ban the bible??

[andyandy]

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (UK) created an offence of inciting (or 'stirring up') hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion.

Now, for this bill to apply it has to be proved that the distibutor of the material (verbal or written) was intentionally attempting to stir up this religious hatred.

In the OT there are plenty of passages which seek to stir up religious hatred. Now, the Christian Church's position is that the bible is the word of god. Therefore the Christian Church has to be said to be an advocate of the directions given within it. Through distribution of the bible, the Christian church seeks to educate people as to how they should act and how they should think. Therefore by distributing material which contains incitement to religious hatred, by advocating that advice and by encouraging people to follow that advice, then surely the Christian Church is responsible for itself inciting religious hatred......

so, should the bible be banned?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No, but all the Christian leaders in the UK should be indicted under the RRHA. That would be fun.

~~ Paul

[Zep]

No books should be banned. Nor should the waterfall of the harshest criticism of any books that promote such filth as racial hatred be banned.

FYI, I seem to recall that a few decades ago somewhere in the USA, some goody-two-shoes activist wanted children not to have access to the Christian bible because it had lewd passages about (gasp!) sex! in it.

She got her way...

[andyandy]

well....my post wasnt really about the moral arguments for censorship - but rather about whether or not, according to the law, the distribution of the bible by the Christian church is itself an illegal act....

it seems like it to me.....:)

[brodski]

well....my post wasnt really about the moral arguments for censorship - but rather about whether or not, according to the law, the distribution of the bible by the Christian church is itself an illegal act....

it seems like it to me.....:)
What is and is not illegal is not strictly a matter of legislation, it is a matter for the courts, good luck trying to find a court (which will have "Dieu et mon droit" isplayed all over the place) whichw il, hold up a ban on the bible. Anyway a ban on the bible would be contrary to article 9 of the ECHR, and therefore also contrary to the Human Rights Act, which trumps most other domestic law.

[Zep]

In the example I mentioned, if the bible was given to children then it WAS illegal. Like letting them have access to adult sex mags. The bible was equated to porn, essentially, with subsequent restrictions and penalties. It's quite analogous to your example of illegal distribution of racial-hatred material.

Personally I would say that many books and other publications will fall foul of these types of vilification laws, because they can be deliberately interpreted contrary to the spirit in which they were intended.

For example, suppose in the future it became the worst racially derogatory insult to refer to white Anglo-Saxon Britons as "people". Get outta my face, you stupid white PEOPLE! Does that mean all books with the word "people" in them are now guilty of racial vilification? I suspect not...

[andyandy]

Article 9 provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".

well....i guess it depends what restrictions "in accordance with law" it refers to...

damn brussels and its meddling :)

[andyandy]

In the example I mentioned, if the bible was given to children then it WAS illegal. Like letting them have access to adult sex mags. The bible was equated to porn, essentially, with subsequent restrictions and penalties. It's quite analogous to your example of illegal distribution of racial-hatred material.

lol....nice analogy :)

For example, suppose in the future it became the worst racially derogatory insult to refer to white Anglo-Saxon Britons as "people". Get outta my face, you stupid white PEOPLE! Does that mean all books with the word "people" in them are now guilty of racial vilification? I suspect not...

I suppose it depends on context though - books containing "people" would not have been written with the purpose of inciting religious/racial hatred.....whereas many bible passages were written with the express purpose of inciting religious hatred.....
therefore reading a book with "people" in it would not be offensive because you were aware of the context in which the word was originally used.....

[brodski]

Article 9 provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".

well....i guess it depends what restrictions "in accordance with law" it refers to...

damn brussels and its meddling :)
And what exactly has the ECHR got to do with Brussels?If the government where to try and ban the bible, in order to be in accordance with article 9 they must first pass a law banning the bible ("in accordance with the law") AND they must show that banning the bible is a necessary of a Democratic society. I think that they may have a very hard time convincing a judge of the latter.

[andyandy]

And what exactly has the ECHR got to do with Brussels?

i was being facetious.....playing on the nature of us Brits to blame Brussels for all things European.....:)

[Zep]

I suppose it depends on context though - books containing "people" would not have been written with the purpose of inciting religious/racial hatred.....whereas many bible passages were written with the express purpose of inciting religious hatred.....
therefore reading a book with "people" in it would not be offensive because you were aware of the context in which the word was originally used.....Which is the same situation with the bible. When it was written, such language was not seen as "bad" as we understand it today. It was the way things were then.

Let me take another parallel - Mein Kampf. Today, it's mostly a historical item, and technically, it was a shoddy piece of work - a rambling, racist, bigoted rant (like its author). But in it's time, as you know, it was the official handbook for a very divisive period in European history. So should Mein Kampf be banned on the grounds of today's racial vilification laws? Or should it be kept available publicly as a prime example of how wrong and bad some people can be? Can't be both...

[brodski]

i was being facetious.....playing on the nature of us Brits to blame Brussels for all things European.....:)
Ah, ok, like all the best satire, I found it very difficult to distinguish between your comments and one made in all seriousness. Sorry.

[andyandy]

Which is the same situation with the bible. When it was written, such language was not seen as "bad" as we understand it today. It was the way things were then.

Let me take another parallel - Mein Kampf. Today, it's mostly a historical item, and technically, it was a shoddy piece of work - a rambling, racist, bigoted rant (like its author). But in it's time, as you know, it was the official handbook for a very divisive period in European history. So should Mein Kampf be banned on the grounds of today's racial vilification laws? Or should it be kept available publicly as a prime example of how wrong and bad some people can be? Can't be both...

Passages of the bible were written in order to promote religious hatred....and so the christian church by distributing the bible is continuing this promotion.....the motivations for distributing the passages remain the same now as they were when they written....just because this was more acceptable a couple of thousand years ago isnt really the issue....

If someone was to declare that the Mein Kampf was "the truth," that people should follow its direction, and then start to distribute the book, then that person should be prosecuted under the Religious hatred act and his attempts to distribute the book stopped. the issue is motivation of distribution. Both mein kampf and the bible even if affected by the religious hatred bill should still be available as a historical document from libraries etc. but those who distribute them for reasons of religious intolerance (eg a BNP fanatic, the Christian church) should be banned from doing so.....and books distributed for those motivations banned.....:)

[writerdd]

What's the difference between religious hatred and disdain for superstition?

[andyandy]

What's the difference between religious hatred and disdain for superstition?
well disdain implies perhaps looking down your nose at an alternate belief....
religious hatred involves actively encouraging the persecution of those holding an alternate belief....
an example that springs to mind is the prophet Elijah ordering that hundreds of the followers of Baal be slaughtered - all for the glory of god.... :)

[brodski]

Let me take another parallel - Mein Kampf. Today, it's mostly a historical item, and technically, it was a shoddy piece of work - a rambling, racist, bigoted rant (like its author). But in it's time, as you know, it was the official handbook for a very divisive period in European history. So should Mein Kampf be banned on the grounds of today's racial vilification laws? Or should it be kept available publicly as a prime example of how wrong and bad some people can be? Can't be both...
Its interesting that you mention "mien kampf", I am pretty sure that will not be banned under the incitement to religious hatred act. To understand why you need to look at why the Religious Hatred act was brought in. Under the Incitement to Racial Hatred act (and other race relations legislation) Jews are counted as both an ethnic and a religious group, the only religious group which is explicitly protected under race relations law. The reason for this is obvious, at the time this legislation was drafted tackling anti-Semitism was seen as an important goal, but your average racist thug couldn't differentiate between a Muslim, Sikh or a Hindu. Recently we have seen the rise of "islamophobia" with groups such as the BNP claiming things like "all Muslims are Paedophiles and rapists". Muslims (and others) got very upset about the fact that if the BNP replaced that word "Muslims" with the "Jews" the BNP could be prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred. So The government decided to offer All other fiaths the protection which Judaism already had under race relations legislation. Even though Mein Kampf is an anti-Semitic book, it have never been banned under race relations legislation, and so I see no reason why it should be banned under religious hatred legislation.

[writerdd]

well disdain implies perhaps looking down your nose at an alternate belief....
religious hatred involves actively encouraging the persecution of those holding an alternate belief....
an example that springs to mind is the prophet Elijah ordering that hundreds of the followers of Baal be slaughtered - all for the glory of god.... :)

Well, what's persecution and who defines it? The religious right in the US claim, for example, that they are being persecuted by people who say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" or, in a more extreme case, that if they can't institute laws based on the Bible, that the atheists and secularists are persecuting them.

I think the law that was mentioned at the start of this thread is incredibly dangerous, unless it specifically states physical harm as a crime, in which case it is useless because those things should already be crimes.

[brodski]

Well, what's persecution and who defines it? The religious right in the US claim, for example, that they are being persecuted by people who say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" or, in a more extreme case, that if they can't institute laws based on the Bible, that the atheists and secularists are persecuting them.

I think the law that was mentioned at the start of this thread is incredibly dangerous, unless it specifically states physical harm as a crime, in which case it is useless because those things should already be crimes.
some information on the legislation http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/publicaffairs/rrh_bill_qa.html

[andyandy]

persecution should be defined by me :)



i agree the law opens a can of worms.....perhaps "persecute" is too vague a term - the bill refers to "incitement to religious hatred" - which wouldnt apply to the christians in the example, but would, in my opinion, apply to the distribution of a text which in places actively encourages hate and actual bodily harm of members of other religions.....

[andyandy]

from the above website.....

The Government is proposing to extend the existing criminal offence of incitement to racial hatred contained in the Public Order Act 1986 to create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred.

The proposals will make it an offence to use words, behaviour, or display written material that is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention or likely effect that hatred will be stirred up against a group of people targeted because of their religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs.

still seems to fit the bible to me :)

[Beerina]

If someone was to declare that the Mein Kampf was "the truth," that people should follow its direction, and then start to distribute the book, then that person should be prosecuted under the Religious hatred act and his attempts to distribute the book stopped. the issue is motivation of distribution. Both mein kampf and the bible even if affected by the religious hatred bill should still be available as a historical document from libraries etc. but those who distribute them for reasons of religious intolerance (eg a BNP fanatic, the Christian church) should be banned from doing so.....and books distributed for those motivations banned.....:)


The only thing worse than books espousing hatred is a government empowerd to ban books. Government empowered to strip freedoms is the problem, not the solution. Empowerment via democracy does not suddenly make it a Good Thing.

[Beerina]

from the above website.....

The Government is proposing to extend the existing criminal offence of incitement to racial hatred contained in the Public Order Act 1986 to create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred.

The proposals will make it an offence to use words, behaviour, or display written material that is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention or likely effect that hatred will be stirred up against a group of people targeted because of their religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs.

still seems to fit the bible to me :)


And the world is already going to Hell in a handbasket thanks to professional victim and victim-class status seeking. Now you can get words shut down by just crying scared enough times, empowering a whole new rational to slap your backhand on your forehead and exclaim, "Oh woe is me!"

[brodski]

The only thing worse than books espousing hatred is a government empowerd to ban books. Government empowered to strip freedoms is the problem, not the solution. Empowerment via democracy does not suddenly make it a Good Thing.
an you tell me which books have been banned under the race relations act, which is the model for the incitement to religious hatred law, and gives a good indication of how this new legislation will likely operate in practice?

[brodski]

And the world is already going to Hell in a handbasket thanks to professional victim and victim-class status seeking. Now you can get words shut down by just crying scared enough times, empowering a whole new rational to slap your backhand on your forehead and exclaim, "Oh woe is me!"
You also have to demonstrate a very high likelihood of harm. It's not enough for something to be insulting, it also has to be intended to "incite hatred", not just dislike, hatred. It's not about how hard you cry, it's about what the demonstrable effects will be.

[Huntster]

Passages of the bible were written in order to promote religious hatred.....

You've written that twice now.

Are you sure it's religious hatred, or was it tribal hatred?

Can you cite these passages?

[Just Me]

You've written that twice now.

Are you sure it's religious hatred, or was it tribal hatred?

Can you cite these passages?
It's the middle of the bible somewhere. Right in the middle of a REALLY boring part. Even if I tell you exactly where it is your eyes will probably glaze over before you even begin to read the exact verse.

[andyandy]

You've written that twice now.

Are you sure it's religious hatred, or was it tribal hatred?

Can you cite these passages?

i gave an example of the followers of Baal being ordered to be slaughtered after the prophet Elijah perfomed the miracle of "lightning hitting a bull".....
that was pretty much 100% about religion....
they worshipped Baal....
Elijah God's prophet ordered that they be killed becuase they were Baal's followers.....
which part of "religious" or "hatred" does that not fit?

have you even read the old testement? The whole thing is about God punishing non-believers.....people are smitten, plagues are sent, armies crushed....is that supposed to be religious tolerance? :)


anyway hunter....i've lost all respect for your high moral christian posting after you spent two days arguing about the evils of contraception - and how Africans with AIDS shouldnt use them.....and then you revealed that you use jonnies yourself....sheeesh....

[Huntster]

...have you even read the old testement? The whole thing is about God punishing non-believers.....people are smitten, plagues are sent, armies crushed....is that supposed to be religious tolerance? :)...

Of course I have.

My interpretation of the OT was how the Hebrews came to believe that they were God's chosen people through Abraham/Isaac, and that the Old Testament was the history of those people and their relationship with that God.

Closely tied is the Quran, which was the prophetic message of Muhammad, and that the Arab people likewise believe that they are people of God through Abraham/Ishmael.

That should be an illustration of the tribalism which consumed the world at that time, and the people are smitten, plagues are sent, armies crushed" stuff centered around that.

Further, it appears to me that all those things written about God's actions are the interpretations of the authors.

I guess it's all a matter of interpretation, isn't it?

...anyway hunter....i've lost all respect for your high moral christian posting after you spent two days arguing about the evils of contraception - and how Africans with AIDS shouldnt use them.....and then you revealed that you use jonnies yourself....sheeesh....

Okay. That's your right.

But again, that's H-U-N-T-S-T-E-R, and I used condoms (some 26 years ago, as a very young and rebellious man).

And, again, the damned things didn't work like they were cracked up to.

[Just Me]

Of course I have.

My interpretation of the OT was how the Hebrews came to believe that they were God's chosen people through Abraham/Isaac, and that the Old Testament was the history of those people and their relationship with that God.

Closely tied is the Quran, which was the prophetic message of Muhammad, and that the Arab people likewise believe that they are people of God through Abraham/Ishmael.

That should be an illustration of the tribalism which consumed the world at that time, and the people are smitten, plagues are sent, armies crushed" stuff centered around that.

Further, it appears to me that all those things written about God's actions are the interpretations of the authors.

I guess it's all a matter of interpretation, isn't it?



Okay. That's your right.

But again, that's H-U-N-T-S-T-E-R, and I used condoms (some 26 years ago, as a very young and rebellious man).

And, again, the damned things didn't work like they were cracked up to.
My interpretation of your quotes is-You avoid the questions.
It is a shame you do not know how to properly use a condom.

Numbers 25
God commands Moses to slaughter 24,000 people.

Esther 8:11, 9:1-19
Jews get permission to kill all enemies, women, kids included.

Deuteronomy 13:1-11, 18:20
Kill anyone who teaches another religion.

Deuteronomy17:2-5
Kill anyone who leaves the "true religion."

2 john 10, Matt5:44, 3 john 11
Do not be nice to non-christians.

The bible is full of religious hatred, but I am against banning books. Even this one.