in my mouth. I have never said that I think people should be quiet about that and I have never said that they shouldn't object to the presence of a Gideon Bible in their room.
...snip...

Glad to hear that.


His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people




As I've asked the others who have made these claim - any evidence to support these claims?


and does not appear to actually work to improve anyone's opinions of gay people.


And who has decided that is the goal of his actions? From what I've read he's never claimed his action is meant to result in that.





Being needlessly confrontational is counterproductive.

And who decides if someone is being "needlessly confrontational"? Apparently you hold that wanting to take an action that removes text that promotes your killing is "needlessly confrontational" even when it does not involve censorship or damaging of anyone else's property.

I do not think such actions are "needlessly confrontational".

[Hux]

I doubt even the most rabid christian would attack a Gay person in this country - solely because they are christian. They are christian in the sense that I am christened but thats it. They are actually just mindless thugs who 'hate' gays without necessarily knowing why. Possibly in the blanket way they would beat up Gypsies, the mentally ill, Jews yadda yadda.

Liverpool has a very high Catholic population. But these Scousers will beat you up just because of the colour of the shirt you wear so I dont think they have worked out the nuances of human sexuality. Its just 'them' or 'us'. Put a scouser in an enmpty room and he'll end up arguing. That's just the way it is.

[fuelair]

Neither does the Bible. Now, back on topic...

Defacing someone else's property is unacceptable.
I also find book burnings to be repugnant, even when you own the books you're burning.
Needless to say, defacing someone else's books is unacceptable, uncivilized, and repugnant.

And, whose books are these - the hotel, motel did not buy them, the gidiots put them there with no intention of reclaiming them, therefore, no one owns them they are, at most, discarded property. I will grant the gidiots may have put them where they did intending they be read for the gidiot's purposes but they are still discarded property. You may argue the effects regardless of it's not being a case of destroying/damaging someone else's property, but it is not destruction of of someone else's property.

NOTE: Absent evidence, the only bibbles, that I know of, placed in hotel rooms are placed by the gidiots.

[gtc]

Given the attack was in city centre Liverpool I would suspect the people involved are nominally Christian, but I would be very surprised if they were practising Christians.


Happening in the UK so some are very likely to be carried out by Christians.

What proportion of teenagers in Liverpool are even nominally Christian? I would be surprised if any of them had read Leviticus, let alone been motivated by it.

As I've asked the others who have made these claim - any evidence to support these claims?

Yes (http://www.mccinglasgow.moonfruit.com/#/made-in-gods-image/4534834837). This is from a Glasgow art exhibition.

Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1202632/Pope-attacks-art-vandalising-Bible.html), The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6723980.ece), A blog (http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html) about the incident.

Many Christians are offended by the desecration of the Bible. I have asked a few.


And who has decided that is the goal of his actions? From what I've read he's never claimed his action is meant to result in that.

So? It doesn't mean that the statement is not true.


And who decides if someone is being "needlessly confrontational"?

That is my opinion. I have the right to that opinion just as you have the right to the opinion that it is not needlessly confrontational.

Apparently you hold that wanting to take an action that removes text that promotes your killing is "needlessly confrontational" even when it does not involve censorship or damaging of anyone else's property.

Yes I do. For the reasons I wrote - needlessly annoy without swaying anyone's opinion.

I do not think such actions are "needlessly confrontational".

I gathered.

[fuelair]

Neither does the Bible. Now, back on topic...

.

You are correct - it actually lists a lot of groups that way - though, of course, you are using semantics to make your statement technically accurate (the bibble doesn't specifically use the phrases "less than human"/sub-human).

[Darat]

What proportion of teenagers in Liverpool are even nominally Christian? I would be surprised if any of them had read Leviticus, let alone been motivated by it.

...snip...

At the last census over half the UK population self-identified as Christian. (ETA: That is across the country, Liverpool is in one of the areas of the UK that has the highest proportion of people who self-identify as Christian.)

ETA: "The Christian Research Association of the UK estimates that at the present time just over half the children born in the UK are baptised in a church."



Yes (http://www.mccinglasgow.moonfruit.com/#/made-in-gods-image/4534834837). This is from a Glasgow art exhibition.

Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1202632/Pope-attacks-art-vandalising-Bible.html), The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6723980.ece), A blog (http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html) about the incident.

Many Christians are offended by the desecration of the Bible. I have asked a few.



You stated "His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people" - that is what I am asking for evidence to support.



So? It doesn't mean that the statement is not true.



So you have no evidence that his goal is to ".. work to improve anyone's opinions of gay people...."?

[Belz...]

tyr_13,

They are donated. I doubt it costs them anything other than to drop them into the rooms.

Free property is still property.

[gtc]

At the last census over half the UK population self-identified as Christian.
ETA: "The Christian Research Association of the UK estimates that at the present time just over half the children born in the UK are baptised in a church."


So there is more than a fifty per cent change that that they would self-identify as Christian but that is not evidence that this attack was religiously motivated.


You stated "His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people" - that is what I am asking for evidence to support.

And you have been provided with that if you follow the link. Desecration of the Bible does annoy Christians. Have you asked any Christians what they think about tearing pages out of a Bible? I can assure you that I have.



So you have no evidence that his goal is to ".. work to improve anyone's opinions of gay people...."?

Of course not. But I never claimed that it was his goal and whether it is his goal or not is irrelevant to what I wrote.

[Darat]

Do you have those statistics by age group? The odds suggest that they would self-identify as Christian but that is not evidence that this attack was religiously motivated.

...snip...

Sorry no - I don't think that census data is available, and note I'm not and have not claimed that the attack was directly religiously motivated.



And you have been provided with that if you follow the link. Desecration of the Bible does annoy Christians. Have you asked any Christians what they think about tearing pages out of a Bible? I can assure you that I have.

...snip...

Again that is not quite what I am asking you to support which was "His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people".

Is this claim actually just your opinion?

[gtc]

Sorry no - I don't think that census data is available, and note I'm not and have not claimed that the attack was directly religiously motivated.

Right. There is also the problem that the Church of England, in England, is one of the most tolerant churches (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/3684841/Gay_bishops_are_here_to_stay/). I would also be surprised if that many of them see Leviticus as being particularly relevant.

Again that is not quite what I am asking you to support which was "His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people".

Those links show Christians being angered by the desecration of the Bible. I can't provide evidence of the attitudes of those annoyed Christians were to homosexuality but the fact that they were angered by the desecration seems relevant to me.

Is this claim actually just your opinion?[/quote]

It is my opinion based on those articles I linked to and discussions with a Christian about this topic.

[blobru]

The tub-thumping irony in all this meshugenah: :id:

Isn't Moses, the author (they say) of the same Leviticus that Sir Ian is desecrating (by ripping out the page calling for his death), celebrated for one of the most dramatic acts of literary vandalism and desecration in all mythology: the shattering of the 10 commandments?

Okay, technically Moses is miffed at those who don't follow His law, while Sir Ian is ticked at those who do (or might); still, given the parallels and precedent:

Shouldn't Christians be celebrating the righteous ire of Sir Ian? After all, he's only imitating, albeit in very small measure -- hard to square the worth of the original decalogue with a free hotel bible -- one of their very own superheroes.


:halo: we love the actor; it's the act we find abominable

[six7s]

A Gideon bible is - they want you to have "God's word".Not a god sword

[six7s]

:halo: we love the actor; it's the act we find abominableNominated (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5275663#post5275663) :D

[Marduk]

I doubt even the most rabid christian would attack a Gay person in this country

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9853
A conservative pressure group within the Church of England has attacked a Christian arts and music festival for allowing gay groups and their supporters to appear and speak alongside others, calling its speaker programme "deeply discriminatory".

seems the organisations do though, are they trying to lead by example ?
:p

[applecorped]

A Gideon bible is - they want you to have "God's word".


I wonder if Rocky Raccoon ripped the pages out as well?

[Darat]

??

[six7s]

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9853
A conservative pressure group within the Church of England has attacked a Christian arts and music festival for allowing gay groups and their supporters to appear and speak alongside others, calling its speaker programme "deeply discriminatory".

seems the organisations do though, are they trying to lead by example ?
:pUnlike an islamic jihad, an attack from within the ranks of the C of E will rarely if ever amount to anything more traumatic than lashings of cake (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndIjV8Nk6DA)

ndIjV8Nk6DA
Eddie Izzard - Cake or Death

[six7s]

I wonder if Rocky Raccoon ripped the pages out as well?

??

nucSvl7VXVM

[applecorped]

nucSvl7VXVM

Beetles? :faint:

[six7s]

Beetles? :faint:Ya pay peanuts... ya get monkees...

[MattusMaximus]

I don't know whether or not anyone considers this "vandalism", but every chance I get when staying in a hotel, I stick one of these into the front of the Bible in the room...

:D
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_774747f961415bb8c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11629)

[gtc]

No. That is quite different to vandalism.

[MikeSun5]

His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people and does not appear to actually work to improve anyone's opinions of gay people. Being needlessly confrontational is counterproductive.

I'm sure if you were openly gay and subject to discrimination, you'd have a way different opinion.

No. That is quite different to vandalism.

Except there wasn't any vandalism. The guy paid for a room, ripped out some pages of his free Bible, and left it in the room. If there is supposed to be a fresh Bible for each customer, then it'd be the responsibility of Gideons in conjunction with the hotel to check for missing pages after each customer, right? I mean, they make sure you have enough of the regular toilet paper, don't they? :rolleyes:

Would it have been an issue if Sir Ian had taken out passages of the Bible to say, put in his wallet? What if he didn't throw them out, but kept them to read? Would there still be an uproar?

It seems to me that the issue here is not the actual missing pages, but that Sir Ian wanted to rustle a few (what he perceives as) anti-gay feathers. It's a clever strawman when you think about it: make a statement about defacing a holy book knowing it'll piss off Christians, and then when they're mad, accuse them of hating gays because the pages you ripped out are predjudiced.

[gtc]

I'm sure if you were openly gay and subject to discrimination, you'd have a way different opinion.

And I'm sure you are wrong. Would you say it was productive and not too confrontational if he had been talking about the Koran (assuming you are not Muslim).


Except there wasn't any vandalism. The guy paid for a room, ripped out some pages of his free Bible, and left it in the room. If there is supposed to be a fresh Bible for each customer, then it'd be the responsibility of Gideons in conjunction with the hotel to check for missing pages after each customer, right? I mean, they make sure you have enough of the regular toilet paper, don't they? :rolleyes:

As I said, it was needlessly confrontational and counterproductive.

Would it have been an issue if Sir Ian had taken out passages of the Bible to say, put in his wallet? What if he didn't throw them out, but kept them to read? Would there still be an uproar?

I don't think that would be seen as confrontational or counterproductive.


It seems to me that the issue here is not the actual missing pages, but that Sir Ian wanted to rustle a few (what he perceives as) anti-gay feathers. It's a clever strawman when you think about it: make a statement about defacing a holy book knowing it'll piss off Christians, and then when they're mad, accuse them of hating gays because the pages you ripped out are predjudiced.

I think you are right. From the article in the OP:

"I got delivered a package of 40 of those pages... that had been torn out by a married couple I know. They put them on a bit of string so that I could hang it up in the bathroom."

He doesn't appear to have been phased by this issue enough to reject the millions he made from appearing in the LOTR saga (written by somebody who was staunchly against homosexuality based on his Christian beliefs) and he doesn't appear to want to desecrate the Koran either (which might get him killed).

[MikeSun5]

Would you say it was productive and not too confrontational if he had been talking about the Koran (assuming you are not Muslim).

I never said it was productive, but if someone left a Koran in his hotel room and he ripped it up and left it there, I don't see the problem with that either. If I'm in a hotel room and I see a pamphlet adorned with Rebel flags and swastikas, I'd throw it out and/or rip it up. Would I get on the news and pick a fight with the Klan members of the town afterward? Probably not, but confrontation being "needless" is in the eye of the confronter, isn't it?

As I said, it was needlessly confrontational and counterproductive.

Yep, I read that. And I said if you were gay, you'd probably think otherwise.

...he doesn't appear to want to desecrate the Koran either (which might get him killed).

Last I checked, being gay can get you killed as well...

[gtc]

I never said it was productive,

I wasn't sure which part of my statement you thought I would disagree with, were I gay.

but if someone left a Koran in his hotel room and he ripped it up and left it there, I don't see the problem with that either. If I'm in a hotel room and I see a pamphlet adorned with Rebel flags and swastikas, I'd throw it out and/or rip it up.

OK. I don't think you are being inconsistent.


Would I get on the news and pick a fight with the Klan members of the town afterward? Probably not,

Out of interest, why not? Is it because you don't want to rustle feathers as you put it?


but confrontation being "needless" is in the eye of the confronter, isn't it?

I don't disagree with this.

Yep, I read that. And I said if you were gay, you'd probably think otherwise.

Believe it or not, I do know some gay Christians and some conservative Christians.


Last I checked, being gay can get you killed as well...

Yep. One of the reasons I raised it.

I think we are in agreement about why he did it.

[Robin]

I wouldn't say that, no.
But certainly no such circumstance has arisen thus far in this thread.
Tearing out pages from someone else's book because you dislike the message, is not appropriate behavior for an adult.
So instead of a blanket its wrong to damage other people's property the question is in what circumstances might it be justified to damage other people's property.

We can probably agree that neither tearing pages of somebody's book, nor incitement to bigotry and hatred are appropriate behaviour for adults in the normal circumstances.

Is the latter acceptable because the book in question is old and well regarded? Maybe.

Could the former be acceptable as a protest against the incitement of hatred? I think maybe too. Not that I have ever done it or would do so.

[Whiplash]

The tub-thumping irony in all this meshugenah: :id:

Isn't Moses, the author (they say) of the same Leviticus that Sir Ian is desecrating (by ripping out the page calling for his death), celebrated for one of the most dramatic acts of literary vandalism and desecration in all mythology: the shattering of the 10 commandments?

Okay, technically Moses is miffed at those who don't follow His law, while Sir Ian is ticked at those who do (or might); still, given the parallels and precedent:

Shouldn't Christians be celebrating the righteous ire of Sir Ian? After all, he's only imitating, albeit in very small measure -- hard to square the worth of the original decalogue with a free hotel bible -- one of their very own superheroes.


:halo: we love the actor; it's the act we find abominable



Wow, that's quite a stretch, to equate one man being angry with people for not following the laws, and breaking the commandments in an act of anger, and another who is vandalizing books because he doesn't agree with the laws that are listed in it.

No, he's not imitating anything, evenin "small measure". Apples and oranges. I like that you tried to address that they were different, but very weakly, and then proceed to move forward like it was all fairly covered. Ya, "technically".... These things are not even remotely comparable. One is an act of vandalism caused by disagreement with content.. the other is a man who angrily responded, and wrongly, to the actions of people, and it had nothing to do with the content of the commandments themselves, or him protesting them, or anything like it.

I may be making too much of what you said, I thought you were probably joking, but when people start nominating things I find to be silly or nonsensical, I have a tendency to want to comment on how wrong I thought they were. It really confuses me.. to wonder if the bar is just too low, or if people just don't think. This is one of those "someone nominated that?" moments that I find myself having all too often.

[MikeSun5]

I wasn't sure which part of my statement you thought I would disagree with, were I gay.

I was really only pointing out that just because you think it's counterproductive or needlessly confrontational, that doesn't mean it is. What if this controversy somehow resulted in Gideons not putting Bibles in hotels any more? The JREF would throw a damn ticker-tape parade.

Out of interest, why not? Is it because you don't want to rustle feathers as you put it?

Me personally, yes. But then again, I've never been the victim of hatred at the hands of that group. Of course, that doesn't mean I disagree with the sentiment of calling them out. Anything anti-hate is pro-good. And I'm pro-pro-good.

I think we are in agreement about why he did it.

Oh, most definitely. If he had ripped the pages out as some sort of personal vendetta to make himself feel better, that'd be one thing - but he intentionally made it public to try and start something. While bragging about ripping out Bible pages is not the best way to get attention or help his cause, I still think it's ridiculous that the act itself keeps being referred to as vandalism.

Removing passages or writing in the "Notes" section of a hotel Gideon's Bible is no more vandalism than filling out the hotel's "Tell Us How We Did" questionnaire or drinking their coffee. The Bible is there for you to use like the little plastic-wrapped cups by the sink.

The only problem here is Sir Ian bragged to the religious about defacing a holy book. He's an instigator, not a vandal.

[gtc]

I was really only pointing out that just because you think it's counterproductive or needlessly confrontational, that doesn't mean it is. What if this controversy somehow resulted in Gideons not putting Bibles in hotels any more? The JREF would throw a damn ticker-tape parade.

I know that it is my opinion and I accept I may be wrong. That said, I don't think the Gideons are going to stop putting Bibles in hotels.



Me personally, yes. But then again, I've never been the victim of hatred at the hands of that group. Of course, that doesn't mean I disagree with the sentiment of calling them out. Anything anti-hate is pro-good. And I'm pro-pro-good.

I appreciate that. I think the problem is that while Christians don't generally support that passage of the Bible; they also value the Bible itself. His actions seem antagonistic towards these Christians and his statements appear to be attacking Christians in general.

Here are some statistics.

We have seen that over half of Brits identify as Christian. 80% (http://www.biblesociety.org.uk/uploads/Products/product_370/taking_the_pulse_bibleandchurchsurvey.pdf) [this is an interesting document] of Christians in Britain see the Bible as being divinely inspired but only a third see it as being free from error. Attitudes towards the Bible are not as uniform as some people assume and we can't assume that Christians actually support the sentiment in that passage.

This is borne out by the fact that less than half of Brits support the death penalty at all and less than 10% (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/10758) support the death penalty for serious sexual abuse of an adult (I think that gives us the absolute upper limit on the proportion of the population who support the death penalty for homosexual sex as those who want to kill gays would presumably class homosexual sex as serious sexual abuse). Only 15% of Brits (http://www.gallup.com/poll/16456/public-opinion-favors-gay-rights-britain-canada.aspx) seem to think that Britain should be less accepting of homosexuality and, when the survey was done, a bare majority of Brits supported gay marriage.



Oh, most definitely. If he had ripped the pages out as some sort of personal vendetta to make himself feel better, that'd be one thing - but he intentionally made it public to try and start something. While bragging about ripping out Bible pages is not the best way to get attention or help his cause, I still think it's ridiculous that the act itself keeps being referred to as vandalism.

It seems like bragging about defacing a political sign or some such. I can see why you don't see it as vandalim. I see it as defacing a Christian symbol to annoy people.

Removing passages or writing in the "Notes" section of a hotel Gideon's Bible is no more vandalism than filling out the hotel's "Tell Us How We Did" questionnaire or drinking their coffee. The Bible is there for you to use like the little plastic-wrapped cups by the sink.

Writing dirty messages and putting it back so that a Christian might see it and be offended by it seems morally equivalent to vandalism to me. But that is a different story.

The only problem here is Sir Ian bragged to the religious about defacing a holy book. He's an instigator, not a vandal.

I agree.

[blobru]

The tub-thumping irony in all this meshugenah: :id:

Isn't Moses, the author (they say) of the same Leviticus that Sir Ian is desecrating (by ripping out the page calling for his death), celebrated for one of the most dramatic acts of literary vandalism and desecration in all mythology: the shattering of the 10 commandments?

Okay, technically Moses is miffed at those who don't follow His law, while Sir Ian is ticked at those who do (or might); still, given the parallels and precedent:

Shouldn't Christians be celebrating the righteous ire of Sir Ian? After all, he's only imitating, albeit in very small measure -- hard to square the worth of the original decalogue with a free hotel bible -- one of their very own superheroes.

:halo: we love the actor; it's the act we find abominable

Wow, that's quite a stretch, to equate one man being angry with people for not following the laws, and breaking the commandments in an act of anger, and another who is vandalizing books because he doesn't agree with the laws that are listed in it.

Always a stretch, for me at least, to derive any sort of cogent morality from the words and actions of people who may or may not have lived thousands of years ago; however, that's the method of literalist Christians, many of whom are angered by Sir Ian's actions, so I must adopt it for the purposes of the reductio ad absurdum.

No, he's not imitating anything, evenin "small measure". Apples and oranges.

Both fruit let's note, which gets to the core of the controversy. :Banane59: hi-yo!

I like that you tried to address that they were different, but very weakly, and then proceed to move forward like it was all fairly covered.

Thanks. You do what you can, you know...

Ya, "technically".... These things are not even remotely comparable.

D-oh! :eusa_doh:

One is an act of vandalism caused by disagreement with content..

Yes, very serious disagreement: he's angry enough with those who would follow it to tear out the disagreeable content.

the other is a man who angrily responded, and wrongly, to the actions of people, and it had nothing to do with the content of the commandments themselves, or him protesting them, or anything like it.

He was certainly angry with the actions of people, angry because they were dancing around a statue of a golden calf and calling it god. This has quite a lot to do with the content of commandments themselves, to wit: #1 ...You shall have no other gods before me; #2 You shall not make for yourself an idol [Protestant tradition, in others these are numbered differently]. His display of anger protests those who are not following those two commandments, quite a serious protest, it turns out: he has three thousand of the revellers put to the sword.

As to Moses' action being 'wrong', I see no evidence for that in Exodus. God, whom he speaks with the next day, does not sanction him for it; He merely replaces the tablets (as the Gideons will replace the bibles, if requested). I'd say it's best characterized as a display of "righteous anger".

I may be making too much of what you said, I thought you were probably joking, but when people start nominating things I find to be silly or nonsensical, I have a tendency to want to comment on how wrong I thought they were.

Hey -- that's what a skeptic does, right? :)

It really confuses me.. to wonder if the bar is just too low, or if people just don't think. This is one of those "someone nominated that?" moments that I find myself having all too often.

six7s only nominated the bubble comment, I think. I didn't think the rest -- a straightforward reductio on the pitfalls of morality from authority (and/or a bad joke) -- deserved a nomination, either.