Friday, August 02, 2013

Is the Bible hate speech?

1 comment:

  1. Some excerpts from what I taught a bunch of teens a few months ago:

    On February 27 (less than a month ago) the Supreme Court of Canada ruled ( )
    on various words that you may not say in Canada anymore (BTW, as of last Wednesday our Canadian MP’s ruled that any guy can now legally enter a girls washroom as well- he just has to say that he has ‘girly feelings’.). And the man who said those ‘nasty words’ was fined $7,500 plus enormous court costs… for committing a “hate crime”.
    Now those words include a word that came from The Bible. A word found in the old King James Version. A word found in Deuteronomy 23:17 (and very strongly implied in many other places). The offending word in this case was “Sodomite”.
    A word that defines a ‘people group’ that engage in a particular type of sex (ask your father about Leviticus 18:22). A word that defines a ‘people group’ that are anarchists to the traditional family structure. A ‘people group’ intent on perverting traditional marriage.

    And those Supreme judges ruled that since this particular word “hurts the feelings” of a particular ‘people group’ (including Gandalf) that it may not be said in public. And they ruled that ‘ANY words said in public that might hurt the feelings of a particular people group may not be said’. The judges ruled that the hurting of feelings is a “pressing and substantial danger to our society”.

    Which begs the question, “Is it a pressing and substantial danger?”
    Well, no actual evidence was presented by the Human Rights Commission wanting to fine Whatcott. No evidence that name-calling was indeed a “pressing and substantial danger’… it was merely a Supreme Ipsum Dixit. IOW, name-calling is a danger because ‘I say so’.

    Yet, the person who was fined presented considerable evidence that sodomy remains a ‘pressing and substantial danger’… just as it was back in the days of Moses. He presented considerable evidence that sodomy remains a major vehicle for many social and physical diseases… remains a great danger. Evidence that the Supremes rejected.
    Well, those Supreme Court judges were well aware of various other ‘people groups’ being slandered by Whatcott (1 Cor. 6:9, 10 was presented as evidence)… yet those Supremes failed to defend those other ‘people groups’ in this landmark case. They failed to defend the “thieves” and “alcoholics” who were also slandered. Failed to defend them from similar “detestation and vilification”. Failed to defend those other poor people from ‘getting their feelings hurt’. Those judges only defended the “Sodomites”.

    And surprisingly those Supremes also defended a bizarre interpretation of Matthew in this court case. They suggested that the Matthew 18:6 passage “can also be interpreted as suggesting that anyone who harms Christians should be executed”. An absurd interpretation. You’d think that our Supremes could read better than that...