Holy Books = Hate Literature

[thaiboxerken]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=857&ncid=757&e=10&u=/nm/20030516/od_uk_nm/oukoe_canada_gay


I love it! I doubt this will happen, but it certainly does it's part to raise questions about these books of superstition.

[Upchurch]

This is an issue of the right of free expression vs. threatening to harm and murder other people.

One of the problems I have with most organized religions is their reliance on "holy scripture". It's inflexable and unchanging, even though the world is about change.
I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier.
Rufus from the movie Dogma (http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0120655)

[Tony]

Thats canadian stupidity for you. Next thing you know Huck Finn will be banned as "hate' literature because it uses the word "******".

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't like it. I think the Bible and the Koran are big books of superstitious nonsense and some of that nonsense may well be highly offensive to some people but I don't think ANY book should ever be banned. I don't care if it's the Bible, Mein Kampf, Harry Potter or anthing else. If you start banning offensive books how soon before the government starts to define offensive as "whatever the government doesn't like'?

Secondly I have a HUGE problem with hate crime laws. Firstly one can never truly know someones motive for doing something. Secondly they are tatamount to the government trying to monitor peoples thoughts and words. This is a scary thought in my opinion.

[Dancing David]

Jedi Knight predicted this about three weeks ago.

The Dhamaphada is not hate literature.

Here in Illinois we had like this guy, like name matt hale and he like started like this church, called the New World Odrer or something and like he preached all this condem your brother man so like anyway this other guy he like took this gun and killed a bunch of people chosen based upon thier percieved racial characteristics.

Sorry when some kook drags a man behind his truck because he is black or beats up someone because they think they look gay: that is a hate crime. Violence based upon bigotry.

The Bible approves of hate crimes(Numbers 31) and condems hate crimes. I am sure that the Koran contradicts itself as well.

Peace

PS I agree that there is some fascist sentiment that could be applied to hate laws, free speech that does not lead to act of violence against percieved minorities is free speech.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Sorry when some kook drags a man behind his truck because he is black or beats up someone because they think they look gay: that is a hate crime. Violence based upon bigotry.



It's not quite that simple. If a guy drags some other guy behind his truck how do you know that it's because he's black. How do you know it isn't just because the first guy has some sort of personal grudge against the other guy, or that the first guy isn't just some sicko who wants to kill someone so picks the first person he sees and that person happens to be black or.....

Secondly, if someone drags someone else behind a truck or beats them up they should be punished for what they did (i.e. dragging someone behind a truck). Why they did it shouldn't even enter into the equation.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


It's not quite that simple. If a guy drags some other guy behind his truck how do you know that it's because he's black. How do you know it isn't just because the first guy has some sort of personal grudge against the other guy, or that the first guy isn't just some sicko who wants to kill someone so picks the first person he sees and that person happens to be black or.....
Are you suggesting that hate crimes (e.g. gay men getting beaten up only because they are gay men) never happens?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Are you suggesting that hate crimes (e.g. gay men getting beaten up only because they are gay men) never happens?

Of course not. I am just saying their is no reliable way to pick out a 'Hate Crime' from a plain old run-of-the mill crime.

I am also suggesting that the motive (which is what makes a hate crime a hate crime) isn't relevant. A crime is a crime is a crime. If someone beats someone up or kills someone then they should be punished for the act that they commited, not the thoughts they were thinking while doing it. What makes it so much worse to kill a man because he is gay rather than to kill him in order to collect a life insurance policy or any of the othr myriad reasons people inflict violence on one another?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I am also suggesting that the motive (which is what makes a hate crime a hate crime) isn't relevant. I'm no legal expert (hint, hint, CWL), but they have all sorts of levels of murder based on motivation: manslaughter 1, manslaughter 2, murder 1, murder 2, self-defense, etc. You see no need for distinguishing the motive behind it?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm no legal expert (hint, hint, CWL), but they have all sorts of levels of murder based on motivation: manslaughter 1, manslaughter 2, murder 1, murder 2, self-defense, etc. You see no need for distinguishing the motive behind it?

Actually I don't. If I were in charge of things the only distinction I would make would be between intentional murder, accidental (but negligent) murder and self defense. None of these make a distinction for motive beyond "did you mean to do it?"

Even under the present system though, unless I am mistaken (I am no legal expert either) one only needs go into motive to show whether the murder was pre-meditated or not.

Motive otherwise only shows up in order to help show innocence or guilt (i.e. did the plaintiff have any reason to kill the victim). I suppose attorneys should be free to use it that way but once guilt has been established, I don't think that motive should count for or against the guilty party. Murder is murder, no matter why you did it.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Tony
Thats canadian stupidity for you. Next thing you know Huck Finn will be banned as "hate' literature because it uses the word "******".

Huck Finn doesn't tell people to go around and call people ******, it doesn't tell people to kill homosexuals. It doesn't tell people to kill in the name of god.

The Torah, Christian bible, and the Quran does tell people who to hate and who to kill.

I think that, better than banning these books, they should simply reclassify them. Get rid of the religious section in library and bookstores, and put it all in the mythology section.

[Whomp]

I've always had a problem with the term.
Are there admiration crimes?

Seems to me, by definition, you don't murder people you like. You don't beat the hell out of your heros.

Aren't ALL violent crimes "hate" crimes?
(Give a pass to the mentally deranged)

[Tony]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


The Torah, Christian bible, and the Quran does tell people who to hate and who to kill.



Show me where.


I think that, better than banning these books, they should simply reclassify them. Get rid of the religious section in library and bookstores, and put it all in the mythology section.

When you open your own book store you can do that.

[Man of jade]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Huck Finn doesn't tell people to go around and call people ******, it doesn't tell people to kill homosexuals. It doesn't tell people to kill in the name of god.

The Torah, Christian bible, and the Quran does tell people who to hate and who to kill.

I think that, better than banning these books, they should simply reclassify them. Get rid of the religious section in library and bookstores, and put it all in the mythology section.
Wait a minute...
Religon shouldnt be in the religon section?!

[c4ts]

Jesus never said anything about hating fags. He probably was one himself.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Count me against banning books, even the Bible.

It is, after all, just a collection of myths, not at all unlike a book about Hercules or Thor.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Tony


Show me where.


The Old Testament advocates hatred against the Hittites, the Canaanites, the Moabites, the Philistines, the Samarians, the Assyrians, the Egyptians and many more. Who are these people today? The Iraqis, the Iranians, the Syrians, the Palestinians.

But they learned to love the Egyptians didn't they?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony
Thats canadian stupidity for you. Next thing you know Huck Finn will be banned as "hate' literature because it uses the word "******".

Actually, I believe Huck Finn has been the subject of controversy in the USA for many years, and many have wanted to ban it from schools.
I guess we can chalk that up to American stupidity, eh?

The USA dollar bill with the legend : "In God we Trust "

How many crimes in name of that bill ? Millions?

Thanks,
S&S

[Tony]

Originally posted by triadboy


The Old Testament advocates hatred against the Hittites, the Canaanites, the Moabites, the Philistines, the Samarians, the Assyrians, the Egyptians and many more. Who are these people today? The Iraqis, the Iranians, the Syrians, the Palestinians.

But they learned to love the Egyptians didn't they?

Show me where.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Actually, I believe Huck Finn has been the subject of controversy in the USA for many years, and many have wanted to ban it from schools.
I guess we can chalk that up to American stupidity, eh?

Actually, it would be anti-american stupidity.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony


Actually, it would be anti-american stupidity.

So, why then is the aforementioned article about the bible promoting hate considered by you as being Canadian stupidity.
Do you believe that this issue being discussed in parliment is indicative of the opinion of the average Canadian. I wouldn't doubt that most Canadians have a problem with the bible being characterized as hateful and worthy of being banned.

So, why did you feel it was necessary to characterize that article as an example of Canadian stupidity?
As I stated some "Americans" have tried to have Huck Finn banned from schools. Yet you think it was wrong to call that an example of "American" stupidty.

Stupid generalizations don't help any argument.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


So, why then is the aforementioned article about the bible promoting hate considered by you as being Canadian stupidity.


I dunno, your the canadian. You tell me. Do canadians value free speech, even if it is "hate" speech or speech inciting hatred?

Do you believe that this issue being discussed in parliment is indicative of the opinion of the average Canadian. I wouldn't doubt that most Canadians have a problem with the bible being characterized as hateful and worthy of being banned.

You're probably right.



As I stated some "Americans" have tried to have Huck Finn banned from schools. Yet you think it was wrong to call that an example of "American" stupidty.

It wasnt "wrong", it was innacurate. Free speech is what made america, america.

[thaiboxerken]

Deut.13:6 "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."


Just one of many examples of hate and death condoned by a "holy" book.



As far as the "religion" section. I think there shouldn't be a religion section, just put it all in the mythology section. Religion and mythology are synonymous, after all.

[Dancing David]

Try reading Numbers but esp. Chapter 31.

Peace

[Tony]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Deut.13:6 "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."


Just one of many examples of hate and death condoned by a "holy" book.




And in which context does this appear? Wasnt the author creating rules for the ancient jewish society? I dont think this has any relevance in modern christianity or judasm. Do you now of any sects that lives by these rules?

As far as the "religion" section. I think there shouldn't be a religion section, just put it all in the mythology section. Religion and mythology are synonymous, after all.

I agree but thats our opinion, there are a couple billion people that disagree with us. (but that doesnt make them right) Like I said, when you open your own book store you can put all the religious books in the mythology section. We'll see how long it takes for you to go out of business.

[thaiboxerken]

And in which context does this appear? Wasnt the author creating rules for the ancient jewish society?

This moses and god were pissed off at the rest of the jews because they kept going about worshipping "false gods". In the proper context, the verse is hateful and condones violence on even women and children.. for the simple evil of worshipping the false gods.

This is condoning hate and violence.


I dont think this has any relevance in modern christianity or judasm. Do you now of any sects that lives by these rules?

You asked where in that bible hate and violence is condoned, I showed it to you. Also, it's this very same bible that has inspired many violent acts committed by the christians and jews in history. The KKK still uses the bible's teachings to justify their hate.

Thats your opinion, there are a couple billion people that disagree with you. (but that doesnt make them right)

Religion and mythology are synonymous.

[Man of jade]

"Religion and mythology are synonymous."
A religon is a belief system. A myth is a story told to teach a moral lesson, which people generally think to not be true.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony
I dunno, your the canadian. You tell me. Do canadians value free speech, even if it is "hate" speech or speech inciting hatred?

Yes, we value free speech as much, if not more than those in the USA. I know it's hard to believe that America doesn't have a patent on free speech, but other countries have it as well. And when I watch American media, I often think we have it even more up here.
However, like your country, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Thus, if someone has a problem with the bible as a possible tool of hate, it might get debated in Canadian parliment. It doesn't mean that it is an example of stupidity, it means that it is an issue being debated. If the issue itself is stupid, then it will likely be rejected. Just because the issues gets debated, doesn't mean anything will become of it. The bible is as safe as it always has been.
Of course, I realize in the USA such an issue as the bible citing hatred would never be debated because the institution of religion has its claws so deep into politics that the topic would be considered untouchable.


It wasnt "wrong", it was innacurate.

This doesn't make sense to me. Help me out here.
Why is it wrong to characterize attempts to ban Huck Finn from schools as an example of American stupidity. Isn't that just as same as you characterizing the debate over the bible as in Canada as "Canadian stupidity."
Don't get me wrong. I said I don't think it's fair in either case to make such dumb generalizations, but you still have given me an answer as to why you did so.
Again, you might consider the debate over hatred in the bible as a stupid issue, but is it fair to characterize that as a flaw inherent in a whole country's psyche?


Free speech is what made america, america

OK fine, but it's also what made a lot of other democratic countries, like Canada, what it is as well. Again, the USA does not hold a patent on free speech.
Banning of books is un-American you say. Well, it's also un-Canadian.
This is why I had such a problem when you labelled the article as an example of Canadian stupidity. Such a comment is ignorant and uninformed.

[LCBOY]

I think we need to define what "hate speech" is.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Yes, we value free speech as much, if not more than those in the USA.



Apparently not, the fact that it is even being taken seriously is an indictment on how free speech is viewed in Canada.

And when I watch American media, I often think we have it even more up here.

What does this mean?

Of course, I realize in the USA such an issue as the bible citing hatred would never be debated because the institution of religion has its claws so deep into politics that the topic would be considered untouchable.

You might be right on that.

Again, you might consider the debate over hatred in the bible as a stupid issue, but is it fair to characterize that as a flaw inherent in a whole country's psyche?

No, its not fair, but you cant expect me to be perfect, can you?? :D

Well, it's also un-Canadian.

Is it? I dont know a lot about canadian history. Do you have a free speech provision in your constitution?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony

Apparently not, the fact that it is even being taken seriously is an indictment on how free speech is viewed in Canada.

Again you have interpreted one incident as a flaw of a whole country. Free speech is viewed every bit a seriously up here as down there. Has your government ever debated issues that might be considered contrary to free speech? Wasn't the issue of flag burning popular a few years back? Didn't some members of your government want to make it a crime burn the American flag? Couldn't I then make the assumption, like you have made, that since the idea of banning flag burning was taken seriously it is an indictment on how free speech is viewed in the USA?
And you might counter that "the issue was never really taken seriously expect by a very small minority."
Well, perhaps this is the case with the bible discussion that is
taking place up here. It could be a small minority that is making noise about it. In fact, it must be pretty small since the first I heard of this issue was on this board.

And when I watch American media, I often think we have it even more up here.

I have found that the American media often is something of a mouthpiece for the interests of the establishment, and is fearful of exploring alternative opinions on issues since if might rock the boat of the status quo.
This has been particularly prevalent in the coverage of the war in Iraq. I have turned to the BBC and CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) for a less biased view of this event.
This is just my opinion, but I believe it to be correct. I find the American media (which is the primary way that Americans form their opinions about issues of relevance) lags behind other countries in honesty and true freedom of speech.


No, its not fair, but you cant expect me to be perfect, can you?? :D

Of course not. I'm not perfect either. Don't tell anyone.;)


Is it? I dont know a lot about canadian history. Do you have a free speech provision in your constitution?

From the Canadian Constitution Act:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication.
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG



This is just my opinion, but I believe it to be correct. I find the American media (which is the primary way that Americans form their opinions about issues of relevance) lags behind other countries in honesty and true freedom of speech.

[/B]


You havent explained why there is less free speech, if the media chooses to be a mouth piece for the establishment how does that translate into less free speech? Furthermore, I have a problem with your assertion that the media is a mouthpiece for the establishment, do you have any evidence to back that up? (does such evidence even exist?)

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony



You havent explained why there is less free speech, if the media chooses to be a mouth piece for the establishment how does that translate into less free speech? Furthermore, I have a problem with your assertion that the media is a mouthpiece for the establishment, do you have any evidence to back that up? (does such evidence even exist?)

The only evidence I have is my own observations. I realize that probably doesn't amount for much, but I did say that this was just my opinion.
And it would be difficult to provide solid evidence for such an observation. It is the stuff that a grad school thesis could be made of.
I did find many more stories on Canadian television that probed into the hypocricy of the American government in regards to the war in Iraq, and found little on American TV. American media seem more interested in flag waving and jingoism, as oppossed to really probing the dark underbelly of the war.

Again, these are subjective observations on my part, but I'm certainly not the only one who have made them.
I've just finished reading a book called: Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You which explores many issues regarding the the situation in Iraq, both now and during the first Gulf War. It discusses many issues about the situation in Iraq that the media never chose to report, because they ran counter to the pro-government mandate that American media seems to have.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Man of jade
"Religion and mythology are synonymous."
A religon is a belief system. A myth is a story told to teach a moral lesson, which people generally think to not be true.

Mythologies are dead religions, they are called mythology because people do not think they are true anymore. Religions are merely mythology that many people still believe to be true. Both are stories made up to teach moral lessons and get money/power to churches.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Huck Finn doesn't tell people to go around and call people ******, it doesn't tell people to kill homosexuals. It doesn't tell people to kill in the name of god.

The Torah, Christian bible, and the Quran does tell people who to hate and who to kill.



Where in these books did you find the passages that say these things?

Is it that the stories are interpreted or used as inspiration or does the bible state that God said kill and hate?

[Man of jade]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Mythologies are dead religions, they are called mythology because people do not think they are true anymore. Religions are merely mythology that many people still believe to be true. Both are stories made up to teach moral lessons and get money/power to churches.
If they were the same thing, they would mean the same thing. What I got from this is that Religon means the same thing as something that means dead religon. I dont believe that dead means the same as alive.

How does mythology, which is dead religon get money/power to churches?

[jasonmccoy]

Originally posted by KelvinG


So, why then is the aforementioned article about the bible promoting hate considered by you as being Canadian stupidity.
Do you believe that this issue being discussed in parliment is indicative of the opinion of the average Canadian. I wouldn't doubt that most Canadians have a problem with the bible being characterized as hateful and worthy of being banned.

So, why did you feel it was necessary to characterize that article as an example of Canadian stupidity?
As I stated some "Americans" have tried to have Huck Finn banned from schools. Yet you think it was wrong to call that an example of "American" stupidty.

Stupid generalizations don't help any argument.

Two thirds (67%) say that their religious faith is very important to their day to day life (http://www.ipsos-reid.com/media/dsp_displaypr_cdn.cfm?id_to_view=1019)