but it is full of incest, genocide, rape, torture, slavery…did I say genocide? Of course, I’ve always felt that the true measure of any religion is the behavior of it’s followers.
<< but it is full of incest, genocide, rape, torture, slavery…did I say genocide? >>
Well, heck, if it comes to that, so are the tales of the Brothers Grimm. So is my high school text book on World History (well, I grant you, it doesn’t mention incest much except in terms of royal families.) So is the New York State criminal code – you read through that, it mentions all sorts of nasty things.
Huh? 1 Cor. 7:9 says:
Seems to say that recreational sex (within marriage) is just fine.
Gnat, you inserted two words that clarify your interpretation. It could also be interpreted as:
Seems to say that sex is an evil thing, and sex within marriage isn’t much better.
—If somebody says that gays are sinners, they’re honorbound to add “and so am I” because according to Scripture, “All men have sinned and come short of the glory of god.”—
In many contexts, however (primarily in those arguing over homosexuality), this comes out as a sheer non-sequitur.
The tricky part of this statement is that it is deductively valid if you take the last claim as a premise. If all people are sinners, and gays are people, then gays are sinners. But, that’s such a trivial truth that it seems highly suspicious to single out gays, since no one was claiming that gays are different from other people in terms of them not having human weaknesses or sinful natures.
Instead, the first part of the claim seems in most cases to be purposed to identify a group of people as sinners qua that group, and in most contexts is meant to be a statement about homosexuality: it’s a sin. But the second part simply notes that everyone sins. So, in a discussion of WHETHER or not homosexuality is wrong, noting that everyone is a sinner has nothing to do with the original claim. It makes about as much sense as saying “mothers are sinners, and so am I.” Well, so they are. But that’s beside the point as to whether being a mother, or being gay, is ITSELF sinful. So, in that sense, it doesn’t apologize for the accusation in the slightest.
came across this quote on the internet, so I can’t vouch for its accuracy
“The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision.” [Lynn Lavner]
This is something I just don’t understand. What are the people who put this ad out imagining?
Some Canadian homosexual reads this article, and is actully surprised to find out that homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible.
:eek:
What a shock!
This ad has very little original educational value, and is mostly a piece to anger and ashame. And, that ruling is from a Canadian court, and their free speech laws are much less absolute than America’s.
Actually, I don’t think that this can be right. The statute makes allowances for “expressing” or “attempting to establish by argument” religious positions. Obviously there’s no argument in the ad, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t qualify for the exemption as simple expression. Probably we could just go look up the decision and find out what the basis was, but I’m lazy. My guess is actually that the crown would have argued that the ad was not in fact expressing a religious view. If the ad had merely pointed to the verses, that would clearly have been just expressing the religious view that homosexuality is sinful, or whatever. But with the nullification symbol beside, the message of the ad seems to me to be that because a particular religious stance sees homosexuality as sinful, it should be forbidden. That’s not a religious view, it’s a political view, and there’s no exemption in the statute for political views.
I’m not sure I agree - it’s splitting the hairs awfully fine, though of course that’s what the legal system does. But as I mentioned, I’m not a fan of the hate speech laws, even though I do quite enjoy the fact that they keep Fred Phelps from bringing his tour north of the border. 
You make an excellent point. I had read the statute as meaning “expressing by argument” and “attempting to establish by argument”, rather than your or interpretation of it, which I had not considered. I didn’t see “expressing” as a concept unto itself. Your interpretation seems to be the one that fits the language best, which renders my first post completely invalid. I wonder what justification the judge gave.
No Fred Phelps in Canada? The place sounds more attractive all the time.
Fred has a whole section of his webpage devoted to righteous indignation at Canada’s hate speech laws, and seems to think that Svend Robinson is the Antichrist’s cousin or something. It makes me laugh.
I shall endeavour to see if I can find a copy of the decision online to see what the grounds given for the ruling were.
Partial success:
It turns out that the complaint against Owens was brought under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, and not the section of the Criminal Code of Canada I cited above. The relevant bit of the SHRC is quoted in the decision, for those interested.
Sadly, I cannot yet determine the precise argument against allowing this on the grounds of religious freedom. The decision at that point relies entirely on a precedent with which I’m unfamiliar.
It also turns out that this guys views are far more repugnant that is immediately obvious upon viewing the ad:
Of course, the fact that this guy is despicable does nothing to justify the decision, but gad, that line sends shivers down my spine, and I’m not even targetted by it.
Since I’ve gone this far, I think I’ll try to track down the Taylor decision to find out what the reasoning was there.
Shouldn’t that be meat?
The decision and the appeal is based on the entire ad and not just the Bible references, so it looks like they had a formula:
So the law provides for ‘reasonable’ restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of religion - the court also recognized the ‘more sinister interpretation’ of the nullification symbol. Looks fair to me, I’m not a lawyer or a Canadian though.
Canada (Human rights commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892
After reading the decisions, I have come to the conclusion that the trial judge in the Owens case had no latitude to reach any other decision because of the precedents. However, I can’t say I particularly like either of the precedents.
In the Taylor case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Canadian Human Rights Act was not in violation of s. 2b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the grounds that it was a “reasonable limit” as per s. 1 of the Charter, inasmuch as its goal is of sufficient import, and the restrictions it imposes are not unduly imposing. I found the minority dissenting opinion in Taylor far more convincing than the majority, that the Human Rights Act would have to be written more narrowly to constitute a “reasonable limit” (partly because it doesn’t provide a religious exemption in the way that s. 319 of the Criminal Code cited above does).
The second precedent was Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Bell, a copy of which I haven’t been able to find. However, a few paragraphs are cited in the Owens decision, and the salient point of Bell is that it holds that the reasoning in Taylor applies to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code in the same way that it does to the Canadian Human Rights Code. Since the SK version is broader in ways relevant to the reasoning in Taylor, Bell seems a move in the wrong direction.
All that said, I have no sympathy for Mr. Owens, given the facts in evidence.
Burner
The Old Testament commandments (all few hunderd of them) are not supposed to be applicable to Christians because according to Christian ideology, Jesus brought a “New Covenant” to replace the old. In which case only the words of Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) are valid on the issues - from a Christian perspective.
As for “Thou shalt not kill” - you missed the boat on this one - it actually means “You will not murder”. OR, more specifically, “You will not murder other Jews”.
Gorsnak:
What criteria has to be met to constitute a religious view that would be ‘exempt’ from a (general) Human Rights Act?
The Owens guy surely will claim that because “it’s stated in the Bible”, it’s a religious belief. I would think then that the burden of proof is on him that believes in following all the laws of Leviticus to the letter and denies the significance of the New Testament. Or something.
rephrase that to “…prove that he believes in following all the laws of Leviticus…”
BZZZT! So sorry, but thanks for playing. You are soooo off base on this. The Hebrew consists of two words lo tirtzach which reads “Do not murder.” It applies equally to the murder of Jews and non-Jews alike.
Zev Steinhardt
It’s still not a very useful commandment, as it basically says “Do not do a particular thing in a way that is forbidden by law”.
Wow, what a shocker. I’m sure the ancient Jews were surprised by that one.:rolleyes:
The Canadian Human Rights Act does not mention religion except as one of the proscribed grounds of discrimination. Indeed the Taylor decision concerned distribution of anti-semitic propaganda. From what I could tell, the hate speech in that case wasn’t at all religious in character. Certainly freedom of religion considerations don’t come up, anyways. I would think, then, that there should be room to challenge this sort of ruling on freedom of religion grounds. One might want to wait for a case where the accused’s religious views don’t demand that people with certain physical characteristics be put to death, though.